NationStates Jolt Archive

My new bill, "Proposal Submission Etiquett," needs some endorsements. It simply states five simple rules that are fairly obviouse, but have not been mentioned before.

Spelling & Grammer: This actually HAS been mentioned before, but I said "acceptable" rather than "proper" s&g.

Rule of Replacement: any new laws replace any old laws.

Interpretation: Rules should be interpreted based on words, not intent. (U.S. Law is based on intent. Oh well.)

New proposals should not repeat what old proposals have already established.

Proposals don't need to follow any other rules than these and the ones posted on the website.

Proposal Submission Etiquett
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency Strength: Mild Proposed by: Daginoth
Description:
1. Any new proposals trump any older proposals that they contradict.

2. Exact wording is what matters, not intention.

3. Spelling and grammer must be at an acceptable level.

4. New proposals should not repeat anything that has already been passed by the U.N.

5. New proposals need not follow any rules not posted.

I beleive this is a game mechanics purposal and should be put on the suggestions board.

Indeed it is. Don't expect the proposal to last long, if it's even still around.

I don't see how. I'm not suggesting that... well, maybe. I guess you're right.

I don't see how. I'm not suggesting that... well, maybe. I guess you're right.
There is alreasy a resolution about proper spelling and grammer in resolutions, in fact. It's been deemed a game mechanics issue, and as such not valid.

Anyone who has followed my activity in the last campaign can probably guess that I'm for this at least in substance.

Every issue I have is dealt with, which is great. However, to avoid the details that people have listed above certain measures have to be taken. The first is the strength, which is correct. This should be 'mild' and that should be noted.

Furthermore, and this is not the exact wording, a passage should be included about how this is to be applied. As has been discussed to death, there is no way to modify the game to enforce this, nor should there be. No magic hand comes in and forces the will of the physical UN and we should not expect or demand such interference here. The passage should imply "That the UN Member States and Delegates are compelled to consider/uphold these standards when making their decisions regarding the endorsement or approval of proposals." with some acknowledgement that the nations can, if they feel that it is warranted, over-ride this mandate.

This does raise an issue of "if I can ignore it, then why do I care? What's the point?" Because whoever decides to dismiss it will have to get others that have agreed to the standard to do so as well in order to win the election. What we should be hoping for is a citable standard with which Member States can argue against an issue on the basis of standards.

The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name are behind you and will discuss your proposal with the delegate of our humble region of Flotsam. However, since Flotsam is a collective we are currently in our voluntary transition of UN delegates, so I have to wait for that rotation. If you would like to discuss wording this proposal to avoid the dreaded "technical" issue, we are at your disposal. (As is the other UN nations of our humble region I imagine, but you'll have to ask them).

You beat me to it. I hope you can make it a success.

the true question is, how long til the mods destroy it? good idea, but there is that cursed rule for no game mechanics resolutions :wink:

Might I suggest that we add this to the list of suggestions of writing proposals? Instead of saying "Don't be offensive" on the proposal page why not say "Don't be offensive and try to watch for these things..."?

the true question is, how long til the mods destroy it? good idea, but there is that cursed rule for no game mechanics resolutions :wink:
Read the long passages, sometimes they answer questions you have.

Sorry to be petty, but it's quite funny that you can't spell 'etiquette' or 'grammar' :lol:

Sorry to be petty, but it's quite funny that you can't spell 'etiquette' or 'grammar' :lol:
I completely missed that when I read it. Maybe I was being selective....

Yeah, that'd have to be addressed or we'd all look silly....

We (The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name) still support the movement.

Ah, it was a good run, but the hair-trigger mods have deleted the proposal. There is a notable lack of faith, or perhaps a defering of opinion in how resolutions are regarded, that would have to be dealt with. In essence, as I had interpreted it (and, for that matter the original) was that it was a citable standard which we could use to compel delegates to not endorse a proposal or for member states to not vote for it. Sure, we could say "Hey, poor grammar, let it go" but with a resolution we could cite an agreed upon standard, which carries more political weight. This didn't require that proposals in violation be deleted or any other 'god-like' actions that would modify the game. In fact, I believe we are more realistic in scope:It was a resolution that could be defied, much like the physical UN. And then we could argue it, argue it's interpretation, defer, politic, in essence be a political body instead of a cookie jar. In order to get a citable standard passed we are going to have to deal with the mods lack of faith in our ability to play the game and address that in the wording in clear terms so they don't miss when they are wiping things out.

In essence, as I had interpreted it (and, for that matter the original) was that it was a citable standard which we could use to compel delegates to not endorse a proposal or for member states to not vote for it.
If it was only a citable standard, it had no place in the Proposal Queue. The Queue is a temporary thing at best, proposals appear and disappear on a daily basis either for lack of support. As such, it makes more sense for a "citable standard" such as this to appear on the forum or elsewhere in a more permanent state.

This didn't require that proposals in violation be deleted or any other 'god-like' actions that would modify the game. In fact, I believe we are more realistic in scope:It was a resolution that could be defied, much like the physical UN. And then we could argue it, argue it's interpretation, defer, politic, in essence be a political body instead of a cookie jar.
Herein lies the problem. If a proposal is passed, the rules of the game make it abundantly clear that it has to be adopted by all member nations. There's a pithy quote to that effect that someone will probably post from the FAQ.
As such, you can't defy or argue the interpretation of a resolution. Well, change that - you can't do so in game terms although you can in RP terms.

More to the point, there is an argument which says that it would require proposals to be deleted if it had been passed. You know and I know that the text of a resolution is meaningless and you and I know that a game mechanics resolution is worse than meaningless (although you seem to take a slightly different position on the issue of whether or not this is a game mechanics resolution). However, there would be an element who'd suddenly start complaining that we as mods weren't enforcing the standards of the UN if a resolution was passed saying "spell things correctly".

In order to get a citable standard passed we are going to have to deal with the mods lack of faith in our ability to play the game and address that in the wording in clear terms so they don't miss when they are wiping things out.
I say again, if you want a citable standard, post it somewhere else. The UN Proposal Queue is for 100% legally binding things - AKA Proposals and Resolutions. If you want something to just be a nice little standard hanging around for citation purposes, post it somewhere else.

In essence, as I had interpreted it (and, for that matter the original) was that it was a citable standard which we could use to compel delegates to not endorse a proposal or for member states to not vote for it.
If it was only a citable standard, it had no place in the Proposal Queue. The Queue is a temporary thing at best, proposals appear and disappear on a daily basis either for lack of support. As such, it makes more sense for a "citable standard" such as this to appear on the forum or elsewhere in a more permanent state.

This didn't require that proposals in violation be deleted or any other 'god-like' actions that would modify the game. In fact, I believe we are more realistic in scope:It was a resolution that could be defied, much like the physical UN. And then we could argue it, argue it's interpretation, defer, politic, in essence be a political body instead of a cookie jar.
Herein lies the problem. If a proposal is passed, the rules of the game make it abundantly clear that it has to be adopted by all member nations. There's a pithy quote to that effect that someone will probably post from the FAQ.
As such, you can't defy or argue the interpretation of a resolution. Well, change that - you can't do so in game terms although you can in RP terms.

More to the point, there is an argument which says that it would require proposals to be deleted if it had been passed. You know and I know that the text of a resolution is meaningless and you and I know that a game mechanics resolution is worse than meaningless (although you seem to take a slightly different position on the issue of whether or not this is a game mechanics resolution). However, there would be an element who'd suddenly start complaining that we as mods weren't enforcing the standards of the UN if a resolution was passed saying "spell things correctly".

In order to get a citable standard passed we are going to have to deal with the mods lack of faith in our ability to play the game and address that in the wording in clear terms so they don't miss when they are wiping things out.
I say again, if you want a citable standard, post it somewhere else. The UN Proposal Queue is for 100% legally binding things - AKA Proposals and Resolutions. If you want something to just be a nice little standard hanging around for citation purposes, post it somewhere else.
Again, I think this places a notable lack of faith in our ability to play the game.

As I had said, we could say "Hey, proposals should have good grammar." but simply saying it has no value. By putting it to the UN community and having them to vote for such a standard, suddenly it has value. It has value in the only manner that really matters, in the way we RP our nations. By making it a proposal we would hope to make it a resolution, in literal terms, something we resolve to abide. We resolve that we shall consider the way the proposal is written. Again as I have stated, we would have to put how this would be implimented into the text of the proposal so that the people out there bound and determined to have the 'hand of god' rule the UN understand that the nations that voted for it are more interested in being a political body rather than the dreaded cookie jar.

In short, so what if I put a thread somewhere saying that proposals should have correct grammar? How does that effect anything? In order to be citeable we have to have resolved to allow it to be such. I include this because it is the most important:

- you can't do so in game terms although you can in RP terms.

If we where allowed to, I believe you'd find a great deal of nations that would be willing to. By empirically deciding that we are incapable of role-playing our own resolutions you imply a restriction on our ability to play. By making a resolution that we can cite in our debates we give relevance to the text that the game mechanics could never hope to. I know I've said this before, but by the standard you so steadfastly impose the text of all proposals should be reduced to nothing more than "blah blah blah." It seems to be your insistance that this be the case. This makes the game worse than pointless as we head back to the cherry/cookie jar metaphor. We might as well just recycle proposals as we do our nations issues and do away with the pagentry if we are not allowed to create a growing text of governance.

Again, I believe we are working towards a more realistic model. We would be bound by the standard stated in the resolution, but it would then be up to the nations to respect that bind. In the character of role-play they could defy that bind and endorse or proposal that doesn't meet the standard. Something that can be done in the physical world but not in your 'hand-of-god' model. By allowing that we actual invent the world politic we are merily pretending to be at present.

We could do this, but first we'd have to implore the hand of god to let us play the game. As I understand it, proposals get edited. Had we been given the chance we could have altered the text to be clear that we are not calling for the 'hand of god' but rather on the good will of the UN member states, which provides for a more interesting game enviroment.

Let us play.

In simplest terms, you've got the following choices regarding the "citable standard".

1. Turn it into a proposal.
Assuming it passes, there will be an element among you (I guarantee this) who will turn into the spelling and grammar nazis. They will nit-pick every single proposal on every single page which has the slightest typo and they will attempt to say that the mods aren't doing their job when they allow proposals with typos to stay in the queue. Proposals with typos will remain in the queue for the simple reason that they don't destroy the meaning of the proposal. Deletions of proposals and warnings of proposers will continue in the same manner despite this mythical rule that says you have to spell correctly and speak the language correctly like.

2. Make your sentiments known here.
This is the perfect place for this sort of thing. There are threads - or there were at least - about the correct style to use when writing proposals. Why not try to get this added to them or used in its own right? If it's a voluntary thing, as you say it will be, then it makes sense to put it up here.

The bottom line is that if something is voluntary it has no place in the UN. The UN exists to enforce resolutions - in this game at least. If you make a proposal which is purely to create a voluntary standard, it will be removed.
If you try to make this thing compulsory, it will be removed. Do I make myself clear?

I'm honestly getting sick of this business with people constantly arguing the point. As a mod, I can be accessible and willing to debate or I can be remote and authoritarian - I choose the former. If people want to constantly debate topics that have been resolved before - and here I mean topics such as repealing resolutions which have been debated to death before as well as topics where I have made my opinion clear on several occasions (such as this one) - then it begins to make me question my choice.
The decision has been made, the action has been taken. Debate a fait accompli as much as you want, but bear in mind that it is just that.

Whether or not it's game mechanics, it's a good idea. I hope someone with power is reading...

I've said before that it's a good idea. If nothing else, it'd make life a lot easier for delegates to know what they're approving and mods to know whether they should be deleting things if all proposals were submitted in the same format.