NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a bit annoying to ask, since Cog already provided an answer:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6640555&postcount=16
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6649657&postcount=19
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6655458&postcount=26

But in the United Nations there is currently a resolution on the floor proposing the ban the hunting of whales.

As you'd expect, a few high school kids decided to charge in opposition by claiming, "Whales aren't endangered."

And naturally I provided links to *number* governmental and non-governmental pages concerned with marine issues as well as press releases from various newspapers, that do in fact confirm that in the real world that whales are in danger of extinction.

It is clear that "Hippos" exist in NationStates.
It is logical to assume that "Whales" exist in NationStates.
It is logical to assume that "Cancer" and "HIV" exist in NationStates.
Cog has already answered all of this.

I feel it is logical to assume that if "cancer" exists in NationStates, that it is a problem on the same order of magnitude in NationStates as it is in the real-world.

Simarily, I feel it is logical to assume that if "whales" exist, and if "humans" exist, that the scale of hunting of whales is on the same order of magnitude in NationStates as it is in the real-world.

That said, I feel that links to Governmental, NGO, and press releases about these issues (not specific nations or policies) are important debate tools.

Though I've gotten these kids to agree that "Hippos" exist based on Cog's ruling and they'll accept that "Whales" exist, they disagree that things like the estimate of the relative numbers of whales and issues related to them exist in NationStates.

My question:
Can we use real-world trends in issues like:

- Whale Hunting
- Deforestation
- Pollution
- Desertification
- Malnurtirention (sp?)
- Crime
- Drug Abuse
- STD Spread
- Population Growth

And treat the trends in the real-world to be roughly the same in NationStates, especially when discussing a resolution that is based on current tech?

I ask this, because the question comes up on a very regular basis in the UN, and I tend to call nations that refuse to believe real-world trends god modders (much to the anger of many players). <--- probably not a good way to win favour with a nation, but I'm not interested in winning a beauty contest

Would it possible to just rephrase the resolution so that it was of the form "if whales are an endangered species then..."?


I speak in complete ignorance of standard NationStates UN practice.


Aside from that: it would certainly seem that the NS world has a very different rate of population growth to that of the real world (each country increases an arbitrary fixed amount per time period, rather than a percentage)

Though I've gotten these kids to agree that "Hippos" exist based on Cog's ruling and they'll accept that "Whales" exist, they disagree that things like the estimate of the relative numbers of whales and issues related to them exist in NationStates.

My question:
Can we use real-world trends in issues like:

- Whale Hunting
- Deforestation
- Pollution
- Desertification
- Malnurtirention (sp?)
- Crime
- Drug Abuse
- STD Spread
- Population Growth

And treat the trends in the real-world to be roughly the same in NationStates, especially when discussing a resolution that is based on current tech?

Oooh! This is a tricky question. Hmmm....

When I first read this topic a few minutes ago, my first impression was that your opposition is correct. While you can assume that certain kinds of real-life objects exist in NationStates, it doesn't necessarily follow through that real-life trends also exist in NationStates.

My second impression was that these problems exist in NationStates, but not necessarily all throughout of NationStates.

This is not a final ruling, but I imagine that I will probably rule along the following lines: The world of NationStates is very large to contain tens of thousands of nations, each with millions (or billions) of people. The kinds of problems that exist in real-life may not exist everywhere in NationStates, but they may exist somewhere in NationStates, and (very likely) may exist in a great many "somewheres" within NationStates. Thus, it would be perfectly legitimate for the UN to pass resolutions on how UN members should deal with a certain problem, if that problem exists within the member nations territory. Any given proposal to address a problem can address two aspects of that problem:

1) Treating the problem where it exists.
2) Preventing the problem from developing where it does not exist.

Again, this isn't a final ruling; I have to "Think about it for a moment." ;)

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

But I'm also hoping for a bit more ... if a resolution proponent were to say make a resolution to say limit air pollution (Environmental-Automobile, say Mild) by suggesting that governments should encourage the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, among the first questions asked will be (it always goes this way):

Opponent: Why is air pollution a global problem? My nation has pristine air quality!

Proponent: Actually while you might believe your air quality to be pristine, reports from around the world indicate otherwise.

Opponent: You lie. I've seen no such reports.

The issue really is, can the proponent pull up existing governmental, NGO, and press reports to back their claims as evidence of a trend? Perhaps "pollution is on the rise".

All NationStates resolutions can be quickly shut down if people say, "This is a multiverse. These problems simply do not exist." Gambling, Political Stablity, Social Justice, Human Rights, Environmental, International Security, Furherment of Democracy, Free Trade, Gun Control, Recreational Drug Use, Morality. (I think that I covered most of the NS resolution topics.)

The reason I'm asking is nearly EVERY UN resolution as of late had got bogged down in two debates:

- Sovereignty
- That Problem DNE (Does Not Exist)

When proponents have, in good faith, tried to provide facts to support and justify their proposals / resolutions, in is increasingly common for nations to debunk real facts / trends by claiming, "Dude, we have nations on Jupiter and Vampire Cat Woman who can turn invisible at will. Your facts are completely wrong."

When I *tried* to suggest, but the "trends associated with this problem are still valid" I get the, nobody really knows. Which means NS UN debates turn into really pointless debates.

You don't know.
No, you don't know.
No, you really don't know.
Yeah, well guess what, you don't know either!

The reality is I'm asking for a pretty firm statement that could be used as a "baseline" assumptions for roleplay and debate in the UN.

That said, I think the resolution should set the tone for the debate. If a resolution on zombies hits the floor ... we debate in good faith zombies. If a resolution about colonization of Jupiter hits the floor, we debate that in good faith. And if a resolution about (in this case) protecting whales hits the floor, we again debate that.

While the General forum is around to actually debate real world problems, the UN is fun IMHO when you can take a real world problem and treat it in a more general case, and then find a somewhat real world solution.

Okay, I'm now tending towards the following ruling:

Any problem that exists in real life can possibly exist anywhere in NationStates. While no particular nation or region si going to have a particular problem, the problem does absolutely exist somewhere in NationStates.

Opponent: Why is air pollution a global problem? My nation has pristine air quality!

Cogitation: Yeah, well, you do, but many places don't.

Real-world problems may be assumed to exist somewhere within NationStates, but may not be assumed to exist everywhere within NationStates. Therefore, anyone may cite real-world reports about real-world problems to illustrate what the NationStates-world version of the same problem is like.

"I have, here, a real-world report about the overhunting of whales in the real world. I presume that the overhunting of whales happens somewhere within the NationStates world, and that the causes and effects in the NationStates world are the same as the causes and effects in the real world. Therefore, the conclusions of this real-world report are valid."

...

Now, I don't want to make official rulings while I'm sleepy. So, I'm going to bed. I will take a fresh look at this in the morning.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

...

...and if I hear anyone say "But it is morning! I can see Mount Fuji sitting there in broad daylight from my bedroom window!", I'm gonna smack 'em upside the head. :p

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

* The Rep of Komokom sees this as something needing jamming into a U.N. Forum Sticky should it become officialised soon, ;)

First of all, if there is to be a debate of some sort here I would like that the debating rules are followed. No personal attacks please. I am not a "high school kid". I am a second year student in public administration at a university. And frankly, that should be totally irrelevant when having a dispute like this one. Also on the point of debating rules: please do not "condense" my position into a single line of text that really does not represent my position at all. Let me do that.

You have not "gotten me to agree" anything (presuming I am "these kids") that whales exist. I never held such a position. Again, I must point to my argument of the "gliding scale of how much of reality we accept" in the other thread.

You speak of "the relative numbers of whales". Does that mean that we must simply multiply the number of whales with population because NS earth is bigger? That would mean a lot of whales in absolute terms. I am not inclined to do that because the NS earth is different.

Maybe it is just me but I feel I am reasonably informed about the whale situation from reading these propagandistic greenpeace mags for years (even though I am no ecological engineer or whatever it is you claim to be) and I feel that a discussion about how many sperm whales there are IRL is a silly discussion about details that really should not be indicative of NS. Perhaps you feel it is needed to convince completely uninformed people *shrugs*

I agree with what Cog has said so far. Real life trends, NOT NUMBERS can be assumed to exist to a point. The NS earth is not an exact copy of the real earth. Things can be different. The NS earth can have entire oceans where whales are not hunted because the players in a region have decided it so. I am not going to pretend things that the wonderful, creative players of NationStates have thought up do not exist because it contradicts a report of the IRL sperm whale population.

Whales exist, they are hunted, fine. The nature loonies wish to impose their views on others. Fine. But do not take away my right and the right of others to imagine this world and our nations to be slightly different from IRL because we make different choices within the realistic possibilities. I contend that it is, in fact, possible for a nation or a group of nations not to go whale hunting without "godmoding". Claiming a modern tech machine that can make whales dissapear out of thin air is godmoding, choosing not to hunt whales is not.

I take it, then, that nobody is going to have serious problems with the "Real-life trends exist somewhere, not everywhere" concept? Real-life reports would hold valid in statistically-significant parts of NationStates, but not everywhere in NationStates. That is, that air pollution, AIDS spread, and whale overhunting are semi-global problems; they occur in enough places to be worthy of UN consideration, but such problems don't exist everywhere.

I'm still open to further logical arguments before I make this ruling official.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Well personally I feel that a 'ruling' saying that the NS earth is like RL Earth in ALL aspects and ALL trends opens the door to the RL "OMG GODMOD" thoughtcrime people. Hence the "to a point" clause. I say this because "real-life trends" can extend really far. What do we include here?

Does this mean that many NS governments in the last decade were ruled by governments characterised by the opposition as "neoliberal"? (arguably not RPed or backed up by statistics here.)
Does this mean that nuclear weapons proliferation in NS has shifted to low-yield weapons as is the case in RL? (A development started by the US, perhaps, but not one I have seen many NS governments do.)
Does this mean the rise of Japanese anime as a worldwide commerical succes exists too in NS? (We do not even have a Japan. Though anime may exist in Japan-based nations, do we really want do declare googled links RL commerical turnover rates as "representative" for the NS world trend?)
Does this mean that public discourse is getting more puritanical in NS (as is arguably the case in American and to a lesser extent European culture which are dominant in RL?)
Does this mean that transnational corporations are getting more powerful in NS due to the institutionalising of international free trade? (Only a small minority of nations is a member from the NS equivalent of the WTO, KIST)
Does this mean that specific types of beans are coming out of fasion in NS because it is true IRL? (Do we really want our creativity stifled like that in a supposedly tongue-in-cheek game?)

I hope not.

What I mean to say is that the NS world is not the same as the real world. A common framework is fine and needed (things like industrialisation, cars, socialism, whalehunting, air pollution etc) But to rule that every real world trend is also present in NS in "a statistically relevant fashion" is, IMVHO, totally ridicilous and the absolute death knell for creativity.

Take into account also that this world has been changed already because of RPed events (elvish nations) and UN decisions. (A resolution into the research of hydropower for cars. Knootian cars use hydrogen, not benzine. We spent trillions on that research along with ALL other UN nations.)

As a long-time player of NS I would hope to think that this world can be somehow changed for the better by what we, as players, do both in the UN and through roleplay and that we are not condemned to live in perpetuity in an alternate dimensional clone of earth.

I do not want to be accused of godmoding for pointing out something that has been roleplayed by entire regions because *somehow*, whatever we do, NS ends up to be just like RL. Did the great Max Barry not write:


NationStates is a free nation simulation game. Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them. Join the United Nations or remain a rogue state. It's really up to you.

This is what I see the players of NationStates do.

While I understand a need to approve on basic concepts, I wish to point out the dangerous precedent that such a ruling sets. I wish Cog wisdom in making a decision, or preferably to make no decision at all because usually common sense will work these things out if this is done with respect and tolerance. More importantly I hope that any decision shall be implemented with respect for the creativity of the NS players existing here and the things they have created..

I take it, then, that nobody is going to have serious problems with the "Real-life trends exist somewhere, not everywhere" concept? Real-life reports would hold valid in statistically-significant parts of NationStates, but not everywhere in NationStates. That is, that air pollution, AIDS spread, and whale overhunting are semi-global problems; they occur in enough places to be worthy of UN consideration, but such problems don't exist everywhere.

I'm still open to further logical arguments before I make this ruling official.


I happen to like that ruling.

You are saying that individual nations are free to roleplay how their nation has addressed these problems, but not constrained the rest of us to adopting their world-view based on whatever it is they want.

It is safe to say that many people do live on a counter Earth, but at the same time many daily issues and UN resolutions are in fact grounded in a model of the Earth that really is very similar to the one we live on. Don't believe me? Look at the daily issues and UN resolutions ... why would these exist if similar problems weren't important enough for somebody to write these issues.

In the case of whaling, I would think that we could very easily as the resolution's author if they made this resolution because they honestly felt that whales were seriously endangered. If the answer is no, but they thought it would be nice ... well, I'd be shocked. In any event, when a resolution gets 135 endorsements from experienced players, that to me implies that they do agree with the author's world view and thus "trends from the real-world" should be at least given some validity.

Now the actual population counts, species, and distributions? I completely agree that these numbers will be different. How they will be different I can not really predict.

I only have a question concerning this issue at hand... simple if the Game forces my nation to clone human beings at a daily rate, such was going on becuase i chose to take a certain point of view on an issue, then who can say that whales by the multitude are not cloned and therefore how could there be any short supply? I agree with most and would prefer for this game to be geared towards the present then the future and such, but since it is not then when we write proposals then lets include everyone, thats all i want. I run my nation in present day and dont RP future or past, but everyone must be included when writitng a proposal that is going to effect everyone, right? Also the argument about how someone can bring real life info into the game and use it...Thats the easy part the tough part would be the bring info about a nation that does live on mars or such...there is no such info or government findings on these things so we have to take that into consideration. Such as the fact that my nation clones things all the time...I dont like that but the game made it happen so i live with it...and i decided to clone 10 billion whales for everone to enjoy...as bogus as that is, according to the game it is possible, right? If someone is having problems with thier whale population then why not RP it in international inccedents. Something can be worked out there im sure. People to oft rely on the UN the force laws on other antions without RP'ing it first. They tend not to problem solve it, they just want it to effect everyone, and this current issue is attempting to effect everyone including those not apart of the UN.

I only have a question concerning this issue at hand... simple if the Game forces my nation to clone human beings at a daily rate, such was going on becuase i chose to take a certain point of view on an issue, then who can say that whales by the multitude are not cloned and therefore how could there be any short supply?

They tend not to problem solve it, they just want it to effect everyone, and this current issue is attempting to effect everyone including those not apart of the UN.

The problem is that on any given UN resolution, the proposal was founded based on an idea, often real-world, and then endorsed by 135 min of UN Delegates. All 136+ of these nations shared a world view ... in this particular case it was one that agreed that whales are in fact endangered.

Great, your nation clones billions of whales.

Guess what, there is another nation that sneaks off of Mars in the night and eats billions of billions of cloned whales. Try and disprove it.

What I've just laid out is classic UN Godmodding.

For every single UN Resolution Category (all based on the presumption that there are global / international problems and issues), you will find somebody roleplaying that they have found the solution and the UN should not be involved.

Take the following for example. A nation, let's call it Newbie1, suggests that the nations of the world get together and that the UN work to share cancer research. The problem: Cancer kills humans. The solution: work together to share research.

So the idea turns into a proposal, the proposal is endorsed by hundreds of others that agree that this is a problem, and then comes along a nation, Godmodder1, who says, "Esteemed Delegates and UN Members, this proposal is moronic, because long ago my nation found a cure for cancer. Shut up and we'll just give it to you if this vote fails!"

If such a nation were to claim this in International Incidents, they'd be ignored, and labeled as a godmodder. I maintain that since it is clear in all UN resolutions where the basic "sense of reality" (be it real-world or fantasy, i.e. clone rights) comes from the minute that hundreds of other players share that resolution via endorsements, that a sort of closed roleplay starts.

While nations are free to godmod and roleplay as they like, __players__ should be discouraged from the type of comments that __you__ have used against me. "Dude, this is a game, it has no basis in reality." (Paraphrased, but that is basically your response to me posting links showing whales are endangered.)

If you want to claim that BILLIONS of whales are released to the sea and my facts are wrong, what is to make my next point that BILLIONS of Martians eat your whales putting us back at square one again?

Nothing. But the quality of debate goes to hell in a handbasket in minutes, all because *one* Godmodder couldn't accept the current UN resolution.

Let's look at the first 10 UN resolutions, and I'll share with you the easy godmodding outs:

- Fight the Axis of Evil

"I'm sorry, but this UN resolution is unfounded. My nation actually dropped a nuke on the so-called Axis of Evil last night. Problem solved, let's move on."

- Scientific Freedom

"Unnecessary, hackers in my country are sadly so effective that all of your secrets have been downloaded and then uploaded in all other computers in the know worlds. I say worlds, because we have to make sure UN resolutions effect the fine people of Mercury and Alpha Centuri too!"

- Education for All

"This is a nice idea, but I happen to think it might be possible that since this game is fantasy that a nation of telepaths should be used instead and just impart knowledge to the rest of us. Before you say this is unrealistic, I'm going to point out that you've yet to even prove that education is even a problem! In fact, if we have crab people, there might just be telepaths. Therefore, anything that makes no reference to telepaths is out of order."

- UN Taxation Ban

"Well this is just stupid. The UN doesn't even have a budget. Why make taxes for a budget. Do you see a budget? I don't see a budget, so there can't be one."

- DVD Region Removal

"Sorry, but not all regions use DVDs. The Cloudwalkers of Giedi Prime for example exchange information using frogs. This resolution is horrible because it assumes we all use DVDs!"

- End Slavery

"Unrealistic. Name a nation that practices slavery. Name just one, but it has to be in NationStates. Besides, if you name one, my government will NUKE them removing the problem. Good enough?"

- Sexual Freedom

"Baised. The Nuns of Planet XXX, don't have sex. They don't need this resolution, and it offends me that you've leave the Nuns of Planet XXX out."

- Citizen Rule Required

"Whatever dude! The evermind Omnius is citizen rule based, because the history of Earth in the future is simple. Humans get tired and build thinking machines. A guy calling himself Barbarosa will program a thinking machine to take over the Earth, and the citizens approved of this."

- Keep the World Diesease-Free!

"Off topic for NationStates! I've already talked about how my nation has a cure for cancer. We'll find a cure for everything I promise you!"

- Stop Privacy Intrusion

"Too late. We've created nanites and seeded them everywhere. Deny this and we'll nuke you. We know all!"


Your claim to breed MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of whales *now* only in response to this resolution is nothing more than godmodding, just the same as the above statements are. But to take it from godmodding and declaring my use of real-world references to illustrate trends is making the mistake of confusing a "fantasy" game with "real-life" misses the point of NationStates.

This isn't Dungeons and Dragons. The fact is, most of us do assume some real-life things:

People exist, so it is logical to assume they wear clothing.
If people wearing clothing exists, perhaps whales swim in the seas.
If whales swim in the seas, humans wearing clothing problably hunt them just like they do in the real world.
If one Godmodder claims his nation has breed more whales, perhaps some other godmodder eats them all too.

At some point, role-play has to have some set of common rules. All too often somebody dislikes something and "role-plays" a pretty stupid claim that this doesn't impact them. The difference between roleplaying and godmodding is simple actually. You become a godmodder when others begin to feel as if you never really are roleplaying in a co-operative fashion.

When somebody makes a UN resolution, especially environmental ones which are based more on facts and less on morality, they have assumed that others aren't going to godmod away their work.

I think it is really terrible that you dismiss anything that disagrees with you and claim that these people "spend too much time on-line" instead of in the real-world, and yet at the same time dismiss ideas without finding the other points to bring up. Real-world problems exist because they aren't easily solved. There isn't a single UN resolution that can't be argued against with a bit of real and a bit of fun roleplay. Personal attacks and godmodding are exactly what I'd like to minimize in the UN forum.

First of all as i have said a thousand times and agian....THE >>> PEOPLE >>> WHO >>>> MADE >>>> THIS >>>> GAME >>>> FORCED >>>> MY >>>> NATION >>>> TO >>>> CLONE >>>> MAMMALS >>>>> and as for cloning and releasing billions of whales never did i say i did such a thing and second i said if i was to clone them then they would be available to all. I did not say anything you wrote, you have made yourself a liar, being that you put False words in my mouth....Before you try to quote me READ what i wrote dont skim....please after all your attempting to quote me. And as i have said before i dont dougt that they are endangered but rather that the proposal is crap, sorry, pooh! not thought through enough! As for Dungeons and dragons, i never played it so i have no idea what your talking about, but you seem to know alot.....hmmmmm. Maybe you played it, dont confuse the facts, son! As for the personal attacks reread your own stuff hipocrit. You started this whole attack.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] Use spaces, please, as you're stretching the forum window formatting. [/modedit]

I'm gonna ignore most of your post. As for your complaints about me claiming you are godmodding:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6847669&postcount=130

That is the entire post, but here it the part that bothered me:


Well in Lacomb we clone whales....If anyone needs any let me know we clone people too....[THE GAME MOD'S TOLD ME SO] i can send about a million whales to any nation in need! NOW WHAT??? do you see my point, please tell me you see my point someone!! My nation clones people and all kinds of mammals[the game made it that way, not excactly my choice, well kinda] so since i can clone whales and do often how is there any danger of the whale population dying out, just kinda curious?


You are saying, "We don't need this resolution, because we in Lacomb will make a whale for every whale killed." Or something like that. Worse, you are swearing that the mods forced you to do this. ::rollseyes::

What is to stop some other kid from saying, "Well, yeah! For every cloned Lacombian whale released into the while, we hunt another one!". Surely the rest of you can see how quickly this sort of thing can spiral downwards.

Do you think the author of the resolution would have made a proposal about protecting whales if he / she really believed that they weren't in danger?

I don't. I also think the 135+ others who endorsed the proposal agreed that Lacombian clones really aren't going to change the problem.

All right, I'm obviously going to have to delay any ruling until I think this through very carefully.

Civil debate is welcomed in the meantime. ...and I mean "civil". Just a reminder.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

The more I see this debate, the more I have to side with Mikitivity.

While there is a certain degree of role play involved in NationStates, and inded a certain variation in the preceived role playing tech level of each nation, there has to be some basic assumed things involved at the general level. If we don't have these basic assumptions literally the whole game starts to fall apart.

Whether it is proposing a UN resolution or a NS issue, there are certain things about the way the world works that has to be assumed. It's harder to complain about NS issues because their approval is not up for debate as is the case with UN resolutions, but the situation is the same in both cases.

My personal suggestion is to allow Murphy's law to work by association. The ability of man to make a mess of things is (or at least appears to this casual observer) a fundamental principle behind NationStates. In fact, I think the game is designed to "kick it up a notch" and highlight the bizzare implications of all our actions as leaders of our individual nations. Therefore I suggest that if we can show how we can mess things up in the RW, we should be really messing things up in the NS world ... by the very nature of NationStates.

Knootoss wonders if one can bring up "Japanese anime?" I wonder why people can't mention generic animation? Of course on the other hand, one of the issues actually mentions the "Catholic Church" in terms of selecting a spiritual advisor. Problems, especially man created, but also problems of nature, are things that should be fair game both in terms of UN resoltuons and NS issues. Problems should be as generic as possible.

I believe the whaling proposal does fall within these guidelines, but if it does not. I am left scratching my head for what would be considered a valid UN proposal. As Mikitivity pointed out, many previous UN resolutions relied on more specific real world assumptions than the ban whaling.

Perhaps we can go all the way, and suggest that no UN proposal, or NS issue can be made that doesn't directly impact a NS game statistic. Banning whailing is out because there isn't any category for whaling as a major industry. This leaves national animals and cattle as the only creatures that can be mentioned in Un resolutions, and that would be a dull UN indeed.

Sorry about that deletion. :) I just realized that maybe I had better shut up and let others chime in.

Take the following for example. A nation, let's call it Newbie1, suggests that the nations of the world get together and that the UN work to share cancer research. The problem: Cancer kills humans. The solution: work together to share research.

So the idea turns into a proposal, the proposal is endorsed by hundreds of others that agree that this is a problem, and then comes along a nation, Godmodder1, who says, "Esteemed Delegates and UN Members, this proposal is moronic, because long ago my nation found a cure for cancer. Shut up and we'll just give it to you if this vote fails!"

If such a nation were to claim this in International Incidents, they'd be ignored, and labeled as a godmodder. I maintain that since it is clear in all UN resolutions where the basic "sense of reality" (be it real-world or fantasy, i.e. clone rights) comes from the minute that hundreds of other players share that resolution via endorsements, that a sort of closed roleplay starts.

Precisely.

But does this invalidate my point? No. Clearly, when a resolution reaches quorum it is acceptable. I can, however still point out a practice in NS nations provided that it is not a godmod and is generally accepted. This practice does not un-exist simply because you and your socialist friends did not encounter it. People are free to vote on the resolution as they please, but you are asking for a Mod-enforced restriction on free speech even for non-godmoding actions because it does not fit your "closed" [to whom?!] RP.

What you dissaprove of in this post is godmoding noobs which is something very different from creative players. I have NEVER said the whaling resolution was impossible. However I feel that I CAN disagree with it based on there already being preserves. Actually, I disagree with it because my nation is ruled by a bunch of egocentric capitalist bastards who just point out that some of their more ecologically sensitive brethren do not hunt the seas that we are not allowed in. Saying that does NOT eliminate the problem. It provides a nuance to the situation.

So please tell me... do you believe that it is godmoding for regions not to hunt whales? Considering the ENORMOUS margin that this resolution is being accepted with, the people in NS really seem to like whales more then the real world. And people have defended the rights of whales in roleplay. So please, tell me that. Must my free speech be limited because of pointing that out?


While nations are free to godmod and roleplay as they like, __players__ should be discouraged from the type of comments that __you__ have used against me. "Dude, this is a game, it has no basis in reality." (Paraphrased, but that is basically your response to me posting links showing whales are endangered.)

I am getting pretty tired of you `Paraphrasing` me and turning my argument around. Please stop it. I did not say that and I will not say that. Roleplaying is not the same as godmoding. Let me go by this example-by-examle.

- Fight the Axis of Evil
"I'm sorry, but this UN resolution is unfounded. My nation actually dropped a nuke on the so-called Axis of Evil last night. Problem solved, let's move on."
Actually that resolution would not even be accepted by the current rules since it deals with specific nations. Moot point.

- Scientific Freedom
"Unnecessary, hackers in my country are sadly so effective that all of your secrets have been downloaded and then uploaded in all other computers in the know worlds. I say worlds, because we have to make sure UN resolutions effect the fine people of Mercury and Alpha Centuri too!"
Wrong. A nation cannot claim to have uploaded secrets from other nations because that would be a godmoding action which would not be recognised in the first place. Godmoding, not roleplaying. Not applicable.

- Education for All
"This is a nice idea, but I happen to think it might be possible that since this game is fantasy that a nation of telepaths should be used instead and just impart knowledge to the rest of us. Before you say this is unrealistic, I'm going to point out that you've yet to even prove that education is even a problem! In fact, if we have crab people, there might just be telepaths. Therefore, anything that makes no reference to telepaths is out of order."
Not applicable since the vast majority of NS nations is not telepath-based and thus benefits from this resolution. "Being left out" is not really a problem.

I can see a telepath nation making that case though, and changing their votes based on it. But since the vast majority of nations is not telepath-based and will not vote based on this assumption there is no problem. If the vast majority of nations WOULD be telepath-based it would only be fair that the resolution is voted down.

- UN Taxation Ban
"Well this is just stupid. The UN doesn't even have a budget. Why make taxes for a budget. Do you see a budget? I don't see a budget, so there can't be one."
Actually, the UN has a budget because it takes funds from nations. You see how your taxes go up? Game mechanics. I do not see how RPing your nation in any specific way affects this. It also has nothing to do at all with "people denying TRENDS" so what it has to do with your argument eludes me.

- DVD Region Removal
"Sorry, but not all regions use DVDs. The Cloudwalkers of Giedi Prime for example exchange information using frogs. This resolution is horrible because it assumes we all use DVDs!"
No. It does not assume we all use DVDs. It sets rules FOR DVDs. It does not claim anything about DVDs being used everywhere. Your argument fails.

- End Slavery
"Unrealistic. Name a nation that practices slavery. Name just one, but it has to be in NationStates. Besides, if you name one, my government will NUKE them removing the problem. Good enough?"
Actually, I can give you plenty of names of nations in NS that use slavery. There has been a well-known war fought over it (The Slaver War, more commonly known as Slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaver waaaar.) and it is still widely practiced in NS. Nuking all nations that use slavery is a godmod so not applicable. *shrugs*

- Sexual Freedom
"Baised. The Nuns of Planet XXX, don't have sex. They don't need this resolution, and it offends me that you've leave the Nuns of Planet XXX out."
Again: "sexuality" applies virtually everywhere in NS. Its a major thing, commonly accepted in RP. And the Nuns of Planet XXX are not at all harmed by this resolution. People can choose not to do things you know. "

- Citizen Rule Required
"Whatever dude! The evermind Omnius is citizen rule based, because the history of Earth in the future is simple. Humans get tired and build thinking machines. A guy calling himself Barbarosa will program a thinking machine to take over the Earth, and the citizens approved of this."
So you are saying that a nation roleplaying the evermind Omnius should stop doing so because it does not fit your real life image? Interesting, because he cannot say he has taken over the earth and is ruling it. Again, that would be a godmod that nobody would accept and not legitimate RP.

- Keep the World Diesease-Free!
"Off topic for NationStates! I've already talked about how my nation has a cure for cancer. We'll find a cure for everything I promise you!"
Well... the vast majority of NS nations does not play in such a universe. The argument is repeated again. For most people this would be a godmod. I never said MAJOR things such as "disease" do not exist in NS. You seem to be bent to lable me that way and I do not really approve.

- Stop Privacy Intrusion

"Too late. We've created nanites and seeded them everywhere. Deny this and we'll nuke you. We know all!"
Again, a godmoding nation. Won't be accepted by any other players. Not applicable.

---

In short, your doom scenario of allowing godmoders to destroy any and all UN resolutions if we do not "discourage" acting on roleplay outside of your "clone of earth" vision fails. I invite you to take a look in the NS forum and all those countless regional boards and look what goes on there. Most of it has nothing to do with the examples you cited above. Most nations are not godmoders and I certainly am not one.

Found it. Been meaning to read this thread. Title looked interesting.
How fortunate that Knootoos bumped it so I could find it.

(above post is edited btw.)

Instead of arguing what is and what is not a godmod, I think cog is faced here with what I see as a fundamental dillema in the approach to NS. This is a dillema worthy of a philosopher because it basically touches what we are to percieve as reality. This is really a debate of principles, or at least I feel it should be one.

As I see it, the choice is essentially one between these two viewpoints:

The NS Earth is essentially a copy of the IRL earth. The only difference is that there are more nations. Specific items cannot be mentioned. In all other areas the NS earth can be assumed to be based on the IRL earth.
The NS UN, in this scenario, deals with the problems of the IRL earth and the motivations behind the arguments are exactly the same as on the IRL earth and people can disagree based on arguments coming from 'real life' only.
The NS earth is the collective experience of its players. The players decide what it looks like, and this is obviously based on the 'real' earth because this is what the players experience in their real lives. The same 'physics' apply to make this collective experience possible and there are rules of what is generally accepted. These rules are debatable and also subject to change as the NS universe changes with its players.
The NS UN, in this scenario, can deal with problems the players collectively* experience. Virtually always these problems are the same as those in this universe because the same baselines exist. (People still hunt whales)


A fun third option might be to assume that the NS earth is like the earth in Jennifer Government but I will forego speculation about this now.

*By 'collectively' I am not saying there should be consensus. This should be interpreted as 'generally not seen as a godmod' because unfortunately there will always be trolls.

Clearly, when a resolution reaches quorum it is acceptable. I can, however still point out a practice in NS nations provided that it is not a godmod and is generally accepted. This practice does not un-exist simply because you and your socialist friends did not encounter it.

What you dissaprove of in this post is godmoding noobs which is something very different from creative players.

Not exactly. (Notice I'm not getting upset at you now paraphrasing me, even though you do it as frequently as I paraphrase you.)

Second, who are this socialist friends you keep talking about? Cog asked us to keep it civil here. I'd hate to see this thread locked because of some stupid fear of socialists. So please drop the labels and conspiracy theories and stick to the topic at hand.


Onto your post:

Basically I draw the line between "being creative" and "godmodding" at the point at which one nation's creative demands and freedom seriously impeds upon the roleplay of many other nations -- or in the case of the UN is used to just stop debate.

Dismissing real-life trends used to support a UN resolution that was drafted based on real-life trends is crossing that line.

"You can't post links to the International Whaling Comission! It doesn't exist, therefore everything said is off topic!"

Since the problem and the movitivation behind the resolution are based on IWC facts, surely if somebody asks, "Are whales really in danger?" an appropriate response in what has become a "real-world" based roleplay situation would be to post links to credible sources. While we can argue over the validity of these figures, I still believe (pending a moderator ruling) it is OK to say:

"While NationStates is different, I think that the global trends that motivated this author to write this resolution should be assumed to represent the global NationStates trends. They are valid."

::sigh::

"While NationStates is different, I think that the global trends that motivated this author to write this resolution should be assumed to represent the global NationStates trends. They are valid."

::sigh::
While I still need to think this through carefully, I am inclined to rule against this. That is, I am inclined to rule that "the global real-life trends that motivated this author to write this resolution can only be assumed to represent semi-global NationStates trends." That is, these trends exist in certain parts of NationStates, but not in others. "They are valid, but they are not valid everywhere. Thus, the United Nations shall address the problem where the problem is valid."

Overhunting of whales in the real world is a global problem. However, in NationStates, the overhunting of whales is only a problem in parts of NationStates. They are large enough parts of NationStates to be statistically significant (and that could range anywhere from 2% of NationStates to 98% of NationStates), but it's not everywhere, and it's not nowhere.

UN Proposal: "In some parts of the NationStates world, whales are hunted to a degree beyond their ability to sustain the whale population.

Whale overhunting shall be deemed to be a problem in areas where the following criteria are met: 1... 2... 3... 4...
[Note that the author could add a criterion to talk about areas where whales are ecologically native. Thus, it wouldn't apply to Mercury, Alpha Centauri, or the middle of the Gobi Desert.*]

Where whale overhunting is deemed to be a problem, UN member nations must: 1... 2... 3... 4..."

Thus, you can still submit a proposal inspired by real-life problems, but you have to keep in mind that such problems are not going to exist everywhere in NationStates.

When citing real-life reports, note that you can quote the sections of the reports that talk about the effects of the problem, but you can't quote the section of the report that assert that the problem is global. A problem may be global in the real world, but it's only semi-global in NationStates.

* By allowing this sort of thing, I may be overturning the previous ruling that limiting the scope of a UN proposal is a game mechanics violation. That's part of the reason why I still have to think this over.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

When citing real-life reports, note that you can quote the sections of the reports that talk about the effects of the problem, but you can't quote the section of the report that assert that the problem is global. A problem may be global in the real world, but it's only semi-global in NationStates.


Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm not talking about citing the reports in the proposals (though I do like to do that), but instead about answering questions from other players:

Opponent:
"Dude, like everybody knows whales aren't in danger. You are smoking crazy you socialist hippie boy you!"

Proponent:
"Whatever. The following IWC report addresses your uninformed opinion here [link]."

Opponent:
"Sorry, that is against NationStates rules. Grow up man, this is a GAME. You have a serious problem differentiating between the fantasy and reality!"

You see this exact same basic debate in around 1/2 of the UN resolutions that pop up.

I don't mind acknolwedging that NationStates is different, but I don't feel it is that vastly different. Furthermore, I still think it is important to ask, why would somebody write something like:

MANDATORY RECYCLING
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Techno prisoners

Description:
Be it hereby resolved that all paper, glass, aluminum and batteries be recycled by all UN member states.

Votes For: 17211
Votes Against: 4178
Implemented: Thu May 8 2003


... if he / she didn't feel that recycling was a global problem?

What you've suggested above, adding in all of the further defintions of the problem / solution, is great, but you know as well as I that the UN forum is sadly famous for its lack of patience to read "long" resolutions. How could a proposal author who is convinced that recycling is a global problem possibly know that Lacomb or some other nation is going to not make a claim like his, "But the mods forced my nation to clone millions of whales, they can't possibly be in danger!"

Basically I think just like the International Incidents have baselines esstablished for roleplaying, that resolutions need them too. Without baselines, the debates become contests of whom can god-mod the fastest.

There is a current proposal in the UN forum to work on the UN Budget, by basically setting up a committee to oversee this function. The debate brought up one newbie to complain about how the UN violated resolution #4 when he volunteered to join it. He claims that he is paying his UN fees / taxes, but that the UN is taking them directly from his Sultan.

Basically I fear that there is a slippery slope. The more you encourage players to not just be creative, but shut down others from justifying a global action in a world where we can know nothing, the more hostile debates you'll create in the UN forum.

I don't mind acknolwedging that NationStates is different, but I don't feel it is that vastly different.

NS has a population of roughly 64 trillion people. Saying it isn't vastly different is simply a failure of imagination. Sorry, but that's the bottom line.

I have to disagree to the notion that NS is "vastly different" because it has a exceptionally large population. Manure, as they say in a more venacular manner, happens. The problems of modern earth are still more or less the same problems as that which plagued medieval europe, the greek empire, and probably the first caveman community. It's all a matter of scale.

The same stuff happens, only in larger proportions. When once we got out problems in single serving packets, now we get them from the bulk discount store.

That doesn't mean we have to be slaves to the real world. It doesn't mean we can't apply murphy's law in ways that the real world doesn't. Issues do that all the time. Public nudity? Eating your own national animal? But all of these are one foot planted in the real world and the other in the vivid realm of the imagination.

Unfortunately even these issues are difficult for true debate, because there is no easy way to generate "studies" in NS. (For example, is there an increase/decrease in skin cancer among nations that have adopted mandidatory nudity laws?) Never mind the question of is there a line between roleplay and godmodding, because far too many people walk through topics with ther eyes completely shut!

Let us not forget that there is a major potential problem that can develop by being too strict on using and drawing parallels from the RW. A lot of potential good resolutions will never be written in the first place, because deligates are simply frustrated at the manure in the forums. A lot of deligates and UN members will never visit the forum at all. There will always be a plethora of proposals that should be deleted on sight. (I think a third of the current proposals are outright violations of the rules, but I didn't make an accurate count.)

Unfortunately even these issues are difficult for true debate, because there is no easy way to generate "studies" in NS.

Let us not forget that there is a major potential problem that can develop by being too strict on using and drawing parallels from the RW.


I think you've hit the fundamental (sp?) issue I've been driving at. I would like to feel like some questions can rise above she / he said arguments, which tend to always end with the following:

"You're an idiot!"
-or-
"Get a grip, this is a fucking game."

When we're lucky we get both flames in a single thread. ::rollseyes:: We are lucky often.

However, what is to stop me from just saying, "My government believes ..." in front of whatever it believes, and at the same time to also say, "My government finds it highly unlikely ..." when it feels somebody is pulling yet another rabbit out of the hat, so to speak?

Afterall, others can decide which of the two views they find more approrpriate for their world view.

*shrug*

Mikitivity, if I can suggest a possible solution, if someone is using that tactic there's nothing to stop you making up research for the NS world so:

"Whales aren't threatened because we clone them"

"Yes, but research by Professor Peabody of the University of Mikitivity suggests that cloned whales are sterile. Therefore at current whale population trends the small number of nations that are currently using cloning technology is not enough to counterbalance the largescale culls in the whale population that are currently happening"

For further information see "Cloning technology and it's impact on reproductive systems", Professor T Peabody, University of Mikitivity Press.

First off, kudos to Cogitation for what looks to me as an overall excellent ruling.

I do have a comment on one point though:
[Note that the author could add a criterion to talk about areas where whales are ecologically native. Thus, it wouldn't apply to Mercury, Alpha Centauri, or the middle of the Gobi Desert.*]
* By allowing this sort of thing, I may be overturning the previous ruling that limiting the scope of a UN proposal is a game mechanics violation. That's part of the reason why I still have to think this over.

Even if a nation is on Alpha Centauri and has no whales, the resolution passing would affect the stats of said nation the same way it would if it was RPing having a lot of whales and having a major economic benefit from hunting whales. That's what's implemented.

A resolution author who promises a resolution does not affect a certain class of nations, is making a promise he or she cannot keep.

The way I see it, the RPing nation should be responsible for explaining (if needed) in whatever way he or she desires the effects on the nation. Be it that they use whale-derived products, or that in response to that resolution passing the locals decide to protect some other animal which is locally present, or that they had lot of money invested in earth-located whale hunting firms, etc... Either way, something happens to the nation and if the player wants to explain it, it will be up to that player to provide said explanation, not the resolution author.

Ballotonia

I have to disagree to the notion that NS is "vastly different" because it has a exceptionally large population. Manure, as they say in a more venacular manner, happens. The problems of modern earth are still more or less the same problems as that which plagued medieval europe, the greek empire, and probably the first caveman community. It's all a matter of scale.

ROFL! The first caveman community had problems with whaling, disposal of nuclear waste, possibility of fossil fuels running out, recycling and overpopulation? A gigantic population like that of NS with the degree of variety in NS [they're not all even human, or carbon-based] would have problems and solutions vastly different from the real world. Accept and move on.

Mikitivity, if I can suggest a possible solution, if someone is using that tactic there's nothing to stop you making up research for the NS world so: <SNIP>

Yup, there is. Godmoding rules 101, you can't tell other people the outcome of their cloning project.

Personally, I don't think it is the job of the moderators to regulate the form of debate anywhere - NationStates is based on free-form RP, IIRC.

And as a former UN forumer back in 2003, I'll just note that the current debates are a lot better and more thoughtful than they used to be.

Well... yeah. Thats what I would think too. :)

Yup, there is. Godmoding rules 101, you can't tell other people the outcome of their cloning project.
It's not actually telling people the outcome of their cloning project. It's telling them of problems your researchers have found when experimenting with cloning- it's entirely possible that they haven't had the same issues arise.

It's not actually telling people the outcome of their cloning project. It's telling them of problems your researchers have found when experimenting with cloning- it's entirely possible that they haven't had the same issues arise.
Does that not make the point of claiming that moot? Its godmoding, clear and simple. You do not counter godmods with even more outragious godmods.

Does that not make the point of claiming that moot? Its godmoding, clear and simple. You do not counter godmods with even more outragious godmods.It's not godmoding because it actually has absolutely no bearing on the other players country whatsoever- all they need to do is point to a study from their country that claims the opposite. The only actual effect of it is to move the argument away from RL facts and figures and move it into disputing fictiional ones.

Does that not make the point of claiming that moot? Its godmoding, clear and simple. You do not counter godmods with even more outragious godmods.

You might want to clarify your point. Because it sounds to me as if you are acknowledging that imaginary player made debates quickly turn into godmodding wars.

This is exactly why I've been agruing that UN resolutions do in fact share a "baseline". The baseline of course changes with respect to each UN resolution.



On another note: I see most people calling it godmoding, and I've always thought that it is called "godmodding", meaning to "participate in a thread as if you were a god / moderator". Is it just me, or shouldn't the English verb "mod" be "modding" much like "swim" becomes "swimming" or "hit" becomes "hitting".

I know this is a tangent, but perhaps it has been bugging me.

You might want to clarify your point. Because it sounds to me as if you are acknowledging that imaginary player made debates quickly turn into godmodding wars.

This is exactly why I've been agruing that UN resolutions do in fact share a "baseline". The baseline of course changes with respect to each UN resolution.



On another note: I see most people calling it godmoding, and I've always thought that it is called "godmodding", meaning to "participate in a thread as if you were a god / moderator". Is it just me, or shouldn't the English verb "mod" be "modding" much like "swim" becomes "swimming" or "hit" becomes "hitting".

I know this is a tangent, but perhaps it has been bugging me.

No. I am not. I am saying that IF someone godmods in that hypothetical '" all roleplayers godmode" example of yours, you do not godmod back. Because godmoding is wrong. Not everything related to roleplay is godmoding. (Or godmodding. I really use them both. Both are used.) There is a difference. Just stick to not godmoding. Thats the rule.

No. I am not. I am saying that IF someone godmods in that hypothetical '" all roleplayers godmode" example of yours, you do not godmod back. Because godmoding is wrong. Not everything related to roleplay is godmoding. (Or godmodding. I really use them both. Both are used.) There is a difference. Just stick to not godmoding. Thats the rule.

First, I never said all roleplayers god mod.

Second, I don't think there is a clear "rule" of what godmodding is. I'd say telling nations that they can't stop your government from continuing to hunt whales *before* you see what they are going to do, approaches the realm of unequal play. It really is in "how" a nation does this that counts.

God modding is unequal roleplay. That is all it is. It exists due to the lack of agreement where the baseline is.

And again, that is why I'm still eager to hear what the UN baseline per resolution is.

On another note: I see most people calling it godmoding, and I've always thought that it is called "godmodding", meaning to "participate in a thread as if you were a god / moderator". Is it just me, or shouldn't the English verb "mod" be "modding" much like "swim" becomes "swimming" or "hit" becomes "hitting".

I know this is a tangent, but perhaps it has been bugging me.

The reason is that god 'mod' is wrong, it's actually God mode, after god mode in Doom where you typed in IDDQD and became invincible [godmoding in roleplay refers to attempting similiarly degenerate activities]. Hence godmode / godmoding.

Well, most debaters already have infinite ammo ... and the way threads change topic I suspect a fair bit of no-clipping is going on ... ;)

NS has a population of roughly 64 trillion people. Saying it isn't vastly different is simply a failure of imagination. Sorry, but that's the bottom line.
In fairness, not everyone RPs their population as NS describes, so this figure doesn't necessarily hold true.

In fairness, not everyone RPs their population as NS describes, so this figure doesn't necessarily hold true.

Explain why that actually changes anything? To have a population similiar to the real world, each NS nation would have to play with a population of fifty seven thousand. Does anyone do that?

Explain why that actually changes anything? To have a population similiar to the real world, each NS nation would have to play with a population of fifty seven. Does anyone do that?

57 ...thousand. ;)

But, you still have a valid point. Most won't do that, though for the record I do own nations which are played as an Office full of workers (an Ambassador's office, to be exact) so 57 isn't off that much. Others I've seen ignore entirely that their nation is a nation and RP it as one person / entity.

Ballotonia

It's about time the UN was fixed up, I know the moderators and administrators have enough problems as it is but please.

1) Issues which are crap or have only 2 endorsements can be on the front page on their final day for Delegate endorsements and a good one be put three pages back with a decent amount of endorsements. Some device for bringing the ones with most endorsements should be put on the front page. This way good things like the 'Nationstates Olympics' can be further up than 'I hate them'... or 'Save a dying region'

2) Make UN issues require less delegate endorsements as only a minute percentile of delegates actually vote.

3) Some checking of UN proposals before they are allowed to be voted on, it just clutters the voting process.

Explain why that actually changes anything? To have a population similiar to the real world, each NS nation would have to play with a population of fifty seven thousand. Does anyone do that?
'Twas just an aside. Does everyone even roleplay their nation at all?

Anyway, this is drifting off-topic. My apologies.

I strongly object to any proposal to embed in stone "NationStates is exactly like RL Earth". This would considerably stifle RP-- and worse, it would cause the hordes of peopel who scream "OMG GODMOD" at the slightest innovation or deviation from existing things to become even more annoying than they already are.

Axis Nova

In fairness, not everyone RPs their population as NS describes, so this figure doesn't necessarily hold true.

I consider the idea that my nation has billions of people absurd, considering that I RP that we have population control measures in place.

The CCSM has a population of 7 million people. Much like Switzerland, where I've stolen plenty of other RP models. :)

But those 7 million people have the purchasing power and international reputation of billions!

But I'm waiting for somebody to tell me that I can only RP their way. :p

I strongly object to any proposal to embed in stone "NationStates is exactly like RL Earth". This would considerably stifle RP-- and worse, it would cause the hordes of peopel who scream "OMG GODMOD" at the slightest innovation or deviation from existing things to become even more annoying than they already are.

Axis Nova

Nobody has suggested *that*. But what has been suggested is that resolutions are solutions to problems, most of which are often inspired by the real world, thus real-world examples should be considered relevant in debate to these problems.

Before you say, fine, but not in my country ... take the Law of the Sea. The international treaty doesn't really apply to Bolivia, now does it? That doesn't mean that Bolivia ignores the law.

I'm not suggesting that the Law of the Sea exists in NationStates, but rather that most players share a common roleplay in which there is an "Earth", with "oceans", and "islands", and "continents". Heck, look at the East Pacific, they divided up China for their map. A feeder region and one of the games most powerful players is basically playing Manchuria! I would think Loop probably is more than happy to agree that his nation has similar geographical issues as Northern China.

As Mikitivity pointed out no one is suggesting that "NationStates is exactly like RL Earth." I would even further suggest that NationStates isn't even "real." There are fundamental elements in the game that demand a suspension of disbelief. NationStates can "move" to other continents. NationStates apparently can grow in population while maintaining vast areas for their national animals. This elestic and abstract nature cannot be implemented on a static globe of any size, but who cares?

I would suggest two notions. The generic global problems of the real world are fair game for NationStates. Problems that are specific to specific nations, for example, don't exist in NationStates because those specific nations don't exist, but global problems should.

The secon notion is that in general Murphy's Law should be held above any other law or even role playing. For every action there is a greater reaction. As rullers of our nations we can't help but to regulate into absurdity. Irony, can indeed be pretty ironic at times.

Given these two notions, I can see that some real world trends and reports can be used in "debates" as long as they follow the general rule and aren't being used to circumvent Murphy's Law. Citing studies that show that massive windmill farms kill migratory birds for example is certanly fair game.

The final thing to realize is that all UN resolutions have uniform non role play effects on all member nations. The game couldn't care less about the role play effects, and frankly, role play effects should be carried out in the role playing forums, and not through UN reslutions.

True Role Playing is like swimming underwater. You have to know when and where to suspend disbelief just like you have to know when and where not to breathe. The general nature of the world, and even of Murphy's Law still applies even when dealing with things that do not exist in the real world. In the end, this is still a NationStates game, and the only "real" thing in the world are the parameters that make up our nations and the issues and resolutions that impact them.

I thought NS was supposed to be free form rp.
Where you can choose whether to accept rl trends or not.
Or whether you wish to rp with someone or not.
Is Mikitivity suggesting that they take away free form?

I thought NS was supposed to be free form rp.
Where you can choose whether to accept rl trends or not.
Or whether you wish to rp with someone or not.
Is Mikitivity suggesting that they take away free form?

Nope.

Though there are people that feel that I'm suggesting this, I'm not. I'm perfectly happy with countries populated by dancing penguins.

What I'm really suggesting is that claims that references to real-life trends shouldn't be so quickly dismissed when made in the context of defending a UN resolution which was authored under real-life assumptions.

I don't mind somebody saying, "Gee, that report you cite, well my government finds it to be rubbish!" There are tons of ways to respond to that, the best of which is, "Fine, can you provide numbers to the contary? I didn't think so."

I do mind the all too tired cry, "Dude, get a fucking life. This is a game. Fantasy. It is *not* real. You can't use real-life reports." To this all to lame debate tactic, there is no real response.

Many roleplayers agree that a "baseline" exists. While NS is a free-form game, there are some common assumptions. Cog has already talked about some of these. There is a moon. People exist, some of them *gasp* even clothe their females! ;)

I'm honestly looking for a moderator to say, "You know, if a group of nations want to cite real-world reports while defending a resolution, that is just as much a part of the game as claiming to have whale cloning factories and that you can realisticly up your whale hunting quota by 2,000% overnight."

The more I think about it, I don't even need a moderator to tell me that. I have said it right there, and unless others want to moderate the game and tell me what I can cite and not cite, it just so happens that in my "reality" large parts of "real trends" are a part of the game. So when I see a player claim they've upped their hunting quota's by 2,000% or that they can clone millions of whales, I write that off in the same category that I place players that claim to have transporters and phasers set to stun. It sounds pretty damn silly to me, but as long as they keep their hunting quotas to themselves or their millions of clone whales in the same facility where they have airplanes that travel at warp 12, whom does it really hurt? Nobody.

Nope.

Though there are people that feel that I'm suggesting this, I'm not. I'm perfectly happy with countries populated by dancing penguins.

What I'm really suggesting is that claims that references to real-life trends shouldn't be so quickly dismissed when made in the context of defending a UN resolution which was authored under real-life assumptions.

I don't mind somebody saying, "Gee, that report you cite, well my government finds it to be rubbish!" There are tons of ways to respond to that, the best of which is, "Fine, can you provide numbers to the contary? I didn't think so."

I do mind the all too tired cry, "Dude, get a fucking life. This is a game. Fantasy. It is *not* real. You can't use real-life reports." To this all to lame debate tactic, there is no real response.

Many roleplayers agree that a "baseline" exists. While NS is a free-form game, there are some common assumptions. Cog has already talked about some of these. There is a moon. People exist, some of them *gasp* even clothe their females! ;)

I'm honestly looking for a moderator to say, "You know, if a group of nations want to cite real-world reports while defending a resolution, that is just as much a part of the game as claiming to have whale cloning factories and that you can realisticly up your whale hunting quota by 2,000% overnight."

The more I think about it, I don't even need a moderator to tell me that. I have said it right there, and unless others want to moderate the game and tell me what I can cite and not cite, it just so happens that in my "reality" large parts of "real trends" are a part of the game. So when I see a player claim they've upped their hunting quota's by 2,000% or that they can clone millions of whales, I write that off in the same category that I place players that claim to have transporters and phasers set to stun. It sounds pretty damn silly to me, but as long as they keep their hunting quotas to themselves or their millions of clone whales in the same facility where they have airplanes that travel at warp 12, whom does it really hurt? Nobody.

Ah, so it's basically just a differences of opinion thing.
Well, if there are nations willing to accept the RL trends impacting their nation that's good.
If some nations are not, that's good too. To each his own.
Just find someone willing to rp the rl trends with you.

'Twas just an aside. Does everyone even roleplay their nation at all?
I do, please search for all Lacomb threads and you'll see. I have RP a forest fire, a submarine accident, and even a few other things too. All small time stuff but RP nonetheless. Its all i can do.

Though there are people that feel that I'm suggesting this, I'm not. I'm perfectly happy with countries populated by dancing penguins.

It's not that I'm unhappy, it's just that I would rather see them get back to work. Not every penguin can be Fred Astarie. :D

There is nothing wrong with free form roleplaying. There is nothing wrong with being different. But when you join the UN, in one sense you are no longer roleplaying alone. You have in effect joined a greater community of roleplayers within a general body and there has to be some commonality or the whole thing falls apart. Yes one person can roleplay Captain Kirk, and the other can roleplay Elminster, but I can't see for the life of me how they can both be roleplayed in the same room. The suspension of disbelief is infinite!

We talk about "sovergnity" but there is also an element of "role playing individuality" involved here. If enough people start supporting a Zombie rights law, then we have to assume zombies right? While the common RP consensius (and getting a resolution to a vote is some form of reaching consensius) is not per se enforced as the rules uniformly enacted by approved resolutions, it only makes sense.

Otherwise, how can we debate anything? (And this really is all about debate.)

If enough people start supporting a Zombie rights law, then we have to assume zombies right?
I for one thorougly enjoyed arguing the Zombie Familiarization Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=347109). It was well written and presented a solid case. Had it actually made it through quorum and vote, I think that we would have had to official recognize that Zombies DO exist in NS. The shared world would have had to adjust to the reality chosen by the majority.

My thoughts on this question (an amicus moderatore brief, if you will):

Debating in the UN forum is a form of Role-Playing. It has been stated several times that the moderators do not regulate Role-Play, as all Role-Play on the NationStates forums is considered to be "Free-Form Role-Play".

Role Play on NationStates (Fukzors!)
The great thing about NationStates' forums is that they are "free form". Free form means there are no rules regarding Role Play. There are rules governing behaviour in the forums, but not how you role play. That means, you can decided to pick 20 random nations and invade them, yes, this is frowned upon by many, but it is just an example of what free form means.
On NationStates, a main part of role play is war. There are many happening everyday, yet, none seem to work out well. When roleplaying a war, remember one thing. That is not to try to win. Far to many times, one nation will be losing a battle, when the owner gets mad out of character and goes ballistic and starts to flame. Flamming is arguing beyond the point of a valid debate, and more along the lines of "You Fuck ing noob! Your mom!".. Which really scares me when I think that this game gets to users that much.
(Source: NationStates Role Play and Ignoring (Edited) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282993), a sticky in the International Incidents forum)

Although limited Role-Play moderation does exist in the International Incidents forum, this is a special case; International Incidents (forum 8) was created for the special purpose of improved Role-Play. No other forum has special rules to govern its practice except for General, whose rules were imposed on 30 July 2003 following the deluge of spamming and post-whoring in that forum.

It follows that the moderators are not and should not be responsible for the conduct of United Nations debates. No matter how pointless or illogical somebody's argument is, they have a right to contend it. Although godmodding is strongly frowned upon (and it could be contended that some debating tactics used in the United Nations forum constitute godmodding), there has never to my knowledge been a ruling making godmodding a Mod-actionable offense.

The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
Founder and Former Delegate (6 June - 28 November 2003) of Democratic Underground
Sponsor of the "Outlaw Pedophilia" resolution