NationStates Jolt Archive

what about non oxygen breathing countries, or ones that use compressed air as they live in giant space wheels circling through time?

what about non oxygen breathing countries, or ones that use compressed air as they live in giant space wheels circling through time?Those are probably ignorable under the Reasonable Nation concept.

Those are probably ignorable under the Reasonable Nation concept.Glad you put in "probably" here as means that nations that exist will not be ignored. As in this world there are all sorts of lifeforms on many planets and those that don't want to believe they exist need to wake up they are here and part of the game.

Most of the themes on nations probably come from some movie series like Star Trek. Thus are reasonable and to me it would be reasonable to form a nation of some race seen in Star Trek or other movies or even computer games now.

An example it my world is based on clones forming a separate society on their own planet so if one don't believe in cloning then they ignore me.. this would be wrong and believe violate a current Resolution that makes clones equal to normals.. can one argue that it's not reasonable to have clones since they don't exist in the real world? Or people just against the idea of clones?

Here one of the troubles with this proposal is they show that the process exists in their example then ignore it and don't use it to clean up the offending comany that is poluting instead they give them credits and let them keep on poluting. The process just as lifeforms exist that can change things for the better but some refuse to see this and use it. It is reasonable to buy a process from me to stop poluting than to keep on poluting and buy credits or pay fines... as I'm company B or C and have it so make A come get it not credits to keep polutiing.

can one argue that it's not reasonable to have clones since they don't exist in the real world? Or people just against the idea of clones?You misunderstand the point of the Reasonable Nation theory.

The point of the theory is to prevent authors from needing to come up with contingency plans for the nearly infinite variety of nations that exist on NationStates. Requiring them to customize their Proposals to deal with ever eventuality would make it impossible to get anything done.

Generally speaking, a "Reasonable Nation" is one that exists in the modern era, on an earth-like planet, where it is one of many nations existing on that world, and where its policies and society are similar to that found in the real world. This is a very broad generalization, and many nations that don't fit it can still have their needs addressed by Proposals. Indeed, by this definition, the Hack is not a "Reasonable Nation", as it exists nearly 100 years in the future. However, most Proposals would still apply to my nation (if I was in the UN). The ones that wouldn't apply, I don't bother speaking up on; my input is largely irrelevant.

The example of a non-air-breathing nation is not the basis for a reasonable objection, as nothing could be done to this Proposal to make it apply. To be blunt, such examples are a waste of time.

OoC:

I don't know myself, I personally believe that there is room for objection on tech grounds and "space monster" grounds; I suppose this largely stems from being a past tech nation, and to some extent to large number of UN nations that fit into either or both of those categories. In this example, I can't see why there is a problem with non-oxygen breathing life forms and planets, largely because there is nothing in the wording, save for examples (I'm assuming that the i.e. is meant to be an e.g. here, as otherwise it only effects sulphur dioxide) that causes the substance breathed in to be relevent. I also find problems based on technology can easily be sorted by commitee-fication, as indeed in this example - non-oxygen planets, planet's where oxygen is a pollutant etc. will be sorted by the Commitee gnomes. I did something similar with passports - by having a commitee decide how the passports would take shape absolves the problem of having to come up with a passport design that caters to all technologies and aliens, etc. Plus, one has to factor in that many tech objections often have parrallels with MT problems - problems with pre-industrialisation due to time can have direct parrallels to modern nations that are pre-industrial due to basket case economics.

Of course, I'm not saying there is no room for the reasonable nation theory - whilst I've argued on tech, I've not argued based on my time portal (which, in my own eyes, is definately outside the realms of reasonable nation theory), and thus there should be a limit on unreasonability - largely if it means a proposal has to be completely thrown out, as opposed to basic alterations. Simply put, I believe the bar should be higher then you put it.

For example, with this proposal, the tech problem could be catered for by issuing the credits on a national basis, with the CASC taking into account the situation of the nation. Other proposals can get round it merely by urging (e.g. Ballast Water), or even by lack of definition. Other proposals can simply be irrelevent (e.g. Orbital Space Safety Act).

Perhaps this should be split for another discussion?

The Short Sighted Bloke Behind a Computer Who is Actually Controlling Cobdenia

I'm not saying you can't bring up objections, I'm saying the author can ignore them if they wish. Repeal authors aren't required to offer a replacement, but they can if they want. The whole point of this is to cut off endless lawyering at the knees.

I'm sure you remember DLE and his endless "this doesn't apply to me because I'm a hyperadvanced nation with no problems that lives in a different dimension and is surrounded by DEAT mines that will kill you dead; twice" nonsense. He was certainly an extreme example, but setting the bar low gives authors an easy out, as opposed to endless bickering.

Also, the tech issue isn't always an issue. Yes, you're unlikely to be concerned with a resolution on supersonic aircraft, much like I'm unlikely to be worried about a resolution on horse-based mail carriers. For other issues, it can certainly be addressed.

It's also a matter of degrees (both of time displacement and tech level). Something on automobiles while be unlikely to trigger the theory with either of us, but G l o g's objections are probably out of place.

Again, though, the author is certainly allowed to address concerns raised, I just don't feel they need to.

I quite agree that it isn't always an issue, and that compensating for unreasonable nations shouldn't be included in the UN rules. It's more that I think there are circumstances when such a concern can be validly made, especially if such a problem can be compensated through rewording, urging, commitification, etc - especially where such a proposal would, in IC terms, cause serious detriment to a PT nation (such as anti global warming proposals). Of course, I agree that the author can ignore such a problem (Cobdenia just finds and exploits loopholes, or adds it to the somewhat dodgy "non-compliance" list - something I will, in future, roleplay a bit more), I just think that such an objection should be considered valid.

There is another aspect to it, and where such an objection is, I feel incredibly valid, and something I'd like to see added to the rules, if possible (perhaps as an subsection of "Ideological Ban"), is the "mandating of technology levels", which I feel is something very different. Fossil Fuel Reduction only hurt Cobdenia (or would have done, had we played fair!), not effectively outlawed it. A law about safety on supersonic aeroplanes would be acceptable, and Cobdenia would have no objections, as it simply wouldn't effect us; but a proposal that forces all international travel to be done in supersonic jets, should, in my eyes, be considered the same as mandating that we abolish petrol cars and instead use magical dragons - it would effectively outlaw PT in the same way the latter outlaws reasonable nations. I hope you understand what I'm getting at here; I know my grammar is an English teachers nightmare, and my language like it's back formed from Linear B!;)

These are merely my own ideas, and I appreciate they are incredibly biased (I do, after all RP a PT nation)

The British Shortarse Who RP's Cobdenia

but G l o g's objections are probably out of place.
OOC: Err...which thread is this split from and what was I objecting to?

The example of a non-air-breathing nation is not the basis for a reasonable objection, as nothing could be done to this Proposal to make it apply. To be blunt, such examples are a waste of time.Yes but like your nation most proposals would apply to it. Here NABs may have different problems with what they see as polutions so poposals can't just say we will look at SO2 or CO2 as polutions but have to set up some way to determine what is a polution in each world.. Same applies with health and dealing with diseases that effect each world. It is not reasonable to just ignore that somebody may have cured cancer or have no idea what it is or does but have to deal with a simple cold and what it does to them.

Sorry slowly getting mind together here been long night so not sure what want to say. As from time been in here see some folks do tend to just ignore the rules until it benifits them to use them to stop something. More like what is said here by Cobdenia:

Fossil Fuel Reduction only hurt Cobdenia (or would have done, had we played fair!), not effectively outlawed it. A law about safety on supersonic aeroplanes would be acceptable, and Cobdenia would have no objections, as it simply wouldn't effect us; but a proposal that forces all international travel to be done in supersonic jets, should, in my eyes, be considered the same as mandating that we abolish petrol cars and instead use magical dragons - it would effectively outlaw PT in the same way the latter outlaws reasonable nations. I hope you understand what I'm getting at here; I know my grammar is an English teachers nightmare, and my language like it's back formed from Linear B![/B] As you just take what you like and ignore the rest and that seems to be the way many do. And like Cobdenia not sure saying what want right but hope making some sense.

Back to the proposal that this came from on Clean Air... as one of the points got me was the bringing up of ETI don't exist... this is a good example of where reasonable and not reasonable plays as they do here and on many planets. Just because somebody don't believe there is life beyond our own or that some God didn't create this 'real world' are we all to come on line with them play under only their rules.

Time for my nap so hope making some sense here.

Just thought of this: Peanuts, Milk, and Bee Stings to different folks are not harmful but others they are. So would banning the production of peanuts on a planet be reasonable or not. Then having cows on planets or bees, thus one has to consider the unthinkable or what don't effect them or somebody in their family in the real world so why not here?

I don't know what topic led to this, but Sagit isn't a "Reasonable Nation". It's an FT nation that hasn't had a home planet for centuries. Quite a few of the issues are irrelevant. However, in spite of the differences, there are still plenty of similarities. We still have 2 arms, 2 legs, and 2 antenne (are you telling me that humans don't have antenne?), breathe oxygen, and have most of the same vices as humans (though we hide them better).

A UN resolution regulating the kind of gasoline used in automobiles would have no effect on my nation, beyond stats. OTOH, a resolution about dumping waste in space would affect me MORE than a typical MT nation.

And some resolutions, like the current at vote, would affect many "unreasonable nations", whether FT or PT.

I don't know if anything I just said was relevant, but I said it anyway.

Edit: I typed that BEFORE the previous post.

OOC:

I've always had a slightly different take on the reasonable nation theory. To me, it hasn't meant that the concept of the nation was "reasonable". It's more that a nation would act in a reasonable manner when faced with the resolution.

Some of you will remember a certain nation that specialized in bringing up more and more absurd scenarios to argue against resolutions. (I'm sure Cobdenia will remember.) Not the FT, PT, or outer space type of thing. It was bringing up ridiculous things that no nation with more than 3/4 of an ounce of brains would do. A nation that would do those things, to me, is an eample of an un-reasonable nation.

I consider all types of nations to be "reasonable" in the context of NS: PT, FT, on some hitherto unknown planet, located on the ocean floor -- whatever. Maybe even a nation populated mainly by dwarves. :eek: To me, a reasonable nation is one that acts reasonably in the context of NS and its own nature and situation.

OOC:
To me, a reasonable nation is one that acts reasonably in the context of NS and its own nature and situation.
We fully agree with this as here there are many paths to building a nation of whatever but some things are not reasonable. However those probems we face today can relate to problems presented in a proposal to be solved and if one stays inside their 'own little box' giving no consideration to others outside it then we have problems.

Instead of trying to find a solution 'inside the box' one should leave it open to finding a solution whever it may be and whatever it may be. Thus we have the ghnomes to do that here all we have to do is write up something directing them to find a solution and see that all apply it equaly and fairly based on their world. If we need them working on getting ride of H20 or SO2 then that is what they will do, if the propoal is written to direct them to do this.

There is a proposal on naming products after some special place or thing that says for human comsumption as far as the products involved are. This is an example of thinking 'inside the box' only as it forgets or don't consider that there are more than humans in this world. Think what trying to say if US citizens all can't eat peanuts or drink milk then in actions on importing products must consider that Canada and Mexico not include peanuts or milk in their products going to US or allow them to polute the US with these items. This would be same between planets as it would be in real world between nations. Here it hard to figure just what each nation may not find safe thus proposals must be written to let the ghnomes figure this out and deal with it under the basic terms of the proposal for all not just those humans that breath air and drink milk, water and eat peanuts.

OOC: Err...which thread is this split from and what was I objecting to?

OoC: my fault, old fruit. I used your nation as an example

I was always under the impression that "Reasonable Nation" also applied to the actions a nation would generally take, not just it's historical, cultural, or RP backgrounds.

Sure, the Hack might be 100 years in the future and Cobdenia perpetually stuck in the past, but that doesn't mean that their governments are "unreasonable." I've can't recall having the theory applied to something other than government reactions- usually in the case of "well, Totalitarianstan is just going to kill all the people with AIDS to get around this legislation."

So, in a sense, I regard "Resonable Nations" as nations that do not exploit loopholes in extreme or deliberately obtuse manners- not Creative Solutions Agency obtuse/extreme, but mass genocide/chemical extreme/obtuse.

The question should be "what would a Reasonable Nation do?," rather than "what kind of nation is a Reasonable Nation?"

What we're really talking about here is reasonable roleplayer theory. We just can't say that IC so we call it Reasonable Nation theory.

Busy thread...

It's more that I think there are circumstances when such a concern can be validly made, especially if such a problem can be compensated through rewording, urging, commitification, etc - especially where such a proposal would, in IC terms, cause serious detriment to a PT nation (such as anti global warming proposals).Yes, of course that's possible. Most people wouldn't opt out of caring because said objector was 10 years in the past, or something like that. Just because I mentally set the bar low doesn't mean it needs to be set there. I guess that's the minimum level of objection I would accept.

I just think that such an objection should be considered valid.They may very well be valid, but they don't need to hamstring the author. People can get bogged down in, frankly, stupid objections, and I don't want threads degenerating into creating subclauses for the race of living granite that exists in the 42nd dimension.

the "mandating of technology levels", which I feel is something very different.I'm a little hesitant on that, for some reason. Feel free to add it to the discussion thread.


Same applies with health and dealing with diseases that effect each world. It is not reasonable to just ignore that somebody may have cured cancer or have no idea what it is or does but have to deal with a simple cold and what it does to them.Either we ignore complaints from nations that deviate from the norm, or we never write any Proposal on disease (or pollution, or technology, or much of anything) ever again.

"Eradicate Smallpox" is a perfectly reasonable Resolution. Should it have been derailed because someone came in and said, "Nope, no good. My nation has a cure to smallpox, so this won't effect me in the slightest"? Or perhaps, "Smallpox doesn't exist on my planet, so this thing is useless!"?


I don't know what topic led to thisThis was split from one of the clean air Proposals, and was spawned by the first post in this topic.

A UN resolution regulating the kind of gasoline used in automobiles would have no effect on my nation, beyond stats. OTOH, a resolution about dumping waste in space would affect me MORE than a typical MT nation.There are plenty of modern-tech/real-world-esque nations that have banned automobiles (there's even an issue that does that). They're "reasonable" by most any measurement, but their objections aren't especially helpful, and there's nothing an author could do to make it relevent.


It's more that a nation would act in a reasonable manner when faced with the resolution.I consider that an aspect as well. I know we've both brought it up before when it was possible to make a brain-dead interpretation of something in a Proposal.

A nation that would do those things, to me, is an eample of an un-reasonable nation.I'm hip to that. That's why I included the bit about similar policies and societies. A vague phrase, I know, but it seemed the easiest and nicest way to say, "a nation that isn't pants-on-head retarded".

Maybe even a nation populated mainly by dwarves. :eek: To me, a reasonable nation is one that acts reasonably in the context of NS and its own nature and situation.For the most part, yes, but timeline and location concerns come into play from time to time. Again, look back at some of DLE's idiocy so they could object to perfectly harmless legislation.


So, in a sense, I regard "Resonable Nations" as nations that do not exploit loopholes in extreme or deliberately obtuse manners- not Creative Solutions Agency obtuse/extreme, but mass genocide/chemical extreme/obtuse.That too, sure.


What we're really talking about here is reasonable roleplayer theory. We just can't say that IC so we call it Reasonable Nation theory.Well... the IC nation's action is determined by the roleplayer, so I suppose you're right.


OOC: Err...which thread is this split from and what was I objecting to?Yeah, like Cob said: you were an easy example, being so far in the past.

"Eradicate Smallpox" is a perfectly reasonable Resolution. Should it have been derailed because someone came in and said, "Nope, no good. My nation has a cure to smallpox, so this won't effect me in the slightest"? Or perhaps, "Smallpox doesn't exist on my planet, so this thing is useless!"?I'd say "Eradicate Smallpox" is not reasonable just by the title alone. "Eradicate Diseases" would be a more proper title and then set it up to identify diseases that effect each memember nation then find cures for them. To direct it at finding cures that only effect say humans would make the proposal for me unreasonable because what percent of NS is human? For that matter what percent of NSUN is human? The reasonable thing to do is again identify diseases in member nations and then work on finding cures. Thus the same for polutants and about anything else.

What we're really talking about here is reasonable roleplayer theory. We just can't say that IC so we call it Reasonable Nation theory.

::Looks at Ard and Kenny:: No, I don't think we can say that. There's some very reasonable roleplaying towards unreasonable ends that I've been repeatedly assured are ignorable under Reasonable Nation Theory. From that I can only deduce that 'reasonableness' in that context is a whole lot fuzzier than I would have thought.

Coming at it from the opposite direction, and picking on my favorite loophole just because I can, is it reasonable to expect a nation that is supposed to be homophobic not to exploit the fuzzy definition of 'age of consent' to make gay sex de facto illegal? It's not an unreasonable national attribute (some modern day nations still take that attitude, and most did fifty-odd years ago), and such a nation would clearly want to do something about it, so if they were ingenious enough to have spotted the loophole (quite likely actually, since such RL nations tend to have ages of consent that only apply to heterosexual sex in the first place) it's hard to see how them going for that route would be unreasonable. Yet the first time I raised the subject, more than one person told me Reasonable Nation Theory covered it.

One man's feast, I guess.

Perhaps I've overstated myself in this thread.

The Reasonable Nation theory isn't a game rule; it's a guideline for (for lack of a better phrase) forum etiquette. The goal is simply to keep forum debates from devolving into people posting with more and more ridiculous concepts in an effort to scuttle a Proposal.