[RULE CHANGE] Real World Reference

[The Ice States]

*** Public consultation on Real World Reference rule change ***

The Secretariat proposes updating the Real World Reference rule. Three options for the rule are currently under consideration.

• Option A is supported by Imperium Anglorum and Haymarket Riot, and would implement the following,
  
  
  Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein. A proposal may not contain any proper nouns which reference the real world. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, persons, places, religions, languages, political parties, organizations, and events. Proper nouns are permissible if they are necessary to refer to a generic political or scientific concept. No proposal clause may refer to any proper nouns for persons, organisations, or events in the real world. However, references to proper nouns themselves referenced by NationStates or which are necessary to refer to scientific or political phenomena are permissible.
  
  
  
• Option B is supported by Barfleur and The Ice States and would implement the following,
  
  Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein. A proposal may not contain any proper nouns which reference the real world. A proposal may not reference any element specific to or otherwise derived from the real world. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, persons individuals, places, religions, languages, calendar dates, political parties, organizations, and events. Proper nouns are permissible if they are necessary to refer to a generic political or scientific concept. Proposals may use standard real-world terminology, including eponyms and units of measurement, to reference generic scientific or political concepts.
  
  
  
• The Secretariat is also considering a variant of Option B which would permit calendar dates by inserting that phrase after "eponyms". This is Option C.

Desmosthenes and Burke is neutral on changing the rule in general, but favours Option B if a change is to occur. Separatist Peoples has not expressed a view on the proposed changes.

---

The Secretariat proposes the following wording for the Real World Reference rule, supported by Desmosthenes and Burke and The Ice States:

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein. A proposal may not contain any proper nouns which reference the real world. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, persons, places, religions, languages, political parties, organizations, and events. Proper nouns are permissible if they are necessary to refer to a generic political or scientific concept. A proposal may not reference any element specific to the real world, including persons, places and events. Real-world references which are themselves referenced by the World Assembly game or which are standard terminology for scientific or political phenomena are permissible.

Haymarket Riot and Imperium Anglorum oppose the proposed wording on grounds of wanting to maintain the existing proper noun standard. Barfleur and Separatist Peoples have yet to express a view.

---

A consensus exists within the Secretariat that the current rule text, as implemented following a public consultation in March this year, is inadequate. Concerns within GenSec have ranged from a desire to permit a "NationStates canon" to a view that the current "necessary" and proper noun standards are onerous and inaccessible. The community has also expressed concerns regarding the rule, with players requesting a change after a recent ruling that "November" was a real-world reference.

The Secretariat, however, is divided on how the rule should be changed. We request input on the following points:

1. Should the rule be limited to proper nouns, or do there exist non-proper noun references which should also be prohibited?
   
   
2. Is permitting references based on whether they are referenced by the site an adequate standard? Should this be applied to permit proper nouns used in admin-submitted issues?
   
   
3. Is it onerous to require authors to use potentially obscure terminology in place of proper nouns to reference generic concepts?
   
   
4. Should the rule permit Gregorian calendar dates?
   
   
5. Is the new rule text understandable and clear, especially for new players?

We ask that comments and responses remain on topic.

Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks, subject to finalisation.

---

Related resources.

• Public consultation on rule change in March 2024: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=547326
  
  
• Challenge / ruling re "November": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=549673
  
  
• Secretariat discussion on the above challenge: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=549715
  
  
• Community-initiated discussion thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=554909

[Imperium Anglorum]

If it is not clear to everyone already, option B would double down on the previous decision that found a proposal with "November" in it illegal. [2024] GAS 7 viewtopic.php?p=41619165#p41619165. Amid a host of other changes, the non-precedential concurrence given there would now be written into the rule text. The changes are obviously targeted towards dissenters, who read and relied on the purpose of the rule. So the purpose of the rule is deleted. There's no exception given for anything like "The World Assembly", since concurrers refuse to engage with their own logic as I've already written on.

This rule change was supposed to be brought in response to viewtopic.php?t=554909. Certainly a response. Is it one that cares about what most members of the community expressed? I think not.

[The Ice States]

There's no exception given for anything like "The World Assembly", since concurrers refuse to engage with their own logic as I've already written on.

How is that "specific to or otherwise derived from the real world"? If anything it is the opposite of that -- it is something specific to NS.

This rule change was supposed to be brought in response to viewtopic.php?t=554909. Certainly a response. Is it one that cares about what most members of the community expressed? I think not.

The majority of replies in that thread that were not from then-Secretariat members were in favour of the prohibition.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There's no exception given for anything like "The World Assembly", since concurrers refuse to engage with their own logic as I've already written on.

How is that "specific to or otherwise derived from the real world"? If anything it is the opposite of that -- it is something specific to NS.

This is what I mean with "concurrers refuse to engage with their own logic". Where do you think NationStates is?

[Bisofeyr]

I would prefer Option A of those provided, and I'll come back with more in-depth feedback later. For now, to answer the questions:

1. Rule should not be limited to proper nouns, which is a bit of an arbitrary line imo. For example, the other day we were discussing on Discord whether species/genus scientific names were technically proper nouns, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus (from what I could find on the internet after a few minutes of searching), but I am of the belief that they should be illegal (some examples proving this given on Discord were Anophthalmus hitleri, by IA, and Uvariopsis epsteini, by D&B).
2. I think it is an okay standard, but I want to think on it a bit more. It should not be used to permit proper nouns used in any issues, including Violet, Blackacre, or Catholicism.
3. One should not have to say "a photons energy divided by its frequency" to refer to Planck's constant, if they wish to.
4. Yes, and the fact that they are currently outlawed is one of the biggest downfall of the "proper nouns" standard, and my biggest complaint with Option B.
5. Option A.

Quick edit: IA's dissent in [2024] GAS 7 was correct anyways and I feel the need for this given that context is unnecessary, but we made our bed and now we must lie in it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Quick edit: IA's dissent in [2024] GAS 7 was correct anyways and I feel the need for this given that context is unnecessary, but we made our bed and now we must lie in it.

On this point specifically, rules changes remake beds; in fact, they can even make new ones. We are not at all bound by the existing ruleset.

[Bisofeyr]

Quick edit: IA's dissent in [2024] GAS 7 was correct anyways and I feel the need for this given that context is unnecessary, but we made our bed and now we must lie in it.

On this point specifically, rules changes remake beds; in fact, they can even make new ones. We are not at all bound by the existing ruleset.

My point was rather that we are currently lying in a bed that should never have been made in the first place, which is more of an irrelevant personal opinion than the rest of my post. More to the point, though, we are on the same page that a ruleset change is apt given our current circumstance.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I cannot understand why you want to keep this rule.

[Haymarket Riot]

I cannot understand why you want to keep this rule.

To clarify, do you mean with respect to RWR as a whole, or option B?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I cannot understand why you want to keep this rule.

Apparently neither can option B supporters, since they deleted the justification for the rule from its start just because I had the gall to quote it.

[The Ice States]

How is that "specific to or otherwise derived from the real world"? If anything it is the opposite of that -- it is something specific to NS.

This is what I mean with "concurrers refuse to engage with their own logic". Where do you think NationStates is?

NationStates is indeed a real game with a feature called the World Assembly. Proposals set in the universe of NationStates are presumably referring to the World Assembly which specifically exists in that universe, and if anything only exists in the real world because it exists in-universe. The interpretation that the real world inherently includes all of NationStates is an absurd one which has not been seriously applied; as shown by the fact that countless resolutions with "the World Assembly" have passed even since the current rule text was implemented in March.

I cannot understand why you want to keep this rule.

Apparently neither can option B supporters, since they deleted the justification for the rule from its start just because I had the gall to quote it.

I don't know about the rest of us, but my own support for the option has nothing to do with the fact that the removed sentence happened to be quoted in one dissent.

[Bisofeyr]

Just a brief note that option B disallowing anything "... derived from the real world" would seem to exclude literally everything, unless directly exempted.

[The Ice States]

Just a brief note that option B disallowing anything "... derived from the real world" would seem to exclude literally everything, unless directly exempted.

Any thoughts for clearer wording? The purpose of that is to stop the argument "I don't mean the real person Donald Trump, I mean an identical character in my roleplay!". Or do we think that's covered already by Metagaming?

[Bisofeyr]

Just a brief note that option B disallowing anything "... derived from the real world" would seem to exclude literally everything, unless directly exempted.

Any thoughts for clearer wording? The purpose of that is to stop the argument "I don't mean the real person Donald Trump, I mean an identical character in my roleplay!"

My initial instinct is to just remove it; the scenario you've given would be illegal under Metagaming ("Proposals may not reference... specific roleplayed canon")

[Imperium Anglorum]

Some of my colleagues have objected to my bringing up repeatedly that the logic of the concurrence and of option B would require banning mention of the World Assembly, which is referred to in basically every proposal. I will now stop bringing that up, even though other people have started to recognise that that is in fact the case.

One other discussion question has emerged. It is on option A's "referenced by NationStates" standard: viz that all sorts of things are referenced by NationStates' change logs or by the NationStates store. That's a reasonable position; we probably don't want references to Visa and Mastercard. There are portions of the site that are in-character and out-of-character. The portions of the site that are in-character are those which I would permit.

This is what I mean with "concurrers refuse to engage with their own logic". Where do you think NationStates is?

NationStates is indeed a real game with a feature called the World Assembly. Proposals set in the universe of NationStates are presumably referring to the World Assembly which specifically exists in that universe, and if anything only exists in the real world because it exists in-universe. The interpretation that the real world inherently includes all of NationStates is an absurd one which has not been seriously applied; as shown by the fact that countless resolutions with "the World Assembly" have passed even since the current rule text was implemented in March.

Which is just another instance of "concurrers refuse to engage with their own logic". Thanks for showing that by example again.

Apparently neither can option B supporters, since they deleted the justification for the rule from its start just because I had the gall to quote it.

I don't know about the rest of us, but my own support for the option has nothing to do with the fact that the removed sentence happened to be quoted in one dissent.

Then put it back in.

Just a brief note that option B disallowing anything "... derived from the real world" would seem to exclude literally everything, unless directly exempted.

Any thoughts for clearer wording? The purpose of that is to stop the argument "I don't mean the real person Donald Trump, I mean an identical character in my roleplay!". Or do we think that's covered already by Metagaming?

I'm happy, however, that you've decided to engage with the conclusions of your own logic.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I cannot understand why you want to keep this rule.

Could you clarify what you mean by this statement? You fail to understand why to Real World Reference rule is being retained or you fail to understand why one of the particular formulations proposed exists?

I would prefer Option A of those provided, and I'll come back with more in-depth feedback later. For now, to answer the questions:

1. Rule should not be limited to proper nouns, which is a bit of an arbitrary line imo. For example, the other day we were discussing on Discord whether species/genus scientific names were technically proper nouns, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus (from what I could find on the internet after a few minutes of searching), but I am of the belief that they should be illegal (some examples proving this given on Discord were Anophthalmus hitleri, by IA, and Uvariopsis epsteini, by D&B).
2. I think it is an okay standard, but I want to think on it a bit more. It should not be used to permit proper nouns used in any issues, including Violet, Blackacre, or Catholicism.
3. One should not have to say "a photons energy divided by its frequency" to refer to Planck's constant, if they wish to.
4. Yes, and the fact that they are currently outlawed is one of the biggest downfall of the "proper nouns" standard, and my biggest complaint with Option B.
5. Option A.

Just to put a few things on

1. Is the only reason I see for changing the current rule. Proper noun seems to be more contentious a line than anticipated. Unfortunately, Option A, would not solve this issue, but continue to perpetuate it.
2. This is the entire point behind B and C. I would add further it is not user friendly to have some subset of things OK because they are present in some arbitrarily chosen set of issues, but not in others. I find it utterly capricious to say "Catholocism" and "Harry Potter" are fine because an admin wrote an issue about it 20 years ago, but "Buddhism" and "Katniss Everdeen" are not because either no issue was written about them or they were written by a non-Admin (I do not believe this a valid distinction anyway since a site staff team ultimately edits, codes, etc all issue submissions anyway, so either all of them should be in or all of them should be out).
3. I think we all reasonably agree on this. There needs to be some sanity. At the same time, if an author is skilled enough to get around the proper noun rule through this and get it passed, I almost feel like we should congratulate them on their creativity while engaging in the favourite GA past-time of complaining about the ruleset/GenSec.
4. I actually do not have a particularly strong feeling about this. I wrote the concurrence and believe it is the result the text of the rule requires as it currently stands. In the last discussion started by Haymarket there seemed to be a tenuous preference to retain the ban, but if the community actually prefers otherwise, I am happy to concede and make the change.
5. I think Option A is inconsistent with the concerns you raised in points 1 and 2 of your reply. Are you sure you are not instead really wanting Option C?

This rule change was supposed to be brought in response to viewtopic.php?t=554909. Certainly a response. Is it one that cares about what most members of the community expressed? I think not.

If we were responding to what happened in that thread, we would have shrugged and moved on by now instead of continuing this because you cannot accept you lost an argument.

[Bisofeyr]

-snip-

On 2, I think it may be worthwhile to exclude issues, as they would fall under a branch of "player-generated content" (I personally would include admin-made issues under this umbrella as well, though that may not be a universal opinion).

On 3, I agree that we should congratulate them, but I do not think the rules should be something one has to navigate through in order to make something legal; an author should be skilled in writing proposals, which does not necessarily entail being creative to get around rules.

On 4, if that's the "tenuous preference", I strongly disagree with that preference. And I'm being loud about that, so maybe it'll tip the scales?

On 5, you're right that I said that poorly (I deleted a bunch of my message halfway through and rewrote it, which included a bit of justification on this regard). I think that "proper noun" is a bad standard for real-world-reference, but the exceptions part in option A is vastly superior to the jungle of option B (enough so that my preference is not for option B despite getting rid of the proper noun parts). Perhaps my suggestion would be as follows:

A proposal may not reference any element specific to the real world. Real-world references which are themselves referenced by NationStates or which are necessary to refer to scientific or political phenomena are permissible.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As to the proper nouns vs everything that anyone can think of, I would keep the proper nouns test since the latter is an invitation to vexatious challenges.

[Pasybfic]

As to the proper nouns vs everything that anyone can think of, I would keep the proper nouns test since the latter is an invitation to vexatious challenges.

I absolutely see people becoming sudden masters of etymology to kill proposals they think do not meet the standard. I, on some level, would be interested to see how many passed proposals would be illegal under option B.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

As to the proper nouns vs everything that anyone can think of, I would keep the proper nouns test since the latter is an invitation to vexatious challenges.

I absolutely see people becoming sudden masters of etymology to kill proposals they think do not meet the standard. I, on some level, would be interested to see how many passed proposals would be illegal under option B.

Of late, International Chocolate Day is the only proposal I can think of off the top of my head that is different between the three propositions. This is really about the edges of the rule.

[Pasybfic]

I absolutely see people becoming sudden masters of etymology to kill proposals they think do not meet the standard. I, on some level, would be interested to see how many passed proposals would be illegal under option B.

Of late, International Chocolate Day is the only proposal I can think of off the top of my head that is different between the three propositions. This is really about the edges of the rule.

One could make the irksome but then forcibly-litigated argument that Volcanic Activity Convention would be illegal as it etymologically requires the NS-world existence of Vulcanus, god of fire and metalworking.

[The Ice States]

Of late, International Chocolate Day is the only proposal I can think of off the top of my head that is different between the three propositions. This is really about the edges of the rule.

One could make the irksome but then forcibly-litigated argument that Volcanic Activity Convention would be illegal as it etymologically requires the NS-world existence of Vulcanus, god of fire and metalworking.

Would that not be standard terminology for a generic scientific concept? (Note that an exception explicitly exists, even in Option B, for eponyms; under A "volcano" would be permissible as a common noun).

[Pasybfic]

One could make the irksome but then forcibly-litigated argument that Volcanic Activity Convention would be illegal as it etymologically requires the NS-world existence of Vulcanus, god of fire and metalworking.

Would that not be standard terminology for a generic scientific concept? (Note that an exception explicitly exists, even in Option B, for eponyms; under A "volcano" would be permissible as a common noun).

It is a weak argument on my part but one that would have to be litigated, and then we would have to discuss less generic common nouns. Would we still use the term "august body" without Augustus? Likely it wouldn't have existed as a loanword without his rise. To steal a philosophical question from fantasy authors, would we call an ottoman an ottoman, or would we have to edge around it and call it a stool?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is 2024 a real world reference? (Or, perhaps more accurately, should it be if so?)

[Quintessence of Dust]

I cannot understand why you want to keep this rule.

Could you clarify what you mean by this statement? You fail to understand why to Real World Reference rule is being retained or you fail to understand why one of the particular formulations proposed exists?

The former.