Mikitivity
26-01-2005, 18:46
I’d like a clarification. In the course of the debate of the current resolution, a few players have pointed to the following moderation ruling from the “Before you make a proposal …” thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8031970&postcount=109
I think TilEnca is correct here, however, in response to TilEnca, Nargopia claims that you can’t even make references in debate to the real world:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8032487&postcount=110
At first I wasn't sure about this, but as TilEnca pointed out it does seem like a very honest opinion based on some of the posts in the thread.
I understand that the nature of real-life references has changed over time (where here I dug up a July and later an October reference to the subject):
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8034764&postcount=118
In particular I think the uncertainity with respect to using the real-world as examples in debate (even when the resolutions were devoid of such examples) came when the following was copied and pasted in the thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012358&postcount=8
4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.
[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, Thursday, October 14, 2004]You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [/modedit]
If taken out of the context of being rules for proposal submissions, the above ruling seems a bit misleading, and I think has lead to an honest misunderstanding.
Though the section quoted points to “Real-Life Proposals”, I’d like to suggest that assuming we are allowed to use real-life examples, such as saying, “In the real world, NOAA’s network of buoys in the Pacific originally cost around $30 million,” that maybe the above moderator edit should be altered to read:
You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports in your proposal in order to bolster your arguments.
I’d hate to see players argue that we can’t even talk about the real world when coming up with examples in debate. I think there should be room for both real world and fantasy based arguments and that players themselves should be free to decide what sounds consistent with their own roleplay.
Basically I'm asking that when the time permits (not a big deal) that if others see that the UN rules could be easily misinterpeted to also constraint UN forum discussions / debate, that my suggested rewrite may be appropriate.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8031970&postcount=109
I think TilEnca is correct here, however, in response to TilEnca, Nargopia claims that you can’t even make references in debate to the real world:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8032487&postcount=110
At first I wasn't sure about this, but as TilEnca pointed out it does seem like a very honest opinion based on some of the posts in the thread.
I understand that the nature of real-life references has changed over time (where here I dug up a July and later an October reference to the subject):
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8034764&postcount=118
In particular I think the uncertainity with respect to using the real-world as examples in debate (even when the resolutions were devoid of such examples) came when the following was copied and pasted in the thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012358&postcount=8
4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.
[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, Thursday, October 14, 2004]You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [/modedit]
If taken out of the context of being rules for proposal submissions, the above ruling seems a bit misleading, and I think has lead to an honest misunderstanding.
Though the section quoted points to “Real-Life Proposals”, I’d like to suggest that assuming we are allowed to use real-life examples, such as saying, “In the real world, NOAA’s network of buoys in the Pacific originally cost around $30 million,” that maybe the above moderator edit should be altered to read:
You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports in your proposal in order to bolster your arguments.
I’d hate to see players argue that we can’t even talk about the real world when coming up with examples in debate. I think there should be room for both real world and fantasy based arguments and that players themselves should be free to decide what sounds consistent with their own roleplay.
Basically I'm asking that when the time permits (not a big deal) that if others see that the UN rules could be easily misinterpeted to also constraint UN forum discussions / debate, that my suggested rewrite may be appropriate.