NationStates Jolt Archive

I made a WA proposal earlier and it was rejected due to metagaming. It addressed the use of proper grammar and spelling in WA proposals, something I think is a very serious problem. I pasted the submission below. If anyone has any suggestions as to how make something non-metagamey to the same effect, please let me know.

UNDERSTANDING that members of the WA may be inclined to vote negatively simply on the presence (or lack thereof) of proper grammar and spelling.

RECOGNIZING that many proposals are submitted each day, each of which is scrutinized by WA delegates.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that, if passed, resolutions with grammatical and spelling errors would mar the reputation of the WA.

The World Assembly thus:

A) Requires that all submitted WA proposals shall be spellchecked, through use of word-processing programs, or if necessary, by hand.

B) Requires that all WA members make their very best efforts in their attempt to produce a WA proposal free of grammatical errors.

C) Declares that delegates and members must proofread their proposals. If any delegate or member is prone to grammatical or spelling errors, it is suggested that the member at hand submit his/her proposal to a fellow WA member for an additional proofread.

D) All submitted proposals should describe their purpose and methodology in great detail. Delegates and members should avoid easily exploitable "loose-ends" whenever possible.

Not really, no.

A) Requires that all submitted WA proposals shall be spellchecked, through use of word-processing programs, or if necessary, by hand.

Using a spell checker doesn't guarantee anything. I can't count how many times I've spell checked something just to find a ton of words misplaced, if not entirely misspelled.

B) Requires that all WA members make their very best efforts in their attempt to produce a WA proposal free of grammatical errors.

C) Declares that delegates and members must proofread their proposals. If any delegate or member is prone to grammatical or spelling errors, it is suggested that the member at hand submit his/her proposal to a fellow WA member for an additional proofread..

These two articles say essentially the same thing.

D) All submitted proposals should describe their purpose and methodology in great detail. Delegates and members should avoid easily exploitable "loose-ends" whenever possible.

Common sense.

This bill is arbitrary, at best.

You might be able to tell a nation what to do, but you can't tell a player. It is therefore impossible to write any legislation that talks about the content of resolutions because players write the resolutions not the nations. That's the nature of the beast.

You might be able to tell a nation what to do, but you can't tell a player. It is therefore impossible to write any legislation that talks about the content of resolutions because players write the resolutions not the nations. That's the nature of the beast.

But isn't the 'fourth wall' rule there to make it look like a player doesn't exist and it's all the nation?

I concur. Grammar is a must, otherwise nobody can tell what you are saying. Plus, there could be loopholes in the contracts that would not occur if proper grammar was utilized. In other words, USE SOME FREAKING GRAMMAR SO THAT YOU DON'T SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT AND EMBARRASS THE WA!!!!!
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

The only enforcement mechanism for proposals that fail to meet this test is removal by the UN mods. That makes it metagaming. No one has ever addressed this in any other manner, and I frankly don't think there is any other approach.

We already remove the ones that are utter gibberish, spam, and similar bits of ghastliness, but some of the ones we have to leave make me cringe. The only way to prevent such proposals from becoming law is to convince Delegates to remove their Approvals if it's even remotely close.

This is why we have the forums...for people to post their proposals, where many people will read them and point out spelling/grammar mistakes. Plus, there are threads like this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352036) that have been made in the past that people can use.
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/10639/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

This is why we have the forums...for people to post their proposals, where many people will read them and point out spelling/grammar mistakes.

[OOC: Unfortunately, most people don't post their proposals... or they do the next worst thing: submit it to the WA, and then put it in the forums for debate (I've caught several illegal/horribly proposals that have done this).]

But isn't the 'fourth wall' rule there to make it look like a player doesn't exist and it's all the nation?

The fourth wall is to prevent the resolution itself from breaking the fourth wall. The actual process for resolutions within the system by its very nature breaks the fourth wall. Mod functions in deleting resolutions, for example, break the fourth wall. The fourth wall comes in because we simply choose to ignore these fourth wall violations; thus they do not happen.

[OOC: Unfortunately, most people don't post their proposals... or they do the next worst thing: submit it to the WA, and then put it in the forums for debate (I've caught several illegal/horribly proposals that have done this).]
Yeah....I know *sighs* However...in that case, if their proposal gets deleted because it is illegal or can't even be read...I feel no pity for them.
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/10639/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

are you serious...this was a true proposal...wow.