NationStates Jolt Archive

Split from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480966) at Hack's suggestion.

Recommended reading (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9900794&postcount=8)

What is your attitude to compliance?

Mine is this: we are obliged to follow all resolutions, to the letter, and should RP doing so. If someone roleplays non-compliance, I would be willing to recognise that claim. However, I would generally assume nations to be in a state of compliance with all resolutions. If I were to roleplay non-compliance, I would do so only either to make a legislative point - for example, unrealistic environmental goals - or if there were significant reason to do so, but not significant enough to warrant leaving the UN - so probably a social/moral consideration, rather than a political/legal one (make of that distinction what you will).

However, I generally find creative compliance more interesting than simple non-compliance.

Since people are bringing up the Gnomes, I figured I should put forward how I view them acting. I take their methods from the telegrams that everyone gets:

Sat May 6 01:45:39 2006 From: !Compliance Ministry
Laws have been enacted to bring <nation> into compliance with the United Nations resolution "UN Patent Law".If this looks weird it's because I ganked it from my puppet in the Centre

Notice that it doesn't say that you've been notified that a law was passed and could you please update your laws when the spring recess is over, it implies a sort of forced action, which is in keeping with the bit in the FAQ about you not being able to ignore them.

I view the Gnomes as acting as the compliance ministry. Since they're made from the very essence of godmoding, they can do whatever the fuck they want. Therefore, they magically change everybody's laws to match the letter of the law. If you don't pass your own legislation, then they leave it in place. If you take the time and effort to override their laws, then they egg your house. If you pass your own laws, the go back in time and stop themselves from altering your laws.

In the case of Mikitivity, they also wipe your minds of any memory of them being there.

Sure it's wanky, but it gets the job done while giving nations the ability to ignore Resolutions or to pass their own laws, or to make even tighter laws than the UN mandates. I think it's a reasonable compromise.

Typically, I find it better to tell newbs that non-compliance is impossible than to tell them that technically they can. The last thing any of us wants to put up with it "OMG! I IGNORE ALL TEH REZOLUSHUNS!"

The problem with telling newbies that there is no wiggle room, when CLEARLY there is, is that you are lumping the newbies whom are incapable of understanding the true flexibility and creativity involved in interesting roleplaying from those that can.

To put this another way, there are in fact times when I have little patience for people whom are stupid engineers. I work with a number of them, and instead of giving them detailed and good explanations, I'll dumb things down and *gasp* tell them that they can't physically use the numerical models or field data I work with to accomplish their goals ... why? Because I'm not paid to spend 50 hours a week holding somebody who really shouldn't have graduated from the 8th grades hand.

But at the same time I work with some brilliant engineers, and I'll give them very detailed explanations of what these same tools can and can't do.

I've yet to be confronted about the fact that I essentially hand out information that is different, but I think the same approach should apply here ... you can give out easy answers for dumb newbies and more complex reasons and justifications for smart newbies / experienced players.


I get telegrams from dumb newbies sometimes nuking my country ... obviously Hack and I have different opinions on the "truthfulness" of what comes in the telegram inbox. A mod warning is a special exception, but I give those UN telegrams the *same* degree of seriousness / "staying power" as the daily issues. In fact there are daily issues (Euthanasia is my favorite example) that give players the option to not comply with UN resolutions. The fact is the game ain't perfect ... and what you call a gnome-gram is another example of that.

p.s. the idea of gnomes egging a house is particularly disturbing, since everybody knows they are hatched from eggs like the birds they once were :)

The Federal Republic comes into compliance via the Creative Solutions Agency (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Creative_Solutions_Agency), which finds a whole bunch of nifty loopholes to make sure we are following UN resolutions on our terms, and not those of the scummy gnomes. And once the relevant regulations issue, we summon the gnomes to review said regulations, and when they predictably tell us that the stuff we've passed just ain't good enough, we have them shot, and mount their heads on our wall. CSA has recently outsourced much of its work to Ausserlander dwarves, who, while not gnomes in the strictest sense, are still very small and shifty and suspicious-like, and besides, they're twice as efficient and industrious as your standard gnome, and every document they produce is By Royal Order of His High Holy Princishness, Whatshisface XXIV. It's all just so cool and official-sounding. Of course, now that we've left the UN, we've had to find other stuff for them to do, like rewriting our nation's laws. Whenever the Federal Congress hands down a law, scrawled in crayon, with such adorable directives as: "Wouldn't it be like totally awesome if we passed a bunch of laws making bad stuff like murder and manslaughter against the law?", the dwarves seize it, polish it up, and before you know it, it's a really spiffy, legal-sounding dealy, with clauses and subclauses and footnotes and appendices and preambles and such. Of course, the Kennyite cops have a very hard time figuring out what any of these things say: for one, it's all in really fancy calligraphy, and they can't even read cursive; and two, none of them could ever be bothered to learn dwarvish. Double whammy. Still, we were very surprised to learn, shortly after passing the Screw the Foreigners Act of 2006 reducing foreign aid (original text: "All those nations who take our dough are stupid idiots who hate our guts and aren't ever gonna pay it back, so from now on, let's only give out money to people who are nice"), that every second Tuesday we were required to celebrate something called "Ausserland Rocks! Day," where all the dwarves in every town across the Federal Republic are named king for the day and given crowns and scepters and velvet robes and paraded through the streets and paid due reverence, taken home when the day is done, waited on hand and foot, and served caek. Hmmm ...

[OOC: I'll just say what I said before; compliance is mandatory, but that doesn't mean the rules can't ever be broken. Players, like the gnomes, can do whatever the fuck they want with their nations, and if you don't like what they do (including claims that they can ignore any UNR they don't like), just ignore them. It's not hard. It doesn't require a ridiculous Godmoding regime mobilizing a billions-strong army of magical creatures to rewrite the laws in all member nations -- only to find themselves at the harsh frontiers of the Antarctic, where they are sadistically hunted for sport by carnivorous penguin commandos and bands of anti-UN gnomes. The gnomes are very complicated solution to a very simple problem, and they really have cut into the spirit of roleplay on this forum. Whereas before, where there was some degree of sophistication in UN RP, and compliance and noncompliance and resigning and dodgeball wars and that good stuff could be played out, now it's all "You can't do that! The gnomes don't let you!" and "I bagsy his office!" I tried posting an RP here, and while it did attract a few good IC posts, half the responses I got were about stealing office supplies and invading Chechnya. Sad really.

[And I agree with Mik about the Compliance Ministry telespam. It's just an official way of telling you your stats have been changed; has nothing more to do with actual roleplay than daily issues.]

It's 1:20 am so I'll go more in depth when the sun is up, but I wanted to weigh in on the question of telling newbies yes or no compliance is mandatory: yes we can discuss loopholes, yes we can discuss wiggle room, yes there is a lot of possibilities with potential ways one might actually disregard the resolution (Mik, despite your claims, both of your examples were technically loophole abuses, and yes you can have absolutely no intention of implementing any part of a resolution if you can find a big enough loophole as we had with Law of the Sea). However, when the question comes up about the actual complexity of getting nations to follow through with a resolution, the answer, I feel, should be "resolutions are mandatory" - which is basically what I tried to say when Kenny brought the debate up. As we're discussing the actual text of the resolutions and bring up editing points and potential loopholes, that's when we can discuss loophole abuse. Outright refusal of a resolution for whatever reason they can't reasonably address within the body of a resolution, but with zero real examples thus far presented of failing to address without abusing loopholes, to say that they should seriously consider that while writing resolutions is....unreasonable if nothing else.

(Note: I've only so far read up to and including the first paragraph of Mik's post and then stopped because I'm tired)

...example, unrealistic environmental goals - or if there were significant reason to do so...

Why does everyone suffer from this stereotype?


OOC: Yeah tell Japan that the Hybrid car is bad business. It's making them the most profitable and largest car company in the world...and the problem with Bio-diesel is that all the money you spend on gas STAYS in your country.

But alas...

IC:

I believe that to non-comply means to resign from the UN.

Why does everyone suffer from this stereotype?


OOC: Yeah tell Japan that the Hybrid car is bad business. It's making them the most profitable and largest car company in the world...and the problem with Bio-diesel is that all the money you spend on gas STAYS in your country.
Yes, because I said all environmental goals are by their very nature unrealistic.



























































OH WAIT

Yes, because I said all environmental goals are by their very nature unrealistic.



























































OH WAIT

There's a misconception that environmental conversion hurts the economy.

Which is flat out wrong. In fact it is almost always a boom for the economy both Macro and micro.

There's a misconception that environmental conversion hurts the economy.

Which is flat out wrong. In fact it is almost always a boom for the economy both Macro and micro.
This thread was created to avoid a hijack. Kindly stay on topic, or naff off.

Which is flat out wrong. In fact it is almost always a boom for the economy both Macro and micro.Allow me to nip this in the bud and end the hijack of the hijack right quick:

I have seen the code for exactly what UN Resolutions do to your stats. Environmental Resolutions damage the economy. End of story. Flat out damages it. Just like it says it will ("...at the expense of industry."). Regardless of what environmental legislation does in the real world, it damages the economy here. Discussions of if that should be changed can be taken to Technical. Arguments that it's not true are silly and deny the reality of this game.


I'll just say what I said before; compliance is mandatory, but that doesn't mean the rules can't ever be broken.Personally, I take a harder line on my interpretation of the FAQ. When it says you can't ignore Resolutions, I take that to mean that... you can't ignore them: non-compliance isn't an option. However, I'm not here to police role-play, so my opinion carries no more weight than anybody else's.

It's not hard. It doesn't require a ridiculous Godmoding regime mobilizing a billions-strong army of magical creatures to rewrite the laws in all member nationsTo be fair, they were started as a joke. It was spawned by a bit from MST3K:

Movie: "There's a rational explination for this... there must be!"
Crow: "Elves."

I didn't want to use elves because of the number of people who role-play them, so I used an equally silly substitution that wasn't used much (if at all), specifically the gnomes. Gnomes are silly, and they fit my purposes. Originally they were used to explain goofy nonsense in the game as a whole (ie: contradictions in the Spotlight). "Why is my nation weird?" "Gnomes."

They eventually settled in the UN ("Who makes sure I changed my laws?" "Gnomes.") where their signifigance eclipsed their purpose. They became something of a catch-all and an embodiment of the Compliance Ministry. As a way to secure them, and prevent someone from running utterly amuck with them, I created the nation of The UN Gnomes. Again, the nation was largely intended to be a joke. They've grown past their original purpose, but I also don't exactly have a problem with that. I'm rather amused that the UN uses gnomes to enforce their will.

The gnomes are very complicated solution to a very simple problem, and they really have cut into the spirit of roleplay on this forum.Again, not complicated on purpose. I mean, it's not like I set out to have them be the compliance ministry. My ego isn't that big.

Whereas before, where there was some degree of sophistication in UN RP, and compliance and noncompliance and resigning and dodgeball wars and that good stuff could be played out, now it's all "You can't do that! The gnomes don't let you!"I take exception to the implication that a lack of role-playing is the gnomes' fault.

and "I bagsy his office!"Definately not the gnomes' fault. I had nothing to do with that meme.

[And I agree with Mik about the Compliance Ministry telespam. It's just an official way of telling you your stats have been changed; has nothing more to do with actual roleplay than daily issues.]It's a game-generated telegram. The fact that it's from the "Compliance Ministry" is a nod towards role-playing. Otherwise it would say something like "NationStates Admin" or "System Update".

Well, when I first saw 'gnomes' it made me laugh because one of my friends had 'mead gnomes' as his national animal...the image of drunk mini-people making sure everyone complied :D

As I've said before, I really think of the NSUN like the EU. Everyone breaches all the time, and get huge fines slapped on them.
Also they come up with justifications etc why they broke the rule, if enough countries think it's good enough it doesn't matter.
If enough people think a reg. is stupid, with no way of enforcing it it just gets ignored.


...and of course exploiting loopholes is perfectly reasonable.

Obviously, the UN has representitives (gnomes?) in the various legislatures, since their laws DO get passed. But issues can contridict the UN laws, so they're not absolute.

Legally, the UN rules are mandatory. However laws can and will be broken. Saying "I don't have to do this because I'm above the law" is like waving a red flag at a bull. Domestically, the opposition party will gladly pounce on that, and even dictators have opposition. Internationally, other nations won't be happy with such an arrogant rogue nation, and keep in mind that a country the size of the US is still a small fry in NS. So, if a nation doesn't want to comply, it's better to do it subtly and use loopholes, while giving the appearance of compliance.

OOC: I assume that what the Gnomes in the various "Compliance Ministries" (or "UN Embassies", as some people call them) do is make sure that the Resolutions themselves are entered into the nations' law-codes and that the nations enact laws that at least try to meet the letter of those resolutions: They obviously can't write the actual national laws themselves, at least not in all cases, because the separate nations demonstrably do have enough wiggle-room for creative interpretation of the resolutions' wording...
How do they enforce this, and make the national politicians pass those laws? I don't know... Maybe politicians have to swear mystically-binding oaths to obey that rule when their nations enter the UN, or when they themselves enter ofice if that happens after their nation joins? Maybe the Gnomes include enough Gninjas to asassinate any politicians who break that rule, and demonstrate their capabilities sufficiently (by practical jokes?) to keep people intimidated into compliance?
This isn''t to say that actual compliance "on the ground" will always be 100% perfect, of course: For one thing (as has already been said) some resolutions are so impractical that they simply can't be carried out as their authors said, and for another [perhaps more significant, overall] one the national governments' ability to enforce laws is likely to be less than total in many cases...

Do those players who disbelieve in the Gnomes' very existence also not believe in the fleets of helicopters that move nations between regions (which, I must admit, I personally prefer to assume really just move things like embassies, trading posts and so on, and perhaps mystic portals, rather than the entire nations)? How do they feel about the population-increase rates?

Personally, I take a harder line on my interpretation of the FAQ. When it says you can't ignore Resolutions, I take that to mean that... you can't ignore them: non-compliance isn't an option.First off, with respect to roleplay, I really don't know how hard a line you can take on a Gameplay document like the FAQ, and second off, "compliance is mandatory" cannot possibly mean noncompliance is not an option. In RL, compliance with the law is mandatory; yet, I'm certain you've broken the law at least once or twice. N00bishness and Godmoding (OMG!!!!111 I dont hav to folow anythign you say!!!!1 Im ignoring this if it passes! You all suck! lol!!") is one thing; skillfull RP is quite another. If a player can use the latter in the commission of noncompliance, it shouldn't be dismissed with the usual catty appeals to gnomes. Besides, if other players acknowledge the act of noncompliance, well, that's just it, then, isn't it? Roleplayed noncompliance is an option.

However, I'm not here to police role-play, so my opinion carries no more weight than anybody else's.Thank you; I hope certain other players repeatedly appealing to authority with respect to roleplaying eventually do get around to reading this thread.

To be fair, they were started as a joke. It was spawned by a bit from MST3K:

Movie: "There's a rational explination for this... there must be!"
Crow: "Elves."

I didn't want to use elves because of the number of people who role-play them, so I used an equally silly substitution that wasn't used much (if at all), specifically the gnomes. Gnomes are silly, and they fit my purposes. Originally they were used to explain goofy nonsense in the game as a whole (ie: contradictions in the Spotlight). "Why is my nation weird?" "Gnomes."

They eventually settled in the UN ("Who makes sure I changed my laws?" "Gnomes.") where their signifigance eclipsed their purpose. They became something of a catch-all and an embodiment of the Compliance Ministry. As a way to secure them, and prevent someone from running utterly amuck with them, I created the nation of The UN Gnomes. Again, the nation was largely intended to be a joke. They've grown past their original purpose, but I also don't exactly have a problem with that. I'm rather amused that the UN uses gnomes to enforce their will.I know they were a joke, and I took them as such. The problem is with humorless morons who take them seriously. Newbs are beginning to buy this nonsense that magical creatures rewrite all nations' laws whether they like it or not. So I guess it's double-edged sword: Godmoders/newbs/n00bs who think they can ignore anything they like vs. Godmoders who tell other nations that they are in compliance whether they like it or not, because sneaky little creatures have rewritten their laws.

Interestingly enough, most of the people who honestly consider the gnomes a serious expression of UN roleplay seem to sit on the same side of the NatSov fence ...

I take exception to the implication that a lack of role-playing is the gnomes' fault. ... Definately not the gnomes' fault. I had nothing to do with that meme.No, but they're part of the problem; I mean, when players seriously acknowledge the gnomes' awesome powers, it really sort of limits the RP options players think they have. I honestly don't think anything on the level of the dodgeball war would be possible today.

It's a game-generated telegram. The fact that it's from the "Compliance Ministry" is a nod towards role-playing. Otherwise it would say something like "NationStates Admin" or "System Update".Sure, it's a nod at roleplaying. As are the daily issues. As are nations' flags, names and pretitles. As are the national flag and national animal fields. As are nations' population counts. As are nations' tax rates. As are government classifications. All nods to roleplaying -- yet all are animals of Gameplay, and none need to be acknowledged in freeform. Ecopoeia disregards his population count; I've seen nations RPing with an a different pretitle or even a different name than their NS names. Players answer issues one way (to fix their stats) and roleplay another, or ignore what the game says their UN government category or tax rate is. The mere fact that a Gameplay instrument sounds like roleplay means nothing.

Continued from the other thread...

I should note that there was one post where TH, the writer of that sticky, stated that he disregarded people who flaunted compliance with a resolution as being godmodders. Does that mean that this concept is unusable, no. TH was merely indicating the different areas that people could touch upon with compliance. He provided little moral judgement on each within the actual post. However, some, such as myself and likely TH, ignore all claims to non-compliance (beyond legal wrangling) as godmodding.

Ahem. I consider it godmoding when a nation claims to not have the resolution as law or in the form of law. Whether the nation chooses to enforce the law, use loopholes or creative legislation to get around it, or chooses to flout the law...well that's just fun roleplay.

And that's just my opinion. Good arguments can be made for an even less strict view of compliance than I hold to. I'm a bit of a traditionalist in some ways. I put it down to having been here too long.

Note: I also consider the UN Gnomes godmoding and ignore them ICly just like any other godmoding.

You can call it Gnomes, you can call it international pressure (which is illogical, impractical and an unrealistic claim to determining how we, as a community, function), you can call it whatever you want.

Wait...international pressure is illogical, impractical, and an unrealistic claim? Hmmm. Let's look at the magical omnipotent godmoding gnomes and see what they are. Illogical? Check. Impractical? Check. An unrealistic claim? Hell yes.

However, Gnomes are the most accepted version and the easiest to explain.

Ah. "Most accepted" is one of my favorite versions of the ad populum fallacy. As far as being the easiest to explain, I'll use a nice real-world example. Which is the easier explanation for lightning?

-The gods are angry at us.

-This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning)

Let's not use ease of explanation as an argument for the Gnomes again, mmkay? I realize that it's less complicated to say "the Gnomes did it and you're stuck with it", but that doesn't mean it's helpful or necessarily true depending on their roleplay perspective. And frankly, "read the sticky about Compliance" is an easy response that will point newbies in the right direction-- all without the need for godmoding or extended explanations on our part. See, it's not that hard.

Anyways, with Gnome theory fairly well developed, what I've stated thus far about Gnomes matches what was already developed. Is it truly unreasonable to explain already developed entities within the UN?

Gnome theory? *snort*

Is that Godmodding? Yes deployment of Gnomes is godmodding, it will always be godmodding, Hack himself has stated clearly that it's godmodding.

Yeah. He's honest like that.

However, you want to explain how you can reasonably keep the entirity of Gatesville from flaunting every single last UN resolution?

A very good question. Somehow I don't think the answer is "let's godmode by premising magical omnipotent gnomes that force them to do what we say".

We all know the UN would lose a war with them, we all know that economic sanctions against them would probably be meaningless as their community is big enough and encompasses enough regions to make such attempts moot.

Absolutely correct.

So you tell me - how is the UN keeping them in line?

I'm curious--what gave you the impression that the UN was keeping Gatesville in line?

Outright refusal of a resolution for whatever reason they can't reasonably address within the body of a resolution, but with zero real examples thus far presented of failing to address without abusing loopholes, to say that they should seriously consider that while writing resolutions is....unreasonable if nothing else.

(Note: I've only so far read up to and including the first paragraph of Mik's post and then stopped because I'm tired)

Just let me know when you've read the *rest* of my post ... 'cause everybody knows that while it is possible to name a tune after 5 notes, when we purchase and listen to music we often enjoy the full composition. ;) I was pretty beat last night too.

The Law of the Sea had a number of nations claiming they wouldn't adhere to the resolution, and I still count Sophista as the chief example. Joccia was abusing loopholes, but clearly the acts of linking two resolutions to promote genocide was opposite of the intent of the resolutions ... thus in both Sophista's and Joccia's cases, the spirit of the resolutions was being completely ignored.

You want RL examples, look at any Iraq resolution. Iraq and the United States alike have ballantly violated just about every resolution the UN has adopted wrt WMDs and the inspections.

It is a RL fact that nations consider UN resolutions recommendations ... it also is a practiced fact that NS players typically ignore UN resolutions that they feel their RPed nation would sidestep ... however, most players just march on and don't make a big deal of it.

I bet in the vacuum of this discussion if I were to run to the "NationStates" forum and choose a poorly written resolution and simply create a puppet called "UN Resolution Commission" and then ask via a poll all UN members if they complied with a given resolution, that we'd find all sorts of players that would say, "no". The poll could be easily constructed to be non-leading.

You, Hack, whomever else can claim that we all have to play to the lowest common demoninator, but the FACT is what you want and what the rest of us put into practice via the wonderful open ended "Roleplaying" free hand are two entirely different things.

(And nothing I've said here is an endorsement for blatant and repeated non-compliance of resolutions ... please understand that I'm advocating for sophisticated RPing and not adherence to a set of stupid rules implemented to handhold beginners into roleplayed international politics.)

Do those players who disbelieve in the Gnomes' very existence also not believe in the fleets of helicopters that move nations between regions (which, I must admit, I personally prefer to assume really just move things like embassies, trading posts and so on, and perhaps mystic portals, rather than the entire nations)? How do they feel about the population-increase rates?

The Class of 2004 (i.e. players whom have been around for ages) will be able to tell you that I've long advocated that the populate stat, like the daily issues and UN resolution categories is frakkin broken.

I've said that the population count is a "cultural / political" influence count, similar to the "score" that you get in the game Civilization III.

The fact is many players enjoy the roleplaying aspects of this game and find most of the gamemechanics elements to be Mickey Mouse (i.e. designed for newbies). For evidence of this, look at the numerous NSWiki articles about nations ... many players downsize their populations to represent something similar to either RL Earth or a SciFi / Fantasy population appropriate for their roleplay.

I don't know why, but the UN forum seems to attract people whom really throw roleplaying and creativity out the window and tend to focus on gamemechanics and rules ... quasi-lawyers, can't live with them, and we'd be far better off without them. ;)

As for the helicopters, when the North Pacific was invaded in July 2004, the hundreds (amazing it got so high) of nations that were ejected never argued that they were physically removed from their rollplayed map location, but rather that in the halls of the North Pacific political organization that UPS Rail had simply disbanned the political organization. Some players went as far as to RP a state of war ... though most maintained that their population and infrastructure were phyiscally in the same place.

I've been in the IDU since I got sick of the Great Bight drama of later July 2004, and in my region most of us are playing (read pretending) that we have a sort of EU or Commonwealth of Nations thing going on. No superpowers ... no helicopters. When one nation expired, we RPed a collapse of the government and when Antrium joined, Antrium RPed as a new government for that same location and people.

My point is people shouldn't let a set of mundane and oversimplified rules bog down your IMAGINATIONS. Even Hack pointed out that it isn't part of his job to police RPing ... in fact, I firmly believe that when he makes statements as a moderator, it is to make things streamlined, but I suspect that when he isn't wearing his moderator hat, that he appreciates creative RPing more than most people. He can correct me if I'm putting words into his mouth.

First off, with respect to roleplay, I really don't know how hard a line you can take on a Gameplay document like the FAQNot to be snarky, but:

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spamThat's part of the Gameplay document that most certainly applies to roleplay. Roleplay may get more leeway (my minister can call yours a shitstain), but there are still limits. Just ask the geniuses who decided to post highly graphic sexual scenes in their roleplay.

and second off, "compliance is mandatory" cannot possibly mean noncompliance is not an option.Um... one rather eliminates the possibility of the other. If a meeting at work is labeled as "Attendance is Mandatory", you had best make sure your ass is at the meeting. There may be exceptions ("I'll be in Alaska that day"), but I see those as matching nations where the Resolution can't apply ("We're ignoring this computer thing as we're 12th century vikings.")

In RL, compliance with the law is mandatory; yet, I'm certain you've broken the law at least once or twice.But I'll get in trouble if I'm caught. Since there's no way for the game to punish you for ignoring, say, a ban on invisible pink unicorn hunting, we are left with two options:

1) The FAQ is lying.
2) Noncompliance isn't an option.

If a player can use the latter in the commission of noncompliance, it shouldn't be dismissed with the usual catty appeals to gnomes.I view it like 3rd Grade English. In third grade, you are told that you can never, ever start a sentence with the word "and". It's just not done and it's always wrong. And yet, it is allowed, in moderation, to accent a point. Little kids are told to never use it because they don't know when they should and when they shouldn't, and it's just easier to issue a blanket ban. As they mature and learn the rules, they figure out when it's okay.

While it may seem like I'm arguing both sides here, let me explain: I don't like it when people roleplay non-compliance. It is my view that you don't have a choice. You can find all the loopholes you want, but you have to follow the letter of the law. However, I realise that people will roleplay noncompliance, and since I'm a realist, I'd like to have it limited to people who know what they're doing and can make it good. Wank is only godmoding if you don't know how to write, after all. I look at it like the rule about starting a sentance with "and": until you prove otherwise, I'm going to assume that you will make a fool out of yourself, so out come the Gnomes; either by my summons or by someone else's.

Thank you; I hope certain other players repeatedly appealing to authority with respect to roleplaying eventually do get around to reading this thread.Heh. With any luck, though, my reputation as a roleplayer will carry weight.

So I guess it's double-edged sword: Godmoders/newbs/n00bs who think they can ignore anything they like vs. Godmoders who tell other nations that they are in compliance whether they like it or not, because sneaky little creatures have rewritten their laws.I still maintain that the Gnomes are amusing, so they're the lesser of two evils. Also, I might note that they don't slow you down in the slightest. Players will only be intimidated by the little freaks for so long.

Interestingly enough, most of the people who honestly consider the gnomes a serious expression of UN roleplay seem to sit on the same side of the NatSov fence ...Now, now. I think they're an amusing way to personify the game. A way to bridge the gameplay and roleplay aspects.

Then again, I'm a roleplayer who actually pays attention to my stats and bases my roleplay on my issues (and vice versa), and that perspective seems to be increasingly rare.

Or "old skool", if you prefer.

No, but they're part of the problem; I mean, when players seriously acknowledge the gnomes' awesome powers, it really sort of limits the RP options players think they have. I honestly don't think anything on the level of the dodgeball war would be possible today.Funny, we still get plenty of people screaming about noncompliance.

and none need to be acknowledged in freeform.For what it's worth, I tend to ignore players that utterly ignore their nation. Eco tossing his population is one thing (my UN nation views "billion" as "hundred"), but people who completely ignore everything are rather missing the point in my mind. The two are supposed to be used together. When people come out with 100 million people and claim that represents how many star systems they control ("Because no Star Empire would ever have only 100 million people") and claim to have massive space fleets despite their Imploded economy ("Because I use some crazy ass economic system I made up that utterly ignore reality"), they aren't worth my time. And likely not worth anyone else's either. Just write a short story and post it on your damn blog.

The mere fact that a Gameplay instrument sounds like roleplay means nothing.To you.

The problem with telling newbies that there is no wiggle room, when CLEARLY there is, is that you are lumping the newbies whom are incapable of understanding the true flexibility and creativity involved in interesting roleplaying from those that can.

Those that can understand it we can always explain it further to as we get a better gauge of a person's understanding of the way things work. Certainly, as has been pointed out several times in the thread, non-compliance is really a limited issue and within the context of what had originally started this debate, wholely irrelevant. True non-compliance doesn't happen on every single resolution (hell, a VERY limited basis in which the number of actual incidents people seem to be able to recall seem to be countable on one hand), so a newbie comment saying that getting people to follow the resolution might be an issue is something that I believe IS fair game for saying "compliance isn't an option". Chances are that there won't be a real attempt to not-comply and even if there was, it would be hard to say that it was more than one. Note that when I say they are not-complying, loophole abuse doesn't count (intent doesn't account either - if they fully intend not to implement a resolution and find a loophole to back up their ability to not implement it, I consider that being equivelent to compliance through loophole abuse).

To put this another way, there are in fact times when I have little patience for people whom are stupid engineers. I work with a number of them, and instead of giving them detailed and good explanations, I'll dumb things down and *gasp* tell them that they can't physically use the numerical models or field data I work with to accomplish their goals ... why? Because I'm not paid to spend 50 hours a week holding somebody who really shouldn't have graduated from the 8th grades hand.

But at the same time I work with some brilliant engineers, and I'll give them very detailed explanations of what these same tools can and can't do.

I've yet to be confronted about the fact that I essentially hand out information that is different, but I think the same approach should apply here ... you can give out easy answers for dumb newbies and more complex reasons and justifications for smart newbies / experienced players.

Agreed. And we do. And despite Kenny's objections, I have several times done that.

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

[OOC: I'll just say what I said before; compliance is mandatory, but that doesn't mean the rules can't ever be broken. Players, like the gnomes, can do whatever the fuck they want with their nations, and if you don't like what they do (including claims that they can ignore any UNR they don't like), just ignore them. It's not hard. It doesn't require a ridiculous Godmoding regime mobilizing a billions-strong army of magical creatures to rewrite the laws in all member nations -- only to find themselves at the harsh frontiers of the Antarctic, where they are sadistically hunted for sport by carnivorous penguin commandos and bands of anti-UN gnomes. The gnomes are very complicated solution to a very simple problem, and they really have cut into the spirit of roleplay on this forum.

1) I fail to see they are a complicated solution. They are basically saying that you can't outright dismiss a resolution. Nothing more. Yes, perhaps the logistics of saying "how do I fight the gnomes on whether this is a loophole or not" exists, but who cares? We already discuss loophole abuses and how much we believe that such a loophole really exists or if you're talking out of your ass (I can certainly recall Reformentia and I think it was Eco beating DLE back on that one during the Bio-weapons debate over....I think it was viruses, and the issue of "definition of week/hour/etc" during the 40-hr workweek has certainly been a hard-sell loophole for many members).
2) I think it actually makes the game MORE interesting. If the rules are set down that you must comply with the letter of the law, then we can start digging around for loopholes, issues with the wording, definitions that are logically different, etc. It isn't "oh, we are now blockading you", "oh, we didn't feel anything because we have markets in 7 000 non-UN nations that you no longer have access to thanks to the resolution that I refused to comply with" - THAT is boring. We actually are forced to debate the resolution, the effect of the resolution, whether the feeling of the resolution is a good or bad thing, etc. It isn't like the real UN where, really, the question is "do I agree or disagree" because at the end of the day, it does shit all to your nation. We actually have to think the resolutions through, work them out.

If we go from the assumption compliance is mandatory, we really do have to have an implementation system. With proposals trying to penalize players who fail to comply being deleted becase "Compliance is mandatory" (I think I recall at least one), I REALLY have a hard time buying that argument that the FAQ doesn't make it so, and I have even MORE of a hard time saying that the only thing enforcing it is international pressure - because if that were the case, resolutions that do penalize players for failing to comply should be fully allowed.

Whereas before, where there was some degree of sophistication in UN RP, and compliance and noncompliance and resigning and dodgeball wars and that good stuff could be played out, now it's all "You can't do that! The gnomes don't let you!" and "I bagsy his office!" I tried posting an RP here, and while it did attract a few good IC posts, half the responses I got were about stealing office supplies and invading Chechnya. Sad really.

*shrug*

Bagsy and chechnya are different from the gnomes. Did you actually get a post saying the gnomes don't let you do that?

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

However, I'm not here to police role-play, so my opinion carries no more weight than anybody else's.

On the gnomes, no.

On compliance, yes.

Reason is, as I said before, that UN proposals are regulated - and regulated BY YOU. The way you treat proposals when it comes to compliance skews what we can do in terms of roleplay. Yes, roleplay is freeform, but when you're deleting proposals based upon compliance is mandatory......

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

Do those players who disbelieve in the Gnomes' very existence also not believe in the fleets of helicopters that move nations between regions (which, I must admit, I personally prefer to assume really just move things like embassies, trading posts and so on, and perhaps mystic portals, rather than the entire nations)? How do they feel about the population-increase rates?

I've heard of such disbelief, but I'm uncertain of the coorelation. I'm actually fairly certain it doesn't exist.

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

I know they were a joke, and I took them as such. The problem is with humorless morons who take them seriously. Newbs are beginning to buy this nonsense that magical creatures rewrite all nations' laws whether they like it or not. So I guess it's double-edged sword: Godmoders/newbs/n00bs who think they can ignore anything they like vs. Godmoders who tell other nations that they are in compliance whether they like it or not, because sneaky little creatures have rewritten their laws.

Says who they are still a joke. Some things which were created as jokes have become reality and major hits. I can't remember any off the top of my head of RL examples, but I'm sure you've heard of them. Sometimes, what you need is a joke to explain something that doesn't seem logical.

Interestingly enough, most of the people who honestly consider the gnomes a serious expression of UN roleplay seem to sit on the same side of the NatSov fence ...

I, honestly, think that this is an unfair statement. Do I have good counter-examples, no. But do I think it is in any way, shape, or form fair, no.

The rest of the post was already addressed by Hack
-----------------

Ahem. I consider it godmoding when a nation claims to not have the resolution as law or in the form of law. Whether the nation chooses to enforce the law, use loopholes or creative legislation to get around it, or chooses to flout the law...well that's just fun roleplay.

And that's just my opinion. Good arguments can be made for an even less strict view of compliance than I hold to. I'm a bit of a traditionalist in some ways. I put it down to having been here too long.

Perhaps my coherency was down due to various issues, but that's basically what I meant.

Note: I also consider the UN Gnomes godmoding and ignore them ICly just like any other godmoding.

I believe I said that too

As far as being the easiest to explain, I'll use a nice real-world example. Which is the easier explanation for lightning?

-The gods are angry at us.

-This.

Let's not use ease of explanation as an argument for the Gnomes again, mmkay? I realize that it's less complicated to say "the Gnomes did it and you're stuck with it", but that doesn't mean it's helpful or necessarily true depending on their roleplay perspective. And frankly, "read the sticky about Compliance" is an easy response that will point newbies in the right direction-- all without the need for godmoding or extended explanations on our part. See, it's not that hard.

1) I will tell you, right now, as the lead newbie trainer for a game I used to play, "read the sticky" is the fastest way to get the average newbie uninterested. I often use the example "does the average person read the manual for a game they pick up in the store?" No. Heck, many games stopped publishing the manual and stuck them on the CD partly because people don't read them so it's a waste of paper. All they include are instructions for installation, tech support, and how to get to the manual on the CD. Now, those are games they PAID for. Free online games that they're just scanning through are even harder to sell. With a manual taking a good hour to read top-to-bottom for each board, saying "read the sticy" is asking for them to ignore you. Yes, there are many of us long-time players (*cough*Gruen*cough*) who will read every single sticky and check the wiki info and read through a thousand posts and check out the chat room and etc, etc, etc before they post. However, I think to say that's the expecation we should hold for the newbies is total bullshit.
2) Actually, I'll take Hack's example with and at the beginning of the sentence as being the better way to relate Gnomes. Yes there is an extent they can play with non-compliance, but the sweet and simple answer is "you can't not-comply". Gnomes explain that.

I'm curious--what gave you the impression that the UN was keeping Gatesville in line?

I'm curious--how do you solve the contradiction of "I ignore outright ignoring of resolutions/full non-compliance of resolutions" and "Gatesville could and possibly does flaunt every single resolution"? Just ignore them? That still makes up for a warped reality. Do you just ignore their existance or do you ignore their claims? If you're ignoring their claims.....how do you claim they are still following resolutions? I'm curious because there seems to be a bit of double think involved here.

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

Just let me know when you've read the *rest* of my post ... 'cause everybody knows that while it is possible to name a tune after 5 notes, when we purchase and listen to music we often enjoy the full composition. I was pretty beat last night too.

Quite humorously, the sun had set before I had a chance to deal with your post so.....yeah.

The Law of the Sea had a number of nations claiming they wouldn't adhere to the resolution, and I still count Sophista as the chief example. Joccia was abusing loopholes, but clearly the acts of linking two resolutions to promote genocide was opposite of the intent of the resolutions ... thus in both Sophista's and Joccia's cases, the spirit of the resolutions was being completely ignored.

I don't give a rat's ass whether the spirit of the resolution was being ignored, nor do I even partially claim that Gnomes understand the term "spirit".

You want RL examples, look at any Iraq resolution. Iraq and the United States alike have ballantly violated just about every resolution the UN has adopted wrt WMDs and the inspections.

It is a RL fact that nations consider UN resolutions recommendations ... it also is a practiced fact that NS players typically ignore UN resolutions that they feel their RPed nation would sidestep ... however, most players just march on and don't make a big deal of it.

Don't care about the RL UN. Actually, it's because we keep saying the RLUN != NSUN that a compliance debate can even exist. This isn't the RLUN.

I bet in the vacuum of this discussion if I were to run to the "NationStates" forum and choose a poorly written resolution and simply create a puppet called "UN Resolution Commission" and then ask via a poll all UN members if they complied with a given resolution, that we'd find all sorts of players that would say, "no". The poll could be easily constructed to be non-leading.

You, Hack, whomever else can claim that we all have to play to the lowest common demoninator, but the FACT is what you want and what the rest of us put into practice via the wonderful open ended "Roleplaying" free hand are two entirely different things.

(And nothing I've said here is an endorsement for blatant and repeated non-compliance of resolutions ... please understand that I'm advocating for sophisticated RPing and not adherence to a set of stupid rules implemented to handhold beginners into roleplayed international politics.)

If there's a sophisticated RP of true non-compliance (which I STILL state you have yet to provide an actual example of), I'll note it for the logs of what to tell a sophisticated newbie, and then ignore the actuall happenings as it contradicts the reality I work in. Next. However, the basic level is where I feel the Gnomes are best employed and should be employed as it is an easier explaination for poor roleplayers of why compliance is mandatory. Anyone with half a brain and no RPing abilities can figure out that economic sanctions from a handful of nations in a realm of 100,000 different entities is pretty freaking meaningless.


I'm done, for now. Back to sleep.

1) I will tell you, right now, as the lead newbie trainer for a game I used to play, "read the sticky" is the fastest way to get the average newbie uninterested. I often use the example "does the average person read the manual for a game they pick up in the store?" No. Heck, many games stopped publishing the manual and stuck them on the CD partly because people don't read them so it's a waste of paper. All they include are instructions for installation, tech support, and how to get to the manual on the CD. Now, those are games they PAID for. Free online games that they're just scanning through are even harder to sell. With a manual taking a good hour to read top-to-bottom for each board, saying "read the sticy" is asking for them to ignore you. Yes, there are many of us long-time players (*cough*Gruen*cough*) who will read every single sticky and check the wiki info and read through a thousand posts and check out the chat room and etc, etc, etc before they post. However, I think to say that's the expecation we should hold for the newbies is total bullshit.

I did it when I was a newbie.

2) Actually, I'll take Hack's example with and at the beginning of the sentence as being the better way to relate Gnomes. Yes there is an extent they can play with non-compliance, but the sweet and simple answer is "you can't not-comply". Gnomes explain that.

...and witchcraft explains the internet. So what?

I'm curious--how do you solve the contradiction of "I ignore outright ignoring of resolutions/full non-compliance of resolutions" and "Gatesville could and possibly does flaunt every single resolution"? Just ignore them? That still makes up for a warped reality. Do you just ignore their existance or do you ignore their claims? If you're ignoring their claims.....how do you claim they are still following resolutions? I'm curious because there seems to be a bit of double think involved here.

Sigh. There's naturally going to be a bit of doublethink involved here, from what I can see, given the distinction between IC and OOC. From an IC perspective, I assume compliance because that's how my roleplay world works. But from an OOC perspective, I aknowledge the possibility of other people roleplaying complete non-compliance.

For example, take Hataria's recent superdreadnought. Some folks ignored it ICly because they believe in something called "physics" applying in their roleplay world. OOCly, those same folks would probably aknowledge that Hataria can of course choose to not have said physics applying in his roleplay world, though they would never roleplay in that world because they find it reprehensible.

I don't give a rat's ass whether the spirit of the resolution was being ignored, nor do I even partially claim that Gnomes understand the term "spirit".



Don't care about the RL UN. Actually, it's because we keep saying the RLUN != NSUN that a compliance debate can even exist. This isn't the RLUN.


That is your problem then ...

You expect everybody to play this game the way you'd like to and I keep telling you that there are numerous players that don't. It is fine that you don't give a rat's ass ... but guess what, your opinions are valued "in kind" but thousands of other players. I'm not telling you how to run your nation, but I have every right to tell you to bugger off when you start telling me and others how to run OURS!

Of course this isn't the RLUN, but that doesn't mean that comparisons between the two aren't valid. You might not give a rat's ass about said arguments, but that doesn't mean others don't respect those comparisons. In fact, I'm convinced others (including the moderators) do value these comparisons.


I long ago realized that you have your way of doing things and thinking about things and that you're pretty much stuck to those ideas. I'm not trying to CHANGE your opinion. There is nothing wrong with your opinion ... it is great for your nation. However, I'm trying (with great difficulty) to say, "Forgottenlord, the rest of us aren't you ... here is why some of us feel this way."




To reiterate my basic point about non-compliance, if the best reason for stating that it isn't allowed is to simplfy things, frankly that is a dumbed down justification (pun intended). 10-year olds aren't really judged as mature enough to drive automobiles in most nations ... that doesn't mean that a law should be passed prohibiting everybody from driving cars.

There are thousands of players whom are capable of RPing non-compliance (as Sophista has -- and I'm getting tired of pointed out the Law of the Sea as an example), so it stands to reason that while newbies should be discouraged from not RPing non-compliance at first, as players become more skilled there is no LOGICAL reason to discourage the practice. In fact, I am of the opinion that stat wanking (which is all it really means if one believes every daily issue, telegram sent, and UN resolution are the "only truth") is a huge turn off for many players. When we were first introduced to NationStates many of us enjoyed the humour in the daily issues and likely had fun with interacting with a few nations ... but over time our exploration of the game engine wasn't as novel, so RPing became more important. Anything that discourages RPing takes away the reason NationStates is a success ... the game engine is the shiney thing that brings us in the store, RPing (including the freeom to not comply with UN resolutions) is what keeps most of us around.

Not to be snarky, but:What can't I post?

Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam That's part of the Gameplay document that most certainly applies to roleplay.I always took that as referring to what we can or cannot post on the RMBs. The FAQ need not govern Jolt behavior; the One Stop Rules Shop covers that.

Um... one rather eliminates the possibility of the other. If a meeting at work is labeled as "Attendance is Mandatory", you had best make sure your ass is at the meeting. There may be exceptions ("I'll be in Alaska that day"), but I see those as matching nations where the Resolution can't apply ("We're ignoring this computer thing as we're 12th century vikings.")

But I'll get in trouble if I'm caught. Since there's no way for the game to punish you for ignoring, say, a ban on invisible pink unicorn hunting, we are left with two options:

1) The FAQ is lying.
2) Noncompliance isn't an option.The FAQ can't be lying about roleplay when it barely mentions it, first off. Second off, OK, the game can't punish noncompliance, so noncompliance can't be an option. Let's say a player does declare his nation in noncompliance. Outside of trolling, flaming, spamming or otherwise banned forum behavior, what can you as a moderator do about it? Short answer: nothing. So as long as other players choose to acknowledge an act of noncompliance, I guess noncompliance is an option, huh?

But, just as there are RL penalties from breaking RL laws, there should be RP penalties for breaking RP laws: Players who flout the law can either be OOC ignored (and I place special emphasis on this option, primarily in the case of n00bs and wankers who insist they don't have to follow the rules), or IC condemned, disengaged, pressured, sanctioned, contained or attacked. Declaring that you cannot possibly be noncompliant because the gnomes have made it so is just plain silly, and it kills compliance roleplay. It was OK at first, when everyone knew that the gnomes were (semi-)intentionally silly, but with all the humorless gnome-wankers run amok on this forum, it has become a problem.

I view it like 3rd Grade English. In third grade, you are told that you can never, ever start a sentence with the word "and". It's just not done and it's always wrong. And yet, it is allowed, in moderation, to accent a point. Little kids are told to never use it because they don't know when they should and when they shouldn't, and it's just easier to issue a blanket ban. As they mature and learn the rules, they figure out when it's okay.

While it may seem like I'm arguing both sides here, let me explain: I don't like it when people roleplay non-compliance. It is my view that you don't have a choice. You can find all the loopholes you want, but you have to follow the letter of the law. However, I realise that people will roleplay noncompliance, and since I'm a realist, I'd like to have it limited to people who know what they're doing and can make it good. Wank is only godmoding if you don't know how to write, after all. I look at it like the rule about starting a sentance with "and": until you prove otherwise, I'm going to assume that you will make a fool out of yourself, so out come the Gnomes; either by my summons or by someone else's.So you want to teach newbies that noncompliance is not OK, but Godmoding is? Umm ...

I still maintain that the Gnomes are amusing, so they're the lesser of two evils. Also, I might note that they don't slow you down in the slightest. Players will only be intimidated by the little freaks for so long.

Now, now. I think they're an amusing way to personify the game. A way to bridge the gameplay and roleplay aspects.Yeah, I know, I think the gnomes are funny too, and I essentially agree that noncompliance is an option better left to the more experienced roleplayers (just as the Gameplay instrument gives you more options once you pass the half-billion population mark), but gnome-wanking is one of my pet peeves. The gnomes are fine as long as we remember they're just for fun, and not a serious RP/debate tool for the purposes of intimidating newbs and/or Godmoding all players/nations into line with our own preferred method of compliance roleplay.

It is my view that you don't have a choice. You can find all the loopholes you want, but you have to follow the letter of the law. However, I realise that people will roleplay noncompliance, and since I'm a realist, I'd like to have it limited to people who know what they're doing and can make it good.

For what it's worth, I tend to ignore players that utterly ignore their nation. Eco tossing his population is one thing (my UN nation views "billion" as "hundred"), but people who completely ignore everything are rather missing the point in my mind. The two are supposed to be used together. When people come out with 100 million people and claim that represents how many star systems they control ("Because no Star Empire would ever have only 100 million people") and claim to have massive space fleets despite their Imploded economy ("Because I use some crazy ass economic system I made up that utterly ignore reality"), they aren't worth my time. And likely not worth anyone else's either. Just write a short story and post it on your damn blog.

This last bit is really the telling / key discussion here.

In general I think many of us are willing to allow anything to fly as long as it is entertaining and/or done in good taste. Without naming names, I too found it extremely annoying when one newbie waltz in this forum and was claiming that her nation was dropping nukes on Mikitivity ... my response was to just brush her off (rudely of course).

But when a player has gone to the effort to construct a society that feels consistent, I am very happy to go along with their world view. That includes if they want to not comply with UN resolutions. There is no LOGICAL reason that a nation doesn't have the ability to say "NO". Thus far the only argument I've really seen is, "If we do that, everybody will and it will spoil everything!" OK, Maik Meyers (Ambassador Katzman's predecessor) used to argue that ... and it is an extremely valid IC point, but it is ironically a very weak OOC point.

Do you guys remember that guy who claimed he was placing nukes off everybody's coast line? His nation was tiny and yet he claimed he had one poised off the coast of every nation. 30,000 UN members, 100,000s of nations and he thought his less than 1 billion nation could do this without any conventional interfearance from say any two random 2 billion sized nations?

What happened is everybody in this forum simply ignored the guy. The sky is not going to fall down if we limit the "You must comply with UN resolutions" to IC discussions.

The difference between a newbie godmodding and a player doing something different, say ignoring his/her own nation's population, can also be judged by the FACT that one action is done across international boarders and the other is self contained.

If Mikitivity claims that it is its Office of International Affairs that corresponds between it and the UN, my decision as a player to do this doesn't change your roleplay. Ditto if I claim that my nation isn't really 4.5 billion people (egads that is just too high), but instead in the 100s of millions. It doesn't hurt YOU.

However, if I claim that a Mikitivity airship is floating within striking distance of every national capital and has a retrovirus designed to turn your politicians into snails and that the Sky Captains have orders to release the virus if you anger us, that is impacting on your RP.

Non-Compliance is a middle ground ... which is why we are talking about it. So if I were to claim that Valtiz voters turned down the Definition of Marriage (a hideous resolution) because they thought it was pointless, does that really change how that resolution is implemented in your nation? No. Does it mean your citizens whom are married to pigs or cows loose a right when they travel to Mikitivity ... yes. But guess what, I could just as easily say, "OK, we recognize different types of marriages ... domestic "legal" marriages and stupid marriages and confer different rights based on additional domestic legislation." We'd be within the letter of the UN law, but we'd be violating the spirit. THAT is why the argument that non-compliance should not be allowed is illogical, as even the most simple of loopholes can be constructed, meaning every nation can with a single sentence effectively be in non-compliance (Joccia proved this in the most entertaining way possible). But by accepting that nations can be in non-compliance, you actually open the door to more roleplaying ... storytelling.

And nobody has yet to answer my continual questions why UN players can choose to make euthanasia illegal -- in violation (non-compliance) of an existing resolution. The answer is clear to me ... the very game engine itself SUPPORTS non-compliance.

The Issue

Dorothy Terwilliger lies immobilized in a hospital bed, unable to move. She has end-stage cancer, and wishes to end her struggle against death. However, laws prevent her doctors from obeying her wishes.
The Debate

1. Dorothy and her family are campaigning for a "Dying with Dignity" bill, to change this situation. She implores the government to legalize euthanasia.
[Accept]

2. "I understand this is a very difficult time for these people," says freelance medical writer Zeke Dredd. "But the solution is not to let our medical system slide down the slippery slope of killing people in pain. We must cure, not kill. This is not the right time for euthanasia."
[Accept]

3. "I agree, but go further: there is never a right time for euthanasia," says Bishop Fleur Thiesen. "The lives we lead are given to us by the grace of God, and he decides when they end. It is not for us to question God's divine purpose, no matter how odd or screwed-up it may seem."
[Accept]



Now we all know what happens if we accept position 3, euthanasia becomes illegal in our nations. That is a game supported FREE option that each of us may take advantage of any time we like. If arguments about compliance are based on the game engine, it is legal, because position 3 contradicts UN resolution 43.

2) I think it actually makes the game MORE interesting. If the rules are set down that you must comply with the letter of the law, then we can start digging around for loopholes, issues with the wording, definitions that are logically different, etc. It isn't "oh, we are now blockading you", "oh, we didn't feel anything because we have markets in 7 000 non-UN nations that you no longer have access to thanks to the resolution that I refused to comply with" - THAT is boring. We actually are forced to debate the resolution, the effect of the resolution, whether the feeling of the resolution is a good or bad thing, etc. It isn't like the real UN where, really, the question is "do I agree or disagree" because at the end of the day, it does shit all to your nation. We actually have to think the resolutions through, work them out.True, we can loophole-wank, but weren't we all doing that before there were gnomes? Compliance is mandatory, sure, and that means we have to wriggle around some bad legislative language to remain in the letter, but the gnomes do not make it so. I'm just about as anti-gnome as you're gonna get, but if you're at all familiar with my wiki or roleplay, I have an entire agency solely dedicated to loophole-wanking. ... At least I did when I was still in the UN.

I, honestly, think that this is an unfair statement. Do I have good counter-examples, no. But do I think it is in any way, shape, or form fair, no.Well, until you can furnish some evidence that the counter is true, I really don't think you can classify this as unfair.

On the gnomes, no.

On compliance, yes.

Reason is, as I said before, that UN proposals are regulated - and regulated BY YOU. The way you treat proposals when it comes to compliance skews what we can do in terms of roleplay. Yes, roleplay is freeform, but when you're deleting proposals based upon compliance is mandatory......Look, FL, Hack can delete illegal proposals, but he cannot govern roleplay; you cannot find logic for Hack's ability to force players into line on compliance roleplay, not in the rules (and on this point I find your citation of the rules truly mystifying), not anywhere else. You wanna bring noncompliant players into line? Fine. I have a very effective tool for you: it's called ignore. You wanna have groundrules for compliance roleplay? Fine. Let's establish some. Rule #1: Godmoding ain't cool.

We need an implementation system, fine. Implement UN rules in your own nation (barring the fact that you are not in the UN) any way your please -- and gnome-wank to your heart's content while you're at it -- but leave other nations alone. I know you really like having things your way, but there's no way to enforce it. The only possible way to bring all nations into line is to Godmode, and Godmoding is just as easily ignored as noncompliance is. To the freeform rule that players need not acknowledge any specific pattern of roleplay there is no remedy. Deal with it.

Not exactly related, but I wanted to publically post that just because Forgottenlord holds a different opinion than Kenny and I, that does not mean I have any ill feelings towards the nation or the player. :) In fact, I happen to like the player and nation (even if at times one or the other will drive me batty).

I've been treating this as a OOC thread, and it wasn't til I thought a bit more about HotRodia's post that I realized that Gruen left this open for IC statements too.

Bearing that in mind ... IC:

Mikitivity feels that for the UN to be meaningful that national governments should go to extreme measures to comply with the spirit of UN resolutions. However, in the past some UN resolutions have been adopted in which very specific organizational structures were assumed. While those resolutions were well meaning, if a UN resolution were to instruct every nation's "Supreme Court" or "President" to do something specific, my government maintains that it is the job of my government, not somebody else's, to see to it that the spirit of that resolution is adhered to even if Mikitivity does not have a Supreme Court or President.

I don't have time yet to get everything, but...

True, we can loophole-wank, but weren't we all doing that before there were gnomes?

I believe I predate you by several months, and Gnomes predated me by a long time.

OOC: I believe that noncompliance is not really possible, and that most forms of it are godmoding. However, that is not to say that it is not godmoding to say that someone else is in full compliance in a specific way. All nations have a right to decide how they will comply with resolutions, and I will accept them RPing minimal noncompliance (especially if they use an excuse such as "this section was unclear, we aren't going to follow it). If they RP large noncompliance, I find it godmoding. And loophole-exploitation is a lot of what makes RP fun.

In essense, I find it acceptable for a nation to be noncompliant if an infinitely large team of lawyers with unlimited resources and time could persuade a slightly-biased judge to agree that they were in at least minimally legally acceptable compliance.

IC: Ceorana is confused about how nations can be in noncompliance with resolutions. We've found that some very large gnomes come into our Congress and start arguing with our normal Congresspeople about how we are to comply, and we hammer something out, and pass a law, and the gnomes leave. However, it has come to our knowledge through a rumor that some nations have figured out how to get gnomes that don't care, or otherwise get minimal noncompliance with these resolutions. (OOC:;))

I bribe the gnomes with chocolate and tell them that it is waiting for them in another country then I do my deed. They go get the chocolate and I am home free. Whenever someone tells me that I have broken the law I give the gnomes a pack of bubble gum and their complaint mysteriously goes into the outbox instead of the in box before it is processed. Oops, giving away my secrets.

I always took that as referring to what we can or cannot post on the RMBs. The FAQ need not govern Jolt behavior; the One Stop Rules Shop covers that....which says:

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.So, yes. The FAQ most certainly does regulate Jolt behavior.

The FAQ can't be lying about roleplay when it barely mentions it, first off.The FAQ says you can't ignore the Resolutions you don't like. You go on the forums and ignore a Resolution. Huh. Seems you're running contrary to the FAQ. Therefore, you are either godmoding by ignoring the Resolution, or the FAQ is lying.

So as long as other players choose to acknowledge an act of noncompliance, I guess noncompliance is an option, huh?In that section you snipped, I explained this dicotomy.

or IC condemned, disengaged, pressured, sanctioned, contained or attacked.Which, I believe, the general consensus is that this will accomplish exactly dick.

The gnomes are fine as long as we remember they're just for fun, and not a serious RP/debate tool for the purposes of intimidating newbs and/or Godmoding all players/nations into line with our own preferred method of compliance roleplay.The gnomes are rarely used for good roleplayers. And good roleplayers will simply ignore them. I haven't actually used them to fuck with a player in ages. I couldn't even find the most obscene example of it when I used them to change some nation's age of majority to 250 years old. Hell, I don't even remember why I did that, but I believe it was after everybody had long stopped taking him seriously.

Now, granted, I didn't read through every thread where someone mentioned the gnomes, but I did look through my post history with them (easy as there's only ~45 posts), and I didn't see anything too out of line. I think that it's pretty clear my tongue is firmly in cheek when posting with them IC (as opposed to OOC legality posts).

But, since you consider the telegram from the Complaince Ministry to be non-existant as far as role-play goes, I suppose there's no point in continuing.

There is no LOGICAL reason that a nation doesn't have the ability to say "NO".As I've said, numerous times, my reading of the FAQ is that non-compliance is forbidden. There's no logical reason I can't go on a first-person-shooter rampage while playing Civilization, except that the game doesn't allow it.

And nobody has yet to answer my continual questions why UN players can choose to make euthanasia illegal -- in violation (non-compliance) of an existing resolution. The answer is clear to me ... the very game engine itself SUPPORTS non-compliance.I addressed this in another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10853699&postcount=29). Briefly, it's a coding limitation that I would like nothing more than to eliminate, but it just isn't practical.

I've always assumed that, if you do make euthanasia illegal, the gnomes immediately go through your laws to make it legal again. Persistant buggers, those gnomes.

No, we can not simply ignore resolutions that we do not like, but that does not mean that we can't evade them. Whenever a resolution that I don't like is put into effect that I don't like I get my personal team of legal experts to sift through the text and find me a suitable loophole to suit my purposes. If one can not be found we simply enact laws that bring us to the minimum possible compliance without being considered breaking the laws.

As for the gnomes, who cares? Stuff gets done, we didn't see it happening so we say it was the gnomes. The gnomes have no physical substance, and credit could be given to them for a number of actions. Nanites, sophisticated computers, alien intelligences. Any of those could easily have been given the credit. So why do we give it to the gnomes? Because it is easy to just say the gnomes did it than try to explain all the details.

EDIT:

Wow, I made euthanasia illegal in my nation (option 2- "Euthanasia is not right at this time") and I wasn't pestered at all. Still I should get my legal experts on that resolution asap to find me a loophole should I ever need it.

OOC:

In my eyes, non-compliance is eminently possible, and to whatever degree you wish. The only catch is that you have to persuade others to acknowledge your non-compliance, too. I think Ecopoeia complies with all UN resolutions, within reason (and exploiting handy loopholes, much like Kenny's Creative Solutions Agency).

To be honest, 'acceptable' non-compliance (i.e. cases where Eco accepts to violation of UN law) is an elitist phenomenon. Sophista's rejection of 'The Law of the Sea' was acknowledged by me because of my respect for the player and the manner in which they conducted non-compliance. In a way, Ecopoeia-endorsed non-compliance is something you earn. It ain't fair, but it at least offers a degree of flexibility for the talented bods out there.

If a resolution is passed that Ecopoeia genuinely can't/won't comply with, then I may RP non-compliance if I have the time and inspiration. More likely, I'll grudgingly resign. Others would choose to do differently and I've no problem with that, provided they pass my elitist criteria.

For the record, Ecopoeia the nation (with its 14 million people, sub-100% tax rate and Good economic growth, not overall economic strength) doesn't acknowledge gnomes, NS helicopters or galaxy-spanning empires. Elves are OK so long as they have no mystical powers. Physics is present day. Cobdenia is a charmingly anachronistic nation at a different pace of development and with a peculiar calendar. Ecopoeia's UN Speakers, however, are aware of all this (and spent several weeks' worth of long Strangers' Bar sessions getting over the shock) - they just get their minds wiped by the gbnomes when they return home, thus preserving the people from unnecessary culture shock.

Fair? Well, that's up to you, but anyone not acquiescing to my vision of the nation isn't likely to find themselves appearing in the Ecopoeia universe any time soon. It's just easier that way.

I'll get more at lunch and hopefully the rest tonight (we'll see if my net connection has been restored to my room by then)

That is your problem then ...

You expect everybody to play this game the way you'd like to and I keep telling you that there are numerous players that don't. It is fine that you don't give a rat's ass ... but guess what, your opinions are valued "in kind" but thousands of other players. I'm not telling you how to run your nation, but I have every right to tell you to bugger off when you start telling me and others how to run OURS!

Mik, WORK IT THROUGH! I know you're intelligent enough to figure this part out.

I'm saying non-compliance is not an option AND I make an indication of what I define as being non-compliance. You, however, continually drop examples of things that are classified by my standards as being in compliance - even though you wouldn't necessarily call them compliance. Of COURSE I'm going to ignore those comments because I've already said those incidents fit within my realm as being permissable. You may disagree with my concept of what compliance is, but that doesn't mean that you've actually given an example of when someone has actually rebuked actual compliance by my definition (or, really, many others who believe that compliance is mandatory). At the end of the day, all you're doing is fighting a grudge match over a completely different area of turf than I am. Accomplishments: 0. That was Fris's point in the other thread - he saw compliance as mandatory, but that didn't mean he wasn't going to abuse a loophole to violate an entire resolution as was the case with Law of the Sea. That's because his understanding of what compliance is seems to be different from yours - so in his mind, he was maintaining compliance with the resolution and saw that as something mandatory.

Think it through!

...which says: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.So, yes. The FAQ most certainly does regulate Jolt behavior.That statement means you can't cheat, you can't break the rules, you can't act like a dick and you can't violate the terms and conditions, not even on Jolt. Does that mean, "You can only roleplay the way we tell you you can"? Certainly not.

The FAQ says you can't ignore the Resolutions you don't like. You go on the forums and ignore a Resolution. Huh. Seems you're running contrary to the FAQ. Therefore, you are either godmoding by ignoring the Resolution, or the FAQ is lying.Hmm. I guess the FAQ, given it is essentially a Gameplay document and it does not include a "Roleplay" section, will have to be taken into context to determine how much it applies to roleplay. ... Alrighty then, in its context, FAQ pertains almost exclusively to gameplay; it does outlaw certain posting behaviors, but it does not outlaw any certain form of roleplay. Not in the entire text. So you're telling me the FAQ when taken by itself frowns upon noncompliance, and completely ignores Godmoding and all forms of wanking? That the "United Nations" section of the document when read in whole deals entirely with the gameplay aspects of the UN, but that one little sentence is uniquely roleplay-related, even without declaring itself as such? Come on.

Which, I believe, the general consensus is that this will accomplish exactly dick.Right. Because we all know that in real life, international pressure accomplishes very little. Let's see now ... South Africa disarmed peacefully, The Ukraine disarmed peacefully, Libya disarmed peacefully. The Taliban defied the UN and got overthrown. Saddam defied the UN twice, and was booted from Kuwait, forced to submit to arms inspections, slapped with economic sanctions and deprived of 2/3rds of his airspace the first time -- and landed himself in jail the second. Well, OK. Maybe international pressure accomplishes a little, and when roleplayed effectively, the game can mimick real life in that regard.

The gnomes are rarely used for good roleplayers. And good roleplayers will simply ignore them. I haven't actually used them to fuck with a player in ages. I couldn't even find the most obscene example of it when I used them to change some nation's age of majority to 250 years old. Hell, I don't even remember why I did that, but I believe it was after everybody had long stopped taking him seriously.

Now, granted, I didn't read through every thread where someone mentioned the gnomes, but I did look through my post history with them (easy as there's only ~45 posts), and I didn't see anything too out of line. I think that it's pretty clear my tongue is firmly in cheek when posting with them IC (as opposed to OOC legality posts).I never accused you of using them to intimidate; I was only using your language: "Players will only be intimidated by the little freaks for so long." Carry on.

As I've said, numerous times, my reading of the FAQ is that non-compliance is forbidden. There's no logical reason I can't go on a first-person-shooter rampage while playing Civilization, except that the game doesn't allow it.

I addressed this in another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10853699&postcount=29). Briefly, it's a coding limitation that I would like nothing more than to eliminate, but it just isn't practical.

Of course it is a coding limitation ...

And a FAQ is just a series of brief answers to frequently asked questions, but in most cases FAQs aren't designed to be rulesets or legal documents.

Why is it (besides the fact that Max wrote a short FAQ) that you feel non-compliance shouldn't be allowed?

I've explained many times why I feel it should be (and I've pointed to (1) actual contradictions in the game engine, (2) the lack of moderation action in the case of non-compliance, & (3) the fact that violating the spirit of a resolution is non-compliance to support my opinion). I think if we were to restrict players to say RPing modern tech, that we'd take something away from the game. If we also were to force all players to stick to a broken game engine (it isn't just the euthanasia issue that is broken ... there are a few others that are as well ... not to mention the entire environmental category), I feel we *still* are taking something away from the game.

In all honesty, this issue to me is about control ... some people want to exert it over others, and right now those that do simply keep pointing to some words. However, in doing so you are ignoring the *spirit* and intent of those words. Laws aren't just about words, but the meaning in which they were crafted and applied (which is why we can appeal enforcement of laws in most RL democracies).

Now in practice, since there is no penalty for non-compliance, it exists ... but I still would LOVE to see players defend why they feel it is bad for the GAME without simply quoting what is really a text intro to the game.

(which is why we can appeal enforcement of laws in most RL democracies).

There's no judiciary in the UN. You can't appeal to a body that doesn't exist.

There's no judiciary in the UN. You can't appeal to a body that doesn't exist.

In the RL UN that is a small part of why resolutions are voluntary.

I'm not debating the language of the game FAQ, I'm questioning the *intent* and meaning of that language.

Why would *we* not want nations to have the ability to say, "That resolution doesn't apply to my government!" It is how the real world works. How would that ruin NationStates?

Why would *we* not want nations to have the ability to say, "That resolution doesn't apply to my government!" It is how the real world works. How would that ruin NationStates?

Wouldn't that simply erase any difference in being a member of the NSUN versus being outside its jurisdiction? I think that many people forget that NSUN membership can be activated within a day and dropped within a minute. In either case, there is no penalty for the action in either direction, save for endorsements being cleared upon resignation.

NSUN membership is not only totally voluntary, but it is also extremely flexible. Therefore, it makes sense that some boundary (in the technical sense) differentiates UN states from non-UN states. In NS, that would appear to be mandatory compliance with NSUN resolutions.

In the real world, UN membership means something entirely different from that in NS. Comparing the two is an exercise in insisting that apples and oranges share near identity based on their both having seeds.

There are plenty of ways around UN resolutions that keep with the spirit of mandatory compliance. A nation can, as has been suggested many times, abuse loopholes until satisfied. More extreme would be the use of a UN puppet nation to "shield" the main roleplaying nation (full disclosure: Krioval does this - for the reason mentioned). Or a nation could resign before a resolution passes and rejoin afterward, skipping the statistic effect and roleplaying a "watered down" version of the UN resolution (or using the loophole method). Really, I do expect a bit more finesse than claiming noncompliance with a NSUN state.

That statement means you can't cheat, you can't break the rules, you can't act like a dick and you can't violate the terms and conditions, not even on Jolt. Does that mean, "You can only roleplay the way we tell you you can"? Certainly not.You're cherry picking, Kenny. The FAQ, as a whole, applies to forum activity. The FAQ clearly states that you "can't ignore the resolutions you don't like". Therefore, you can't roleplay non-compliance. The fact that we don't enforce this is a separate issue. Again, I think that non-compliance in general is poor role-play, and typically done because it's an easy way out ("Bleh. I dun wanna have a 40 hour work week, so I'll ignore it).

For a similar unenforced rule, consider flags. We don't enforce the 107x71 rule for flag sizes either (until people get stupid and upload some 800x600 monster).

So you're telling me the FAQ when taken by itself frowns upon noncomplianceNo, it outright forbids it. The wording is not ambiguous.

and completely ignores Godmoding and all forms of wanking?Godmoding and wanking are based on social norms and mores. Are all kilometer long spacedy ships wankery and godmoding? Perhaps, but if you were to read the roleplay by someone like Scolopendra, you'd probably be just find with them. Why? Because he's a fantastic writer. Godmoding and wank are too subjective to have in the FAQ. To say nothing of the amount of time the Mods would be wasting by trying to police that. Non-compliance is a form of godmoding (you might note that we don't police it either), but it is specific to the UN.

That the "United Nations" section of the document when read in whole deals entirely with the gameplay aspects of the UN, but that one little sentence is uniquely roleplay-related, even without declaring itself as such? Come on.No, it applies to both.

Well, OK. Maybe international pressure accomplishes a little, and when roleplayed effectively, the game can mimick real life in that regard.Except the game doesn't have a massive superpower to administer asskickings.

And a FAQ is just a series of brief answers to frequently asked questions, but in most cases FAQs aren't designed to be rulesets or legal documents.When the etiquette section was added, it became a ruleset as well as Frequently Asked Questions. The UN section also contains a few examples of forbidden Proposals.

Why is it (besides the fact that Max wrote a short FAQ) that you feel non-compliance shouldn't be allowed?To expand on earlier in this post...

Setting aside the fact that the FAQ says you can't, I feel that non-compliance (or, indeed, wholesale ignoring of the game side) is lazy. Few things irritate me more than roleplayers who utterly ignore the game side. It's there for the reason, it's the base for your nation and your roleplay should reflect that. Why do I have the Hack focus so heavily on technology and shiny geekery? Because early on I saw that my IT industry was dominating. When my nation was young, we got IT a couple times rather close together. When I saw myself go from about 50% to close to 10%, I realised that I had a focus. Thus, my roleplay shifted slightly towards a more cyberpunk style. As my roleplay shifted, so too did my issue answering.

When I realised that one nation was my primary trade partner, and realised that I dominated things like mining and agriculture, while he dominated things like auto manufactoring and arms manufactoring, it started to look like I was almost a colony. When we realised that he was doing most of the work to defend my nation, we just made it official, and I became a protectorate. Issue side? Even less defence spending, and strip mining.

When my Category shifted to Anarchy, I roleplayed the end of the existing government and replaced it with the Oligarchy.

I could have ignored all of these events (and countless others), but I didn't, because the game side matters. If I wanted to make everything up, I'd just write a story. But I'm playing a game, not just writing, so I have to acknowledge the game, even the parts I don't like. Granted, sometimes I kind of cheesed my way out (I explained my low Compassionate scores by saying I kept shooting down UN planes when they'd come to do surveys), but I don't wholesale ignore inconveniances.

I view non-compliance the same way. It's too inconveniant for the player, so instead of working around (or *gasp* suffering with it), they just ignore it. Knootoss' economy dropped two levels when the first Union Resolution went through, and he roleplayed a massive recession. In my mind, forcing compliance gives more roleplay potential than ignoring Resolutions because people have to deal with things they didn't expect.

And for what it's worth, when the UN passed something that the Hack was strongly opposed to, we didn't yammer about non-compliance, we resigned and then repealed the law that the UN had forced us to pass.

Now in practice, since there is no penalty for non-compliance, it exists ... but I still would LOVE to see players defend why they feel it is bad for the GAME without simply quoting what is really a text intro to the game.And I just did. Non-compliance is lazy. It's a way of ignoring something inconveniant as opposed to actually dealing with it. The game version of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Hack, I think that is an excellent argument as to why non-compliance might be frowned upon. However, it rests on two suppositions: one, that ultimately what generates the best roleplay is the most desirable course of action, and two, that gameplay factors should be taken into consideration. But I don't that excludes the possibility of non-compliance being roleplayed.

Say the Anti-Terrorism Act had passed. Gruenberg has a terrorist insurgency in its eastern province. Given the unpopularity of Gruenberg's government in the international community, I don't for a moment suppose that some nations wouldn't consider funding the insurgency. Had the ATA passed, that would become illegal - the insurgents meet all the criteria of a terrorist group, and supporting them is clearly illegal.

But, Forgottenlands tries to help the terrorists anyway. He roleplays increasing his government anti-terrorist agency, in accordance with the stats change his nation received for the International Security resolution, and he roleplays an open policy of counter-terrorism. But he secretly siphons off some funds from his Department of Forgottenland Security, to pay arms merchants to supply the insurgents. Illegal, non-compliance.

But it could generate quite a good RP, at least potentially. And it doesn't completely ignore game effects - in fact, it takes them into account.

I fully agree that had Knoot simply said "don't like it", that would have been boring, and lazy. Instead, he made a good RP out of frustrated compliance. I've read the Dodgeball War, and I liked it. I think Sophista made a good roleplay out of it - and, given he was arguing over EEZs, he arguably reduced barriers to trade and commerce beyond the mechanical confines of The Law of the Sea. So it wasn't impossible from a gameplay point of view.

So, I think you're right in what you say, and I actually think everyone in this thread agrees that non-compliance RP has the potential to be really bad, and really quite damaging, and also fairly silly - I just don't think your preferences preclude a decent job being made of non-compliance.

Okay, I specifically logged out as Darsomir and logged back in as Enn in order to get this point across.

Everyone: Please, calm down. You're all getting worked up about something that really isn't that important in the long run. Is this really worth it? A minor matter of roleplay?

The gnomes are a simple explanation. No, they aren't perfect. But they are easy to refer to as explanation for changes.

Hack has explained that while non-compliance is forbidden according to the FAQ, it isn't usually policed. Isn't that enough? What more explanation is really needed?

Say the Anti-Terrorism Act had passed. Gruenberg has a terrorist insurgency in its eastern province. Given the unpopularity of Gruenberg's government in the international community, I don't for a moment suppose that some nations wouldn't consider funding the insurgency. Had the ATA passed, that would become illegal - the insurgents meet all the criteria of a terrorist group, and supporting them is clearly illegal.

But, Forgottenlands tries to help the terrorists anyway. He roleplays increasing his government anti-terrorist agency, in accordance with the stats change his nation received for the International Security resolution, and he roleplays an open policy of counter-terrorism. But he secretly siphons off some funds from his Department of Forgottenland Security, to pay arms merchants to supply the insurgents. Illegal, non-compliance.

But it could generate quite a good RP, at least potentially. And it doesn't completely ignore game effects - in fact, it takes them into account.
And in fact I fully intended to RP some terrorist activity (of a different flavour) had ATA passed, hence Eco's quietly nervy opposition to the resolution. Illegal in game terms but not, I believe, lazy. Again, it comes down to the quality of non-compliance. If you're good, then people are more willing to indulge you (not saying I'd have been good, mind...). Besides, non-compliance isn't necessarily constant. An RP might be resolved with the offender forced into compliance (or out of the UN). I think the assumption of instant compliance is a bit fanciful for those trying to RP a 'realistic' nation. Ahem... elves, unicorns, swearing dolphins and peaceful multicultural pseudo-anarchic semi-paradises notwithstanding.

*cough*

Enn's right, though. Non-policing renders this discussion pretty moot, though still very interesting (well, for me at least).

OOC: Optional compliance would also make the whole NatSov/IntFed/"IndSov" debate pretty pointless: Whether or not one regards that as a potential point in its favour is of course a matter of opinion...

I'm not saying don't have this discussion, it's a good way of pointing out different methods of role-playing. Every person role-plays slightly differently.

What I'm saying is that there's no need to get angry over this matter.

Alright, my net connection is up and running and I have half a pizza for supper in front of me. *loads shotgun* Let's play

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

I did it when I was a newbie.

Congrats. Apparently you missed this line

Yes, there are many of us long-time players (*cough*Gruen*cough*) who will read every single sticky and check the wiki info and read through a thousand posts and check out the chat room and etc, etc, etc before they post. However, I think to say that's the expecation we should hold for the newbies is total bullshit.

Now, how the hell do you justify that just because you did it, every single newbie that trods through should be forced to meet the same standard?

...and witchcraft explains the internet. So what?

There are people in my office that actually believe that. They still don't know how I can walk up and fix their computer in 5 seconds despite several attempts at explaining it.

However, I'll get back to this point after I deal with the next issue.

Sigh. There's naturally going to be a bit of doublethink involved here, from what I can see, given the distinction between IC and OOC. From an IC perspective, I assume compliance because that's how my roleplay world works. But from an OOC perspective, I aknowledge the possibility of other people roleplaying complete non-compliance.

For example, take Hataria's recent superdreadnought. Some folks ignored it ICly because they believe in something called "physics" applying in their roleplay world. OOCly, those same folks would probably aknowledge that Hataria can of course choose to not have said physics applying in his roleplay world, though they would never roleplay in that world because they find it reprehensible.

That's just fine and dandy. From an OOC perspective, there's about no real other alternative anyways. However, the IC perspective....small glitch.

If you see it as godmodding to flaunt UN resolutions, how do you get to the point of "it is god mode"? If you're saying it isn't gnomes, than what could possibly keep nations (from a completely IC perspective) in-line. Are all nations brainwashed to at least follow UN directives? Is there a almighty being brandishing a big whip getting nations back in line? Does the almighty Max decend from the heavens and force a change in government to those that flaunt compliance? How does it work? Before we hit it, don't say International pressure, because from a completely IC perspective, you only need a block the size of....say......Aberdeen to decided "screw this", disconnect from the world and just trade with themselves and they'd still have a decent market. By the time you get to....say.....Hyrule or Gatesvilles sizes, they probably wouldn't even see a dip in their economy.

So, IC, what is the mechanism to keep them in line? Do they just disappear off the face of the reality matrix when they violate this law? Or do you, IC, rewrite the history of theirs so that they remain in compliance within your reality? (Actually, that latter one is probably the easiest to use)

Gnomes are an alternative to play with - a valid one. One that has been accepted as a form of roleplay (whether you agree with it or not) and is a valid way of teaching the baseline rules of "compliance is mandatory". Yes, there are those who will still flaunt compliance (I remember last year where a guy refused to believe he had to be in compliance with IIRC the abortion resolution so while he was writing the repeal, we kept trying to indicate our own position of whether he was or wasn't in compliance in the law by the way we wrote the posts as we debated the actual proposal - quite funny actually and I got the impression he enjoyed the exercise himself), but fine. OOC, there's really only so much we can do.

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

That is your problem then ...

You expect everybody to play this game the way you'd like to and I keep telling you that there are numerous players that don't.

Actually, I expect everybody to play this game with a semblence of common sense.

It is fine that you don't give a rat's ass ... but guess what, your opinions are valued "in kind" but thousands of other players. I'm not telling you how to run your nation, but I have every right to tell you to bugger off when you start telling me and others how to run OURS!

Of course this isn't the RLUN, but that doesn't mean that comparisons between the two aren't valid. You might not give a rat's ass about said arguments, but that doesn't mean others don't respect those comparisons. In fact, I'm convinced others (including the moderators) do value these comparisons.

I long ago realized that you have your way of doing things and thinking about things and that you're pretty much stuck to those ideas. I'm not trying to CHANGE your opinion. There is nothing wrong with your opinion ... it is great for your nation. However, I'm trying (with great difficulty) to say, "Forgottenlord, the rest of us aren't you ... here is why some of us feel this way."

To reiterate my basic point about non-compliance, if the best reason for stating that it isn't allowed is to simplfy things, frankly that is a dumbed down justification (pun intended). 10-year olds aren't really judged as mature enough to drive automobiles in most nations ... that doesn't mean that a law should be passed prohibiting everybody from driving cars.

There are thousands of players whom are capable of RPing non-compliance (as Sophista has -- and I'm getting tired of pointed out the Law of the Sea as an example), so it stands to reason that while newbies should be discouraged from not RPing non-compliance at first, as players become more skilled there is no LOGICAL reason to discourage the practice. In fact, I am of the opinion that stat wanking (which is all it really means if one believes every daily issue, telegram sent, and UN resolution are the "only truth") is a huge turn off for many players. When we were first introduced to NationStates many of us enjoyed the humour in the daily issues and likely had fun with interacting with a few nations ... but over time our exploration of the game engine wasn't as novel, so RPing became more important. Anything that discourages RPing takes away the reason NationStates is a success ... the game engine is the shiney thing that brings us in the store, RPing (including the freeom to not comply with UN resolutions) is what keeps most of us around.


This community has fought for nearly the duration of the game over the issue of National Sovereignty, about infringing upon people's right to govern, about what is and isn't an International issue, about how much this will effect our nations (and nearly always bitch about it), about thousands of issues and all of these would be swept aside by you because you think complaince isn't mandatory. Then tell me, why is it that 50% of the game (modified for my estimates of puppet population) doesn't actually join the UN? You think they are doing it because they disagree with the principles the UN holds? Look at the statements they make! "How dare the UN do X". What, you think UN nations do that in RL on every single motion ever tabled? Look at the Declaration of Human Rights - that wouldn't have passed had the makeup of the NSUN been anything like the RLUN. Heck, nations like Saudi Arabia would pull out of the UN instantly if compliance with that was expected. Yet for some reason, Saudi's are still there. The parallel here, people are pulling out left, right and center - and it's not just the regulars - in fact, it's predominantly the fluffies and know-it-nots who are doing this. Lycalopex was here just 3 weeks ago calling for mass resignations because of the infringement of the UN on NatSov (7 rounds of TGs later, I convinced him he could do a shitload more staying in the UN than resigning).

Why do I say all this? Because the parallels with the RLUN are as broken as the game engine. It's gotten to the point that the only true parallel between them is a couple of Africa resolutions (metagaming issues aside) and the name. A few months ago, people started hailing in the parallel of the EU as being a better one to work with - even though that, itself, has its flaws. I've spent the last couple of months claiming that the UN is a government itself - with varying levels of acceptance (there was an actual discussion on UIC about that which also indicated mixed responses - with people on both sides suggesting it was and wasn't).

Ok.....somehow, I feel I actually got completely off base with what you were saying.....

Anyways, I think I blew my lid later on about you bringing up Sophista again so I'll ignore that.....

Simplicity argument:

Non-compliance is simple, interesting thought.

"I refuse to comply with resolution X"

Answer a: "That's great. Go enjoy yourself"

You know what, Answer A is going to be every single freaking answer after day 7 of a new regime of "non-compliance is the way we'll go". Why? Because here's answer B:

"I hereby call a trade embargo upon you for violating UN resolutions and am calling for all other UN members to assist"

20 more nations say "screw you, the UN sucks. We're going to vote against the next resolution just for the heck of it."

And then all hell breaks loose when the guy goes "Doesn't matter. I've got 70,000 non-members with larger armies and economies to go trade with anyways. Heck, my two non-UN puppets will sink any ship that tries to blockade me".

You want an RP killer, THAT'S an RP killer. With compliance being mandatory, we're looking deep into the text of the resolutions looking for unique solutions to not be in compliance. Things such as Kenny's "Creative Solutions Agency" have become the backbone to the UN RP. We have to redefine terms, change our policing policies, execute coverups, hide law books in the backroom that aren't in compliance, wrangle with the gnomes, occasionally shoot a few, debate NatSov/IntFed/IndSov/etc, discuss effects of resolutions, discuss negatives and positives to them, discuss methods of implementation, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. If THAT isn't exciting, maybe you're better off in II. It is a different form of roleplay. Perhaps not one that all enjoy, but it is a much different one and the best part of NS is that you have all sorts of roleplays to work with.

If that isn't reasonable.....

what is?

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

Well, until you can furnish some evidence that the counter is true, I really don't think you can classify this as unfair.

Y'know, I thought about it, and just said screw it. I was going to fire a shot at NatSovs but decided against it.

Look, FL, Hack can delete illegal proposals, but he cannot govern roleplay; you cannot find logic for Hack's ability to force players into line on compliance roleplay, not in the rules (and on this point I find your citation of the rules truly mystifying), not anywhere else. You wanna bring noncompliant players into line? Fine. I have a very effective tool for you: it's called ignore. You wanna have groundrules for compliance roleplay? Fine. Let's establish some. Rule #1: Godmoding ain't cool.

I get this picture in my head - someone isn't actually listening to the arguments! (I swear, you guys must hold meetings in the NSO where all you do is rant about me and my inability to comprehend what you're saying)

Ok, Kenny. I do believe it was determined a while ago that the text of resolutions are a fully RP area of consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall spending the better part of the year flying with this assumption. Now if the text of the resolutions are such, why is it that the area of creating a resolution that deals out penalties for those that fail to comply with resolutions? Aside from the fact that it falls under the same hair-yanking problems that Fris and Hack indicated would be the issue of a UN army, perhaps they are just maybe running under the assumption that compliance is mandatory. That would certainly explain their responses. Can they govern roleplay? Not really. Can I ignore those that don't comply with resolutions? Yes - and I do. However, is it a good default assumption that compliance is mandatory? Hell yeah. If the moderators are policing the resolutions that way, that's a good default place to start. If someone says "I'm not playing by your rules", fine. They can enjoy themselves - I'm not paying attention to them - just as I'd ignore how they played tag back on the playground and worry about those that are actually following the rules.

We need an implementation system, fine. Implement UN rules in your own nation (barring the fact that you are not in the UN) any way your please -- and gnome-wank to your heart's content while you're at it -- but leave other nations alone. I know you really like having things your way, but there's no way to enforce it. The only possible way to bring all nations into line is to Godmode, and Godmoding is just as easily ignored as noncompliance is. To the freeform rule that players need not acknowledge any specific pattern of roleplay there is no remedy. Deal with it.

And now you CLEARLY have no clue about what I'm saying. If you're saying that compliance is mandatory, how do you enforce it - especially since International pressure isn't the answer.

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

Right. Because we all know that in real life, international pressure accomplishes very little. Let's see now ... South Africa disarmed peacefully, The Ukraine disarmed peacefully, Libya disarmed peacefully. The Taliban defied the UN and got overthrown. Saddam defied the UN twice, and was booted from Kuwait, forced to submit to arms inspections, slapped with economic sanctions and deprived of 2/3rds of his airspace the first time -- and landed himself in jail the second. Well, OK. Maybe international pressure accomplishes a little, and when roleplayed effectively, the game can mimick real life in that regard.

Right. Because we all know that in the UN, the UN body is outnumbered 3:1, suffers heavily from internal discontent, has the majority of its internal armies invested in non-member nations, keeps binding its hands on major weapons issues, and regions have better unity than the UN does so it would be next to impossible to, say, attack Charis or Futaba Aoi to make sure they're in compliance since you'd probably see their regions plus that of.....Hyrule and Aberdeen to name two.... returning fire while you're dealing with hundreds of other cases of non-compliance by the dozens of nations that actually give a rats ass.

Hell, you could probably find people defending those nations on II enough to repel any attempt to bring a nation back in line.

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

In the RL UN that is a small part of why resolutions are voluntary.

Which is why I employ the Gnomes because if we go under "compliance is mandatory", we do have to have an implementation system.

Doesn't help my argument, but coupled with my rants above, it might work.

I'm not debating the language of the game FAQ, I'm questioning the *intent* and meaning of that language.

Why would *we* not want nations to have the ability to say, "That resolution doesn't apply to my government!" It is how the real world works. How would that ruin NationStates?

I believe Hack already indicated that that wasn't an issue. Obviously, if its not applicable, it's not applicable.

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

But, Forgottenlands tries to help the terrorists anyway. He roleplays increasing his government anti-terrorist agency, in accordance with the stats change his nation received for the International Security resolution, and he roleplays an open policy of counter-terrorism. But he secretly siphons off some funds from his Department of Forgottenland Security, to pay arms merchants to supply the insurgents. Illegal, non-compliance.

IC (non-consequential): The Forgotten Territories denies its involvement in the 200 billion Angels siphoned off to the "Wena Must Die" (WMD) Alliance. We are not certain where the money came from, and we have sent a team of investigators to check the financial records of the WMD Alliance. Of course, due to the instability of the region, we feel that the choice to send our forces armed with anti-tank weaponry, land-mine detectors, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns, and enough assault rifles to fit a small army is highly justified. We cannot give an estimate of when our forces will be returning

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

The gnomes are a simple explanation. No, they aren't perfect. But they are easy to refer to as explanation for changes.

Thank you!

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

Ok, because we've deviated a long ways and discussed a lot of things, I feel I need to backtrack and discuss one thing because this had been irking me throughout the entire discussion

This entire debate started over the following portions of two posts:

Also, the organization necessary to ensure nuclear disarmament and full cooperation from all member nations would be nearly impossible.

The Gnomes guarantee that any resolution passed by this body is fully implemented in all member nations. Logistics is not an issue.

What in Max Barry's great realm is wrong with what was said in these two posts? Mik and TH I have seen arguments against what was stated in my post there. However, Kenny, you who called me on that line, what is wrong with it?

I've always thought this as funny, the notion that people might object to "gnomes" on a RP basis. From a strict RP perspective there is nothing that demands that all the UN enforcers of resolutions are short and wear brightly colored (red or green) pointed caps. They might be called gnomes because they have a "gnome" as a mascott. (Think of the RW corporation Travelocity.)

As to what gnomes do, I suppose it's only obvious to Americans. In the US, the Federal Government can impose a law (let's make it environmental enforcement for the example) create an organization of breucrats (the EPA in the example) who lay down the "law" that states have to follow. Whole state laws can be overrulled because the documents of these Federal agencies have jurisdiction over state governments.

That's the glorious thing about RP. Any proper hand wave that translates the OOC game mechanic to a logical RP reason is, for all pratical purposes, GOOD ROLE PLAYING. Any attempt to use RP to bludgeon or ignore the OOC game mechanic is probably godmodding.

In the end, it's so much easier to pretend that the emperor really has clothes. Most, if not all of the wording in a UN resolution does nothing, from a game mechanic perspective. There are some who routinely refuse the game mechanic and the game mechanic implications. There is no common universe of NS assumptions that you can base the NS universe on. We often say RL <> NS, but we forget how true that really is! Look at the debate on the repeal of the world heritage list. Someone brought up the naked emperor ... that a UN resolution established a list which within the game itself cannot exist ... and the fighting has been fierce.

I get this picture in my head - someone isn't actually listening to the arguments! (I swear, you guys must hold meetings in the NSO where all you do is rant about me and my inability to comprehend what you're saying)

Don't flatter yourself.

I disagree with ForgottenLands about the limits of international sanctions. Speaking for my own nation, Ginet is dependant on other nations for high-tech equipment, factories, etc. It probably wouldn't be smart to alienate 1/3 of the potential help right off the bat. Not to mention possible military actions. Yes, it's possible to make RP alliances with rich, powerful countries to provide factories or military support, but would they be willing to isolate themselves from the rest of the "civilized" world? Presumably they're in the UN for a reason, and turning their backs on it wouldn't fit their plans, and when it unravels, Ginet is the one likely to get hurt.

ForgottenLands also mentions trading with non-UN nations. First of all, you won't get 70,000 nations to trade with you. You'll get some fraction of that who are interested and won't exploit you. I'd rather have a fraction of 100,000+ nations to trade with than a fraction of 60-70,000.

Certainly, I have rich, powerful puppets for assistance in defence, but from an OOC view that would kill the fun, so from an IC view, my rich powerful nations would be more likely to exploit poor Ginet than to protect them.

I'll admit my scenario probably has enough holes to fly a 200 Kilometer starship through, and it relies on players who are willing to follow the rules (which is why it won't work for everyone), but personally, I still prefer it to "the Gnomes made me do it", and that's how I plan to play my compliance.

Alright, my net connection is up and running and I have half a pizza for supper in front of me. *loads shotgun* Let's play

Only half a pizza? And I'll stick with my laser cannon, thank you.

Now, how the hell do you justify that just because you did it, every single newbie that trods through should be forced to meet the same standard?

Forced? I dunno about that. Should they meet the same standard? Yes.

As far as my justification...let's see.

-higher quality proposals
-better debates
-an informed player base

There are people in my office that actually believe that. They still don't know how I can walk up and fix their computer in 5 seconds despite several attempts at explaining it.

This actually sounds depressingly similar to my job...

However, I'll get back to this point after I deal with the next issue.

Okie dokie.

If you see it as godmodding to flaunt UN resolutions, how do you get to the point of "it is god mode"? If you're saying it isn't gnomes, than what could possibly keep nations (from a completely IC perspective) in-line. Are all nations brainwashed to at least follow UN directives? Is there a almighty being brandishing a big whip getting nations back in line? Does the almighty Max decend from the heavens and force a change in government to those that flaunt compliance? How does it work? Before we hit it, don't say International pressure, because from a completely IC perspective, you only need a block the size of....say......Aberdeen to decided "screw this", disconnect from the world and just trade with themselves and they'd still have a decent market. By the time you get to....say.....Hyrule or Gatesvilles sizes, they probably wouldn't even see a dip in their economy.

That's Kenny's argument, not mine. But I think it could have some very interesting roleplay possibilities indeed if developed further.

So, IC, what is the mechanism to keep them in line? Do they just disappear off the face of the reality matrix when they violate this law? Or do you, IC, rewrite the history of theirs so that they remain in compliance within your reality? (Actually, that latter one is probably the easiest to use)

Well there's this thing called a Compliance Ministry. You know, the folks that send you a telegram after each resolution passes.

Gnomes are an alternative to play with - a valid one. One that has been accepted as a form of roleplay (whether you agree with it or not) and is a valid way of teaching the baseline rules of "compliance is mandatory". Yes, there are those who will still flaunt compliance (I remember last year where a guy refused to believe he had to be in compliance with IIRC the abortion resolution so while he was writing the repeal, we kept trying to indicate our own position of whether he was or wasn't in compliance in the law by the way we wrote the posts as we debated the actual proposal - quite funny actually and I got the impression he enjoyed the exercise himself), but fine. OOC, there's really only so much we can do.

Hmm. Behind door #1, the Compliance Ministry. Behind door #2, the magical godmoding gnomes.

Which makes more sense to you? And you better send me some of whatever is in that pizza if you choose #2. :p

OOC: Alternatively _
We could just say that complying with the letter of resolutions (and at least trying to enforce the relevant national laws) is a legal requirement for UN membership, so that any nations whose players blatantly fail to comply -- without finding & explaining suitable loopholes -- should be considered to have left the UN even if their players haven't pressed the button to do so and the Mods don't have enough time in which to enforce this: Then we wouldn't need to say that the Gnomes of the Compliance Ministries actually enforce the UN's laws within the separate nations, just that they monitor the extent to which compliance occurs and report any nations that are in breach of the rules to the Secretariat for expulsion...

Only half a pizza?

Yeah, the half I couldn't finish on Friday

And I'll stick with my laser cannon, thank you.

Lacking a few pieces of tech here....

Forced? I dunno about that. Should they meet the same standard? Yes.

As far as my justification...let's see.

-higher quality proposals
-better debates
-an informed player base

Hmm. I didn't. I certainly hadn't read more than Hack's rules post and about half of Enodia's thread of deleted proposals and a skim through passed resolutions (which was actually something I did prior to arriving on the forums as a task for my region) by the time I had the UNSA debate with you and PC.

Did that make for a worse debate or a less informed player base?

I had come up with exactly the same conclusions as you about sovereignty before I had even read your sticky post on it and just glazing over a few debates about NatSov so that the concept of it being something to consider sunk in enough.

EDIT: I should note that when you guys started dragging up UNR #49, I couldn't remember anything about that resolution so I had to look up the entirity of the text and parse it in about 10 minutes before I started punching holes in your arguments.

This actually sounds depressingly similar to my job...

Okie dokie.

That's Kenny's argument, not mine. But I think it could have some very interesting roleplay possibilities indeed if developed further.

Perhaps, but I stay out of II for a reason. Playing the RP with a few hundred nations, half of which having real power is mindboggling for me.

Well there's this thing called a Compliance Ministry. You know, the folks that send you a telegram after each resolution passes.

*Bangs head on desk*

And you couldn't have said this before?

Hmm. Behind door #1, the Compliance Ministry. Behind door #2, the magical godmoding gnomes.

Wait. The Gnomes are godmodding and the compliance ministry is....what exactly?

Which makes more sense to you? And you better send me some of whatever is in that pizza if you choose #2. :p

I see them as equivelent. #2 just has a cooler name.

As an embarrassed aside... I've not once read any sticky in this game*. I'm a bad, bad person.



*well, except for those I caught in the drafting phase.

Hmm. I didn't. I certainly hadn't read more than Hack's rules post and about half of Enodia's thread of deleted proposals and a skim through passed resolutions (which was actually something I did prior to arriving on the forums as a task for my region) by the time I had the UNSA debate with you and PC. Did that make for a worse debate or a less informed player base?

I'm not sure I can answer that honestly without it being construed as a flame, so I think I'll pass.

I had come up with exactly the same conclusions as you about sovereignty before I had even read your sticky post on it and just glazing over a few debates about NatSov so that the concept of it being something to consider sunk in enough.

Good on ya, mate.

EDIT: I should note that when you guys started dragging up UNR #49, I couldn't remember anything about that resolution so I had to look up the entirity of the text and parse it in about 10 minutes before I started punching holes in your arguments.

So?

Perhaps, but I stay out of II for a reason. Playing the RP with a few hundred nations, half of which having real power is mindboggling for me.

Too much like RL or something?

*Bangs head on desk*

And you couldn't have said this before?

Of course not. I make shit up as I go along. :p

Wait. The Gnomes are godmodding and the compliance ministry is....what exactly?

My personal view of the Compliance Ministry is this...

Picture a vast bureaucracy, run mostly by humans given the largely anthropocentric nature of the UN. They have agents in every nation keeping track of that nation's laws as best they can. Some nations openly accept these agents, and some nations are hostile to them and they have to operate covertly. In a few nations the agents have to be frequently replaced because they are found and killed quite often. When a resolution is passed, these agents are responsible for making sure the appropriate changes to the law of the nations are made. Some nations simply adopt these new laws. Others adopt them but in terms of actually enforcing them pretty much ignore the laws. Others kill the agents trying to change their laws and go on about their business, though of course the Ministry keeps sending more agents--with mixed success.

I see them as equivelent. #2 just has a cooler name.

Well perhaps given the above explanation you might revise your assessment of them as equivalent.

I'm not sure I can answer that honestly without it being construed as a flame, so I think I'll pass.

Please. I want to hear this.

So?

I don't see nearly as much value in having read through the stickies or passed resolutions as I do with the person being intelligent

Too much like RL or something?

No. Too much to handle when one only has 2-5 hrs a day to address it. When you've got 24 hrs (well....16 when you factor in sleep), yes you can address it.

Of course not. I make shit up as I go along. :p

*groans*

My personal view of the Compliance Ministry is this...

Picture a vast bureaucracy, run mostly by humans given the largely anthropocentric nature of the UN. They have agents in every nation keeping track of that nation's laws as best they can. Some nations openly accept these agents, and some nations are hostile to them and they have to operate covertly. In a few nations the agents have to be frequently replaced because they are found and killed quite often. When a resolution is passed, these agents are responsible for making sure the appropriate changes to the law of the nations are made. Some nations simply adopt these new laws. Others adopt them but in terms of actually enforcing them pretty much ignore the laws. Others kill the agents trying to change their laws and go on about their business, though of course the Ministry keeps sending more agents--with mixed success.

Well perhaps given the above explanation you might revise your assessment of them as equivalent.

You see, I think here's where your problem is. The predominant view (not my own, personally, but one that I accept as being good enough) is the very thing you described - only with gnomes. The major difference with mine is they're always working covertly, and they're always successful. Regardless, what you've described is simply one of the many incarnations of "Gnome theory". I'm guessing you always saw mine as being the predominant view.

The major difference with mine is they're always working covertly, and they're always successful.Which is Godmoding. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And if you say one more time that it's OK because Hack admits it's Godmoding, I swear to God I'll pop you one.

Please. I want to hear this.

I'm sure you do, but I've already explained why I won't be saying it.

I don't see nearly as much value in having read through the stickies or passed resolutions as I do with the person being intelligent

I see. It's definitely helpful to be very intelligent. It's also very helpful to know the things you're using that inteligence to analyze and argue. What good does your intelligence do you if you have nothing to work with? It's like being a carpenter in Antarctica.

No. Too much to handle when one only has 2-5 hrs a day to address it. When you've got 24 hrs (well....16 when you factor in sleep), yes you can address it.

I completely understand that. I have more like 1-2 hours myself.

You see, I think here's where your problem is. The predominant view (not my own, personally, but one that I accept as being good enough) is the very thing you described - only with gnomes. The major difference with mine is they're always working covertly, and they're always successful. Regardless, what you've described is simply one of the many incarnations of "Gnome theory". I'm guessing you always saw mine as being the predominant view.

Not always. There was a time, pre-gnomian, if you will, when that was not the predominant view of this forum. And frankly, even now the UN Gnomes are largely only a belief held to by some of the regulars of this forum. Hardly grounds for calling it "predominant".

I suspect that if you were to poll the majority of UN members, they would either have no real opinion on roleplayed compliance or hold to something considerably closer to my view.

*hands FL a thin line*
*offers another line to someone else*
*grabs a gnome-ball and throws it into the thread*

Which is Godmoding. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And if you say one more time that it's OK because Hack admits it's Godmoding, I swear to God I'll pop you one.

Jesus Kenny. If I go "I know it's godmodding. Hack has said it's godmodding", you think I don't understand? You think I give a shit, though? If a lot of people accept that godmodding, then it becomes acceptable - godmodding or no godmodding. You think half the stats used by many nations aren't godmodding or half the wars fought don't have aspects of godmodding in them? Of course they do. However, people accept them. Not all godmodding is unacceptable. However, if you dislike the way I'm godmodding, it's equally your right to ignore me.

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

I see. It's definitely helpful to be very intelligent. It's also very helpful to know the things you're using that inteligence to analyze and argue. What good does your intelligence do you if you have nothing to work with? It's like being a carpenter in Antarctica.

What, you think stickies are the only things that give people material to work with here? How about REAL LIFE! That's where most people start from, and there's plenty of material there. You don't need to read the stickies to learn what sovereignty was - and even less so to decide whether you want to worry about it. People go "what about NatSov" and they go "oh, didn't think about it". Big freaking deal.

It takes us 5 minutes to correct any fallacies they have in their proposals because they missed a sticky, 20 to redraft a proposal. It takes them several hours to go through everything - and between them and us, we seem to be the ones that voluntarily will spend the time.

Not always. There was a time, pre-gnomian, if you will, when that was not the predominant view of this forum. And frankly, even now the UN Gnomes are largely only a belief held to by some of the regulars of this forum. Hardly grounds for calling it "predominant".

I suspect that if you were to poll the majority of UN members, they would either have no real opinion on roleplayed compliance or hold to something considerably closer to my view.

Sorry, missed a few word. Predominant Gnome view.

Jesus Kenny. If I go "I know it's godmodding. Hack has said it's godmodding", you think I don't understand? You think I give a shit, though? If a lot of people accept that godmodding, then it becomes acceptable - godmodding or no godmodding. You think half the stats used by many nations aren't godmodding or half the wars fought don't have aspects of godmodding in them? Of course they do. However, people accept them. Not all godmodding is unacceptable. However, if you dislike the way I'm godmodding, it's equally your right to ignore me.Funny, I thought that was my point all along? Making this statement ...

The Gnomes guarantee that any resolution passed by this body is fully implemented in all member nations. Logistics is not an issue.... False.

Funny, I thought that was my point all along? Making this statement ...

... False.

Sheesh

It's quite clear that the vast majority of the UN regulars sees that compliance is mandatory. You yourself have said that. So my statement that logistics is not an issue becomes valid. Perhaps you disagree with my use of the term Gnome. So what? I answered his concern.

As a non-capitalist nation I’m sick of being slogged by “Fre Tradz Da best!!1” resolutions. However as a member of the United Nations we are under obligation to obey the laws of the organisation. Since we’re merely being informed that a resolution is being informed we feel it is left to our discretion to decide at what pace we will adopt those laws. In some instances we are in a perpetual mode of updating our laws. You can never have too many review committees.

The Socialist Republic retains U.N. membership because of the diplomatic benefits that office affords. However, Xanthal has a legislative process for implementing and overturning passed resolutions domestically. For every resolution passed, the High Court sets a deadline for the Council to either bring Xanthal into compliance or overturn the resolution. If 2/3 of the Council votes against the resolution within that time frame, the resolution is stricken from Xanthalian law.

I like creative noncompliance myself, but Xanthal's IC personality is one of bluntness in legal matters. They'll openly ignore international law they don't like rather than weaseling their way out of it. I'm under no illusions about the diplomatic repercussions of that, but I also think it's the best course of action from an IC perspective. My attitude about the NationStates U.N. is that there is no way, outside of a nation's core freedom and economic rankings on the site itself, that it can force nations to comply with its mandates. Thus, while the honorable thing may be full compliance, there's no requirement that one actually comply.

Sheesh

It's quite clear that the vast majority of the UN regulars sees that compliance is mandatory. You yourself have said that. So my statement that logistics is not an issue becomes valid. Perhaps you disagree with my use of the term Gnome. So what? I answered his concern.Double sheesh. How many times do I need to say this? Simply stating "compliance is mandatory" isn't Godmoding; using gnomes to bring into automatic compliance nations the actions of which you have no right to control is. Or have I not made myself clear from my very first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10898891&postcount=9) on the subject?

How is it different?

I believe what someone (I've lost track who) is trying to say is:

It is a fact there is according to the game a 'compliance ministry' who 'enact' the regulation.
These have been semi-jokingly descibed as 'gnomes who live in the basement'.
According to the 'gnomes' compliance is compulsary.
However, it is unknown what exactly the 'gnomes' do. It could just be hundreds of copies of the resolution sent out with a space for each nation to sign so they can incorporate it.
The expected circumstance is that everyone will follow the resolution i.e. sign it and make it their own law.
A nation can then run the in-character risk of either defying the resolution, passing legislation which contradicts the resolution, or never get around to incorporating it in the first place.
The majority of such transgressions (ie the in-game issues) are ignored.
Where it is discovered they then have to roleplay around it - give a reason why they did it, and if there are other nations who feel they have to follow the resolution then that is played out in II - outcome uncertain.

How is it different?I've already answered that.

I went back over the last few exchanges we've had and realized that I've been using the wrong terms here.

Lets review.

So far, we've come up with the following conclusions:
1) With exception to one, everyone seems to agree that compliance is mandatory.
2) With the VERY odd exception, refusing to comply to the letter of the law is seen as godmodding, and several have suggested its even damaging to RP. However, many will recognize a well-done non-compliance attempt. Therefore, in 99% of the cases, refusing to comply is ignored as godmodding while the rest are welcomed - perhaps you could still call them godmodding, but they are accepted. Just as I said before, there's a lot of godmodding, just some of the instances are accepted as OK.
3) A large percentage believe in some form or another of the compliance ministry to maintain 2. Some call it Gnomes, some call it the compliance ministry, some call it the brats next door.

Considering 2, indicating to people that it is believed everyone is in compliance and failure to comply is seen as godmodding I think is an accurate statement. Did I say automatic? No. I said that everyone is in compliance. I said that the concern of trying to get everyone to follow the resolution is not an issue. What were the terms? Logistics. I said that the logistics regarding making sure compliance is dealt with didn't have to be worried about, and really, when we are ignoring 99% of non-compliance as godmodding, why should we be worrying about logistics?

Yes, the term was Gnomes. Yes the assumption was everyone was in compliance - but look at this thread - the vast majority seem to be agreeing with me. Yes it was godmodding, but the community seems to be accepting that form of godmodding. Yes they were created by Hack and they aren't my toy, but I didn't use them in that post beyond what Hack had already indicated they were being used for. Yes the nations of the UN are, generally speaking, not under my control - but we've already established that we ignore the vast majority of claims that contradict my statement. So, tell me: what did I do wrong?

It is a fact there is according to the game a 'compliance ministry' who 'enact' the regulation.
These have been semi-jokingly descibed as 'gnomes who live in the basement'.
According to the 'gnomes' compliance is compulsary.
However, it is unknown what exactly the 'gnomes' do. It could just be hundreds of copies of the resolution sent out with a space for each nation to sign so they can incorporate it.
The expected circumstance is that everyone will follow the resolution i.e. sign it and make it their own law.The Randomean ambassador is correct; ever since a certain outside power (which shall remain nameless) forced our government onto the roles of the United Nations, we have been receiving telegrams from this so-called Compliance Ministry, informing us of legislation's passage and reminding us of our obligation to implement it within our borders. However, the Dictatorial Anarchy of MTT lacks any sort of government, infrastructure or law-enforcement contingency in order to enforce such mandates. The only personnel at our semi-disposal are those in the recently arrived Kennyite Security Assistance Force, mindless rogues who seem primarily concerned with advancing their own nation's interests in MTT, and seducing the riffraff with erotic exhibitionism; and CPESL agents, who are more interested in making a quick buck (and for some unknown reason, our national secrets) than in aiding the degenerative stability of our nation.

We assure the members of this honorable body, however, that we take all necessary measures within our power to bring our nation into compliance with UN directives. And to find new and terrible ways to torture the gnomes. Thank you.

Andy
Lacky for the (Pretended) Ruler of DAMiTT

How in the name of all that is holy could passing or refusing to pass a law in one's own nation be godmodding? "Oh, your legislature can't vote that way, that's godmodding." "I don't like your politics. I'll call it godmodding." "Not mindlessly doing what other people tell you you should do? Godmodding."

I know this isn't my argument, but I simply must interject. Choosing to comply or not comply with a U.N. resolution in-character, in a free form roleplaying environment, cannot possibly be godmodding. That's like saying that players who have their nations outlaw red crayons are doing something illegal. Gameplay rules may say that nations must comply, but without a mechanism for enforcement, noncompliance in roleplaying should hardly result in a nation vanishing from the map. Now, I don't think any Resolution-defier would claim immunity. If U.N. vigilantes really want to come after me to try to beat Xanthal into compliance, that's all well and good; but magical forces manifesting to force the will of lawmakers in every member country to allow a U.N. Resolution to take full effect? That sounds like godmodding to me.

Despite the fact that NS is generally considered freeform RP, I actually think its false when people claim that the UN is also freeform. It's mostly freeform with one major limitation - compliance is mandatory. How that manifests itself is interesting and you end up getting a lot of opinions about that all shown in this thread. We keep referencing the gameplay article because we feel it IS integral to how the UN works. Max Barry was trying to differentiate between the RLUN and the NSUN heavily and actually, I think that's what makes the NSUN actually worthwhile to participate in. We aren't able to actually negotiate various agreements with the other 30,000 members as the RLUN does, so what is the point of the NSUN's existance? The answer is, to pass resolutions. But what point is there of passing a resolution if no one then listens to it. It merely becomes a survey of how much support or oppose a position. The fact that the extent that we can roleplay is so limited just due to the sheer scale of the UN makes it next to impossible to go through this entire process and go "what is the point". So we turn back to what Max wrote and he left us this gem that many hold onto: compliance is mandatory. As soon as we begin that, we have a base rule. Beyond this rule is free-form RP, but that rule is the basis of it all. Sure, there is no actual physical entity that guarantees we remain in compliance with resolutions and certainly we keep inventing ways to maintain a system of compliance that ultimately do look like (and truly are) godmodding. However, how else would you design it. Even more importantly, how else could you make it interesting? Hack and I both pointed out the benefits of having people actually holding compliance is mandatory as the default status and the deficiancies of falling away from such a position.

Yes it is godmodding

But in many ways, it's godmodding through necessity. In the end, its created an amazing dynamic and a wonderful concept of how the NSUN functions and such a thing truly couldn't exist if we didn't start from "compliance is mandatory".

So how does this make non-compliance godmodding?

Well, Godmodding - or rather, the bad godmodding - is doing something that isn't accepted by the community (or, at the very least, from the perspective of the individual). As I said before, II is rank with godmodding in even the popular threads. However, people don't care - it's equally artistic license and it's accepted by the community because to avoid it would, perhaps, detract from the RP. However, there are other parts (TH referenced the recent superdreadnaught which happened to be one of only two II threads I read that month) where the community doesn't believe it, doesn't accept it. That's when it becomes godmodding. Thus, when this community believes that compliance is mandatory, the vast majority of noncompliance cases are godmodding. Certainly there are some that take artistic license and it makes it a fun RP - the rules can be thrown out the door because they only get in the way. However, the vast majority of cases, this isn't true.

Then I suppose it boils down to people who will ignore someone for not complying and people who won't. What I see going on is an endless exchange, because it's an exchange of opinions that are not going to change. These two groups see NSUN Resolutions, and the NSUN itself, in different ways. I'll stand by my banner on this one. If someone honestly feels it's important to ignore Xanthal because it doesn't abide by U.N. law, I promise not to complain too much.

Well, that pretty much sums up the entire structure of the UN anyways - endless exchanges on a variety of issues from NatSov/IntFed/IndSov to Left/Center/Right (which General puts so much into) to the rule set and legality issues to the entire structure of the UN including the compliance debate. It makes it rather fun, TBH

Well, that pretty much sums up the entire structure of the UN anyways - endless exchanges on a variety of issues from NatSov/IntFed/IndSov to Left/Center/Right (which General puts so much into) to the rule set and legality issues to the entire structure of the UN including the compliance debate. It makes it rather fun, TBH

I agree. It's why I'm still here. The incredible complexity of sifting through so many layers of reality is quite stimulating.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/146659234.jpg

This is one case where I strongly disagree withn Kenny. I don't consider the notion of having a force of breucrats who have authority over national sovergenty "godmodding." Actually the compliance ministry is not as all powerful as we sometimes make them out to be. They come into your nation, slap down a number of regulations which have to be obeyed if you want to keep your UN membership current, and then walk away, never ensuring that any other issues that might come across your desk are screened in accordance with the new regulations.

That's not godmodding; it happens in the US all the time. State breucrats dictate to county and town elected representatives, and federal breucrats dictate to state, county and towl elected representatives.

This isn't true of the Real World UN, but we all know that the Real World UN is a spineless mass of manure. Consider how many years the US stoped paying UN dues and the UN did absolutely nothing about it. The Real World UN hasn't had a real UN enforced resolution in ages. It has dictatorships on committees for democracy, and the worst human rights abusers (one is technically guilty of 21st century genocide) in the human rights committee.

Of course I still think we need to arm our compliance gnomes. Considering that a UN army is prohibited, we can't simply arm them directly, but if we equiped them with James Bond type devices, it would be easy to have them perform their duty.

How in the name of all that is holy could passing or refusing to pass a law in one's own nation be godmodding? "Oh, your legislature can't vote that way, that's godmodding." "I don't like your politics. I'll call it godmodding." "Not mindlessly doing what other people tell you you should do? Godmodding."

I know this isn't my argument, but I simply must interject. Choosing to comply or not comply with a U.N. resolution in-character, in a free form roleplaying environment, cannot possibly be godmodding. That's like saying that players who have their nations outlaw red crayons are doing something illegal. Gameplay rules may say that nations must comply, but without a mechanism for enforcement, noncompliance in roleplaying should hardly result in a nation vanishing from the map. Now, I don't think any Resolution-defier would claim immunity. If U.N. vigilantes really want to come after me to try to beat Xanthal into compliance, that's all well and good; but magical forces manifesting to force the will of lawmakers in every member country to allow a U.N. Resolution to take full effect? That sounds like godmodding to me.

As I commented earlier, I don't necessarily see any supernatural forces as necessary: If we simply take the 'compliance is mandatory' rule as being one of the basic conditions of membership for the UN then it can reasonably be assumed that any nations which blatantly refuse to comply with any resolutions -- without finding appropriate loopholes -- and don't leave the UN voluntarily are (OOC: despite the fact that the Mods themselves don't actually have the time available in which to enforce this) expelled from the UN. (OOC: As far as I'm concerned, I shall therefore regard Xanthal as a non-member of the UN henceforth, and any pretence otherwise on your part -- unless & until Xanthal does start complying with [the letter of] all the resolutions -- as irrelevant...)

However, the Dictatorial Anarchy of MTT lacks any sort of government, infrastructure or law-enforcement contingency in order to enforce such mandates.

So your level of enforcement for UN-based law is comparable to your level of enforcement for national law? That should count as okay, I suppose...

I shall therefore regard Xanthal as a non-member of the UN henceforth
In my mind that's more of a personal discretion thing. Because compliance is mandatory, compliant U.N. members would be justified in rejecting the idea that non-compliant members were truly members at all. However, the real-world United Nations is based on the pretense that members will abide by resolutions, and it has no enforcement mechanism either. I don't buy on available information alone that the NationStates U.N. is any different. Your idea that ejection proceedings go on when a nation doesn't follow the letter of the law is a creation of your own mind, not of the rules.

There's no doubt that UN resolutions have the force of law. The proof is that they change your nations stats, like the issues do.

The question is, what if the nations don't follow their own laws? Actual expultion from the UN isn't an option, unless the mods are prepared to actually expel nations for non-compliance. But for RP, maybe they'd lose certain UN privileges, even though they'd technically still be in the UN.

...for RP, maybe they'd lose certain UN privileges, even though they'd technically still be in the UN.
What privileges though?

The right to be acknowledged by your fellow ambassadors on the UN floor?

Again though, that's more individual decision than anything. The Forgottenlands Ambassador may well turn his back and ignore the Xanthalian Ambassador, but he can't stop him from speaking to the rest of the floor, nor can he stop him from voting. The NationStates site and its forums are loosely tied at best; I think it's fair to say that trying to make everyone interpret one in regards to the other any single way is a futile exercise, especially the way the rules are written now. We simply hold our two factions again: those willing to hear Xanthal in the U.N., and those not willing.

Interestingly, it is the equivelent of how we deal with it when we consider godmodders. Even more interestingly, it's how godmodders are dealt with elsewhere - if they can't play by logical rules, then they are probably going to find themselves ignored. You can't stop them from posting their RP and it is the individual choice to ignore the RP.

We're back where we started again.

Touché. I still, however, do not believe that the definition of godmodding extends to the subject in dispute.

Touché. I still, however, do not believe that the definition of godmodding extends to the subject in dispute.

Certainly. The question of godmodding - or at least, godmodding at the level that the community believes your action cannot or should not be permitted - is defined by the community as a whole. With exception to Mik, the core of the UN community believes compliance is mandatory and a vast percentage, if not majority, believe that failure to comply is godmodding - certainly the vast majority considers almost all cases of noncompliance to be godmodding with exception to the attempts that are well done enough or done by experienced enough members that they're willing to ignore those rules because it makes for good RP. Is it not the community that decides what is unacceptable RP in a free-form RP game? Certainly, it isn't moderated. But that's just the same as swearing is not acceptable by society, but people do it and the odd person will jump at you about it (in fact, that happened to me today). No one can stop you, but the society deems it unacceptable - on the whole at least.

(Certainly, there are some off-site communities where swearing is considered acceptable.)

I have yet to be ignored or otherwise chastised for my conduct in regards to the U.N. I disagree with your assertion that a true majority of our community would call my actions godmodding, and I further disagree that it is rational to sanction otherwise good players who do not comply with U.N. Resolutions as godmodders. What is acceptable is determined in factions, not by majority. That is why past, modern, postmodern, and future technology levels all exist on these forums. A PT player certainly can't war with a FT player on equal ground, but that doesn't make either a godmodder.

Now, let's take a giant step back. Don't you think we are both presumptous for thinking that we know how the NSUN works when no official document has been released on the matter? Is it not unfair to label someone an outcast only because they think differently from you, even if it does not affect your ability to play? Such thinking reminds me of that associated with the Temporal Accord, a group of FT players that declares itself the authority on theoretical future technology and shuns anyone who plays with devices not built to its specifications. That attitude is one of the highest conceit, and one I do not wish to imitate.

You are correct in your assessment that there is a schism between the premises of our two approaches to U.N. law. We are, in essence, playing by different rules, and that is ample ground to ignore at least our respective involvements in U.N. matters, if not each others' nations. At the same time though, I would stress that neither of us is wrong. We are interpreting a very nebulous rule in different ways, which is only to be expected of two individual human beings. I propose we simply agree to disagree, and place aside this nonsense of who is correct or stands with the majority. We need not play with each other, but we also need not become over-enamoured with our own viewpoints, and we need not turn our backs on one another as players. What do you say?

I have yet to be ignored or otherwise chastised for my conduct in regards to the U.N. I disagree with your assertion that a true majority of our community would call my actions godmoddingI certainly would. If people want to pretend that the FAQ is utterly irrelevent to role-play, that's their perogative (and I've already addressed that), just as it's mine to ignore the hell out of people who do so.

Compliance is clearly mandatory. And half the fun comes from seeing how nations manage to conform to the letter of the law in such a way as to cheerfully defy or ignore its spirit/intent.

Ariddia's way of coping with compliance has been to pick a random building in our capital city, designate it as a sovereign nation (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT), and transfer our UN membership to it. Thus Ariddia's UN ambassador technically represents the "nation" of ESAT, and Ariddia escapes UN legislation it disagrees with. Most resolutions are inapplicable to a nation consisting in a single building anyway.

You set aside a whole building? Most people who use UN envoys in that manner simply declare a handy cupboard to be a UN nation.

I have yet to be ignored or otherwise chastised for my conduct in regards to the U.N.

This is the first thread I have noticed your name in so that may be a bigger factor. I note that when I say community, I say the UN community which pretty much means those who regularly debate on this board. I know, from your post count, that you're active elsewhere, but I certainly have never noticed you here. If you have been posting here, maybe it's because you ignore resolutions that I've glazed over your posts. I don't know.

Well....even that's not entirely true. There are (off the top of my head) 8 UN dedicated invisionfree forums (probably more) out there and are considered part of the UN community. While most of the compliance RPs are done on II, the people in II are, generally, not considered part of the UN community.

I disagree with your assertion that a true majority of our community would call my actions godmodding,

Read the thread, man. Count them up

and I further disagree that it is rational to sanction otherwise good players who do not comply with U.N. Resolutions as godmodders.

If a good player makes a good RP about non-compliance, they're often given the exception. The vast majority of cases are the people who make 5 posts on the forum saying how they aren't following any resolutions and that's that. Those people, those are the ones we tend to ignore. If a good player makes an equally poor RP about non-compliance, yeah I'm going to ignore him. Just because you're good doesn't make you immune to having the same failings as a poor player - and when you sink to that level, I am going to ignore you.

What is acceptable is determined in factions, not by majority.

Truly, there isn't. It's pretty much "godmodding" until we go "hey, this looks like it might be fun"

That is why past, modern, postmodern, and future technology levels all exist on these forums. A PT player certainly can't war with a FT player on equal ground, but that doesn't make either a godmodder.

Hack dealt with tech levels and their inapplicability to the debate quite early.

Now, let's take a giant step back. Don't you think we are both presumptous for thinking that we know how the NSUN works when no official document has been released on the matter?

You mean the FAQ isn't an official document?

Is it not unfair to label someone an outcast only because they think differently from you, even if it does not affect your ability to play?

Actually, I label people I don't see in the UN very often as outcasts. Respect is earned on these forums, and it takes a few weeks to earn it.

Such thinking reminds me of that associated with the Temporal Accord, a group of FT players that declares itself the authority on theoretical future technology and shuns anyone who plays with devices not built to its specifications. That attitude is one of the highest conceit, and one I do not wish to imitate.

*shrug*



Does the community not decide right and wrong in a freeform RP?

[QUOTE]We are interpreting a very nebulous rule in different ways, which is only to be expected of two individual human beings. I propose we simply agree to disagree, and place aside this nonsense of who is correct or stands with the majority.

Does the community not decide the rules in a freeform RP environment?

We need not play with each other, but we also need not become over-enamoured with our own viewpoints, and we need not turn our backs on one another as players. What do you say?

What's your point? "Oh, we can't agree so lets just ignore each other but let's not ignore each other"? What?

I think part of the problem is that the whole UN thing is nebulous from an RP standpoint. It doesn't have an army, it's not an economic alliance, and it's hard to come up with a reason to even be in it.

I don't have any problem with the validity of UN resolutions. It's just another way the NS game impacts on our RP, like population and economic strength. However, getting willful nations to comply, often against their own best interests, is another story.

I think part of the problem is that the whole UN thing is nebulous from an RP standpoint. It doesn't have an army, it's not an economic alliance, and it's hard to come up with a reason to even be in it.

I know! And yet we are in it. :mad: Oh wait, you're not talking about the Real World. :p

You set aside a whole building? Most people who use UN envoys in that manner simply declare a handy cupboard to be a UN nation.

Hehe... Well, we weren't using it for anything else. That way, it officially has its own citizens and government, even if in practice it's all just a mouthpiece for Ariddia...

This is the first thread I have noticed your name in so that may be a bigger factor. I note that when I say community, I say the UN community which pretty much means those who regularly debate on this board. I know, from your post count, that you're active elsewhere, but I certainly have never noticed you here. If you have been posting here, maybe it's because you ignore resolutions that I've glazed over your posts. I don't know.


I've noticed Xanthal. Few and far between on posts, but generally quite good.

In response to both Hack and Forgottenlands, the FAQ only says that compliance is mandatory, not what actions (if any) are to be taken or how they are to be taken when that rule is broken. Assuming that nations in violation will always, or often, or ever be ejected from the U.N. goes far beyond that simple one line rule. That is where the letter of the law stops and the creations of your own minds begin.

To Forgottenlands, whether or not you believe that Hack "dealt with" the matter of technology levels earlier is irrelevant. I believe the issues are similar enough in nature to make the metaphor applicable. We have both imagined certain broad-scale rules to exist beyond the site rules. Your interpretation is no more or less correct than mine. As for the final lines of my last post, my point was that it's all well and good to ignore one another's nations, but I would prefer to conclude on good terms as players; in the sense that we both retain respect for the other side's position and do not allow personal adversity to take root between us. It may be cheesy, but I hate to walk away from an exchange of opinions feeling that I have made an enemy.

It is hard to become enemies with me, and often I find my own animosities build out of frustration from other's animosity towards me. You display both intelligence and depth of understanding and have earned my respect. This argument will not be parted with animosity.

In response to both Hack and Forgottenlands, the FAQ only says that compliance is mandatory, not what actions (if any) are to be taken or how they are to be taken when that rule is broken.See, this is where we disagree. You look at "compliance is mandatory" as meaning "I might be punished if I don't comply." I look at it as: "You are incapable of not complying". You can say you ignore all Resolutions just like I can say that I'm George Washington.

That is where the letter of the law stops and the creations of your own minds begin.Yup, and that "creation of your mind" is where I check out. Perrier banning everybody from space was a creation of his own mind, as was Imperial Forces having 80% of his population in the military (and SCRAM jets on ICBMs because they were "free"). I ignored them too. "Creation of your own mind" is hardly a defence. All godmoding idiocy is a creation of somebody's mind.

See, this is where we disagree. You look at "compliance is mandatory" as meaning "I might be punished if I don't comply." I look at it as: "You are incapable of not complying". You can say you ignore all Resolutions just like I can say that I'm George Washington.

Yes, this is where we disagree. And OOCly, I'm not sure why, unless your understanding of mandatory is quite different from what I understand it to be. When my boss says "this orientation is mandatory" he is not telling me that "you are incapable of not complying". What he's saying (and quite explicitly in the email I got) is that it's necessary to my job that I be there, or I'll be seriously punished. Now in the case of my boss, he can write me up or fire me.

But when it comes to the roleplayed (rather than gameplay stat changes) compliance with UN resolutions, guess what? There's no punishment, and certainly no enforcement of the kind we have for gameplay (the much-vaunted stat changes). You said as much yourself. So while I can certainly see that saying compliance is mandatory in the sense that you are incapable of complying from a game mechanics perspective is accurate because enforcement is carried out by the game engine, I can't see the same being true of roleplay. I can, however, see compliance being mandatory in the sense that you're likely to be "punished" by the roleplaying community for godmoding if you choose to practice outright noncompliance.

Yup, and that "creation of your mind" is where I check out. Perrier banning everybody from space was a creation of his own mind, as was Imperial Forces having 80% of his population in the military (and SCRAM jets on ICBMs because they were "free"). I ignored them too. "Creation of your own mind" is hardly a defence. All godmoding idiocy is a creation of somebody's mind.

And other folks ignoring their roleplay (and sometimes suffering IC sanctions from other countries despite how little it accomplishes) is currently the form of punishment noncompliance receives. And neither the OOC or the IC punishment fits your "you are incapable of not complying" view of what constitutes "mandatory".

Say that compliance is mandatory ICly all you want, but from an OOC roleplay (rather than gameplay) standpoint it's clearly not.

What it come down to in terms of godmoding, as has been rightly noted by FL, is what the community decides to allow.

People can defy the game engine's stat-based assignment of their nation with the Anarchy category and description of biker gangs, instead roleplaying it as a republic, *coughKnootcough* and the community allows it.

But if people defy compliance with UN resolutions that they probably weren't in the UN to experience the stat changes for anyway, the community calls it godmoding.

I'm one of those people that calls it godmoding too, but frankly I can completely understand why others have chosen to do otherwise. There's significantly less of a reason to call defying UN resolutions godmoding than there is to call what Knoot and many other good roleplayers do godmoding, but we do, and I can hardly blame anyone who calls "bullshit!" on those of us who believe that noncompliance is godmoding.

So your level of enforcement for UN-based law is comparable to your level of enforcement for national law? That should count as okay, I suppose...Actually, no. We have no national laws to enforce, so the only area where we lack enforcement is UN law. But that's OK; most UNRs are restrictions on government, and since there's no government, we're sittin' pretty. The only place where we need to git crackin' on enforcement is in restrictions on business; that's a bit trickier. Maybe offer incentives to business leaders? Enforce Workplace Safety Act, and get a big red balloon! Enforce The Right to Form Unions, and get a Snickers bar to go with it!

Yeah, that'll work.

It's a matter on the Wank Continuum, Tex. To give an example from my nation:

My nation is PMT, knocking on the door to FT. One of my characters, Fusayoshi, is a Kitsune male who is an enhancile. That's a genetic mutation -- from birth -- that makes him somewhat like a post-human: he's stronger and faster than a normal person, and he's also highly resistant to toxins and poisons (ie: it's a real bitch to get him drunk). He's also mildly psychic. Pile on to all of that, he's been augmented with cyberware, making him even more resistant, faster, and even stronger -- he's actually stronger than his joints are; in other words, if he tried to lift a heavy enough object, he could tear his own arms off. And, of course, he's a highly trained Special Ops soldier in the army.

Clearly, he's a walking ball of wank, and if he was wandering around punching out tanks, people would have every right to ignore the Hell out of me.

However, he doesn't do that. He has his foibles, he's a "real" person (married, etc.) and he's not invincible, as shown here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8037122&postcount=20) (it should be noticed that Uyo has even more cyberware). The cyberware, psychic ability, and mutation are all "flavor text". They add to the story, and add to the character, but aren't the story and the character themselves. He can easily be used as an ambassador or an expert witness (and has) and his enhancements don't come into play at all. It's wank, but it's not absurd.

I look at non-compliance in a similar way. If someone wants to ignore a given Resolution, and role plays both it and the consequences, then they're throwing a bit of wank around, but it works. It's when people just up and ignore a Resolution (or all of them[!]) that I cut loose.

I look at non-compliance in a similar way. If someone wants to ignore a given Resolution, and role plays both it and the consequences, then they're throwing a bit of wank around, but it works. It's when people just up and ignore a Resolution (or all of them[!]) that I cut loose.
We're on the same page here. Though I don't make a point of creating threads to declare Xanthal's non-compliance and call people out to knock my nation for it, the matter does come up in my roleplaying, albeit infrequently. As some here have observed, I do not play around the United Nations much. I seldom find something I want to get involved in on this forum, and the matter rarely comes up in NS or II. At the same time though, I'd enjoy the opportunity to have a game centered on the issue of Xanthalian U.N. involvement, if I could get a partner. I dislike solo roleplaying.

I dislike solo roleplaying.

Yeah, it's like masturbation without the fun. :p

In my mind that's more of a personal discretion thing. Because compliance is mandatory, compliant U.N. members would be justified in rejecting the idea that non-compliant members were truly members at all. However, the real-world United Nations is based on the pretense that members will abide by resolutions, and it has no enforcement mechanism either. I don't buy on available information alone that the NationStates U.N. is any different. Your idea that ejection proceedings go on when a nation doesn't follow the letter of the law is a creation of your own mind, not of the rules.

Actually any arguments here are frankly answered by the FACT that every UN member can (without any consequences) choose to make euthanasia illegal via a game engine supported daily issue despite a UN (game engine) resolution forcing members to make it legal.

The nations that want to force compliance simply wish to enforce their roleplay / ideas on others. They'll ignore actual stickied rules on roleplay and point to an introductory frequently asked questions that was drafted several years ago (not a rule set, but a general set of basic advice <-- I know they sound similar but they aren't).


Yesterday, while working the elections I had a Green Party voter walk up and demand to know why Democrats Steve Wesley and Phil Angelides weren't on her Green Party primary ballot. I pointed out that primaries are *private* elections held for the benefit of political parties and are designed such that registered members of the parties and not the general public, could choose who the party will endorse for the November election. So she said, "But I always vote Democrat and Green." Me: "I believe you, but according to both the Democratic and Green parties of California, you belong to the Green party. You can only belong to one political party. And the candidates you want to vote for belong to another party."

Now I made the *mistake* of pointing out that the "guideline" that only members of a political party can vote for that party's candidates isn't exactly true. I said, "Election law is actually more complex, so there are situtations when non-Democratic voters can cast Democratic ballots in a Democratic primary. But the guideline is that people whom are registered to a political party can NOT cast ballots for anybody outside of their party. To do so as a write-in is only going to throw your vote away. The computer will not recognize your vote."

Naturally she asked what the acceptions to the rule were ... so I explained.

My point here is when you deal with new voters or newbies to NationStates you don't want to flow chart and organize ALL the rules. Instead Max created a very crude "Frequently Asked Questions".

Q: Can I vote for a Democrat in a primary election if I'm a Republican?
A: No, primaries are for political party members ... Democrats usually do not want Republicans chosing whom will run in the general election.

Q: Can I simply ignore UN resolutions?
A: If you are a UN member no. You will be sent an automated telegram by the game engine telling you to comply.

The truth is that Republicans *can* vote for Democrats in primaries in California if (1) the Democrats chose to accept the Republican votes, or (2) if the Republicans chose to reregister as Democrats on the spot and if the county clerk accepts a same-day party change affiliation. That said, most California county clerks will tire of frequent same-day affiliations, and if this sort of behavior were to become wide-spread, I'm sure they'd actively propose new election laws.

In NationStates, despite what Forgottenlord claims, I'm convinced (read: my opinion is based on the same source as his -- observation of the game for YEARS) the vast majority of UN players *do* ignore UN resolutions. They vote, they rarely visit this forum, and they continue to play the game however they damn please. The idea that "gnomes" are doing the enforcing is Hacks ... it has nothing to do with the game engine. Is it assuming? Kinda. Is it non-offensive? You bet. :) But it is an example of *his* idea / roleplay coming in and interfering with others.

Meh, call me a firm believer in civil liberties in real life, but in general that can of control placed in the hands of a dozen people strikes me as bad.

Someone else's turn.

I'm sick of this shit.

Someone else's turn.

I'm sick of this shit.

A sincere suggestion: you don't need to reply to EVERYTHING. Take a vacation / break from things. :)

In NationStates, despite what Forgottenlord claims, I'm convinced (read: my opinion is based on the same source as his -- observation of the game for YEARS) the vast majority of UN players *do* ignore UN resolutions. They vote, they rarely visit this forum, and they continue to play the game however they damn please. The idea that "gnomes" are doing the enforcing is Hacks ... it has nothing to do with the game engine. Is it assuming? Kinda. Is it non-offensive? You bet. :) But it is an example of *his* idea / roleplay coming in and interfering with others.

I don't think I've ever seen a referrence to the UN in the NS or II forums. AFAICT, it's a non-factor in the RPs there. Frankly, I don't even think most UN members vote on the resolutions, or even know what they are. The only real "enforcement" is that they change your stats just like the issues do.

A sincere suggestion: you don't need to reply to EVERYTHING. Take a vacation / break from things. :)

You prodded, a response was called for

Yesterday, while working the elections I had a Green Party voter walk up and demand to know why Democrats Steve Wesley and Phil Angelides weren't on her Green Party primary ballot. I pointed out that primaries are *private* elections held for the benefit of political parties and are designed such that registered members of the parties and not the general public, could choose who the party will endorse for the November election. So she said, "But I always vote Democrat and Green." Me: "I believe you, but according to both the Democratic and Green parties of California, you belong to the Green party. You can only belong to one political party. And the candidates you want to vote for belong to another party."You worked the polls yesterday? What a coinkidink; so did I! The big 50th Congressional runoff! Yay. :rolleyes:

We had people arguing with us about their party designation, too; we gave provisional ballots to a few. Not sure if their votes for the primary elections will even be counted.

Low turnout, btw, especially considering how big a deal the national parties were making of this district.

Actually ....

Welcome back, it’s been a while:)

In NationStates, despite what Forgottenlord claims, I'm convinced (read: my opinion is based on the same source as his -- observation of the game for YEARS) the vast majority of UN players *do* ignore UN resolutions.
I would also like to suggest that a large number of them simply have not got all the current active resolutions memorized and since there is no effect on the issue queue as a result of a resolution it is possible that an option may be in conflict with a resolution without them knowing it, or that an issue presents the lesser of multiple evils where every option is in one way or another against UN resolutions.

Heck, I've had that happen to me in the forums. "What they haven't repealed that thing yet?" and "We have a resolution on that?"

The truth is that Republicans *can* vote for Democrats in primaries in California if (1) the Democrats chose to accept the Republican votes, or (2) if the Republicans chose to reregister as Democrats on the spot and if the county clerk accepts a same-day party change affiliation.Wait a minute... are you saying that Illinois manages something related to elections better than someone else? In Illinois primaries, you just say what ballot you want, you don't have to prove party affiliation.

...of course, that makes monkeying with ballots easier, so it may explain why we do it that way. We're #1 for corruption! Yay!

They vote, they rarely visit this forum, and they continue to play the game however they damn please.Well... that's kinda like me saying that Abbasolution is run by my favorite brother. I only have one brother. Sure, the majority ignore Resolutions, but they ignore everything else, too; or they're invaders. These are people that you really can point to when it comes to questions of compliance. For that, you have to look at people active in NS, II, and UN.

Wait a minute... are you saying that Illinois manages something related to elections better than someone else? In Illinois primaries, you just say what ballot you want, you don't have to prove party affiliation.

...of course, that makes monkeying with ballots easier, so it may explain why we do it that way. We're #1 for corruption! Yay!

I've always believed that Illinois had the market cornered on corrupt politics. Though my county had zero precincts reporting from Tuesday's election by Wednesday morning.

My precinct (we look at the ballots and count them to make sure that the number we are turning into the county matches the number we issued) probably had at *least* 5% of the ballots spoiled because people "X"ed their choices instead of filling in the damn boxes ... despite the fact that each voting booth *and* their election guides had signs showing what would count and what would be considered an "undervote" (non-vote).

We California might just have some really stoopid voters. (It actually makes me kinda sad, as I was there to prevent people from throwing away their votes like that ... next time I'll assume all voters are "slow".)


Well... that's kinda like me saying that Abbasolution is run by my favorite brother. I only have one brother. Sure, the majority ignore Resolutions, but they ignore everything else, too; or they're invaders. These are people that you really can point to when it comes to questions of compliance. For that, you have to look at people active in NS, II, and UN.

You have a point ... we should be concerned with the people whom we interact. But why should we care about those we don't??? Which I feel brings back the question on compliance.

Also please bear in mind that not complying with a resolution is not always IGNORING the resolution. For example, "I acknowledge that the United Nations adopted a resolution to promote cooperation and information exchanges related to tracking near earth objects, however, my government chooses to not participate in the program and will not comply with the resolution for security reasons." That isn't ignoring the resolution, but rather the deliberate decision to not implement the resolution.

The reason I replied again is essentially a *single* individual was calling me a godmodder because I support *reasonable* player freedome when it impacts only their nation. Obviously I (and many of the players -- active in the UN) don't feel that label applies to me.

You worked the polls yesterday? What a coinkidink; so did I! The big 50th Congressional runoff! Yay. :rolleyes:

Was the runoff a leftover from Nov??? I wasn't clear why you SoCalers were doing that.

BTW, it is cool that you too are a poll worker. I've been working elections since 1998. Yolo moved from a punch system that had *no* chads to some pretty horrid early 20th century paper ballots ... mistake. San Joaquin and some other NorCal counties got screwed when their new electronic voting machines wouldn't work properly.

This is a total tangent, but how many other UN players also work in their home state / country's elections? :)


We had people arguing with us about their party designation, too; we gave provisional ballots to a few. Not sure if their votes for the primary elections will even be counted.

Low turnout, btw, especially considering how big a deal the national parties were making of this district.

The papers were suggesting that Tuesday was the lowest voter turnout in California history. We'll see.

But yup, your district should have been interesting.

I don't think I've ever seen a referrence to the UN in the NS or II forums. AFAICT, it's a non-factor in the RPs there. Frankly, I don't even think most UN members vote on the resolutions, or even know what they are. The only real "enforcement" is that they change your stats just like the issues do.

Returning to the topic ...

Yup, the resolutions do change our all stats.

My personal take on that is that politics in the UN do impact the general political outlook / composition of our domestic populations. For example, if in real life, if the UN passed a bunch of human rights resolutions (safe granting women's rights), in time word of these resolutions might push religious nations where women are second class citizens into a more liberal position.

The problem with my above idea is that clearly the changes in the stats are much more significant than what I've suggested.

My (albeit weak) answer is that the stats for NS are kinda busted. Here I point to the super high population numbers and crazy tax rates. :/

Mik, re your point about the euthanasia resolution:

I've been told in the past that the gnomes just wait until you pass your own laws in response to an issue, then immediately change them back to compliance with the UN. Or the Compliance Ministry does. Regardless, you don't see it happening and yet it does happen.

No, it doesn't quite cover the stat changes in your nation as a result of your issue decision. But it makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than pretending that we're not in compliance, when the rules of the game tell us that we indeed are.

It is a simple explanation, but I've yet to see a need to abandon it for something else - it covers pretty much all contingencies.

Wait a minute... are you saying that Illinois manages something related to elections better than someone else? In Illinois primaries, you just say what ballot you want, you don't have to prove party affiliation.

...of course, that makes monkeying with ballots easier, so it may explain why we do it that way. We're #1 for corruption! Yay!
OOC: I''d say that Washington used to have you beat, until a couple years ago we had what was called a blanket primary, everyone got the same ballot with all the candidates from all the parties listed on it. You vote for whoever you want and the top vote getters from each party move on.

OOC: I'd say that Washington used to have you beat, until a couple years ago we had what was called a blanket primary, everyone got the same ballot with all the candidates from all the parties listed on it. You vote for whoever you want and the top vote getters from each party move on.Well, that's one way to cut down on costs, I suppose. One ballot for all! Fluffy trees spared the axe!

Also please bear in mind that not complying with a resolution is not always IGNORING the resolution.Well, we've gone around and around on this. There's a difference between detailed non-compliance with a specific Resolution and simply saying "We don't follow any of the Resolutions". One I can accept; the other I can't.

If I didn't have to follow the UN resolutions, I wouldn't have any excuse for ranting about how evil it is!

We're #1 for corruption! Yay!


Illinois has long held that dubious distinction -- for more than a century really. I mean, c'mon...Chicago alone puts y'all over the top. ;)

The reason I replied again is essentially a *single* individual was calling me a godmodder because I support *reasonable* player freedome when it impacts only their nation. Obviously I (and many of the players -- active in the UN) don't feel that label applies to me.

When did I call you a godmodder? I said your theories were ridiculous and anyone who uses those theories to argue non-compliance I would consider to be godmodding, but when did I call you a godmodder

When did I call you a godmodder? I said your theories were ridiculous and anyone who uses those theories to argue non-compliance I would consider to be godmodding, but when did I call you a godmodder

Please stop insulting our intelligence as you just did it again.

Now are you "sick of this shit" or determined to throw out insult after insult while pretending you've not done so? As far as I can tell you want to toss out the insults (very mild flame baiting) without having to own up to it.

Well, we've gone around and around on this. There's a difference between detailed non-compliance with a specific Resolution and simply saying "We don't follow any of the Resolutions". One I can accept; the other I can't.

Actually, I believe we share the same basic opinion on this subject. Granted there are some minor differences, but yes -- I agree.

Simply saying "we don't follow any UN Resolutions, but are active members in good standing" is illogical.

Mik, when I address something to you, I do appreciate it if you at least acknowledge it being there. It's happened a few times through this thread at various times, and it really is starting to irk me.

Was the runoff a leftover from Nov??? I wasn't clear why you SoCalers were doing that.Duke Cunningham resigned when he was convicted of taking bribes, so we had a special election to replace him on Aprill 11. No one got a majority, so we held the runoff this week. The Democrats actually thought they could steal away a safe GOP district in light of the fact that the former Republican congressman had been such a bad little boy -- didn't turn out that way.

This was the first election in which I manned the polls since the '96 primaries, when I was only 19. This time it was just me and these two other guys in their twenties. The voters kept marveling at how they'd never before seen anyone under 50 running a precinct. :D

Actually, I believe we share the same basic opinion on this subject. Granted there are some minor differences, but yes -- I agree.

Simply saying "we don't follow any UN Resolutions, but are active members in good standing" is illogical.On this, I agree too.

Mik, when I address something to you, I do appreciate it if you at least acknowledge it being there. It's happened a few times through this thread at various times, and it really is starting to irk me.If I may be so bold, there really isn't anything in your post to which Mik can respond. You keep citing as fact a concept of compliance you know full well that Mik does not recognize, using as the sole basis for your argument the fact that you've "been told in the past" it happens, so "it does happen." How can anyone respond to the line, essentially, that "I say it is so; therefore, it is so"? That isn't a valid argument. If it "makes much more sense to you," and you "see no need to abandon it," then good; use it your own roleplay. Enn's RP; Enn's rules. You win. But that does not in any way nullify "Mik's RP; Mik's rules"; "TH's RP; TH's rules"; "Kenny's RP; Kenny's rules," and so on. If you don't like the way someone plays the game, just don't play with him. Don't try to force your own conception of the game on other players and kill freeform roleplay with ridiculous Godmoding sentiments simply because you can have it no way but your own.

Kenny, was there a need to be so hostile? All I was doing was bringing up a way of interpreting the rules, and asking for comment.

As I have yet to receive any response of any kind from Mik, I have no idea whether he has even read what I posted.

If he has, and hasn't bothered to reply any of the times I have attempted to raise this point, then I see no reason not to feel offended by someone whom I hold in high regard, and have had generally cordial relations with in the past.

All it needs is a simple 'I don't agree', and that's fine.

If you have read my opinions as my stating facts, then I sincerely apologise for that. It wasn't my intention.

All I've been trying to do is draw attention to another interpretation of the rules as a way of calming people down. There've been a lot of hostile posts so far in this thread, and I don't like seeing that, especially between people whom I like.

Hostility was not my intention, and I wasn't the happiest of campers when I posted that, so you may kindly disregard anything you feel crossed the line. All I was pointing out was that, yeah, Mik is never going to acknowledge your theory, and obviously, neither am I. [:p] All players, once they've gotten the hang of freeform RP, are going to use their own compliance rules anyway, and so far that they don't still insist "Ha! This doesn't affect me 'cause I can ignore anything you guys pass!! LOLz!!111" there's no need to force any one theory of compliance on them.

Our nation is new to the UN, we are still strugglign to fully comply with the spirit and letter of the resolutions, (there are a lot of them). There was a copyright proposal that had us considering non compliance. I have still hope a true copyright reform proposition will pass instead though.

Are there any nations that have sanctions placed against them for non compliance?

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

we are still strugglign to fully comply with the spirit and letter of the resolutions

You don't have to comply with their spirit. Only with their letter. ;)

Are there any nations that have sanctions placed against them for non compliance?
Not sure. I know that some nations have been sanctioned (multilaterally, but not by UN mandate) for human rights abuses, but I'm not sure about direct non-compliance.

EDIT: Doh, of course there is! Sophista didn't comply with The Law of the Sea, which led to The Great Dodgeball War.

You don't have to comply with their spirit. Only with their letter. ;)

I fear we may be forced to choose that path with regards to this upcoming copyright legislation. For all legislation on the books we have not had a problem complying with the spirit. The UN hasn't acted as a very radical body. In general it's propositions have been designed to maintain peace and relations between nations. I was shocked to see a copyright proposal that was so radical we would be forced to give only a seeming compliance.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

Hostility was not my intention, and I wasn't the happiest of campers when I posted that, so you may kindly disregard anything you feel crossed the line. All I was pointing out was that, yeah, Mik is never going to acknowledge your theory, and obviously, neither am I. [:p] All players, once they've gotten the hang of freeform RP, are going to use their own compliance rules anyway, and so far that they don't still insist "Ha! This doesn't affect me 'cause I can ignore anything you guys pass!! LOLz!!111" there's no need to force any one theory of compliance on them.
Yeah, I was feeling a bit precious then as well. No hard feelings?

Just wanted to find out whether Mik's actually been reading my posts. Nothing more serious intended there. And yes, the RP world is broad enough to allow various interpretations.