The New Guide to the Security Council

[Topid]

And my final suggestion is it may be of note to include in your liberations used by raiders section, to tell the story of Eastern Europe, where a clear raider took control of the region and attempted to destroy it. I myself authored the liberation and as per usual the raider pretended to not be a raider, for months after passing the raider lead played nice and pretended to be a native. After convincing another nation in the region to author the repeal of the liberation, the repeal was passed by a large margin (against the warnings of myself and others) and shortly after the raider lead refounded the region and still has control of it today.

Not so much raider, as a disgruntled ex-native and his few supporters who tricked the rest of the region to get their revenge.

It's ironic though, without all the SC saga and way it turned out, I probably would have never gotten so interested in EE and revived it to where it is today. It was a founderless region just prodding along, had you succeeded it would have probably stayed that way - small, quiet region with a couple of semi-active players, like the dozens littered across NS. Though conversely had Stalina and Czechmate succeeded without the drama it would have ended the same way.

Ex-native just means not a native to me. And I'm sure all three will end the same way eventually. Tis the circle of NS life.

[Unibot III]

Eastern Europe is a great example of why the benefit of the doubt should be given to the natives who want the WA Liberation, as opposed to the native(s) who ask for it to be removed. That is, when there is disagreement between natives over a repeal.

It's the risk-averse position.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For example, the ability to C&C was added on May 28th. Because the queues were shared, all submitted C&Cs went in line behind the GA resolutions, so the first SC resolution didn't go to vote until the 10-11th of June, and it was written by an unpopular author and failed,

Oh no, my reputation was still pretty much intact back then - you and your pals didn't start trying to destroy it till way later.

Not that it matters, but the first Condemn gatesville failed because most players didn't get it: some thought it was a pro-gatesville campaign to condemn themselves; others thought it was too narrowly focused and didn't cover enough of gatesville's crimes; still others thought gatesville had past its prime and didn't deserve recognition either way by the SC. A few even thought a satirical resolution was unworthy of NationStates. Even [violet].

[Unibot III]

Oh no, my reputation was still pretty much intact back then - you and your pals didn't start trying to destroy it till way later.

*condemns Kenny*

[Sedgistan]

I'm going to be difficult, and advise that this long promised re-write of the rules is likely to be coming soon (i.e. in the next few days).

[SkyDip]

I'm going to be difficult, and advise that this long promised re-write of the rules is likely to be coming soon (i.e. in the next few days).

*waits patiently*

[Sedgistan]

Done.

[SkyDip]

Ok, so here's what I have compiled for the history section as of now.

The Security Council, unlike the General Assembly and, by extension, the UN before it, is a relatively new division of the WA. The Security Council was formed in June of 2009 after the UN was re-branded the World Assembly in April of 2008 after the real-life UN ordered the site to cease and desist using the name United Nations. Just two days after the Security Council was announced, the first resolution, Condemn Gatesville, went to a vote, eventually failing to pass. The Security Council had a tumultuous beginning - a sharp division between the GA crowd and the newly-recognized powers of the gameplay world lead to multiple spats over the rules and regulations of the SC. The SC, as it is known today, arose from large-scale complaints that the gameplay aspects of NS (the SC parts) were incompatible with the current rules and procedures in the General Assembly, which were traditionally focused on more roleplaying aspects than actual responses for in-game actions.

After splitting the two councils, the SC was given its own set of rules by the moderation team, including the highly-contentious Rule 4. As is described in a later chapter, Rule 4 enforces what is basically a set of "in-character" rules, meaning that many gameplaying nations were forced to abandon their own language in the council that had been created, in its elementary functions, for gameplayers. A group known as The Third Wall Bloc arose in opposition to Rule 4 but were eventually "defeated" by the continued inclusion of the rule. This, however, killed off a majority of the SC community that had been built up prior to the inclusion of R4 and it took a considerable amount of time for the SC membership to regain standing and numbers.

Initially, after the formation of the two councils, SC proposals were still submitted in the same queue as General Assembly resolutions. This changed quickly, however, as the more ardent membership of General Assembly complained that the proposals stemming from this “new” branch of the WA were hampering the submissions of the General Assembly and were incompatible with GA rules and argued that they should therefore be placed in a separate queue. Nearly a full year later, in February of 2010, the two councils were fully separated.

EDIT: Also updated Chapter 4 to reference the rewritten SC rules.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OK, first off, the presentation of the facts is slightly anachronistic. The second and third grafs should be switched, as the Council/voting split occurred before R4.

Secondly, do you have a source for SC activity dying off as a consequence of R4? There was a dip in forum activity, but that also happens in the GA forum from time to time. There was also a dip in resolution voting, but that also happens in the GA. I would speculate (and note that my speculations are no more or less valid than those of anti-R4 players, which you appear to be citing) that the dip resulted from some of the more active SC players moving on after the protests - for instance, sedge was promoted to mod; he didn't leave because of R4. AO members also stopped posting in the SC forum after the protests, but they were largely in favor of the new rule; they had no reason to stop using the SC because of it. Other major authors became more active in Feeders and defending; they may or may not have been discouraged from legislating because of R4, but they just as easily could have taken a break to get into other aspects of the game (and as said authors have all returned to the SC in some form since then the theory does hold water). There was also speculation that the reason for the dip in activity was that there wasn't a lot going on in GP at the time worth writing proposals about, and that we should wait for the next feeder coup for activity to spike.

Moreover, I don't see why the 3WB is worth mentioning at all. They did protest the new rule, yes, but they did not succeed in effecting any substantive changes to the rules as a result. They did sort of take vote-stacking to new heights, which was previously unheard of at the time -- and that in itself might be worthy of citing in a section about common SC voting practices/theories -- but their influence over the rules was next to nil. As I recall, the rule was eventually reworded, but the effects of the rule remained the same, and that Nai was one of the main players negotiating for new language and actually helping to draft it. 3WB didn't do anything but help defeat a couple of commendations. Also, R4 did not require "in character" language; it merely directed that GP activities be described in nation simulation language, which does not necessarily have to be IC or character-based RP.

Finally the founding of the SC had nothing to do with dissolving the UN or the cease-and-desist action at all. You really should take that out.

[Topid]

Oh Kenny, an interesting world you live in.

Yes, Rule IV clearly had a negative impact on the SC. It purged the community of people that used it. More and more people return to the SC every year and the community is probably now just as strong as it was before, though admittedly less segmented and isolated from the rest of the game.

In the first 378 days of the SC, representing the year before RIV and the 3WB really hit the 'wer're pissed' point, 26 resolutions were passed. The rate of passed resolutions has indeed stayed relatively constant over the entire course taking out those two months where the NS community shut the SC down out of outrage until the mods agreed to look at the rules with us, and some players like Nai and myself jumped ship and wanted to work with the mods to improve the rules because we believed Ard was a neutral party willing to work with us (an assumption I am still sad that I was foolish enough to make... but that's another story).

The difference to me is the intensity. Used to, there was never a dull day in the SC, someone, somewhere, was always up to something and there was something to debate about. And so many people seemed highly interested in debating. The average thread length of an AT VOTE back then was 7.7 pages. The median also 7. Want to guess how many of the AT VOTE threads were 7 pages long in the entire year or 2013? 3. The most recent proposal involving Kenny was 8 pages, the Condemn Cynthia McKinney resolution at the start of the year was 8 pages, and the Liberate Nazi Europe thread was 14. And as I said, we are getting better all the time as far as I can tell about the amount of attention the SC is paid, but I don't think we are even close to the point we were at prior to Rule IV. Hell, earlier this year we had an at vote thread that was only 21 posts long. It was a one page thread, that NEVER happened before. >.< I didn't take the time to calculate the averages or anything, but I can say with certainty the average of this year so far is less than 7.7 if only 3 came in above that number. Bottom line to me, after Rule IV it feels to me the same amount of stuff is getting done, people just stop by to debate that stuff and offer their input less. And the true shame is that there is much more happening in the Gameplay world today than there was back then, also just my opinion.

I would love to have the time to go through all the old at votes or SC threads in general and analyze how many posts of more than 300 words, or how many posts per day were made in the SC. I am confident that it would show what myself and others who were active in the SC at its outset, and continue to follow it as closely as we still have time, and continue to love it think. There were many of us that cared a lot about the SC at the start. After Rule IV there were few that cared. And we have been doing better and better since.

Has the SC survived RIV? Of course. Like most of NS, we'll still use it after some big change the moderators or admins make. It hasn't been as active but it is getting better. But there is no doubt in my mind things were more fun before, even if they are still pretty cool now. And to grow further off topic, it is also totally fair to say that what used to the SC is still existent today. The Gameplay forum (after work from CrazyGirl and Sedge) has really vamped up and become more active and has filled a large part of the void left by the SC forum in terms of gameplay discussion. There's no votes, but the debates still rage on, so the argument could certainly be made that if RIV had never happened to make gameplay discussion less common in the SC forum, the growth of the Gameplay forum may not have been as successful. But, again, that's off topic.

[SkyDip]

Hrm. I'll wait for more input on the whole activity in the SC thing. The second and third paragraphs should be switched, yes.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Fascinating - that you can actually quantify the amount of fun you're having. While we're at it, why don't we count up all the posts for the eight debates (eight!) the SC held on Condemn NAZI EUROPE, because, no matter how great the post count, it did seem to suck a lot of the fun out of the game for many concerned (which is why they were so hellbent on repealing it). Coincidentally enough, it was wiped off the books not long after the R4 debacle, so the concurrent dip in SC activity could just as easily be attributed to the NE saga finally coming to an end. It did take up a lot of players' time, after all.

[Topid]

You're welcome!

Those were far from the only debates, and that debate is far from over this year took a more controversial turn there than ever. And it is now on the books twice.

[SkyDip]

Bump for latest addition - Argumentation in SC Writing.

[SkyDip]

I should also note that I am currently working on said latest chapter as we speak, so it will be updated more today.

[Port blood]

In chapter 4,isn't it also the case it doesn't have a operative clause?

[SkyDip]

In chapter 4,isn't it also the case it doesn't have a operative clause?

Correct you are, good sir - added in!

[Port blood]

In chapter 4,isn't it also the case it doesn't have a operative clause?

Correct you are, good sir - added in!

Yay I'm helping

[SkyDip]

New chapter up now. Chapter 6 - Gameplay vs. Roleplay in the SC

[Milograd]

I think the RP section could use a bit more emphasis on standards for R/P C&Cs, but otherwise that is solid.

[SkyDip]

I think the RP section could use a bit more emphasis on standards for R/P C&Cs, but otherwise that is solid.

Sadly, this very point is my downfall. *cries softly*

Any rewrites and/or suggestions you may have are greatly appreciated and encouraged.

[Milograd]

I think the RP section could use a bit more emphasis on standards for R/P C&Cs, but otherwise that is solid.

Sadly, this very point is my downfall. *cries softly*

Any rewrites and/or suggestions you may have are greatly appreciated and encouraged.

Given the vast disunity that is a core trait of the NS-forum-based nation roleplaying community, it's no surprise that there is no uniform or popular opinion regarding commendations and condemnations for nation-based roleplaying. Some members of the community incorporate the SC into their RP, some think that the WA has no place in their RP, and some treat the SC as an OOC act of recognizing or appreciating a nation that should have no IC bearing. Nonetheless, the standards for commending or condemning nations for roleplaying are more or less constant amongst those who interact with the SC as RPers:

• Quality - High quality content and reputable roleplaying conduct are considered a must for a nominee.
• Impact - Any nation can do something good or evil, but a large impact is rare. As a rule of thumb, if a lot of nations can point to the nation and say that they recognize their actions and/or that their nations have been effected by it, either directly or indirectly, then it is likely that this criteria is met.
• Uniqueness - IC actions and concepts that are particularly unique or performed uniquely are often cited as reasons to consider a RP resolution.

There is also another standard that should be considered, although it is more debated than the ones above:

• It May Not Always be IC - Some nations deserve to be recognized even if they didn't terrorize the forum for years or save countless babies. OOC contributions, such as influencing a lot of writers through one's writing or improving the RP community through one's writing can be equally deserving of recognition if it is achieved on a notable scale. For instance, The Toy Theocracy, a nation that only posted in one thread, created an incredible and terrifying story that has become iconic, entertaining to no end, and influential.

[Milograd]

That's a lazy draft of my thoughts. If you'd be willing to include them, I can elaborate on them, improve it, and make revisions.

[SkyDip]

Beautiful. I'll add that bit in with credits to you.

[SkyDip]

Latest chapter up now - Campaigning for a Proposal.