Ladies and gentlemen of the UN! [Archive]

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 03:06

OOC:
Read the resolution ... in particular, I'd like to call your attention to the first sub-clause 4:

After the period of ten years and seven months ... electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, togther with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

I've gone ahead and highlighted the part you seem to have missed. Other forms of electricity generation are still allowed. Geothermal, wind, small hydro, nuclear, biomass, tidal, etc. are a few alternatives to coal burning plants. I'd argue that the resolution even hints that you can still use coal plants "at your own risk". Look down near the bottom. The author was actually trying to avoid the god mode you've jumped into here.

Those of you thinking this resolution targeted automobiles or airplanes are really missing the point of the resolution as it was written. It's text doesn't really address non-point sources (vehicles) but rather focuses on reducing the burning of fossil fuels (such as coal) specifically for electricity generation at point sources. The author didn't get into non-point and point sources discussion in the text ... but I was reasonably certain that the focus was really designed on point sources because buildings ("all homes and places of work") were specifically mentioned in the resolution.

The reason I'm certain of this is because engines are different than turbines.

Here is how an "engine" (such as in a car, truck, boat, or plane) works. It has a series of pistons, which move when a combination of gasoline and oxygen are ignited. The motion of the pistons creates motion, which is used to turn a shaft, which in turn moves wheels or propelers. Electricity in a car, isn't taken from the movement of this shaft, but rather a belt is often used to pull just a small bit of motion away from the drive shaft in order to turn another shaft inside an induction coil (alternator). Remember, automobiles don't need radios, power windows, and head lights. If the only electricity you needed was to start your car, you could even *crank* start it -- such as was done 100 years ago. :)

Turbines don't make use of explosions to generate energy (electricity), but rather work on principals of thermodynamics ... turbine blades are placed in a moving fluid stream (gas or liquid), which physically pushes the blades. As the blades turn, they *directly* run a shaft which runs through an induction coil, to produce electricity. Coal plants still use turbines. Specifically, the coal heats the fluids that run through the impelor. Water wheels and windmills are turbines. Essentially this is old school physics. :)

The difference between point sources and non-point sources, is most of the energy in your car or airplane is used to move your motor and object from one place to another, while most of the energy in your power plant is transmitted to a remote source (say your computer).

Granted there are several typos in the resolution, but its point was clear enough for over 300 UN Delegates to endorse it as a proposal. It isn't nearly as bad as people are making it to be. I think the resolution could have been refined, but sometimes I personally like trying to watch people defend their ideas. I voted against it, but I also was happy to see the vote pass and be so close. And I do respect the resolution's author. He did some basic research and tried to come up with a solution to a problem he felt was important. I'd call it a good step in the right direction.

Reformentia

18-09-2005, 03:14

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 04:51

That's ALL burning of fossil fuels.

So yes, it does address vehicles, since they do that.

*sigh*
You are wrong, and I'll attempt to explain why.

You do understand how coal fired plants generate electricity, right? They *burn* the coal to heat water, and then the steam moves the blades of the turbine, which in turn rotates a drive shaft, which generates electricity while spinning in a magnetic housing.

That is completely different than how internal combustion works.

Let's look at that text again:
"all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted AND electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels"

The resolution never once mentions automobiles nor IC engines. It does very specifically talk about homes and vaguely talks about other forms of renewable power. Given these two points, it is very clear that the resolution was speaking towards *electricity* (power) use, not internal combustion engines.

Wolfish warned how about petty people were getting about being LEGAL and missing the big picture. I disagreed with him, stating that most nations will look at a resolution (which is nothing more but a r-e-c-o-m-e-n-d-a-t-i-o-n) and try to find the main point of the resolution. And while I think the fact that the resolution won is a strong indictator that more nations did in fact not find major fault with the wording, you are really working hard to prove Wolfish right.

I voted against it, because I thought it could be better written. But at the same time I think it is rather irresonsbile to hold the text as the only authority, because Wolfish's earlier point did have some truth to it as well. NationStates (I'm still talking out of character, because Axis Nova's post was really just godmoding 101 and I'm *not* going to dignify it with an in character response) never has and never will force players to pick domestic issues to be consistent with UN resolutions.

For example, the euthanasia daily issue ... in theory UN members should not even be allowed to *prohibit* euthanasia since resolution #43 legalised it back in Jan. 2004. This is there a LIMITIATION of the game (and if it is, people should cut it some slack) or an indication that UN resolutions aren't about the tiny details, but the larger picture because they are just statements of international opinion (much like the Real Life UN resolutions are). If UN resolutions were binding in Real Life, the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq, because UN resolutions would magically have stopped Iraq from building a weapons program (which never seems to have existed in the first place). When Bush would have said, "The US is going to invade Saddam Hussein because he is violating UN resolutions", France could have said, "Impossible, everybody follows UN resolutions to the letter."

That isn't the case in the real world, and given that there are now several NationStates daily issues that given UN players the chance to violate the *letter* of UN law, it is crystal clear to me and others that the NS UN really doesn't change our *laws*, but changes our national opinions. And as leaders of our imaginary nations, we sometimes get the chance (just like in real life) to turn things around again (hoping that nobody is paying too much attention to our nation's auto-generated flavour text).

On top of all that, the NS UN has already mandated via other resolutions solutions to non-point sources, i.e. automobiles (resolutions 18 and 39) *and* given that legal nit picks love to bump proposals for duplicating previous topics, don't you believe that the Most Glorious Hack (who saw this proposal ahead of time ... I was on IRC when he was talking about it) would have DELETED this if he felt it was duplicating those previous resolutions? I'll tell you exactly what the mIRC people were talking about when they saw this resolution ... they said that solar power is not capable of meeting the electricity demands of a nation of 1 billion people. They immediately caught the point of the resolution and a number of us starting talking about RL national energy portfolios to investigate with current technologies just how feasible we felt solar was compared to coal fired plants.

Axis Nova

18-09-2005, 06:22

OOC: How is it godmoding 101? The spirit of the resolution is irrelevant-- if spirit counted then repeals would never be needed.

It's the wording that makes the resolution. A nation that does not burn fossil fuels for ANY purpose is one with a crippled military. Why would my nation not wish to snag a bunch of territory that became easy pickings?

Anyways, Mikitivity, before you're so quick to hit the "omg godmod" button, perhaps you should reference my comments elsewhere on the subject of this ridiculous resolution-- I have specifically said that I am attempting to influence the outcome of both the vote (which didn't work) and the repeal.

This resolution points out a very basic flaw of the NS UN: a propensity for it to cut it's own throat as long as it helps the poor trees.

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 06:31

*sigh*
You are wrong, and I'll attempt to explain why.

You do understand how coal fired plants generate electricity, right? They *burn* the coal to heat water, and then the steam moves the blades of the turbine, which in turn rotates a drive shaft, which generates electricity while spinning in a magnetic housing.

That is completely different than how internal combustion works.

Let's look at that text again:
"all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted AND electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels"

The resolution never once mentions automobiles nor IC engines. It does very specifically talk about homes and vaguely talks about other forms of renewable power. Given these two points, it is very clear that the resolution was speaking towards *electricity* (power) use, not internal combustion engines.

Faulty logic, and I will explain why.

Internal combustion engines utilize controled explosions. The spark plug is necessary because it provides the necessary ignition to the fuel. Without the spark plug, the engine really does nothing. The problem is that a normal explosion is not controlled like this, thus making this ironic in that all it does is consume the fuel and burn itself out. It's really no different than your average camp fire.

Now, keep in mind it is effectively just burning the fuel in question at a rapid rate (which can produce explosion-like effects). Considering how the method works in effect and the fact the resolution mentions nothing about vehicles, the fact the resolution bans the burning of fossil fuels means that the ban must apply to all vehicles that use fossil fuels.

Wolfish warned how about petty people were getting about being LEGAL and missing the big picture. I disagreed with him, stating that most nations will look at a resolution (which is nothing more but a r-e-c-o-m-e-n-d-a-t-i-o-n) and try to find the main point of the resolution. And while I think the fact that the resolution won is a strong indictator that more nations did in fact not find major fault with the wording, you are really working hard to prove Wolfish right.

Wolfish is a fine poster and all, but Wolfish is also out of touch. The poster in question was lamenting about a set of standards that have since vanished from the UN. What the poster failed to mention, as I have discovered from digging, is that the set of standards in question forced the rules we have today in order to make the UN respectable. In essence, it is the people of the time Wolfish first joined the UN that are at fault for how the UN is today.

This is not a case of people being, as you so put it, petty. It is a case of people examining the resolution in question and comparing it with the realistic results of the ban in question. Considering legality is the primary determinant of whether or not a resolution has a chance at vote and content is secondary when one stops and examines how the current rules are, it is understandable that the people operating under the rules take a more literal viewpoint of what is said. Intent means nothing when intent is the last item of importance.

Finally, I ask that if you cannot respect the views of others when it comes to resolution interpretation that you do not in the same statement you call those views "petty" turn around and expose the views of another as being better. Especially when the views in question are in favor of an era that was so much in error that Max Barry had to make major alterations to the game.

I voted against it, because I thought it could be better written. But at the same time I think it is rather irresonsbile to hold the text as the only authority, because Wolfish's earlier point did have some truth to it as well. NationStates (I'm still talking out of character, because Axis Nova's post was really just godmoding 101 and I'm *not* going to dignify it with an in character response) never has and never will force players to pick domestic issues to be consistent with UN resolutions.

Wait, you're taking the invasion threat seriously? I've been taking it in the spirit I believe it is intended: A joke. Empty bluster that will result in nothing. Really, you are taking this a little too seriously.

For example, the euthanasia daily issue ... in theory UN members should not even be allowed to *prohibit* euthanasia since resolution #43 legalised it back in Jan. 2004. This is there a LIMITIATION of the game (and if it is, people should cut it some slack) or an indication that UN resolutions aren't about the tiny details, but the larger picture because they are just statements of international opinion (much like the Real Life UN resolutions are). If UN resolutions were binding in Real Life, the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq, because UN resolutions would magically have stopped Iraq from building a weapons program (which never seems to have existed in the first place). When Bush would have said, "The US is going to invade Saddam Hussein because he is violating UN resolutions", France could have said, "Impossible, everybody follows UN resolutions to the letter."

That isn't the case in the real world, and given that there are now several NationStates daily issues that given UN players the chance to violate the *letter* of UN law, it is crystal clear to me and others that the NS UN really doesn't change our *laws*, but changes our national opinions. And as leaders of our imaginary nations, we sometimes get the chance (just like in real life) to turn things around again (hoping that nobody is paying too much attention to our nation's auto-generated flavour text).

This does not mesh with the rules as presented. Operating under the rules as presented, which includes the rule of optionality in Max Barry's FAQ, means that the UN resolutions are binding, no matter your opinion of them. I'll have to look it up again, but I thought I saw a post by the UN Gnomes stating they simply change the law to be in compliance as soon as you tried not to comply.

On top of all that, the NS UN has already mandated via other resolutions solutions to non-point sources, i.e. automobiles (resolutions 18 and 39) *and* given that legal nit picks love to bump proposals for duplicating previous topics, don't you believe that the Most Glorious Hack (who saw this proposal ahead of time ... I was on IRC when he was talking about it) would have DELETED this if he felt it was duplicating those previous resolutions? I'll tell you exactly what the mIRC people were talking about when they saw this resolution ... they said that solar power is not capable of meeting the electricity demands of a nation of 1 billion people. They immediately caught the point of the resolution and a number of us starting talking about RL national energy portfolios to investigate with current technologies just how feasible we felt solar was compared to coal fired plants.

This makes me question how much reading of the topic this stems from you have completed. On there, powering a nation as a whole was a major complaint, and it is the driving force behind the repeal attempt. Besides, the resolution you mention does not actually mandate anything. It just tells people to start developping hydrogen power for cars, but says nothing about them finishing said development.

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 06:58

OOC: How is it godmoding 101? The spirit of the resolution is irrelevant-- if spirit counted then repeals would never be needed.

The minute you declared war on 30,000 nations 15-years from now. It is just plain silly, hence godmoding 101. Name a single historical example of a sane or insane government issuing a similar ultimatium to even 300 nations over their decision to change the way they make electricity.

It's the wording that makes the resolution. A nation that does not burn fossil fuels for ANY purpose is one with a crippled military. Why would my nation not wish to snag a bunch of territory that became easy pickings?

Did you ever read the UN forum back in Feb. 2004? I did, regularly. Do you remember Joccia? Joccia showed us that it isn't the wording that makes a resolution, but rather the interpetation of the wording. The brilliant thing is you can have your interpetation and plan a silly little invasion of 30,000 nations on the assumption that they won't have tanks and airplanes, but you're gonna find out that while you clearly did NOT read the resolution, that those of us that did, saw nothing in the wording that prohibited automobiles.

Resolutions are afterall recommendations. Remember the euthanasia resolution? Guess what, there is a daily issue in the game. As a UN member, I have the *chance* to outlaw it, DESPITE a UN resolution saying I can't. Clearly the words of UN resolutions don't matter nearly as much as you are suggesting.

Anyways, Mikitivity, before you're so quick to hit the "omg godmod" button, perhaps you should reference my comments elsewhere on the subject of this ridiculous resolution-- I have specifically said that I am attempting to influence the outcome of both the vote (which didn't work) and the repeal.

This resolution points out a very basic flaw of the NS UN: a propensity for it to cut it's own throat as long as it helps the poor trees.

Influencing votes is fine. I know a number of nations were very outspoken during the vote ... but I also happen to believe threats, even 15-years from now, are still threats and silly. There are much more productive ways, and threatening a repeal and telegramming for it is one option. Working with the author in a less hostile way also is much more likely to get a better result.

The resolution clearly was limiting fossil fuel power generation. I'm not sure if natural gas was lumped in with that, but coal is usually considered the flagship of fossil fuel electricity / power generation *problems*. Coal itself burns differently depending upon the deposit. IIRC, Pennsylvannia coal was dirty as all hell ... horrible stuff. While Montana coal is much cleaner burning. It makes sense of course, because they were different plants when they died.

It will take me a few minutes to rehunt down the CA Energy Commission data that I was looking at last week on mIRC with a few other NationStates players, but I think it is *long* past overdue that we really ground ourselves a bit *if* we are going to argue that fossil fuels are problem that there is no easy solution to (i.e. constrain ourselves to RL physics ... which may or may not be valid in NationStates).

Ah, yes here is the data now ... :)

http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/energysources.html

That is just California, but I think its numbers represent a good starting point. In 2004, coal was a smaller percentage of CA's energy, but natural gas is a large and key component of the CA energy market.

The question I think that should be discussed has NOTHING to do with automobiles and internal combustion engines, as they aren't regulated for *electrical* generation, but rather the importance of natural gas in electricity generation and its role in global warming (which is ultimately what that resolution was about).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Power_generation

Natural gas is important as a major source for electricity generation through the use of gas turbines and steam turbines. Particularly high efficiencies can be achieved through combining gas turbines with a steam turbine in combined cycle mode. Environmentally, natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, and produces fewer greenhouse gases.

I'll repeat this again, I voted against the resolution, because I found a few more things I didn't like about it than I did things I liked. But I do not think it was a horrible resolution ... certainly not deserving of silly godmoding! I think the author tried his best to promote something that was important to him, and I'm pleased to see he is willing to work on new language.

But I find it disappointed that people are looking for legal tricks to shut down cars and aircraft (which Hack would have deleted the proposal for duplicating previous resolutions if it *did* do that ... so it doesn't), when they've really ignored looking at the intent of the proposal. Cars and aircraft don't need fossil fuels for electricity generation ... once they get moving, they can generate (and do) their own electricity.

I've found Wiki energy articles to often be pretty good. In this case, I think it is worth highlighting that natural gas is not a renewable energy source, it is afterall a fossil fuel and will run out, but at the same time, it is a relatively clean energy source. The author made it clear that his nation was worried about global warming (remember the reference of the ice caps melting that everybody was upset by?) ... not having the data at hand, I'd say that there is a *possibility* that natural gas produces less methane than large reservoirs do, and given that the intent of the resolution was really to mitigate massive climate change, I think natural gas wasn't what was intended by the resolution.

A far more productive way to change opinions isn't to try and convince 6-10 nations to go to war with 30,000 UN members ... that is frankly silly, and ultimately 10,000s of nations will just ignore the effort. A better way would be to *use* data and reports to prove a case that sometimes fossil fuels aren't completely bad.

Axis Nova

18-09-2005, 07:01

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 07:18

Faulty logic, and I will explain why.

This does not mesh with the rules as presented. Operating under the rules as presented, which includes the rule of optionality in Max Barry's FAQ, means that the UN resolutions are binding, no matter your opinion of them. I'll have to look it up again, but I thought I saw a post by the UN Gnomes stating they simply change the law to be in compliance as soon as you tried not to comply.

Fact:
There is a daily issue that allows players to decide if they want to outlaw euthanasia.

Fact:
There is a UN resolution that legalized euthanasia.

Fact:
All nations, including UN members, may choose to make it illegal when the issue comes up.

Fact:
Not one nation has ever been kicked out of the NS UN for choosing to make euthanasia illegal *after* the passage of the UN resolution.

The NationStates FAQ is not a UN FAQ. It has a small section about the UN, but it only really just sets a few ground rules. Most of the UN rules are in fact derived by the game moderators (people like the Most Glorious Hack and Frisbeeteria). They in fact have allowed nations to roleplay *non-compliance* to UN resolutions and also have encouraged nations to interpet resolutions however they like.

If you want to pretend some gnomes (which is just a puppet of the Most Glorious Hack) walk to your nations legislature and write your nation's laws, that is fine. NationStates has for YEARS established that it is your nation and you are entitled to believing whatever you like. But you have NO RIGHT to tell any other nation that some little tiny people with pointed hats are writing the laws for their nations if they say this is not the case. To do so is god moding ... it is telling other people how their "story" plays out.

Given that the game itself doesn't enforce UN resolutions and given that the "roleplaying" rules that the moderators enforce encourage players to be their own maters of their nations / story, I think the idea that there will be 30,000 nations using horse carts because of this resolution is absurd.

As for the resolution itself, it was abudantly clear that it was talking about electricity. In a standard transmission automobile, if your battery (power supply) is dead, you can start your car by pushing it (down a hill works best) -- but if your car is out of gas, it is only going to travel to the bottom of the hill.

As for the spark plugs, you've missed the point ... the electricity ignites the fuel to generate *motion*, while in an electric power plant, the fuel is used to *heat* a gas to create electricity. Remember, older cars are crank started. This resolution was clear that it wasn't the fuel that was its concern, but the use of that fuel to generate electricity. Homes don't move, and yet they are mentioned in the resolution as the point of application for the alternative energy source. Cars have already been addressed TWICE by the UN, and it is a moderator enforced rule that duplicate resolutions are not allowed ... thus this one would have been deleted if it was focused on automobiles.

The author included language to give slack to nations that can't use solar panels (the second clause 2) ... and even set up provisions to help other nations. I think he did a pretty good job trying to foresee some of the complaints people would have against the resolution and I'll point out that he is participating in an effort to draft text for a possible replacement.

Greater Boblandia

18-09-2005, 07:33

Originally Posted by Axis Nova
Give me credit for not being an idiot, Mikitivity. If I actually did proceed on such a course of action, I'd only do it a few nations at a time. With their military reduced to pre-industrial technology, it would be a simple matter to hold them in line with a relatively low Amount of men and equipment.
"Hardly more than a stroll beneath a tropical sun," eh?

You have openly announced that you intend to invade approximately 30,000 nations after a set period of time. You've basically made the fatal mistake of laying your plans on the table for all to see. Ignoring the obvious godmodding aspect to your plans, what on earth is going to stop these nations from, say, joining together, forming some sort of grand army of the United Nations (not officially sponsored, of course), and absolutely devastating your nation and silly plans for empire, long before the ten year and seven month point?

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 07:36

Give me credit for not being an idiot, Mikitivity. If I actually did proceed on such a course of action, I'd only do it a few nations at a time. With their military reduced to pre-industrial technology, it would be a simple matter to hold them in line with a relatively low Amount of men and equipment.

You do understand that F-16s and M1s are both completely legal to own and use by the resolution (as I've proven above). You bring in a relatively low amount of men and equipment, and you'll not be facing swords and plowsheers. You'll be facing the exact same military might you would have faced yesterday.

Furthermore, the idea that a relatively low amount of men and equipment can hold a territory is flawed too. RL Example: Iraq. The terrorists or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them, seem to have no problems sending American soldiers back home in body bags. The US economy is large enough and advanced enough we should have swallowed Iraq by now ... we haven't. Why is that????

Your assumption that the resolution targets automobiles is wrong. I seriously doubt that if you drop a tank or two in another UN nation that they are going to say they had to throw away their tanks because of a resolution encouraging nations to use solar power to generate ELECTRICITY. Furthermore, the idea that you'll be fighting only nations less than your tech level is problematic too ... you could find your god mode responded to by somebody else's god mode in the form of an empire of ewoks, each carrying pocket sized solar powered Death Stars.

Did you read Wolfish's post? I thought he was warning that people weren't really talking about the issues, and you aren't -- you are using a THREAT to intimidate others into following your view point and you aren't really talking about electrical generation. The resolution had nothing to do with how cars or tanks or planes are powered ... it is about how electricity is created to power your house and your office:

"1) Begin projects to promote Solar Panels in all homes and places of work"

The very first bloody clause of the resolution! I know you've been around for a while here, but you've not written a resolution yet ... so please consider that when somebody writes a resolution, that their first points are used to "frame" or "limit" the scope of the rest of the resolution. These first points are used to often "define" the problem and get things started, and I put tremendous stock in the first few lines of any resolution. I am certain that most everybody who has authored a resolution will tend to agree with me, and with that in mind, I think it is really important to consider on just what is being said at the beginning here.

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 07:51

Fact:
There is a daily issue that allows players to decide if they want to outlaw euthanasia.

Fact:
There is a UN resolution that legalized euthanasia.

Fact:
All nations, including UN members, may choose to make it illegal when the issue comes up.

Fact:
Not one nation has ever been kicked out of the NS UN for choosing to make euthanasia illegal *after* the passage of the UN resolution.

Fact: The mods and admins have already stated they cannot remove these due to nations outside the UN.

Fact: The amount of coding necessary to separate the daily issues section based on UN membership is too much to be worth it.

Fact: The daily issues are voluntary. You do not even have to recieve them.

Fact: The amount of effort it would take to write coding to eject members from the UN for noncompliance is also not worth the effort to write.

Fact: The mods have stated they mostly do not moderate RPs. That includes for UN compliance.

Fact: The Hackian Laws specifically rely on the section about compliance in one section of the rules on MetaGaming:

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Fact: Nothing in the rules states that the Max Barry FAQ may be ignored. In fact, by all evidence I see it is the basis of the current rules and is supposed to be followed in addition to the rules on here.

The NationStates FAQ is not a UN FAQ. It has a small section about the UN, but it only really just sets a few ground rules. Most of the UN rules are in fact derived by the game moderators (people like the Most Glorious Hack and Frisbeeteria). They in fact have allowed nations to roleplay *non-compliance* to UN resolutions and also have encouraged nations to interpet resolutions however they like.

The section I have bolded is very important. It sets the ground rules, the rules on which all of the others are built. The mods may choose to allow the nations to roleplay noncompliance, but that is mostly through them not regulating roleplays in most cases. At least one of the mods refers to noncompliance roleplays as a form of wank, indicating that at the very least it is not intended to be a sign that noncompliance is actually allowed.

If you want to pretend some gnomes (which is just a puppet of the Most Glorious Hack) walk to your nations legislature and write your nation's laws, that is fine. NationStates has for YEARS established that it is your nation and you are entitled to believing whatever you like. But you have NO RIGHT to tell any other nation that some little tiny people with pointed hats are writing the laws for their nations if they say this is not the case. To do so is god moding ... it is telling other people how their "story" plays out.

I am fully aware of who the gnomes are. Most Glorious Hack and I recently had an interaction over that puppet because a post of mine was misinterpreted in intent, which was entirely my fault for not including an OOC warning to indicate the post was intended to be a case of a nation faking a news story to try to make themselves look better. Considering the tech level, I understand if most people prefer to gloss over it. It was just intended to present a viewpoint that was being ignored.

If a person is breaking the rules, saying "You cannot do that" is not a form of godmodding, godmoding, cheating, ruleswank, or whatever you wish to call it. It is a case of pointing out that they are attempting something that is outside the scope of the actual rules. If everyone is fine with it, then I do not see the problem of them continuing. But if everyone is not fine with it or it is on this forum, then I see it as perfectly acceptable as a tactic. It's no different than if you play DnD and use the purely medieval setting and someone wants an uzi.

Given that the game itself doesn't enforce UN resolutions and given that the "roleplaying" rules that the moderators enforce encourage players to be their own maters of their nations / story, I think the idea that there will be 30,000 nations using horse carts because of this resolution is absurd.

Cool. I'll tell the TPP they have no right to try to bring me to trial simply because I exterminated some group of people just because I disliked their ears due to the "'roleplaying' rules that the moderators enforce encourag[ing] players to be their own maters of their nations / story" and see how well they react. Whatever they reply, I'll tell them to talk to you and say that you said it's okay. Which, essentially, you are.

As for the resolution itself, it was abudantly clear that it was talking about electricity. In a standard transmission automobile, if your battery (power supply) is dead, you can start your car by pushing it (down a hill works best) -- but if your car is out of gas, it is only going to travel to the bottom of the hill.

Not entirely true. The resolution made it clear it is doing two things: Establishing a method of power generation for objects of a nonvehicular type and removing petrol from the equation. The person who submitted it mentioned it multiple times, if you combine the resolution with their posts. The goals were two-fold, not one. The mistake you are making is that you are assuming that only the most obvious goal, the one based on the name, is the only goal.

As for the spark plugs, you've missed the point ... the electricity ignites the fuel to generate *motion*, while in an electric power plant, the fuel is used to *heat* a gas to create electricity. Remember, older cars are crank started. This resolution was clear that it wasn't the fuel that was its concern, but the use of that fuel to generate electricity. Homes don't move, and yet they are mentioned in the resolution as the point of application for the alternative energy source. Cars have already been addressed TWICE by the UN, and it is a moderator enforced rule that duplicate resolutions are not allowed ... thus this one would have been deleted if it was focused on automobiles.

Find something in the resolution that backs this viewpoint. I wish a quote of it. And, I don't mean take something that exists and add your own spin to it. I mean a quote that obviously backs what you are saying without a need for you to remove text or rely extremely on trying to reinterpret words from the obvious definitions.

The author included language to give slack to nations that can't use solar panels (the second clause 2) ... and even set up provisions to help other nations. I think he did a pretty good job trying to foresee some of the complaints people would have against the resolution and I'll point out that he is participating in an effort to draft text for a possible replacement.

I won't comment on this, simply because the comments are obvious.

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 08:05

Krioval

18-09-2005, 08:20

Heck, if the concern is godmodding, Krioval is not part of the UN and possesses FT weaponry. But that's almost beside the point. Krioval wouldn't be stupid enough to invade UN members; we'd subvert them economically and culturally. Imagine a nation completely dependent on fossil fuels for, well, nearly every aspect of their economy. Barring divine intervention, they'll be only partway toward the solar conversion (and this assumes that they don't live in somewhere like Antarctica) by the time the axe falls.

Then in swoops wonderful, benevolent Krioval, with our exotic FT power generators, motors, and other cool devices that essentially rebuild a nation's shattered economy. The only thing we require is that nobody reverse-engineer any of our technology. Thus, it is ultimately Krioval that would dominate that nation's economic growth for quite some time. Let's face it - if a person had the choice between two toasters, both of which cost $50, and one was guaranteed to last for fifty years (and the other decidedly not), guess which one would become the top choice.

While "helping out", Krioval would begin to open its target's markets to Kriovalian culture. The two-pronged attack on that nation's economy and culture would eventually lead either to Krioval's ascendancy over that nation or that nation's resistance; in the latter case Krioval would simply pull all of its investment. The newly retooled economy of that nation would collapse and Krioval's military could invade following the inevitable civil war over scarce resources.

Or, if we were to supply power without major restrictions for a generation or so, most of the up-and-coming politicians wouldn't conceive of a life without Kriovalian inventions, and relations would strengthen as a result. This is also satisfying as it would likely enrich Krioval at little cost to its stability. Plus, arming new military allies would give us even greater influence.

So really, this resolution benefits Krioval greatly. Go UN, go! :cool:

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 08:38

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll give it a go for old time's sake..

Fact: The mods and admins have already stated they cannot remove these due to nations outside the UN.

Fact: The amount of coding necessary to separate the daily issues section based on UN membership is too much to be worth it.

Fact: The daily issues are voluntary. You do not even have to recieve them.

Fact: The amount of effort it would take to write coding to eject members from the UN for noncompliance is also not worth the effort to write.

Fact: The mods have stated they mostly do not moderate RPs. That includes for UN compliance.

Aside from #2, you're just explaining why things are the way they are rather than justifying your position. Leave off with the red herrings, eh? There's something fishy about them.

Even #2 seems irrelevant. I mean, sure we can stop receiving daily issues so we don't contradict UN resolutions, but why would we when we don't have to and can make our own policies?

Would I RP an incredibly unrealistic FT nation that's highly inconsistent with my nation page and then insist on refusing issues because they'll be inconsistent with my UN stat changes? I just might. The truth is that almost none of us roleplay in complete consistency with our national stats. We generally pick and choose what we want to incorporate into our roleplay, and that's fine as far as I can tell.

Fact: The Hackian Laws specifically rely on the section about compliance in one section of the rules on MetaGaming:

It's my impression that both the "Optionality" rule and the "binding" bit in the FAQ stem from the fact that the NSUN affects your nation's stats regardless of roleplay.

Fact: Nothing in the rules states that the Max Barry FAQ may be ignored. In fact, by all evidence I see it is the basis of the current rules and is supposed to be followed in addition to the rules on here.

Or it's a simple (perhaps oversimplified, in some cases) explanation of the various game components, which may include rules in some cases. That seems to fit with the whole "Frequently Asked Questions" thing.

The section I have bolded is very important. It sets the ground rules, the rules on which all of the others are built. The mods may choose to allow the nations to roleplay noncompliance, but that is mostly through them not regulating roleplays in most cases. At least one of the mods refers to noncompliance roleplays as a form of wank, indicating that at the very least it is not intended to be a sign that noncompliance is actually allowed.

I'm curious. Does the use of the term "techwank" suggest a similar thing to you? Is using technology by itself frowned upon just because a Mod used the term "techwank"? I think the connection that you're proposing between noncompliance and wank is tenuous at best. Like most other RP possibilities, there is good RPed tech and bad RPed tech; good RPed noncompliance and bad RPed noncompliance.

I am fully aware of who the gnomes are. Most Glorious Hack and I recently had an interaction over that puppet because a post of mine was misinterpreted in intent, which was entirely my fault for not including an OOC warning to indicate the post was intended to be a case of a nation faking a news story to try to make themselves look better. Considering the tech level, I understand if most people prefer to gloss over it. It was just intended to present a viewpoint that was being ignored.

Ignored by some, maybe. I have an FT nation or two myself so I tend to be more sensitive to those issues. I hope you were able to enlighten some folks as to you peculiar situation, however.

Cool. I'll tell the TPP they have no right to try to bring me to trial simply because I exterminated some group of people just because I disliked their ears due to the "'roleplaying' rules that the moderators enforce encourag[ing] players to be their own maters of their nations / story" and see how well they react. Whatever they reply, I'll tell them to talk to you and say that you said it's okay. Which, essentially, you are.

As a TPP member, I would be fine with a nation refusing to RP with the TPP. There's little point in doing an interactive RP when the person you're interacting with isn't inclined to participate.

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 08:41

So really, this resolution benefits Krioval greatly. Go UN, go! :cool:

Heh. I have to admit I was looking foreward to making a Solar Panels storefront in II just for the UN nations. :D

Axis Nova

18-09-2005, 08:41

"Hardly more than a stroll beneath a tropical sun," eh?

You have openly announced that you intend to invade approximately 30,000 nations after a set period of time. You've basically made the fatal mistake of laying your plans on the table for all to see.

Duh, if I didn't then people would have no reason to pass a repeal.

Ignoring the obvious godmodding aspect to your plans,

:rolleyes:

what on earth is going to stop these nations from, say, joining together, forming some sort of grand army of the United Nations (not officially sponsored, of course), and absolutely devastating your nation and silly plans for empire, long before the ten year and seven month point?

The same thing that keeps the UN from attempting to conquer all other non-UN nations?

Also, without going into too much detail, modern armies do not generally work very well when they try to travel across thousands of miles worth of radioactive wasteland.

You do understand that F-16s and M1s are both completely legal to own and use by the resolution (as I've proven above). You bring in a relatively low amount of men and equipment, and you'll not be facing swords and plowsheers. You'll be facing the exact same military might you would have faced yesterday.

Guess how many pieces of machinery that use fossil fuels in one way or another directly or indirectly produce these things and the stuff neccesary to maintain them?

Furthermore, the idea that a relatively low amount of men and equipment can hold a territory is flawed too. RL Example: Iraq. The terrorists or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them, seem to have no problems sending American soldiers back home in body bags. The US economy is large enough and advanced enough we should have swallowed Iraq by now ... we haven't. Why is that????

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion; Axis Nova is not the United States of America and random UN nations are not Iraq. For example, not having signed any sort of convention on what weapons I can and can't use in war, I could simply choose to ruthlessly exterminate the populace with biological and chemical weapons. Fortunately, my nation is not particularly cruel when it doesn't need to be.

Your assumption that the resolution targets automobiles is wrong.

Your assumption that I assume the resolution ONLY targets automobiles is wrong. You'd be suprised how many industrial processes use petroleum in one form or another.

I seriously doubt that if you drop a tank or two in another UN nation that they are going to say they had to throw away their tanks because of a resolution encouraging nations to use solar power to generate ELECTRICITY.

And yet, I have a number of nuclear missile silos off the coast of Chellis due to the Law of the Sea resolution. Funny how these things work out, eh?

Furthermore, the idea that you'll be fighting only nations less than your tech level is problematic too ... you could find your god mode responded to by somebody else's god mode in the form of an empire of ewoks, each carrying pocket sized solar powered Death Stars.

You know, calling any and all actions regarding this theoretical conquest campaign "god moding" is really getting quite irritating. Please cease attempting to flame bait me.

As for FT tech, if someone uses theirs, I can simply either bypass that nation or use my own FT tech if I so choose. We do have a system for this in II, you know.

Did you read Wolfish's post? I thought he was warning that people weren't really talking about the issues, and you aren't -- you are using a THREAT to intimidate others into following your view point and you aren't really talking about electrical generation. The resolution had nothing to do with how cars or tanks or planes are powered...

Of course it didn't, but that isn't keeping it from having unintended side effects. This is why real UN proposals get scrutinized by vast batteries of lawyers: to find little glitches like the one that just slipped through.

I know you've been around for a while here, but you've not written a resolution yet ... so please consider that when somebody writes a resolution, that their first points are used to "frame" or "limit" the scope of the rest of the resolution. These first points are used to often "define" the problem and get things started, and I put tremendous stock in the first few lines of any resolution. I am certain that most everybody who has authored a resolution will tend to agree with me, and with that in mind, I think it is really important to consider on just what is being said at the beginning here.

What the rest of the resolution says is rather irrelevant. Resolutions are implemented and mean what they say, ALL of what they say-- not just specific parts of it. Whatever the aim of the resolution, UN nations will end up screwed out of modern industry due to not being able to use fossil fuels.

Forgottenlands

18-09-2005, 08:57

The Colony of Forgottenlands UN and the Empire of Forgottenlands have arranged a deal to address the issue of the solar panels. Considering that the two nations keep their economies tied, even though their political bodies are seperate, we felt that we could maneuver around to make a mutual beneficial agreement.

The Empire of Forgottenlands hereby annexes all territory of Forgottenlands UN except the parliment, executive offices and judicial offices. All other territories now belong to the Empire of Forgottenlands. Considering that citizenship was already consolidated between the two nations, we have no issues of borders to contend with, and those that are officially, according to UN statistics, are citizens of Forgottenlands UN still live in their old homes, but on property belonging to Forgottenlands UN. As such, we have found that compliance with this resolution is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and we now have "oil free" regions within the major centers of Forgottenlands UN.

This was seen as the much more practical, environmentally safe, and economically secure manner of approaching this resolution, and ended up to be beneficial to the power supply for the two nations - though to a negligable degree.

That said, most citizens are understandable nervous about this new situation and are eager to see their territory returned to them. The Empire of Forgottenlands, which let the colony politically seperate from her in order for her to pursue her wish of being a part of the UN, is not interested in making it look like a hostile takeover.

It should be noted that no building on the Empire's territory is required to comply with this resolution.

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 09:01

Aside from #2, you're just explaining why things are the way they are rather than justifying your position. Leave off with the red herrings, eh? There's something fishy about them.

Actually, I was pointing out that things are not the way they appear. The evidence appears to support the idea of the resolutions not being binding, but the real issue is the technical problems behind the scenes and a moderation policy that effectively tie the hands of the moderators and admins. They don't enforce the idea of the resolutions being binding because they simply can't do it everywhere they need to.

Even #2 seems irrelevant. I mean, sure we can stop receiving daily issues so we don't contradict UN resolutions, but why would we when we don't have to and can make our own policies?

Would I RP an incredibly unrealistic FT nation that's highly inconsistent with my nation page and then insist on refusing issues because they'll be inconsistent with my UN stat changes? I just might. The truth is that almost none of us roleplay in complete consistency with our national stats. We generally pick and choose what we want to incorporate into our roleplay, and that's fine as far as I can tell.

Actually, I was making a point. His issue of the daily issues is a case of they are not as important as he makes them out to be because they are entirely voluntary on the whole. Just like UN membership is not as important as many make it out to be. He's making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's my impression that both the "Optionality" rule and the "binding" bit in the FAQ stem from the fact that the NSUN affects your nation's stats regardless of roleplay.

It would be nice if we had an indicator of that. Until we do, the only thing we have are that they are binding and no indicator that it is limited to a particular aspect.

Or it's a simple (perhaps oversimplified, in some cases) explanation of the various game components, which may include rules in some cases. That seems to fit with the whole "Frequently Asked Questions" thing.

Except, it also lays down rules to be followed as well. Which fits with some of the FAQs on these forums.

I'm curious. Does the use of the term "techwank" suggest a similar thing to you? Is using technology by itself frowned upon just because a Mod used the term "techwank"? I think the connection that you're proposing between noncompliance and wank is tenuous at best. Like most other RP possibilities, there is good RPed tech and bad RPed tech; good RPed noncompliance and bad RPed noncompliance.

The way I have seen it used suggests that the viewpoint in question refers to all noncompliance, which is different from techwank.

Ignored by some, maybe. I have an FT nation or two myself so I tend to be more sensitive to those issues. I hope you were able to enlighten some folks as to you peculiar situation, however.

I think parking my entire nation in an orbit that effectively blocks the Earth from recieving sunlight and sending out a fake news broadcast that says I won't move unless the ban is repealed and that I also won't fire on anybody unless threatened got it across.

As a TPP member, I would be fine with a nation refusing to RP with the TPP. There's little point in doing an interactive RP when the person you're interacting with isn't inclined to participate.

Actually, I was saying that Mikitivity's argument suggests I can say I am in noncompliance with the Eon Convention, slaughter 150 million people because they have pointed ears, and then tell the TPP they cannot do anything to me because I am in noncompliance with the resolution.

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 09:21

Actually, I was pointing out that things are not the way they appear. The evidence appears to support the idea of the resolutions not being binding, but the real issue is the technical problems behind the scenes and a moderation policy that effectively tie the hands of the moderators and admins. They don't enforce the idea of the resolutions being binding because they simply can't do it everywhere they need to.

Really? I thought it just made no sense to enforce compliance in RP because we allow free-form RP here, and that they don't even need to enforce what the game mechanics already do to your nation's stats.

Actually, I was making a point. His issue of the daily issues is a case of they are not as important as he makes them out to be because they are entirely voluntary on the whole. Just like UN membership is not as important as many make it out to be. He's making a mountain out of a molehill.

You ever sat on a molehill?

It would be nice if we had an indicator of that. Until we do, the only thing we have are that they are binding and no indicator that it is limited to a particular aspect.

I agree. It would be nice if the UN section of the FAQ were clarified.

Except, it also lays down rules to be followed as well. Which fits with some of the FAQs on these forums.

References?

The way I have seen it used suggests that the viewpoint in question refers to all noncompliance, which is different from techwank.

How so? Are you suggesting that only certain types of tech can become wank, whereas all noncompliance is automatically wank?

Actually, I was saying that Mikitivity's argument suggests I can say I am in noncompliance with the Eon Convention, slaughter 150 million people because they have pointed ears, and then tell the TPP they cannot do anything to me because I am in noncompliance with the resolution.

And he's right. You can.

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 09:33

Really? I thought it just made no sense to enforce compliance in RP because we allow free-form RP here, and that they don't even need to enforce what the game mechanics already do to your nation's stats.

Which, while ignoring the technical problems, contradicts what I said in what way? Add the technical issues to that and it doesn't contradict.

You ever sat on a molehill?

Grenades work really well on clearing them.

I agree. It would be nice if the UN section of the FAQ were clarified.

Agreed.

References?

The One Stop Rules Shop.

How so? Are you suggesting that only certain types of tech can become wank, whereas all noncompliance is automatically wank?

I'm suggesting the usage of the term by that mod indicates all noncompliance is wank, while techwank has a list of relativities that determine whether or not it actually is techwank.

And he's right. You can.

Aye. I can. But how are they going to react to the idea I am refusing to comply with the resolution that gives them power while at the same time not refusing to RP? If Mikitivity is right, I have effectively tied their hands and they can do nothing, including even attempt a trial. But, if Mikitivity tries it, I can pull examples from the TPP forum that show the TPP attempting to do it anyway.

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 09:44

Which, while ignoring the technical problems, contradicts what I said in what way? Add the technical issues to that and it doesn't contradict.

The technical problems are irrelevant. The enforcement issue is determined by the two factors I mentioned.

The One Stop Rules Shop.

Which is a FAQ how? The OSRS is meant to spell out the rules, not explain how to play the game. There is obviously going to be some overlap because the rules affect how we play the game, but the two literary forms have different purposes. One is definitive, laying out what the rules are. The other is explanatory, telling us how to play the game. Let's not treat the FAQ like it's an OSRS.

I'm suggesting the usage of the term by that mod indicates all noncompliance is wank, while techwank has a list of relativities that determine whether or not it actually is techwank.

Can you substantiate that Mod's apparent position via the current rules?

Aye. I can. But how are they going to react to the idea I am refusing to comply with the resolution that gives them power while at the same time not refusing to RP? If Mikitivity is right, I have effectively tied their hands and they can do nothing, including even attempt a trial. But, if Mikitivity tries it, I can pull examples from the TPP forum that show the TPP attempting to do it anyway.

Ummm...you're attempting to prove what you see as self-evident bad form on the part of the TPP? :confused: Isn't that just a roundabout way of obscuring the central issue of compliance and putting the focus on your opponent's behavior?

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 10:10

The technical problems are irrelevant. The enforcement issue is determined by the two factors I mentioned.

Not really. There is also the issue of player complaints, which the mods get about the daily issues even now. The mods face a simple problem of not being able to realistically enforce the resolutions as being binding simply because of game mechanics issues. At the end of the day, the path they have is less work, and for them the better one.

Which is a FAQ how? The OSRS is meant to spell out the rules, not explain how to play the game. There is obviously going to be some overlap because the rules affect how we play the game, but the two literary forms have different purposes. One is definitive, laying out what the rules are. The other is explanatory, telling us how to play the game. Let's not treat the FAQ like it's an OSRS.

Hmm. I see your point. But, I did find this interesting tidbit there:

A Note concerning the NationStates Terms of Service (TOS) and FAQ: While it should go without saying, some players apparently think the TOS and FAQ don't apply on the forums. They do. Don't be stupid.

This post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784670&postcount=7

Want a FAQ that also acts as rules? Here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438230

It clearly is a FAQ, but also includes rules about how to be a mod and how to nominate someone for modhood.

Can you substantiate that Mod's apparent position via the current rules?

Using the One Stop Rules Shop I can. See the reply right before this.

Ummm...you're attempting to prove what you see as self-evident bad form on the part of the TPP? :confused: Isn't that just a roundabout way of obscuring the central issue of compliance and putting the focus on your opponent's behavior?

No. It's a way of showing what I consider a bad defense of his position. His position:

Given that the game itself doesn't enforce UN resolutions and given that the "roleplaying" rules that the moderators enforce encourage players to be their own maters of their nations / story, I think the idea that there will be 30,000 nations using horse carts because of this resolution is absurd.

I have found an example very close to him that directly contradicts what he is saying about the resolutions not at least attempting to affect a player, no matter their compliance level. It is a case where a group has been established, by the UN, to attempt to force people into compliance and to remove them from being entirely in charge of their own RPs.

The Most Glorious Hack

18-09-2005, 10:20

Mik? How are you planning on making steel?

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 10:37

Not really. There is also the issue of player complaints, which the mods get about the daily issues even now. The mods face a simple problem of not being able to realistically enforce the resolutions as being binding simply because of game mechanics issues. At the end of the day, the path they have is less work, and for them the better one.

There's no problem with enforcement because of game mechanics issues. Enforcement is automatic. Your nations stats change a tad when a resolution goes through. See, no problems there.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the Mods can't enforce the binding naure of resolutions in all the areas of NS (issues, roleplay), and thus it's not binding. I tend to disagree. You're nations stats changing is a binding effect. It alone may not provide us with the consistency our rationalistic minds would like, but that seems sort of a moot point for our purposes.

Hmm. I see your point. But, I did find this interesting tidbit there:

Ah. I remember that one. I'll go make another comment in the OSRS Comments thread and see if Fris will clarify it.

Want a FAQ that also acts as rules? Here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438230

It clearly is a FAQ, but also includes rules about how to be a mod and how to nominate someone for modhood.

The FAQ about Mods and the "Suggest a New Mod" are two separate posts and clearly two different documents with disparate purposes. The first is a FAQ and the second lists rules. You're going to have to do better than that.

No. It's a way of showing what I consider a bad defense of his position. His position. I have found an example very close to him that directly contradicts what he is saying about the resolutions not at least attempting to affect a player, no matter their compliance level. It is a case where a group has been established, by the UN, to attempt to force people into compliance and to remove them from being entirely in charge of their own RPs.

Hypocrisy is not a fallacy. A person can certainly give good advice or make correct arguments without following through. We all make mistakes.

Reformentia

18-09-2005, 10:39

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 10:47

There's no problem with enforcement because of game mechanics issues. Enforcement is automatic. Your nations stats change a tad when a resolution goes through. See, no problems there.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the Mods can't enforce the binding naure of resolutions in all the areas of NS (issues, roleplay), and thus it's not binding. I tend to disagree. You're nations stats changing is a binding effect. It alone may not provide us with the consistency our rationalistic minds would like, but that seems sort of a moot point for our purposes.

No, what I'm saying is that they don't enforce it on all areas of the game because they can't enforce it on all areas. I'm also stating that just because they can't enforce it does not mean it's still not binding on all members, just that it's a rule members can get away with breaking in some aspects. Mikitivity is the one who said that just because they can't enforce it on all areas, it is not binding.

Ah. I remember that one. I'll go make another comment in the OSRS Comments thread and see if Fris will clarify it.

If I remember correctly, he's also the one who made the compliance wank comment.

The FAQ about Mods and the "Suggest a New Mod" are two separate posts and clearly two different documents with disparate purposes. The first is a FAQ and the second lists rules. You're going to have to do better than that.

Check it again. Here's a helpful quote from the first post:

How do I become a Moderator?

If you make helpful posts in Moderation, Technical, and anywhere else help is needed, the Mods will notice you. If you're kind, helpful, and level-headed, you may have what it takes to be a mod. When new mods are needed, you may be asked to become a Forum Mod.

Just a note: Don't ask to be a mod, that usually only hurts your chances. "Let your actions speak louder then your words."

That is expanded in the second post to include a more comprehensive set of rules, intended for nominating moderators. In effect, the quote and the second post are the rules for becomming a mod.

Hypocrisy is not a fallacy. A person can certainly give good advice or make correct arguments without following through. We all make mistakes.

Okay, could you please go back, ignore the fact he is part of it, and address my actual point?

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 11:03

No, what I'm saying is that they don't enforce it on all areas of the game because they can't enforce it on all areas. I'm also stating that just because they can't enforce it does not mean it's still not binding on all members, just that it's a rule members can get away with breaking in some aspects.

We'll see (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9659150&postcount=86) once I get a response to my post.

If I remember correctly, he's also the one who made the compliance wank comment.

*shrug* Maybe he did, but I only remember GMC doing it.

That is expanded in the second post to include a more comprehensive set of rules, intended for nominating moderators. In effect, the quote and the second post are the rules for becomming a mod.

You know I already pointed out that there's going to be some overlap between a FAQ and ruleset, right?

Okay, could you please go back, ignore the fact he is part of it, and address my actual point?

Your point was that there was an inconsistency between Mik's stated belief and TPP practice. I can't take him out of a point that you put him in as a central component. If you want me to recuse myself from discussing the point because it involves him directly and not me, that's fine.

Compadria

18-09-2005, 11:09

"The Global Empire of Axis Nova is about to be born. Do you wish a voice in how it is run, or simply to be an obstacle in our path to greatness?"

Can we just sit on the sidelines and make sarcastic comments from time to time?

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live free Compadria!

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 11:11

You know I already pointed out that there's going to be some overlap between a FAQ and ruleset, right?

Yeah. But, in this case, we have the FAQ establishing rules the ruleset later adapts and expands.

Your point was that there was an inconsistency between Mik's stated belief and TPP practice. I can't take him out of a point that you put him in as a central component. If you want me to recuse myself from discussing the point because it involves him directly and not me, that's fine.

Try this comment:

It is a case where a group has been established, by the UN, to attempt to force people into compliance and to remove them from being entirely in charge of their own RPs.

Texan Hotrodders

18-09-2005, 11:26

Yeah. But, in this case, we have the FAQ establishing rules the ruleset later adapts and expands.

Overlap, like I said. Some parts of a FAQ lay out rules because that's part of the explanation, some parts just explain without even mentioning rules.

Try this comment:

You may want to reword it first. As written, it looks like you're saying the point of the TPP was to get rid of free-form roleplay in a certain context. Maybe you could clarify?

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 11:40

Overlap, like I said. Some parts of a FAQ lay out rules because that's part of the explanation, some parts just explain without even mentioning rules.

When the main objective of a FAQ is to explain. This is one of the few sites I have seen where FAQs actually can lay out rules that were not originally elsewhere.

You may want to reword it first. As written, it looks like you're saying the point of the TPP was to get rid of free-form roleplay in a certain context. Maybe you could clarify?

He was arguing that NS is set up so that people are supposed to control their own RPs, no questions asked, and in several cases there are higher authorities intended to come into action at times, including the TPP.

Axis Nova

18-09-2005, 16:44

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 17:05

Actually, I was saying that Mikitivity's argument suggests I can say I am in noncompliance with the Eon Convention, slaughter 150 million people because they have pointed ears, and then tell the TPP they cannot do anything to me because I am in noncompliance with the resolution.

Your nation is new here, so I'm not sure if you are unfamiliar with NationStates or just moved to a new face, but the moderators frankly have not once ejected a nation from the UN from committing genocide.

Iraq and the US has plenty to do with this as well. Axis Nova's arguments are based on the idea that a token force with a minor technological edge can hold out over an entire country. Modern history is *showing* us that a technological advantage doesn't assure that one nation can *hold* another nation with only a token force. Now he claims he can and will ... which is why I'm calling it god moding. He is free to god mode, but I suspect that the more he makes claims that contradict real life examples, the fewer players will listen to anything he says.

Of course, this is aside from the point, as the resolution doesn't outlaw F-16s or M1s ... it recommends that nations use solar panels or (later in the text) other alternatives in order to generate electricity for home and office use. Now if a nation uses F-16s and M1s to actually generate and distribute electricity you might have a point. But that too is just silly.

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 17:21

Heck, if the concern is godmodding, Krioval is not part of the UN and possesses FT weaponry. But that's almost beside the point. Krioval wouldn't be stupid enough to invade UN members; we'd subvert them economically and culturally. Imagine a nation completely dependent on fossil fuels for, well, nearly every aspect of their economy. Barring divine intervention, they'll be only partway toward the solar conversion (and this assumes that they don't live in somewhere like Antarctica) by the time the axe falls.

The resolution did state that its own deadlines could be delayed based on its "wealth" ... and I'd argue that what was meant is ability to convert to solar power for electricity generation. A nation with the means and technology would probably have no problem slowly converting, while another nation might simply point to the second clause 2 and wash their hands of it.

And yeah, if you are in a climate / location where you don't have the opportunity to use as much solar power things would kinda stink ... except for the fact that the first clause 4 states that solar panels should work with other environmentally friendly methods to generate electricity.

In either case, I agree with Krioval that FT nations probably shouldn't be impacted ... assuming that in the very near future fossil fuels aren't really going to be easy to extract from the earth, and FT nations have probably a host of technologies used to power their homes and offices. :) And they probably can make a killing selling their technology to other governments right now.

Then in swoops wonderful, benevolent Krioval, with our exotic FT power generators, motors, and other cool devices that essentially rebuild a nation's shattered economy. The only thing we require is that nobody reverse-engineer any of our technology. Thus, it is ultimately Krioval that would dominate that nation's economic growth for quite some time.

While "helping out", Krioval would begin to open its target's markets to Kriovalian culture.

Or, if we were to supply power without major restrictions for a generation or so, most of the up-and-coming politicians wouldn't conceive of a life without Kriovalian inventions, and relations would strengthen as a result. This is also satisfying as it would likely enrich Krioval at little cost to its stability. Plus, arming new military allies would give us even greater influence.

So really, this resolution benefits Krioval greatly. Go UN, go! :cool:

The question is, if this resolution were to come up for a repeal would you vote for or against the repeal? :) And assuming it is repealed, would you support reworded version of the resolution? If so, are their clauses you'd like to add or see removed?

Chellis

18-09-2005, 19:03

And yet, I have a number of nuclear missile silos off the coast of Chellis due to the Law of the Sea resolution. Funny how these things work out, eh?

No you dont.

A. I ignored you, or something similar. It was a long time ago.

B. Im not a member of the UN.

Forgottenlands

18-09-2005, 20:12

Your nation is new here, so I'm not sure if you are unfamiliar with NationStates or just moved to a new face, but the moderators frankly have not once ejected a nation from the UN from committing genocide.

Iraq and the US has plenty to do with this as well. Axis Nova's arguments are based on the idea that a token force with a minor technological edge can hold out over an entire country. Modern history is *showing* us that a technological advantage doesn't assure that one nation can *hold* another nation with only a token force. Now he claims he can and will ... which is why I'm calling it god moding. He is free to god mode, but I suspect that the more he makes claims that contradict real life examples, the fewer players will listen to anything he says.

Of course, this is aside from the point, as the resolution doesn't outlaw F-16s or M1s ... it recommends that nations use solar panels or (later in the text) other alternatives in order to generate electricity for home and office use. Now if a nation uses F-16s and M1s to actually generate and distribute electricity you might have a point. But that too is just silly.

Um....if you can figure out a way to fly F-16s or drive M1s without fossil fuels, I am sure your scientists will be the most wanted people in the world. You can't use fossil fuels, period. That includes driving tanks. Your movements across large distances will probably be on foot or horseback. You would be LESS advanced than Afghanistan or Iraq. You would, actually, be less advanced than the Roman Empire, as you couldn't even make shields or swords, or guns, or the electronics for bombs so you could have suicide bombers, knives, etc.

If its metal, you pretty much can't make it

So it would actually be, um, you who is godmodding....

The Eternal Kawaii

18-09-2005, 20:37

You know, what the NSUN needs is a way for NationStates to declare whether or not they are in compliance with a resolution without having to resort to the "all or nothing" approach currently in use. Non-compliance should not involve expulsion from the NSUN. However, there should be a RP convention that if a nation were not complying with enough resolutions, they could be declared a "pariah state". Their UN representatives would have tomatoes thrown at them whenever they reached the podium and their offices would be confiscated and turned over to more compliant NationStates.

Though We suspect We'd need tomato-resistent overcoats and learn how to work out of the Stranger's Bar, most likely...

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 22:07

Um....if you can figure out a way to fly F-16s or drive M1s without fossil fuels, I am sure your scientists will be the most wanted people in the world. You can't use fossil fuels, period. That includes driving tanks. Your movements across large distances will probably be on foot or horseback. You would be LESS advanced than Afghanistan or Iraq. You would, actually, be less advanced than the Roman Empire, as you couldn't even make shields or swords, or guns, or the electronics for bombs so you could have suicide bombers, knives, etc.

If its metal, you pretty much can't make it

So it would actually be, um, you who is godmodding....

CHRIST ON A STICK!

Have you honestly read my posts or the resolution? I honestly am convinced this is not the case.

The reason I ask is because I've pointed out many times that the resolution is about using fossil fuels to generate electricity *not* about banning internal combustion engines.

Tanks, boats, cars, and planes aren't prohibited by the resolution. A point I've shown several times, but will cover again. Here is an analysis of the resolution:

The preamble starts by specifically talking about buring of fossil fuels for ELECTRICITY. No mention is made of using it for transportation ... so unless you get your power from a F-16 parked on your driveway, you can still gas up your plane. The preamble even suggested that there are other methods for generating *gasp* electricity. *shocking*

This is in just the first two clauses. I'm sorry, but anybody who fails to see where the author was taking things at this point really should step back for a minute and honestly look at Wolfish's post about "legal trickery" going on in the UN forum. Wolfish stated that back when the UN forum was in its golden age people would talk about issues. They certainly didn't start inserting new meanings to resolutions.

But let's continue ...

The next two clauses talk more about solar panels specifically as they relate to powering up a *HOME*. Not an Bradley, not a Falcon, not even an attack monkey armed with a rocket launcher and pogo stick, but a house.

The first set of numbered activating clauses (yes, it is weird to have three sets of numbers, but there is no official format and who is to say what is wrong and what is right on the issue of formatting) talk about:

1) solar panels for homes and offices
2) government funding for making solar panels
3) installing solar panels on homes and offices in 10+ years
4) turning electricity generation over to solar panels in 10+ years ... NOT MIND YOU replacing automobile engines, but rather electricity generation
5) UN meetings to fund these efforts

Not once are tanks mentioned. Strangely enough, no vehicles are mentioned ... not even to say we should slap solar panels on TIE Fighter wings. But the key here is that the author does say we should slap solar panels on buildings. The presence of one and the absense of the other should be enough clue that even somebody unfamiliar with the typical NS UN resolution can see the big picture. That is what people ultimately vote on, because the most number of players I've seen participate in a recent UN forum discussion was slightly over 310 nations (out of some 30,000 UN nations).

The second group of clauses *are* loopholes that the author provided, they loosen the above five clauses and don't talk about power generation or fossil fuels at all. They can be ignored for now.

The last set of numbered clauses are at best a series of after thoughts ... the first clause gives nations the right to determine the prices of solar panels (something nations already had so I'm not sure what the clause was included, but I imagine it is there to point out the obvious, which given that people's knee jerk reaction was to assume that cars now are used to power homes and offices, probably wasn't a bad idea).

The next two clause are just a statement: you destroy your environment, you hurt us all. They should have been a preambulatory clause, but there are examples in NationStates and in RL where opinions can be cast as activating clauses too. The last numbered clause is something that I'd personally call a scientific hypothesis, but it isn't an activating clause. It doesn't prescribe an action, but just says, "What is happening now is a problem". Right or wrong, the proper time to quibble over that clause is in a repeal or during the debate. It doesn't have any implementation requirements and thus shouldn't be mentioned again here.

Ultimately the resolution is clear that it focuses on electricity generation, not autos. While internal combustion engines burn fossil fuels, the resolution was clear that it was attempting to limit use of fossil fuels for electricity and that it didn't touch upon autos at all.

I've provided enough evidence that some fossil fuels (like natural gas) may not actually be that problematic for the environment ... and yet people are so blinded by their ignorance (they've obviously not read the resolution) that instead of arguing what could be a good point, they want to claim that removing coal firing plants will stop every car, plane, and boat in all UN members. There is nothing to support that idea in this resolution, and I'd call it one of the stupidest notions I've seen promoted on NationStates since Jan. 2004.

The reality is the author was likely a student, as are many of the people playing this game. Not a crime by any means. I'm more than willing to cut people a huge amount of slack for writing a resolution in a different style or even making generalizations like "the polar ice caps are melting!" or not talking about the differences between natural gas and coal powered plants. But when a registered engineer comes up and says, "Folks, cars aren't remotely like power plants", student or not, people would be wise to take note.

The issue never has been "are cars bad for the environment". We've debated that twice before: resolutions 18 and 39. The issues related with fossil fuels were also the subject of two other resolutions 71 and 72. In particular, anybody who really has a bug up their bonnet should have looked at Markodonia's "Sustainable Energy Sources" resolution which is barely over a year old. It too is another example of a resolution designed to promote clean electricity ... not clean locomotion. Days after Markodonia's resolution another similar resolution hit the floor (they reached quorum about the same time, which is why they were allowed to be back-to-back) ...though it targeted the automobile industry it doesn't mention automobiles or homes or really name alternatives. Given that is the case, I'd say that the argument that UN nations can't use IC engines to move things like tanks will at the very least have some standing if you were to read resolution #72.

In english, folks are barking up the wrong tree in so many ways.

AK_ID

18-09-2005, 22:14

A bit touchy, aren't we, about a poorly written proposal?

Forgottenlands

18-09-2005, 22:16

The intention is irrelevant to what is stated:

4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.

While the focus is definately on electricity, there are no exceptions, limitations or comments on the "burning of fossil fuels". As such, it doesn't matter whether you're smelting iron or driving your car down the street, this line states specifically that you are required to cease fossil fuel use. PERIOD. Intention is irrelevant

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 22:18

The Most Glorious Hack

18-09-2005, 22:29

Depends on which side of the semantic fence you're sitting on, Mik.

"4) After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce."

This can be taken two ways: No burning fossil fuels. Electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels.
No burning fossil fuels for electricity. Use Solar Panels.

The poor structure of the sentence is what's causing the confusion. Personally, I see them as two separate clauses, meaning that you cannot burn fossil fuels and all electricity generation is to be done by solar panels. This means no kerosine lamps, no internal combustion engines, no jet engines, and no advanced metals (steel requires coke blast furnaces; coke is a fossil fuel that is burned in the process), so on and so forth.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should stop passing poorly worded, scientifically incorrect, and downright stupid Proposals. And yes, I do mean stupid. There was quite the debate in the Mod channel on whether or not we could use the "bloody stupid" clause in the rules to delete this.

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 22:38

The intention is irrelevant to what is stated:

While the focus is definately on electricity, there are no exceptions, limitations or comments on the "burning of fossil fuels". As such, it doesn't matter whether you're smelting iron or driving your car down the street, this line states specifically that you are required to cease fossil fuel use. PERIOD. Intention is irrelevant

Q: Can you prove that intention is irrelevant???
A: No you can't. But I can make a very strong case that intention is extremely important.

Right now I can *choose* an option on a daily issue that will make euthanasia illegal in Mikitivity despite the exact words of resolution #43:

"I propose that euthanasia should be legalised."

Oh there is plenty more to the resolution than that, but what would the point be of me giving you the CONTEXT of those exact words for which to gauge the intent, if you are so pressed upon the singular position that the intention is irrelevant when compared to *fragments* of a resolution.

FACT: NationStates allows us to *choose* daily issues that are in conflict with UN resolutions.

Basic common sense suggests these PROVES that UN resolutions aren't nearly as mandatory as many players might believe.

My point: the intent of resolutions is more important than fragments of words in those resolutions. I can cut and paste from any resolution and claim is says something, but the key is the entire resolution.

For example, let's take a benin resolution ... Children in War (#51).

"Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places"

That is directly taken from the resolution. Does this outlaw warfare? Of course not. The rest of the sentence needs to be read:

"Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children"

Much better. The *intent* of the clause is more clear when we even look at more of the resolution. All resolutions need to be fully read. Picking on subclauses ignores the intent of the resolution, and has no place here.

In REAL LIFE this is called legislative intent, and courts do in fact make rulings based on it and use it to guide their interpetation of laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

Something important to take note of:
"Courts in the United States and elsewhere have developed a number of principles for handling such evidence of legislative intent; as an example, many courts have suggested that the comments of those opposing a bill under consideration should be treated with skepticism, on the principle that opponents of a bill may often exaggerate its practical consequences."

I know that NS is a game. But it is a political game, and it is important to realize that we aren't really inventing new ideas here.

AK_ID

18-09-2005, 22:38

There IS a more sensible proposal on the boards.

Forgottenlands

18-09-2005, 22:48

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 22:58

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should stop passing poorly worded, scientifically incorrect, and downright stupid Proposals. And yes, I do mean stupid. There was quite the debate in the Mod channel on whether or not we could use the "bloody stupid" clause in the rules to delete this.

I don't think it is nearly that bad ... though I do remember your comments on IRC *which* did convince me to dig deeper into the resolution and vote no. I never knew the moderators were debating this too! :) But for there to be a debate, that implies that there were differences of opinion -- I'd be interested in knowing which moderator shares something more along my thoughts.

Given that there are four pre-existing resolutions that dealt with similar issues, it seems to me that it would make *one* of those resolutions a prime target for a repeal now given the redundancy (and I'm curious why this one didn't get the bump on the duplication grounds -- if the subject came up).

But the justification of any repeal is important here because the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" failed not on account that it was repealing a less than perfect resolution ... but it over reached. It claimed that the UN couldn't pass laws dealing with international resources on the grounds it would infrinqe "sovereignty".

It failed because players were misusing a buz-word. A repeal on any or all of the alternative energy resolutions shouldn't focus on nitpicky crap or on military issues ... because the voters are going to see straight through that and be turned off.

In this case, I'd suggest revisiting the discussion on different forms of electricity production we have in RL and what sort of problems they cause ... then seeing if we feel limiting one of those is realistic or not. I'd also suggest working with Starcra II as he (?) actually is just trying his best and already started a thread looking for ideas. I actually respect him for this. :)

Liliths Vengeance

18-09-2005, 22:59

Your nation is new here, so I'm not sure if you are unfamiliar with NationStates or just moved to a new face, but the moderators frankly have not once ejected a nation from the UN from committing genocide.

Nor has any nation been ejected for refusing to comply with any resolution. Still, the FAQ does state that a nation may not disobey a resolution and we are awaiting a ruling from Frisbeeteria on what he means when he says that the FAQ applies to the forums. At current, is appears what the FAQ states as law simply is law.

Iraq and the US has plenty to do with this as well. Axis Nova's arguments are based on the idea that a token force with a minor technological edge can hold out over an entire country. Modern history is *showing* us that a technological advantage doesn't assure that one nation can *hold* another nation with only a token force. Now he claims he can and will ... which is why I'm calling it god moding. He is free to god mode, but I suspect that the more he makes claims that contradict real life examples, the fewer players will listen to anything he says.

Personally, I suspect his claims are as serious as my ship names. I'll bet the Unimaginable Arrogance and the Barely Justified Wankgasm on it.

Of course, this is aside from the point, as the resolution doesn't outlaw F-16s or M1s ... it recommends that nations use solar panels or (later in the text) other alternatives in order to generate electricity for home and office use. Now if a nation uses F-16s and M1s to actually generate and distribute electricity you might have a point. But that too is just silly.

Not entirely true. It mandates nations use solar panels for those purposes, while allowing and recommending other sources. The problem here is the fact that it also mandates, without qualifications to suggest the opposite, that all fossil fuel use is stopped. Currently, the author is working on a replacement that clears up many of the problems, so it's all good. However, until the current one is repealed, the simple fact remains that, by wording, it leaves open two interpretations and people mostly go for the worst one simply because the wording supports it. Check Most Glorious Hack's post.

Forgottenlands

18-09-2005, 23:04

I don't think it is nearly that bad ... though I do remember your comments on IRC *which* did convince me to dig deeper into the resolution and vote no. I never knew the moderators were debating this too! :) But for there to be a debate, that implies that there were differences of opinion -- I'd be interested in knowing which moderator shares something more along my thoughts.

I note that the debate was stated as being on whether to use the "bloody stupid" clause, which doesn't suggest that they agree with you. That said, while I am not as interested to know the actual people behind each position, I would be interested in knowing the greater complexity of the debate (what opinions and reasoning was brought forth for each side), and perhaps why you guys decided to rule the way you did.

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 23:04

*sighs*

1) Non-compliance due to actual loopholes that exist in the letter of the law is considered to be standard RP
2) Non-compliance where you fail to follow the letter of the law is considered godmodding
3) Non-compliance using issues to fail to comply is still non-complaince, and it still follows rules 1 and 2. It might be extraordinarily easier than 1 and 2 look at the start, but the rules still apply.
4) It has been proven many times that roleplay and mechanics are seperate entities to themselves.

Since it you claim it has been proven many times that roleplay and mechanics are separate (you're missing the "a" there separate, D) and since you claim that non-compliance is godmoding (it only has one "D", as the term comes from GOD MODE, just like CHEAT MODE on the old Doom game), please provide proof of your claims.

It should be relatively easy for you ... if there are in fact any rules stating that non-compliance is in fact godmoding. I am waiting to be surprised, though I noticed you are now ignoring my point on "Intent".

Mikitivity

18-09-2005, 23:18

Nor has any nation been ejected for refusing to comply with any resolution. Still, the FAQ does state that a nation may not disobey a resolution and we are awaiting a ruling from Frisbeeteria on what he means when he says that the FAQ applies to the forums. At current, is appears what the FAQ states as law simply is law.

You do realize Frequently Asked Questions aren't rules, but answers to frequently asked QUESTIONS.

The current game FAQs point to the Enodian Protocols, but no where in those rules are things like the "resolutions can't single out individual nations" rule listed.

The FAQs and rules aren't the end all of NationStates. I believe that when Max wrote the FAQ that he was trying to make it somewhat helpful for what he felt would be common / frequent debates. Compliance being one of them.

The moderators probably don't mind quality roleplaying, but a declaration of war on 30,000 nations is just asisine. If I were writing a game for people of varying ages (from kids to grandparents), I'd just cut off most of the chances of people constantly flooding the forums with, "My nation refuses to comply with this resolution" posts by simply saying, "You can't pick and choose which resolutions to follow" (which I believe is the basic language in the FAQ that folks are constantly calling the Gospel of Max). If you ask me, it is just another case of people not using their own grey matter than thinking about WHY Max would have written something like that.

In any event, the *rules* of the game aren't in the FAQ. The rules come from the decisions that the moderators use. Given that the FAQ is currently pointing to out of date rules (Hacks "Most Glorious Protocols" as Fris calls 'em aren't mentioned in the current FAQ, but Enodian's post is linked), I think non-compliance is a given due to the point about euthanasia I already showed.

UN members can vote to make euthanasia illegal. Big deal. We might not announce it to the world, but we can be "caught" with our hand in the cookie jar if other members read our game flavour text. For example, if I were to decide to make it illegal in Mikitivity, you could see my text change and cry bloody foul.

In RL this wouldn't be much different that Bush vs. Hussein and all the grand ol' fingerpointing the two of them had over weapons of mass destruction. The real UN passed a resolution, and there always has been some debate and plenty of accusations as to Iraq's compliance. I so no reason why this shouldn't be allowed in NationStates, but I also see why a FAQ designed as an INTRODUCTION to the game won't want to encourage this.

Can you image how many Axis Nova's we'd have if the FAQ said, "You don't have to follow UN resolutions?"

In any event, I wasn't aware that there was some grand change on UN rules going on or that Fris was going to change things. As somebody who has been active in the UN since Jan. 2004, I think I'll telegram him and ask him that he consider my opinions on the matter as well.

Forgottenlands

18-09-2005, 23:23

Since it you claim it has been proven many times that roleplay and mechanics are separate (you're missing the "a" there separate, D) and since you claim that non-compliance is godmoding (it only has one "D", as the term comes from GOD MODE, just like CHEAT MODE on the old Doom game), please provide proof of your claims.

It should be relatively easy for you ... if there are in fact any rules stating that non-compliance is in fact godmoding. I am waiting to be surprised, though I noticed you are now ignoring my point on "Intent".

One can role-play defiance of the legislation, but be prepared to do a proper job of it or be accused of wanking or godmoding..., and possibly derided and ignored altogether. One fairly common and widely accepted method of roleplaying defiance of resolutions is to take advantage of the often ambiguous and/or undefined nature of the resolutions and define certain key terms such that the effects of the resolution are nullified or made negligible.

I can't find the other quote - though I know it exists - which notes that the game only implements the title of the resolution, but does nothing about the actual text of the resolution. Therefore, the text, which is what we follow when we RP, is not game mechanics, therefore seperate.

The Most Glorious Hack

18-09-2005, 23:28

I don't think it is nearly that bad ...Probably because of the intpretation you're taking on the 4th clause.

I never knew the moderators were debating this too!That would be the point of having a private channel, hmm?

But for there to be a debate, that implies that there were differences of opinion -- I'd be interested in knowing which moderator shares something more along my thoughts.Er, none, really. The debate wasn't about if the Proposal was stupid or not, it was over if it was stupid enough to be deleted outright.

There was pretty much universal agreement that it was stupid, damaging to UN nations, and woefully misguided on its scientific merits. Oh, there was also thought that the mentions of the ozone layer hewed too close to an RL violation.

(and I'm curious why this one didn't get the bump on the duplication grounds -- if the subject came up). Probably because it isn't duplicating anything. There's no other "cover the Earth with solar panels and hope you get enough energy" resolutions in existance that I'm aware of. None of the alternate power Resolutions went nearly as far as this monstrosity.

It failed because players were misusing a buz-word. A repeal on any or all of the alternative energy resolutions shouldn't focus on nitpicky crap or on military issues ... because the voters are going to see straight through that and be turned off. That and the fact that a good number of the UN members think any environmental law is GOOD! and that any attempt to Repeal it is just bowing to EVIL CORPORATE INTERESTS!

I actually respect him for this.Pity he didn't do anything to prevent this thing from getting passed, thus saving everyone the headache of trying to Repeal it.

Since it [is] you claim[ing that] it has been proven many times that roleplay and mechanics are separate (you're missing the "a" there [in] separate, D) and since you claim that non-compliance is godmoding (it only has one "D", as the term comes from GOD MODE, just like CHEAT MODE[,] on the old Doom game), please provide proof of your claims.If you're going to be pedantic and argue grammar like this, please make sure that your own is proper.

It should be relatively easy for you ... if there are in fact any rules stating that non-compliance is in fact godmoding.At the very least, it's wankery and a good way to end up ignored.

Axis Nova

18-09-2005, 23:55

No you dont.

A. I ignored you, or something similar. It was a long time ago.

B. Im not a member of the UN.

Well, if you left since then, then they arn't there. Replace "Chellis" with "Random other UN nation". =p

Also, I'm suprised I managed to provoke so much discussion on the matter. o_o

I never expected this thread to make two pages.

*continues revving up his nations' military machine*

Mikitivity

19-09-2005, 00:16

There was pretty much universal agreement that it was stupid, damaging to UN nations, and woefully misguided on its scientific merits. Oh, there was also thought that the mentions of the ozone layer hewed too close to an RL violation.

Moderators thought that is a RL violation? Interesting, and I can see why ... I'd still have allowed it to slide from the viewpoint that if any problem was considered "might not exist elsewhere" you can literally justify the deletion of every proposal. Homeless does not exist everywhere in NationStates. Freedom speach isn't really a problem in most nations. etc.

Probably because it isn't duplicating anything. There's no other "cover the Earth with solar panels and hope you get enough energy" resolutions in existance that I'm aware of. None of the alternate power Resolutions went nearly as far as this monstrosity.

Including Resolution #71?

The ruling that the *moderators* have made since the passage of the United Nations Security Act is that future resolutions have to include a statement indicating that certain weapons are not necessary for defense. One resolution has been ruled to have gameplay impacts now on future resolutions. I would have thought this would also mean older resolutions would have more standing for future resolutions too!

Though resolution #71 doesn't focus on just solar panels, look specifically at clause 3.

3. Calls upon governments to encourage the development of technology enabling the widespread sue of solar power, inthe form of affordable solar panels for individual dwellings and larger power plants ...

I've left off the rest of that clause, because somebody else pointed out that we don't need to read an entire resolution to determine its intent. My main point here though is to point out that if we were to come up with a one-line summary of Resolution #122, I think it would look like the above.

That and the fact that a good number of the UN members think any environmental law is GOOD! and that any attempt to Repeal it is just bowing to EVIL CORPORATE INTERESTS!

Can you prove this fact?
If not, it is an opinion.

At the very least, it's wankery and a good way to end up ignored.

I disagree. Enough people appreciated the non-compliance with the Law of the Sea resolution that a current game moderator participated in the resulting roleplay.

Bad RP is bad RP. An example of bad RP: storming into the UN and calling everybody morons and then storming off. It isn't god mode. It isn't wank. It is just utterly pointless and frequently done. :/

The difference between good RP and bad RP might be judged based on how many other people take an interest in it. I think with non-compliance, that unless the moderators want to just claim that players in fact can't have a free hand in their own roleplay that the best moderation policy is to just treat it like any other roleplay: something left up to the players to deal with until it gets mean spirited. I'm at a loss for why anybody would honestly give a damn if others comply or not. It just sounds like a lot of work to police roleplaying now too!

Axis Nova

19-09-2005, 00:25

Can you prove this fact?

This thread?

The Most Glorious Hack

19-09-2005, 00:45

Including Resolution #71?Calls upon, Recommends, Calls upon, Endorces, Expresses, Proclaims, Requests.

Rather different than "in 10 years no more fossil fuels".

3. Calls upon governments to encourage the development of technology enabling the widespread sue of solar power, inthe form of affordable solar panels for individual dwellings and larger power plants ...That doesn't mandate a single thing.

Can you prove this fact?
If not, it is an opinion.Considering it was a reply to your own exressing of opinion, I fail to see the relavance of me stating an opinion.

Bad RP is bad RP. An example of bad RP: storming into the UN and calling everybody morons and then storming off. It isn't god mode. It isn't wank. It is just utterly pointless and frequently done.Idiocy and wankery are different things.

I'm at a loss for why anybody would honestly give a damn if others comply or not. It just sounds like a lot of work to police roleplaying now too!Because whole cloth ignoring of the UN violates the very point of the UN.

"I'm in the UN, but I've outlawed prostitution, have child labor, engage in female genital mutilation, torture prisoners, hold citzens without charge, dump my ballast water whereever I want, don't contribute to the Tsunami Warning System, have banned free press, give nukes to known terrorists, give clones no rights, mandate all my citizens work 100 hours a week, shoot gays regularly, ban homosexual marriage, burn hemp fields, hunt dolphins and whales, and ban sex ed."

Would you pay attention to such a nation, or just call them a wanker and be done with it?

Forgottenlands

19-09-2005, 01:08

Including Resolution #71?

The ruling that the *moderators* have made since the passage of the United Nations Security Act is that future resolutions have to include a statement indicating that certain weapons are not necessary for defense. One resolution has been ruled to have gameplay impacts now on future resolutions. I would have thought this would also mean older resolutions would have more standing for future resolutions too!

Though resolution #71 doesn't focus on just solar panels, look specifically at clause 3.

3. Calls upon governments to encourage the development of technology enabling the widespread sue of solar power, inthe form of affordable solar panels for individual dwellings and larger power plants ...

I've left off the rest of that clause, because somebody else pointed out that we don't need to read an entire resolution to determine its intent. My main point here though is to point out that if we were to come up with a one-line summary of Resolution #122, I think it would look like the above.

It discusses the developement of solar power technology, not the actual implementation - or even full scale implementation, the the clause 3s of the two resolutions are not similar (even if we put both on the same playing field and said they were both mandated). Resolution 71, if you check it again, talks about sustainable energy resources in general and is more for their promotion. In terms of infrastructure considerations (which is one of the two major things we had with Resolution 122), only article 2 applies and that one is dealing with tidal and wind power. The only area that the two are dealing with the same issue is the last section, but those are arguments rather than actual sections of regulation.

No duplications

I disagree. Enough people appreciated the non-compliance with the Law of the Sea resolution that a current game moderator participated in the resulting roleplay.

RP is not moderated, so participation is always welcome from everyone including mods. However, that doesn't change whether it is godmodding or not.

Bad RP is bad RP. An example of bad RP: storming into the UN and calling everybody morons and then storming off. It isn't god mode. It isn't wank. It is just utterly pointless and frequently done. :/

The difference between good RP and bad RP might be judged based on how many other people take an interest in it. I think with non-compliance, that unless the moderators want to just claim that players in fact can't have a free hand in their own roleplay that the best moderation policy is to just treat it like any other roleplay: something left up to the players to deal with until it gets mean spirited. I'm at a loss for why anybody would honestly give a damn if others comply or not. It just sounds like a lot of work to police roleplaying now too!

Hack answered it probably better than I could ever hope to, but I think his earlier post about being ignored applies. So far in this thread, the debate has been between Axis Nova, LV and TH, until this discussion started when you said Axis Nova was godmodding. However, anyone who actually applies with the resolution and doesn't, themselves, godmod would actually be taken over exactly as Axis Nova stated. As such, Axis Nova is not the godmodder - and that's why YOU end up being the one that is ignored in this RP for godmodding.

Mikitivity

19-09-2005, 01:19

Calls upon, Recommends, Calls upon, Endorces, Expresses, Proclaims, Requests.

Rather different than "in 10 years no more fossil fuels".

That doesn't mandate a single thing.

So if a resolution is *mild* and suggests a course of action and is adopted, another resolution with stronger language can do the same thing later? It sounds like the difference is the strength of the resolution. I actually like that.

I'd like NS2 to consider that environmental resolutions have strengths as well ... with #71 being mild and #122 strong. I'm assuming as a UN mod that you'll have some say in NS2. :)

Considering it was a reply to your own exressing of opinion, I fail to see the relavance of me stating an opinion.

Fact / Opinion.

When I pointed out that there is a daily issue that nations can use to make euthanasia illegal, this is a fact. I can go to the got issues forum, find the issue options and post a link. If I were to state that most nations vote to legalise euthanasia because they are stat wankers and want a cheap boost on their civil freedoms, I'm making an assumption and stating an opinion. (And I could very easily be wrong on the reason too. I honestly believe most people pick issues based on what they feel is right for their nation, and not to stat wank.)

Because whole cloth ignoring of the UN violates the very point of the UN.

"I'm in the UN, but I've outlawed prostitution, have child labor, engage in female genital mutilation, torture prisoners, hold citzens without charge, dump my ballast water whereever I want, don't contribute to the Tsunami Warning System, have banned free press, give nukes to known terrorists, give clones no rights, mandate all my citizens work 100 hours a week, shoot gays regularly, ban homosexual marriage, burn hemp fields, hunt dolphins and whales, and ban sex ed."

Would you pay attention to such a nation, or just call them a wanker and be done with it?

Oh, I completely agree with you. I *have* called those individuals wankers in the past -- or at least *thought* it. :)

That is why the "you can't pick and choose" is included in the FAQ. It is better to not give the masses any encouragement to wank. But that is a far cry from making something illegal.

Recommendations aren't rules. But if there were a rule, I'd draw the line just where you have done it ... I wouldn't outlaw non-compliance, but rather whole cloth non-compliance.

On an unrelated note, the FAQ link for the actual UN rules points to the Enodian Protocols in the archive. It has been ages since I looked at the FAQ, and I didn't remember this from last year. It is nice to see the link. Can you ask one of the game admins to change the link to the rules you made this spring?

Also I couldn't find the part of your rules which specifically state that proposals can't target individual nations ... I thought this was written somewhere in the past. If that isn't included, game mechanics might be a good place for this to be added (as I've seen plenty of proposals that violate this).

Reformentia

19-09-2005, 01:40

CHRIST ON A STICK!

Have you honestly read my posts or the resolution? I honestly am convinced this is not the case.

The reason I ask is because I've pointed out many times that the resolution is about using fossil fuels to generate electricity *not* about banning internal combustion engines.

And in return it has been pointed out repeatedly that the resolution bans all burning of fossil fuels once it fully takes effect. Have you by any chance read those posts?

It does not say "All burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation shall be halted, with all electricity generation being through use of solar panels". It says "all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted AND electricity shall be generated by solar panels."

That's two distinct statements in that sentence.

Mikitivity

19-09-2005, 01:46

However, anyone who actually applies with the resolution and doesn't, themselves, godmod would actually be taken over exactly as Axis Nova stated. As such, Axis Nova is not the godmodder - and that's why YOU end up being the one that is ignored in this RP for godmodding.

B.S.

I've pointed out that intent of resolutions matters ... if not, we can parse fragments of the text to whatever meaning we want. The intent of this resolution was clear: encouraging cleaner electricity generation.

It is not godmoding (remember it is spelled with one "d" as it comes from GOD MODE ... naturally I've pointed this out before, and I'm convinced you either aren't reading my posts or simply being petty now) to maintain that slowly moving to the use of solar panels for electrical generation for homes and office buildings is not going to suddenly render tanks and airplanes inoperable.

In fact, it is godmoding to suggest that other nations will interpet the resolution as you want it to be interpetted.

Here me about ... I see your knee jerking again.

You are free to have your UN nation read whatever it wants into the resolution. That is YOUR RIGHT as a player. You may roleplay as you like. I'm not going to complain if your nation wants to require everybody to strip naked and play poker claiming that the UN made you do it. It would be silly, but be our guest.

But I've pointed to the entire body of the resolution (in a post you ignored) and then talked about the real life concept of legislative intent (in another post you ignored) and also addressed the legality of non-compliance in NationStates (in yet another post you ignored), and feel that I have a solid logical argument for suggesting that nations will not be disarmed by this resolution.

At *best* Krioval's interpetation is much more likely. Nations will have to switch to other forms of power and may need to buy those components from other nations. Thankfully in this case, Resolutions 18, 39, 71, and 72 may have already started that process in many nations. Only they can tell us how far along they already were.

Realistically speaking Axis Nova is not going to be able to hold a fraction of the 30,000 + UN members with even large scale forces (reason: real life USA can't really hold onto real life Iraq and how much is that war costing the US economy) ... because sadly, those nuclear missiles he likes to claim he has planted around the coasts of all UN members he doesn't like, can be delivered to his nation even without the aid of a fossil fuel burning rocket. Even if he had only to stop 30,000 missiles (one per nation), given that nukes are totally legal now, I think his statement was a classic example of godmoding. I'd go as far as to say it was worse than the resolution he is reacting too ... worse in that the resolution didn't think through some issues. Neither has he, and not by a long shot.

I didn't voice in on the resolution, as few people here are open minded or listen. What would have been the point once the resolution hit the UN floor?

I voiced in on his thread, because if you really start doing the math and actually think about the physics of what he is suggesting it is just plain asisine. It is just as bad as the resolution he was trying to complain about ... and that makes his "idea" no better than Starcra II's "idea". It is one thing to come up with an idea with serious flaws ... it is another thing to use an equally flawed set of assumptions to attack that first idea.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I actually *like* Axis Nova and Starcra II the players. I think they both are polite ... I'm attacking their ideas. And if I were to meet either of them in RL, I'd be happy to sit across a table from them and listen to any stories they have to tell. I wanted to make it clear I'm just really talking about a few posts / ideas here.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

19-09-2005, 03:03

But the justification of any repeal is important here because the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" failed not on account that it was repealing a less than perfect resolution ... but it over reached. It claimed that the UN couldn't pass laws dealing with international resources on the grounds it would infrinqe "sovereignty".

It failed because players were misusing a buz-word [sic].Pardon me, Your Eminence, but I would like to know why you were such a rabid attack dog on the dolphins-act repeal, because it simply contained a poorly conceived argument in a non-operative clause (mind you, the only operative clause in any repeal is " shall be struck out and rendered null and void"), while at the same time you play an apologist for a resolution author who not only incorrectly stated that fossil fuels deplete the ozone, but offered (in the operative clauses, mind you) an energy overhaul so extreme that even the mods suggested it would result in a Global Energy Armageddon? You blow your top over a semantic stretch in an environmental repeal, yet you engage in all sorts of hairsplitting to justify even "stupid" environmental legislation you voted against. Why? Are we to believe that the Council of Mayors has been bought and sold by the environmental lobby? Or is it just "buzzwords" that enrage you?

At any rate (and I will not ask you to enlighten us as to the meaning of the word "is"), you insist that this legislation allows IC engines and automobiles and fossil-fuel reliant military hardware, but how would you power all [i]the machines that build such animals? With solar panels? I would cringe at the amount of forests we would have to bulldoze to accomodate all the solar paneling necessary to power all our auto factories -- if there were any forests to speak of in our native desolate Antarctic wilderness.

Or would you have us return to the days of manufacturing automobiles via assembly line? The resulting boost in labor demand would certainly be a boon to our economy, if: 1) my nation wasn't already operating on full employment, and 2) we intended to fully comply with this resolution in the first place (as already stated in another thread, our Creative UN Solutions Agency is currently instituting an Emergency Loophole Exploitation Regime for this latest UN law).

:p

Regards,
John Riley

Forgottenlands

19-09-2005, 03:29

B.S.

I've pointed out that intent of resolutions matters ... if not, we can parse fragments of the text to whatever meaning we want. The intent of this resolution was clear: encouraging cleaner electricity generation.

I'll get back to intent in a second.

It is not godmoding (remember it is spelled with one "d" as it comes from GOD MODE ... naturally I've pointed this out before, and I'm convinced you either aren't reading my posts or simply being petty now) to maintain that slowly moving to the use of solar panels for electrical generation for homes and office buildings is not going to suddenly render tanks and airplanes inoperable.

You know, you really should've taken Hack's post to heart when he told you to keep your own grammar and spelling accurate when you're going to complain to someone about their spelling. This is not a proposal, this is a debate, and if you can't see around a handful of errors in my posts (whether perpetual or whatever, I honestly don't care whether its godmodding or godmoding, I've got more important words to worry about when it comes to spelling (my gf actually has a nice long list of them for me - and separate is on there).

The reason I want to make the distinction between debate and proposals is I think of people like Love and Esterel. LAE is one player that burst onto the scene very recently with a lot of good ideas for resolutions - already having two passed, coauthoring three more that could easily be coming up. You'll notice that the final drafts that go to the UN floor are fairly well edited and free of spelling and grammatical errors. The reason I bring this up is because LAE is ESL and has a really hard time being grammatically sound and his spelling is moderate. He polishes his resolutions intensively and both of his resolutions that have been passed I went through and edited them for spelling and grammar. (Though these limitations have hindered style.) To criticize someone of their spelling and grammar for a debate is just plain arrogant. Now, if you're done being English geek, let us continue with this debate.

I will tell you this - and don't do what PC did and declare victory this way - IF the resolution actually was only limited to electricity generation, then we wouldn't be worrying about your godmoding. This isn't where we have problems with the godmoding whatsoever. The problem is ENTIRELY in your belief that the intent is more important than the letter - and I note that you seem to be outnumbered on this one. But I shall give you something else to consider about intent.

I don't know how closely you followed the debate, but I was skimming through it and one set of arguments came to my attention. The debate had moved for about a page to discussion about aviation - and Starcra II had responded to this debate about aviation looking for possible alternatives, rather than saying "this is not about transportation". If the intent was so evidently about electricity generation, why would Starcra II defend against transportation argument?

In fact, it is godmoding to suggest that other nations will interpet the resolution as you want it to be interpetted.

True, but it has to be within the letter of the resolution. Redefinitions and such are allowed. Telling me that the intent is clear.....that's different. I apologize for not going into further detail, I was trying to remember why I had been taught this, and as I was thinking about the person who taught me, I remembered why.

If we passed the intent of the resolution, the room for interpretation is gone. Further, once that person is deleted, we don't have anyone to ask to find out the intent of the resolution. Thus we must go with the letter of the resolution.

Here me about ... I see your knee jerking again.

This is the most evident point where you need to rethink how you attack people about grammar.

You are free to have your UN nation read whatever it wants into the resolution. That is YOUR RIGHT as a player. You may roleplay as you like. I'm not going to complain if your nation wants to require everybody to strip naked and play poker claiming that the UN made you do it. It would be silly, but be our guest.

But I've pointed to the entire body of the resolution (in a post you ignored) and then talked about the real life concept of legislative intent (in another post you ignored) and also addressed the legality of non-compliance in NationStates (in yet another post you ignored), and feel that I have a solid logical argument for suggesting that nations will not be disarmed by this resolution.

Now here's why the Gnomes need to be defined at some point (that reminds me, now that Hack's back....). Your understanding of gnomes is extraordinarily different from just about every single person I've talked to to date. Everyone else says the gnomes change their laws automatically. You say your laws are changed by you under force of the UN Gnomes, but the wording is still in your hands. Why is this an important distinction? Gnomes don't have a concept of legislative intent, you do. As such, when you reword it, you claim you can deal with legislative intent.

To some degree, this too could be considered godmoding.

At *best* Krioval's interpetation is much more likely. Nations will have to switch to other forms of power and may need to buy those components from other nations. Thankfully in this case, Resolutions 18, 39, 71, and 72 may have already started that process in many nations. Only they can tell us how far along they already were.

Realistically speaking Axis Nova is not going to be able to hold a fraction of the 30,000 + UN members with even large scale forces (reason: real life USA can't really hold onto real life Iraq and how much is that war costing the US economy) ... because sadly, those nuclear missiles he likes to claim he has planted around the coasts of all UN members he doesn't like, can be delivered to his nation even without the aid of a fossil fuel burning rocket. Even if he had only to stop 30,000 missiles (one per nation), given that nukes are totally legal now, I think his statement was a classic example of godmoding. I'd go as far as to say it was worse than the resolution he is reacting too ... worse in that the resolution didn't think through some issues. Neither has he, and not by a long shot.

Um, Axis Nova is NOT a UN member. That's his point. As a non-member, he can take over us all since he isn't restricted by the resolution whatsoever, and we've been thrown back past the iron age.

I didn't voice in on the resolution, as few people here are open minded or listen. What would have been the point once the resolution hit the UN floor?

I voiced in on his thread, because if you really start doing the math and actually think about the physics of what he is suggesting it is just plain asisine. It is just as bad as the resolution he was trying to complain about ... and that makes his "idea" no better than Starcra II's "idea". It is one thing to come up with an idea with serious flaws ... it is another thing to use an equally flawed set of assumptions to attack that first idea.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I actually *like* Axis Nova and Starcra II the players. I think they both are polite ... I'm attacking their ideas. And if I were to meet either of them in RL, I'd be happy to sit across a table from them and listen to any stories they have to tell. I wanted to make it clear I'm just really talking about a few posts / ideas here.

I'm well aware of that.

--------------------------------

Godmoding is basically trying to claim that we're playing by your rules when everyone else is playing by a different set of rules. This is how you get ignored. You telling us that the resolution only affects electricity generation is godmoding, as we are playing by the rules that when it says "ban fossil fuels" it means for ALL purposes. When you say that gnomes work a certain way in your country and we say they work a different way, that's godmoding as you're claiming that you follow a different rule set than what has been accepted. And when I keep calling them the "Hackian Laws", you continue to be the only person that disputes the term. Be aware of the rules that people play on, because it isn't yours.

The Most Glorious Hack

19-09-2005, 03:33

Fact / Opinion.

When I pointed out that there is a daily issue that nations can use to make euthanasia illegal, this is a fact. I can go to the got issues forum, find the issue options and post a link.That's nice, but that wasn't what I responding to.

Liliths Vengeance

19-09-2005, 05:04

You do realize Frequently Asked Questions aren't rules, but answers to frequently asked QUESTIONS.

The current game FAQs point to the Enodian Protocols, but no where in those rules are things like the "resolutions can't single out individual nations" rule listed.

The FAQs and rules aren't the end all of NationStates. I believe that when Max wrote the FAQ that he was trying to make it somewhat helpful for what he felt would be common / frequent debates. Compliance being one of them.

Then explain why the OSRS specifically says the FAQ applies on the forums. It sounds to me like the FAQ is also being used as a ruleset.

The moderators probably don't mind quality roleplaying, but a declaration of war on 30,000 nations is just asisine. If I were writing a game for people of varying ages (from kids to grandparents), I'd just cut off most of the chances of people constantly flooding the forums with, "My nation refuses to comply with this resolution" posts by simply saying, "You can't pick and choose which resolutions to follow" (which I believe is the basic language in the FAQ that folks are constantly calling the Gospel of Max). If you ask me, it is just another case of people not using their own grey matter than thinking about WHY Max would have written something like that.

The question of why he wrote it doesn't matter. The effects of what he wrote does. As long as no mod policy exists to counteract it, no mod interpretation exists to say the idea of UN resolutions having no way out of them exists, and we cannot ask him, it applies as written.

In any event, the *rules* of the game aren't in the FAQ. The rules come from the decisions that the moderators use. Given that the FAQ is currently pointing to out of date rules (Hacks "Most Glorious Protocols" as Fris calls 'em aren't mentioned in the current FAQ, but Enodian's post is linked), I think non-compliance is a given due to the point about euthanasia I already showed.

As others have said: Game mechanics issues should not be an excuse for bad roleplaying. You're relying on a game mechanics issue to be just that.

UN members can vote to make euthanasia illegal. Big deal. We might not announce it to the world, but we can be "caught" with our hand in the cookie jar if other members read our game flavour text. For example, if I were to decide to make it illegal in Mikitivity, you could see my text change and cry bloody foul.

In RL this wouldn't be much different that Bush vs. Hussein and all the grand ol' fingerpointing the two of them had over weapons of mass destruction. The real UN passed a resolution, and there always has been some debate and plenty of accusations as to Iraq's compliance. I so no reason why this shouldn't be allowed in NationStates, but I also see why a FAQ designed as an INTRODUCTION to the game won't want to encourage this.

The reason I see is the fact the FAQ applies to the forums, and by all appearances what it says applies as a rule. You need a mod ruling stating otherwise to budge me on this one.

Can you image how many Axis Nova's we'd have if the FAQ said, "You don't have to follow UN resolutions?"

In any event, I wasn't aware that there was some grand change on UN rules going on or that Fris was going to change things. As somebody who has been active in the UN since Jan. 2004, I think I'll telegram him and ask him that he consider my opinions on the matter as well.

No grand change. Just that we need a clarification on exactly how the FAQ applies to the forums. Until we get it, this rule from the OSRS makes it so that the statement of not allowing noncompliance is a rule:

A Note concerning the NationStates Terms of Service (TOS) and FAQ: While it should go without saying, some players apparently think the TOS and FAQ don't apply on the forums. They do. Don't be stupid.

Axis Nova

19-09-2005, 05:05

If you really wish to know how I'd implement taking over a large number of Iron Age nations with my postmodern tech, Mikitivity, I can tell you this right away:

In no way would I attempt to conquer the ENTIRE 30,000 nation UN at once. Furthermore, I would have no reason to-- the vast majority of UN nations are small or poor in resources or undesirable for other reasons.

My first step would be to narrow down the list of specific targets to the most desireable: those that have large deposits of minerals and (of course) oil, those with lots of natural radioactives, those that have a high agriculturual output, those that are just well located, that kind of thing. There are many factors that would make one nation's territory more desireable than another.

That by itself would lop off a significant number of nations.

Next, I'd cross off any nations that had large, powerful non-UN allies that weren't also MY allies. While the nation in question would be rather helpless before me, their allies, not having been crippled by the UN, would be under no such constraint.

That would pare down the list even more.

As you can see, indiscriminately attempting to sweep up all nations at once is a waste of time-- you'll get a lot of 'junk' nations that arn't particularly useful to you or anyone else. It's better to run a sort of gaseous diffusion process to filter out which nations are the most desireable targets, overall.

As for how I'd maintain control? I have a number of excellent ideas in that department, the one I'm favoring at the moment is to simply infect the populations of those nations with some sort of bioengineered plague that has no debiliating effects on those infected-- as long as they take a certain medicine at regular intervals, of course. Since these nations would lack much in the way of modern medical practices (though sanitation standards would likely remain good; concrete and sewers and so forth can be made without oil-based products, albiet with much more difficulty due to how hard it is to transport the neccesary materials), the population would be rendered relatively helpless in my hands and would have to stay cool and not pull any sort of dumb revolt, or else my nation's representatives would simply withold the medicine and let the problem take care of itself.

Obviously my own people would be immunized against it.

In addition, any personnel of mine in the nation would be under orders to treat the populace well (as far as such things are possible given the situation), thus keeping them relatively happy, thus decreasing the chance of some sort of revolt due to excess cruelty.

And yes, I fully realize this tactic is unethical and horrifying in the extreme, but, well, that's the sort of unfair advantage us non-UN nations get. :D

Mikitivity

19-09-2005, 05:43

As others have said: Game mechanics issues should not be an excuse for bad roleplaying. You're relying on a game mechanics issue to be just that.

Two things.

First it is a two way street. If you want to claim that the Frequently Asked Questions are in fact *rules*, then game mechanics should be binding as well, as they are afterall incorporated into the game.

Second, non-compliance doesn't not always equal poor roleplaying.

In the case of this resolution the poor roleplaying comes when players are telling me how to run my nation. There is *nothing* in the rules that ever has said that I am not free to implement UN resolutions in a way I so choose. That includes interpeting them as I understand them. I've made a strong case that by omitting parts of a resolution players are actually casting their own interpetation of the resolution ... they are picking and choosing what it means to them just as much as I am when take a hollistic approach and summarize it. Both approaches are right for individual nations. The Most Glorious Hack already pointed this out in this thread. The godmoding and bad form in roleplaying comes when a select few individuals are forcing their will on me.

You want to throw away your tanks and say the UN made you do it. Fine be that ruler. I've read the resolution and it is crystal clear to me that it does not ban internal combustion engines, and that in order to be in compliance I merely need to pop solar power on buildings in a good faith effort (since the resolution even opened up a back door in the second group of activating clauses).

But the minute Axis Nova, you and that other player decided that they would MANDATE their view on all 30,000+ UN members they stepped across a line.

I'll restate this ... you can do whatever the hell you want with your nation, but you have no business in NationStates telling another player how they view things. Especially when that player has had a logical defense of their interpetation, as I've done.

If there was truely *only* one standard implementation for resolutions, it would be easy for the game moderators to once every 5 days create a snappy one-line text to add to only UN nations similar to the daily issue flavour text. They could add the flavour text as a string the minute a resolution hits the floor for a vote, and if it passes, since our stats are altered code could be written to change the UN implementation as well.

The reason that hasn't happened is it would take time to do ... but I honestly don't believe for a minute that aside from a few sour grapes that want everybody moving in the same direction at the same time, that few players (outside of the vocal opponents here) really would like that. I think we'd be shocked at the sometimes corny text that would pop up ... amused by it, but resolution authors would be shocked.

Krioval

19-09-2005, 06:00

And to buttress Axis Nova's point, Krioval is future tech. As fun as a worldwide conquest of MT nations would be (30K of them would be unfeasible, however), pre-industrial societies practically beg for Krioval to conquer them, if only to bring their benighted population out of the iron age - actually, scratch that. Good luck melting and reshaping metal without a forge.

It wouldn't be a contest. Given a generation for the total economic and scientific collapse of at least a sizeable subset of UN members, Kriovalian soldiers and scientists alike would be viewed as a host of gods come to restore order and prosperity.

To answer a question put to me earlier, though, I'd support the repeal. I don't like bad science being enshrined in resolutions, and Krioval has stronger ethical restraints than many other non-UN states. As such, we'd likely be late to the "invade everybody" party.

Axis Nova

19-09-2005, 06:09

Mikitivity, wouldn't your efforts be better spent organizing a repeal effort than trying to argue your way around what Hack said? That is kind of the entire point of this thread, after all.

I have no intention of forcing any nation to RP with me that doesn't want to. That being said, this thread is a blunt instrument-- a crowbar, if you would-- that I am hitting the UN with in an attempt to elict the response I want from it.

Said response being the immediate repeal of the solar panel resolution that's the impetus for this thread, of course.

As a constant reminder (as long as it's on the first page, of course :) ) of the price the UN will pay if the resolution is not repealed, it serves it's purpose nicely.

Now, considering there are MANY more non-UN nations a great deal more aggressive and warlike than Axis Nova, arn't you glad I'm the only one who thought of this so far?

Imagine what it would be like if you had HUNDREDS of non-UN people in here all trying for a piece of the UN.

Forgottenlands

19-09-2005, 06:28

Two things.

First it is a two way street. If you want to claim that the Frequently Asked Questions are in fact *rules*, then game mechanics should be binding as well, as they are afterall incorporated into the game.

Logic: the FAQ is the creator's base mod ruling. He has defined the base set of rules for NS in the FAQ. This is what he has declared. As such, Max's word is law, and the FAQ is the most basic form of moderator ruling, even before the Enodian Protocols, the Hackian Laws and the One Stop Rules Shop openned. Considering that Max and Violet hired all the moderators, their word should, theoretically, trump the moderators. However, the moderators enforce the rules and they are partial to their own rules (for obvious reasons - possibly one of them being that the moderators were last updated this year and I don't think the FAQ has changed considerably in 2 years, certainly looks the same from what I remember 2.5 years ago). The FAQ, however, does not state that mechanics are part of RPing, nor does any mod ruling state that (in fact, many have suggested that outside stats - eg: the example of claiming you have a few billion when you really have only 5 million - there is NO relationship between mechanics and RPing).

Second, non-compliance doesn't not always equal poor roleplaying.

Correct: but godmodding (I've thought it through at a linguistic level, and I don't believe you on the single d) is considered to be bad roleplaying, and most non-compliance just because you refuse to comply is considered godmodding. Interpreting a resolution in such a way that the majority of people would consider invalid would also be considered godmodding - as the opinion of the peers does matter when it comes to roleplay, and the opinion of your peers is quite a bit different than what you indicated.

In the case of this resolution the poor roleplaying comes when players are telling me how to run my nation. There is *nothing* in the rules that ever has said that I am not free to implement UN resolutions in a way I so choose.

Actually, there is every indication that you are required to implement the resolution as is. Else you could claim that you are legalizing abortion to come into compliance with legalize Euthanasia. That sounds a lot like godmodding in my opinion

That includes interpeting them as I understand them. I've made a strong case that by omitting parts of a resolution players are actually casting their own interpetation of the resolution ... they are picking and choosing what it means to them just as much as I am when take a hollistic approach and summarize it.

Where did you make this so called "strong case"? I would love to see this, but I doubt it would be considered valid in my opinion.

Both approaches are right for individual nations. The Most Glorious Hack already pointed this out in this thread.

If this is true, I certainly missed that argument

The godmoding and bad form in roleplaying comes when a select few individuals are forcing their will on me.

Actually, it comes from the sheer logic of the resolution. If you ban all fossil fuels at all levels, all UN nations are in the bronze age. If they are in the bronze age, they can be overrun. The exception would be FT nations, which has been acknowledged on this thread. The question then comes to which interpretation is right, or if both are valid. So far, those that are about to be dominated have generally stated that Axis Nova is correct, you are not.

You want to throw away your tanks and say the UN made you do it. Fine be that ruler. I've read the resolution and it is crystal clear to me that it does not ban internal combustion engines, and that in order to be in compliance I merely need to pop solar power on buildings in a good faith effort (since the resolution even opened up a back door in the second group of activating clauses).

But the minute Axis Nova, you and that other player decided that they would MANDATE their view on all 30,000+ UN members they stepped across a line.

Am I to assume that I am the other player. So not only do you disregard my comments (not to mention, misread Hack's arguments), you don't even put in the effort to scroll down and check my name. How considerate of you.

Regardless, its a view that is based upon what has been brought forth as the standard belief in the United Nations over the ages: the belief that the letter and not the intent is what matters, that the resolution in its entirity has been implemented, that the only way around it is to find a loophole within what has actually been stated, not "if I rearrange these letters, it says we don't have to do this". Unless you haven't noticed, the moderator has disagreed with you on this matter - and he stated that none of the other moderators held your own position when looking at the actual resolution. How odd that you seem to be in the minority on so many fronts.

I'll restate this ... you can do whatever the hell you want with your nation, but you have no business in NationStates telling another player how they view things. Especially when that player has had a logical defense of their interpetation, as I've done.

You think that this is a logical interpretation. However, Starcra II thought that the ozone layer argument was perfectly logical to stand behind - yet we all saw the failures in this logic and debated it with the author (and Starcra II did indeed see the error in the logic). Just because you have a position that you feel is logical does not make it so. No one has agreed with your logic as they have felt it was founded on several false beliefs.

If there was truely *only* one standard implementation for resolutions, it would be easy for the game moderators to once every 5 days create a snappy one-line text to add to only UN nations similar to the daily issue flavour text.

There isn't one standard. Legal methods of loopholes include importing power, placing a solar panel that you would normally find on a calculator on every single rooftop, make trade deals for all your iron/other metals etc. On the other hand, you can go with the full and true intent of the author (as was demonstrated on the forums) and place massive solar panels everywhere, make your planes run on nuclear power, and...well....mine enough platinum to keep your hydrogen cars running. There's a lot of ways to take the resolution, but it isn't by cutting off portions of the resolution or saying "well, the intent was clearly this...."

They could add the flavour text as a string the minute a resolution hits the floor for a vote, and if it passes, since our stats are altered code could be written to change the UN implementation as well.

Why don't you go ask the moderators to do that. I'm sure they'd love hearing the extra work

The reason that hasn't happened is it would take time to do ... but I honestly don't believe for a minute that aside from a few sour grapes that want everybody moving in the same direction at the same time, that few players (outside of the vocal opponents here) really would like that. I think we'd be shocked at the sometimes corny text that would pop up ... amused by it, but resolution authors would be shocked.

I think its appropriate resolution authors are shocked. The entire belief this game is founded upon are the consequences of our actions, no matter what we had hoped for. You legalize marijuana, and suddenly all kids are drug addicts. You legalize abortion and suddenly the health care bill rises spectacularly. You do all sorts of actions and there are consequences to them, and it would be quite appropriate to this game if the moderators did that sort of thing.

Liliths Vengeance

19-09-2005, 06:34

Two things.

First it is a two way street. If you want to claim that the Frequently Asked Questions are in fact *rules*, then game mechanics should be binding as well, as they are afterall incorporated into the game.

The problem is that the FAQ is not a set of game mechanics. It's a set of rules and answers to questions, with some of those only applying in certain situations. Using the logic you submit, the rules should affect everything equally. The fact remains they don't and were never intended to.

Second, non-compliance doesn't not always equal poor roleplaying.

I would say it is if the nation in question is a UN member. In fact, I have your own comments where you state you think of it as wank to back me.

In the case of this resolution the poor roleplaying comes when players are telling me how to run my nation. There is *nothing* in the rules that ever has said that I am not free to implement UN resolutions in a way I so choose. That includes interpeting them as I understand them. I've made a strong case that by omitting parts of a resolution players are actually casting their own interpetation of the resolution ... they are picking and choosing what it means to them just as much as I am when take a hollistic approach and summarize it. Both approaches are right for individual nations. The Most Glorious Hack already pointed this out in this thread. The godmoding and bad form in roleplaying comes when a select few individuals are forcing their will on me.

The fact doesn't change that you must implement them. And, unfortunately, there is nothing that says you are allowed to implement only parts of them. In fact, going by the way the rules are written, I would say that you must implement all of them as worded and try to find ways around the wording. And, as it stands, the side that is most easily supported by the wording at hand is the side that says it bans petroleum products totally.

The players telling you that you are doing something wrong is not godmoding. It's not them controlling your nation. It's them pointing out you are not abiding by the rules, whether hard or social, of the game. And if you play a modern nation, you must abide by the rules of reality for what is and isn't possible, which means a player telling you that banning oil usage will result in a complete collapse of your medical system is perfectly within acceptability because it actually would in the real world. Your job at that point is to figure out some way it wouldn't that is convincing to others. Calling what they are doing godmoding is, I would say, a form of wanking in its own right.

You want to throw away your tanks and say the UN made you do it. Fine be that ruler. I've read the resolution and it is crystal clear to me that it does not ban internal combustion engines, and that in order to be in compliance I merely need to pop solar power on buildings in a good faith effort (since the resolution even opened up a back door in the second group of activating clauses).

And it's crystal clear to me that you are misinterpretting the sentence in question, as I think Most Glorious Hack did in part when suggesting the idea that it only affects power sources. The "and" in there clearly says the two items are separate clauses.

But the minute Axis Nova, you and that other player decided that they would MANDATE their view on all 30,000+ UN members they stepped across a line.

And what did you think those resolutions you supported that passed did? Suggest them a viewpoint? They mandated your viewpoint. I do not see my name on any resolution, and I do not see anyone having to comply with my roleplays. Don't try to discredit your opponents by falsely lumping them together and saying they are doing something when most of them are not. I view it as a form of dishonesty.

I'll restate this ... you can do whatever the hell you want with your nation, but you have no business in NationStates telling another player how they view things. Especially when that player has had a logical defense of their interpetation, as I've done.

I see you are making the DLE Fallacy. Logical != Correct all of the time. Your statements are logical in the way in which they are presented. That does not mean your statements are correct. Your statement about myself telling someone how they view things is incorrect. I'm not dictating your viewpoints. I'm saying your viewpoints are wrong.

You can do what you want with your nation within limitations. You cannot, for example, use a swastika for a flag. There are also certain flag and national motto limitations. You cannot, by the way the rules are written, disobey a UN resolution while being a member. Just because it's not enforced does indicate it is a suggestion. The rule against tags was mostly not enforced despite them being illegal.

If there was truely *only* one standard implementation for resolutions, it would be easy for the game moderators to once every 5 days create a snappy one-line text to add to only UN nations similar to the daily issue flavour text. They could add the flavour text as a string the minute a resolution hits the floor for a vote, and if it passes, since our stats are altered code could be written to change the UN implementation as well.

Which requires more programming and bothering the admins into adding it. Which won't happen because it is unnecessary. What is necessary is to point out the FAQ applies to the forums and the site and the FAQ says people cannot disobey a resolution. Considering it's actually in the One Stop Rule Shop, it's pretty hard for an opposing viewpoint that is also agreeing with the rules to be the truth. Simple process of elimination.

The reason that hasn't happened is it would take time to do ... but I honestly don't believe for a minute that aside from a few sour grapes that want everybody moving in the same direction at the same time, that few players (outside of the vocal opponents here) really would like that. I think we'd be shocked at the sometimes corny text that would pop up ... amused by it, but resolution authors would be shocked.

I have bolded the text that is hypocritical. Here is the quote that proves it:

I'll restate this ... you can do whatever the hell you want with your nation, but you have no business in NationStates telling another player how they view things.

What you are doing is dictating the viewpoint of people who are advocating that there is only one particular way to interpret this. Have you actually asked these people if they want the UN moving in the same direction at the same time?

Otherwise, unnecessary. I have already stated why.

Bretton

19-09-2005, 06:35

We in Bretton should like to believe that the United Nations will come to its senses, as we have always hoped, once such a ridiculous resolution as this has come to pass.

Nevertheless, for the interim we are siding with the right honorable Axis Nova in his endeavours. Though we and our ultimate goal, shared by our all-encompasing corporate body, Brettonian Military Industries, seek an end to all warfare through the worldwide dissemination of The Technology of Peace(tm), some actions may need to be taken before the ideal world we envision can come to pass.

Axis, I believe we should strike up an alliance!

Axis Nova

19-09-2005, 08:27

Agreed! Let us join forces and pillage the UN together!

The Most Glorious Hack

19-09-2005, 11:48

Such an amusing thread... and for so many reasons...

The Palentine

19-09-2005, 13:50

Such an amusing thread... and for so many reasons...

I agree! I'm giggling like a schoolgirl right now! :D

OCC. How can I get in touch with you Hack? I've got a rant/thread I wish to post, but I'm not sure which forum to post it. Its not UN based so it doesnt go here. But it could be considered NS, gameplay, or international incidents.
Thank You
The Palentine

Powerhungry Chipmunks

19-09-2005, 13:54

I think its appropriate resolution authors are shocked. The entire belief this game is founded upon are the consequences of our actions, no matter what we had hoped for. You legalize marijuana, and suddenly all kids are drug addicts. You legalize abortion and suddenly the health care bill rises spectacularly. You do all sorts of actions and there are consequences to them, and it would be quite appropriate to this game if the moderators did that sort of thing.
Actually, the puropose of the game is 1) to sell a book, 2) to imitate that book's cynical view on life.

Realistically speaking, the result of legalizing marajuana is not that "suddenly all kids are drug addicts", as can be seen from real life examples. Neither are all the other radical views expressed in national issues any sort of accurate reality of "consequences for our actions". Yes, it leans on there being consequences for our actions, but those consequences are caricatures of consequences, exagerations, slippery-slopes. This is Max Barry's fundamental style of political humor. I don't see it having a great effect on RP or Gameplay decisions.

Allow me to quote something that, it would seem, should be very familiar to you: Why is my nation so weird?

Everything is exaggerated a little. Well, okay, a lot. Your decisions affect your nation very strongly, so your country might seem like a more extreme version of what you were aiming for. Unless you have radical politics. In which case you probably think nothing's wrong.

Lois-Must-Die

19-09-2005, 17:46

Axis, I believe we should strike up an alliance!Aye, and seeing as how the United Nations has turned its typically tyrannical machinations upon itself, the advantage is ours, and Axis Nova may also count upon the support of the brutal legions of Lois-Must-Die. As an added bonus, the combined forces of the Axis Allies shall be more than enough to take down Mikitivity, so we may cork the yapper of its loudmoth ambassador. :p

VICTORY IS MINE!!

Axis Nova

20-09-2005, 00:29

OOC: Actually, as Mikitivity has indicated rather vocally that he would not be interested in any such RP, he's on the "undesireable territory" list for IC reasons I'll decide on later :)

Mikitivity

20-09-2005, 00:59

Pardon me, Your Eminence, but I would like to know why you were such a rabid attack dog on the dolphins-act repeal, because it simply contained a poorly conceived argument in a non-operative clause (mind you, the only operative clause in any repeal is "[Insert resolution here] shall be struck out and rendered null and void"), while at the same time you play an apologist for a resolution author who not only incorrectly stated that fossil fuels deplete the ozone, but offered (in the operative clauses, mind you) an energy overhaul so extreme that even the mods suggested it would result in a Global Energy Armageddon?

I voted against Starcra II's original resolution in-part because of the ice cap issue and in-part because of the time-frame bothered "my government". I've been up front about that here and in one of the replacement or repeal threads. Your resolution and Starcra II's recieved the same vote from my government: No.

The difference, to me, is that Starcra's clause was designed to be part of a larger resolution, your clause that nations have sovereign rights over recognized international resources really had nothing to do with the motion to repeal or if it did, the entire repeal was then being made for the wrong reasons.

To repeat this in a slightly different way ...

My government spoke out against the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" because when I read the entire repeal, removing its statement that nations have sovereign rights over shared international resources, seemed like the larger intent of the resolution honestly wouldn't have been changed ... thus the clause should be removed because clearly nations do not have sovereign rights over shared international resources. Few nations seemed to be talking about that subject at the time and I hoped you might try again without that clause.

My government did not speak out against "Promotion of Solar Panels" because if you removed clause (I) 4 from the resolution you do change what many feel was a significant portion of the resolution. (I actually think clause (I) 3 is cause for concern because of the time-frame.) Plenty of other voices were addressing that (and other) issues and I didn't have anything unique to add on the subject until somebody publically declared war on 30,000 nations based on their OPINION of what they read in the resolution. An OPINION that I disagree with and it now happens that a moderator has said both opinions are valid ... and since I can only apply my opinions to my nation, I'm very happy with that ruling. :)

My larger concern now is that you might still have some resentment towards me ... and I'd like to assure you I do not have any resentment towards you.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and gentlemen of the UN!