NationStates Jolt Archive

As of the next proposal sweep, which will be conducted within the next 24 hours, the following changes will take place regarding warnings and UN ejections. This is due to the increasing volume of illegal proposals in certain categories:

There are now two types of Proposal Offences, Minor Offences and Flagrant Offences. 3 Minor Offences will get you removed from the UN, while 1 Flagrant Offence is enough.

Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions; repeal proposals or proposals supporting the repeal of past resolutions.
2. Racist or otherwise "bigoted" proposals - including but not limited to the following: advocating the killing of any minority groups or deportation of same to other locales.
3. Other highly offensive proposals - to be decided upon on a case-by-case basis.

Minor Offences
1. Minor game mechanics changes - where not covered above.
2. Incorrect Categorisation of proposal.
3. Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.
4. Real-world-based proposal.
5. Pathetic joke proposals - including but not limited to "against dihydrogen oxide" and "the right to arm bears".

This schedule will last until further notice and is intended to curb the excesses of recent proposal queues.

There are now two types of Proposal Offences, Minor Offences and Flagrant Offences. 3 Minor Offences will get you removed from the UN, while 1 Flagrant Offence is enough.

This schedule will last until further notice and is intended to curb the excesses of recent proposal queues.

Pretty simple, could somebody STICKY this? :) I'd hate for a new nation to jump off the high dive without seeing the swimming pool rules first.

[DP]

[DP]

[DP]

It's been added to the first post in my sticky. This post (and the others on the Moderation and Secret-Mod forums) are just to make certain nobody misses it.

I'd think I'm responsible for this.
I temporarilly got booted from the UN for a proposterous proposal.

I got back in on a technicality. If these rules were in place... I'd be long gone.

So, the moral of the story is that you can thank me for this wonderful rule.

Tedmonton Q Public

I'd think I'm responsible for this.
You've had plenty of company, Tedmonton. It seems like every other proposal for the past several weeks has been to repeal something. I'm quite pleased to see this as official policy. Thanks, Enodia.

I'd think I'm responsible for this.
You've had plenty of company, Tedmonton. It seems like every other proposal for the past several weeks has been to repeal something. I'm quite pleased to see this as official policy. Thanks, Enodia.
In case anyone's curious about who to thank, thank the abnormal number of people who've recently raised the business of repealing for the three zillionth time.

Regardless of where blame lies, I'm glad we finally have a set list of rules that just might deter some of the stupidity, and punish those who refuse to be deterred. Many thanks, Enodia.

Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.


Does this include proposals that bristle with hideous travesties of spelling and grammar?

(We've gotta dream, you know).

Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.


Does this include proposals that bristle with hideous travesties of spelling and grammar?

(We've gotta dream, you know).
No, it's more a catch-all term for things which are just a little too much on the silly side. The latest warning under this heading was actually given to a nation who was using the proposal queue as a means of conducting intra-regional politics.

3. Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.
...
5. Pathetic joke proposals - including but not limited to "against dihydrogen oxide" and "the right to arm bears".

As one of the nations delighting in Bahgum's Less Serious Proposals thread, East Hackney would like some clarification as to what exactly constitutes a proposal "not worthy of the UN's consideration" or a "pathetic joke". Would the notorious hippos proposal have made it past this new schedule?

Comrade Bragg
Delegate for Rock and Other Left-Wing Fun

HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!

FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST ! THANK THE MODS, I'M FREE AT LAST!

FREE FROM THE TERROR OF RACIST/BIGOTTED PROPOSALS!

FREE FROM STUPID GAME MECHANICS REQUESTS!

FREE FROM TIME WASTERS/STUPID "FUNNIES" PROPOSALS!

FREE FROM ONE-MORE-MENTION-OF-BLAIR-OR-BUSH!

FREE FROM THE THREAT OF REPEALATIONS ! ! !

* AND FREE FROM THE CONSTANT NINNIES WHO SEND'EM IN ! *

FROM THE LOWEST N.S. REGION TO THE HIGHEST U.N. STICKY THREAD!

LET FREEDOM RING!

(Sorry Martin L King, consider it a sign of respect! :wink: )

"Any one for a chant of "God save our glorious Mods" ? "

And 21 I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon Salute to,

The Great Enodia, Champion Defender of the U.N. Realm !

The Rep of Komokom re-takes his seat.

3. Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.
...
5. Pathetic joke proposals - including but not limited to "against dihydrogen oxide" and "the right to arm bears".

As one of the nations delighting in Bahgum's Less Serious Proposals thread, East Hackney would like some clarification as to what exactly constitutes a proposal "not worthy of the UN's consideration" or a "pathetic joke". Would the notorious hippos proposal have made it past this new schedule?

Comrade Bragg
Delegate for Rock and Other Left-Wing Fun
The Hippos were a special case. Basically, as long as it's not one of those really clapped out proposals such as those listed above. I haven't had a look at Bahgum's thread recently, but there's nothing wrong with what I've seen from it - as long as they remain "less serious" and not "thanks folks, I'm here all week. Try the veal."

The excessively glorious and somewhat unserious nation of Bahgum questions the thoughts behinds points 3&5 on the minor 'crimes'.

We fervently hope that joke proposals will stay (well written, of course), as many nations come to the UN to enjoy the game and have a giggle. Remember one nations awful pointless gag, is another nations source of joy for the day. Not all players wish to live through endless cycles of the same old high visibility issues, we like some variety, and some daftness.

We are sure there is an issue about censorship and free speech involved here also, but our foreign minister got distracted by a fresh meat and potato pie so is unavailable for comment.

Yours,
President Simon of Bahgum

Point 3, as I've explained earlier, is a catch-all for things which just don't quite "gell" with the rest of the UN. It doesn't tend to get used much, and only really comes up when people are making proposals saying "Move to this region and endorse soandsoland". Anybody who has the remotest handle on the way the UN works in this game has absolutely nothing to fear from Point 3.

Regarding Point 5, it's also very rarely used. The only circumstances under which it is are things like the examples. I've got nothing against funny proposals, but only the really clapped-out ones are at risk. It's another subjective category, sure, but 99 out of 100 funny proposals will stay alive under it.

Bahgum welcomes the even-handed and extremely sensible reply from the esteemed nation of Enodia. Our fears are laid to rest and we shall endeavour to furnish the UN with continuing distraction.
Our minister for proposals (and pigeon racing) will be instructed to view these directives as a quality threshold when considering new none-serious proposals. A failure to meet such quality will be met by him only being allowed to drink shandy down t'pub. We would would hope that other nations also impose similar penalties.

Rule 4 under minor offenses confuses me somewhat. I mean, can we assume that physics in our gameland are similar to realworld? Might one assume that gravity exists, and obeys the same laws?

It would be an understandable infraction to lift the headlines from tomorrow morning's papers, and introduce a proposal based on some freshly discovered horror in Asia, Africa, or the United States.

But, most of the concerns addressed in here are indeed real world concerns. World hunger, gay rights, genetic engineering, etc. Oh, children's rights.

Where to draw the line.

Is it to demanding, to expect the one making a proposal to be well versed in his chosen area, so that he might answer questions, present arguments, etc?

Seems to me that the game must be largely based on real life. Or are we way out in fantasy land? Personally, I must rely on the education, experience, judgment, and logic that I have learned in the real world to even hope to play this game.

Rule 4 under minor offenses confuses me somewhat. I mean, can we assume that physics in our gameland are similar to realworld? Might one assume that gravity exists, and obeys the same laws?

It would be an understandable infraction to lift the headlines from tomorrow morning's papers, and introduce a proposal based on some freshly discovered horror in Asia, Africa, or the United States.

But, most of the concerns addressed in here are indeed real world concerns. World hunger, gay rights, genetic engineering, etc. Oh, children's rights.

Where to draw the line.

Is it to demanding, to expect the one making a proposal to be well versed in his chosen area, so that he might answer questions, present arguments, etc?

Seems to me that the game must be largely based on real life. Or are we way out in fantasy land? Personally, I must rely on the education, experience, judgment, and logic that I have learned in the real world to even hope to play this game.
This additional schedule is intended as an addendum to the "Before you make a proposal" sticky, and should therefore be read in conjuction with same. However, the "real-world proposal" comes into effect when a nation request sanctions on George W Bush or the government of China or whatever. The example I saw recently (and will shamelessly plagiarise) is that a legal proposal would run something like "Sweden has a well-developed welfare system, so let's all have one of those", while an illegal one would run "Let's all invade Sweden".