sweeping through gameplay [Archive]

Mikitivity

08-12-2005, 19:18

Not in the slightest. It's about the NSWiki. It doesn't really belong anywhere on our forums, but Gameplay is acceptable for now. It'll either sink, or turn into a debate on if it belongs here, in which case it'll probably be moved over here.

NSWiki is about gameplay.

Look at the sticky from Tactical Grace (who was a moderator at the time of the sticky). Surely if somebody created a tool to talk about our countries' economies, the place to talk about that tool and its results in a *mechanical* sense would be gameplay. In fact, TG's post implied that anything related to setting up how your country *is* (separate from what it does in a roleplayed sense) is on topic for the gameplay forum.

We already have posts listing UN Ambassadors, International Country Codes, etc. that are often directed to gameplay. Regional recruiting goes there. I would think that NSWiki discussions should be welcomed as well ... as while Wiki is a great tool for archiving information, bulletin boards provide a more transparent and dynamic setting for hosting *discussions*.

In any case, I'm now officially requesting that multiple moderators weigh in on any discussion on the nature of NSWiki related posts to the Jolt forums.

Crazy girl

08-12-2005, 19:31

Mikitivity

08-12-2005, 19:55

from what i know...

gameplay was gonna be for game mechanic related stuff, so any stuff you can actually see in the game, while the roleplay forums would be with the made up stuff which doesn't show up in the game itself and only exists in people's minds (and maybe on their wiki page)

Roleplay is about players *doing* things and events. Gameplay is the setting which supports roleplay and how it is (exists). Roleplay will be dynamic, while gameplay will tend to be more static.

Here is what Tactical Grace wrote:

The Gameplay Forum is neither another RP forum, nor a new Tech Forum, but rather, a forum for discussing puppets, parody nations, UN rankings, in-game empires, the issues surrounding region crashing, region hoppers, etc. That is to say a forum for those activities which exist in the NS World regional domain and are not truly role-play, but are semi-IC, and therefore fall into a sort of no-man's land between Technical, NationStates, Moderation, and General. A forum, essentially, for players of the NS World side of the game to discuss their technical maneuvres and the underlying politics.

The Gameplay Forum is therefore broadly for NS World issues, not Forum issues. This would include:
Discussion of in-game technical maneuvres and the underlying politics, more specifically:
Regional politics, inter-regional relations, rivalries and alliances.
Discussion of and responses to events in NS World, such as diplomatic crises, etc.
The merits, tactics and etiquette of region crashing and defending.
Regional publicity and PR, in the form of, but not necessarily limited to:
Region Directories / Recruitment.
Regional Forum / Website Directory.
Issues relating to nation and region configurations / customisable fields and ownership, such as:
Discussion of witty or apt comments for mottos and other customisable fields.
Showing off / discussing parody nations.
Descriptions / discussion of puppets and about others' puppets.
Description of non-RP-related national characteristics.
Flag Services.
Map Services.
Discussion of methods that people use to occupy their time in the Game.
Discussions about semi-IC themed regions.
Discussions about region hopping (not just Bunny, there are plenty of region hoppers with much smaller, more focused circuits).
Miscellaneous issues involving use of the NS World game engine.

I've highlighted a few of the sections of Tactical Grace's sticky in the gameplay forum that I feel easily support my opinion that gameplay is essentially everything that isn't roleplay or technical / moderation, but still related to the game itself.

Please note maps only exist in players minds. They are not flags, mottos, or even currencies or national animals, which ultimately are the few things that really exist "in-game". But TG made a point to include them in the Gameplay forum.

Let's pretend I wanted to talk about how to best design maps ... which forum would that be suitable for? I think TG's post makes that very clear.

Crazy girl

08-12-2005, 19:59

Mikitivity

08-12-2005, 20:32

Whaaa? Gameplay is not just to support your roleplay, it is a game in itself. It is about game mechanics. those fields you fill in under settings. invaders/defenders etc. it has nothing to do with roleplay. if you want to support your roleplay, you have 2 forums right there for it. maybe you should look up the discussion thread which lead to the creation of the gameplay forum.

Obviously you didn't read Tactical Grace's stickied thread.

The gameplay forum is to talk about player created aspects of the game that are not roleplay.

A river is not roleplay ... it is like national currency or national animals or maps. Wanting to talk about methods for standardizing how players organize and describe their nation's physical geography is gameplay.

Crazy girl

08-12-2005, 20:36

Mikitivity

08-12-2005, 22:36

currency and animals is what you put under settings, as for maps, i still don't agree having those in the gameplay forum.

gameplay is game mechanics, regional politics, invading, etc. it is it's own game, not an ooc roleplay forum.

Just because you personally don't like something, doesn't mean that it is no longer a forum rule.

Given that you are not a moderator, and yet a former moderator's post (Tactical Grace) defines maps and discussions of "methods that people use to occupy their time in the Game" (as quoted straight from the forum "rules") to be acceptible topics for the gameplay forum, I'm going to ask that moderators now make an official MODERATOR-ONLY ruling on the following:

Is the gameplay forum only for talking about how cool your flag, currency, and animal are -or- is the gameplay forum designed to include player discussions about the methodologies related to how they play the Game that are not event driven roleplaying, including discussions of physical geography of their nations via maps.

Finally, if Tactical Grace's post is wrong, then it should be destickified. Anything else is misleading. Personally, I really don't see why there is any misunderstanding here, as the rules in question make it clear that there is a difference between event driven roleplaying and static game settings. A flag, a llamia, and a penny aren't events ... they are imaginary static objects and part of a physical setting, much like a river or a map would be.

Mikitivity

08-12-2005, 22:41

Oh, I'll also point out at that Myrth's gameplay sticky also includes the following link to a thread all about NSWiki:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361994
(this is a link to the actual thread ... I'm optimistic that most people actually can find Myrth's sticky)

Crazy girl

08-12-2005, 23:06

you really enjoy using the word official, don't you?

but yeah, go ahead posting your selected quotes, taking them out of context. fact is, when we discussed the creation of the gameplay forum, it would be for those interested in the part of the game dealing with regional plitics as in invading and defending, not to support roleplayish things like a nations geography in more detail than in the nation's description.

Mikitivity

09-12-2005, 00:15

you really enjoy using the word official, don't you?

The two red sections are mild flame bait ... and have nothing to do with the discussion. Opinions should stand on their own merits, not based on personal attacks!!!

but yeah, go ahead posting your selected quotes, taking them out of context. fact is, when we discussed the creation of the gameplay forum, it would be for those interested in the part of the game dealing with regional plitics as in invading and defending, not to support roleplayish things like a nations geography in more detail than in the nation's description.

I've taken nothing out of context of Myrth's or Tactical Grace's posts.

Coins, Flags, Animals ... they are details players have control over, and can be considered roleplayish by some. They are flavor text, added to make NationStates more interesting and help players in their roleplay, but they aren't actually roleplay in and of themselves. It would be like confusing plot for setting in a play. The exceptions are when the setting is part of the plot.

Maps are a detail that might not be directly supported by the game itself, but they too aren't roleplay, but instead flavor elements used to aid players in their interactions.

That is precisely why there is a term "gameplay". It is anything that is related to *how* players deal with / construct their imaginary "environment". There is strategic gameplay (region issues) and then nation building gameplay (national currencies, maps, and flag services).

In a region crashing discussion, players might talk about ways to work together to effectively take control of a region.

Regional advertisements *might* be to promote that element of game play, or it could be to increase diplomatic activities ... puppets (which the stickies also say are on topic in gameplay) are used by some players as businesses and storefronts. A post where the puppet does something is better suited for the NationStates or International Incidents forums, whereas a post talking about ways to standardize types of store fronts would be a gameplay post ... it is essentially a post where a PERSON (not a nation) is saying, "Hey, I use my puppets like this, and think some of you might want to do that too!" (Naturally people can and will disagree.)

My posts about organizing NSWiki information was *not* a request for the game itself to be changed, hence it wasn't "Technical". It was *not* an atempt to pretend diplomats are getting together to manage an international waterway, nor was it a military trying to *use* the water ... so it isn't NationStates or International Incidents. It was however clearly a post designed to encourage players to share their *own* information on a specific thing: physical watersheds / rivers, with others, and I even asked for input. My thought was if more players passed along some standard basic info (like currencies or mottos) via NSWiki, that this might facilitate smoother interactions.

If players want to weigh in, I'm fine with that so long as they avoid flame baiting and stick to the topic at hand:

Are player created maps similar to player created national mottos and currencies, and where is/are the best place(s) to talk about these different player created "settings" on the NS Jolt forums?

Frisbeeteria

09-12-2005, 01:04

Enough, already. You're both right, and you're both wrong.

I'm actually going to refer you to the Gameplay article I wrote (mostly) (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Gameplay) on NSwiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/). Crazy Girl is correct in that the original purpose of Gameplay was for discussing the Invasion game. Trouble is, for OPSEC reasons, nobody uses it for that anymore. It's turned into Region Pimping Land, which is pretty damn boring from my perspective.

Mikitivity is also correct that discussion of NSwiki and other related tools belongs in Gameplay. It's a major part of documentation play and technical play. However, just as Commerce Heights created a set of forums for discussing formulas in his Thirdgeek calculator, Goobergunch provided wiki software with Talk pages and discussion areas for determining the specifics of NSwiki content.

NSwiki use is widespread among more than just roleplayers. Lots of Gameplay history is recorded there as well. It's a valuable resource for both communities, and some other communities that don't get widespread recognition anywhere else (conlangs and national anthem writers, to name a couple).

My official position as a NS Moderator is that discussions of the value of NSwiki to the game of NationStates is entirely appropriate to the Gameplay forum. We have a good thread on that subject that's even linked in the sticky. The more detailed aspect of the question, such as discussing how specifc pages or subjects should be addressed, belong in NSwiki talk pages. I could see the following as appropriate as a single post in the NSwiki thread: There's an interesting discussion of NS geography (esp. Rivers) on the Geography Talk page (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category_talk:Geography). Chime in with your two cents. (Registration is recommended, but not required)

Mikitivity

09-12-2005, 01:12

Thanks Fris!

To be honest, I've grown to really like "nation building" things, in particular geography and will make use of the NSWiki geography page to help bring to text what the many talented map makers of NS create visually. I also enjoy taking real life photos and re-imagining them as being part of a larger fantasy collective! :)

The interesting part is when geography crosses player created borders, and the sorts of co-story telling and creation that goes on.

Crazy girl

09-12-2005, 10:52

Yeah, thanks Fris, you just changed the gameplay forum into roleplay forum number 3.

Skinny87

09-12-2005, 16:06

Yeah, thanks Fris, you just changed the gameplay forum into roleplay forum number 3.

Hey, now wait a moment. I agree with Fris and Mikitivity here on the roles of Gameplay, and that sort of attitude really isn't warranted. I doubt Gameplay will suddenly turn into an RP forum when we already have both II and NS already.

SalusaSecondus

09-12-2005, 17:10

Yeah, thanks Fris, you just changed the gameplay forum into roleplay forum number 3.

My view of the distinction (which isn't official till I chat with the other mods) is that game play consists of solely that play directly supported by the game's technology.

Role play consists of play dependant upon imagination and creativity and moves far beyond what the game support.

Regional politics falls somewhere between the two.

Mikitivity

09-12-2005, 19:57

Hey, now wait a moment. I agree with Fris and Mikitivity here on the roles of Gameplay, and that sort of attitude really isn't warranted. I doubt Gameplay will suddenly turn into an RP forum when we already have both II and NS already.

Right, the gameplay forum won't be an in-character environment, with the exception of regional advertisements. Nobody has suggested that!

Clearly NationStates and International Incidents are both "in-character" areas. Their Jolt one-line descriptions say exactly so!

Logically it follows that elements of NationStates (game)play that are *not* in-character have a place on the Jolt forums, and they certainly are outlawed from areas that are described as being in-character.

We've eliminated:
NationStates (forum)
International Incidents (forum)

So what is left?
Technical is for bugs and problems.
Moderation is for complaints.
United Nations is for issues dealing with the NS UN.
Got Issues is for the daily issues (which are supported by the game's technology -- so why aren't they in gameplay???).
General is for everything outside of NationStates.
NationStates2 is about NS2.
Jennifer Government is about the novel.

It seems without the gameplay forum (which is barely used) that an entire group of players are being asked to leave Jolt. I'm talking about the players I call "Nation Builders". They make maps, create cities, flags, national anthemns and new languages (as Fris pointed out), etc.

I've been passively reading some of their creations and I'm usually impressed.

A Jolt forum is a great way for players to share ideas and collaborate on things. And it isn't as if we are talking about huge volumes of traffic.

Frisbeeteria

10-12-2005, 00:03

I'm now officially requesting that multiple moderators weigh in on any discussion on the nature of NSWiki related posts to the Jolt forums.So far, there's me and Salusa. Let's see who else has thoughts on it.

Crazy Girl, there is NO invader/defender discussion in Gameplay to speak of. I know you were one of the original players calling for a Gameplay forum, and I'm pretty sure I remember that being your primary reason for its creation. Given that it isn't being used as you wanted it to be, does that mean we should shut it down completely? Or should it instead mean that we should evaluate what we can use it for, since Invisionfree and Proboards have all our Invasion traffic?

Obviously there is a disagreement as to where the boundaries lie. We need to kick this around a bit amongst the mods and admins, I think. I'll leave this topic open for discussion, but let's drop the animosity RIGHT NOW. Keep it civil, or we'll just lock it down.

The Most Glorious Hack

10-12-2005, 00:43

Well, I made my comments in the thread in Gameplay; specifically that things dealing with the Wiki should be kept on the Wiki.

West-Flanders

10-12-2005, 15:06

Look at the sticky from Tactical Grace (who was a moderator at the time of the sticky). Surely if somebody created a tool to talk about our countries' economies, the place to talk about that tool and its results in a *mechanical* sense would be gameplay. In fact, TG's post implied that anything related to setting up how your country *is* (separate from what it does in a roleplayed sense) is on topic for the gameplay forum.

We already have posts listing UN Ambassadors, International Country Codes, etc. that are often directed to gameplay. Regional recruiting goes there. I would think that NSWiki discussions should be welcomed as well ... as while Wiki is a great tool for archiving information, bulletin boards provide a more transparent and dynamic setting for hosting *discussions*.
The Gameplay forum is, in short, about stuff that is not Role-Play.
How nations work: puppets, sorts of UN categories, customisable fiels.
How regions work: How to build a region, how to become delegate, how to recruit, advertising, listing of regions (though I wouldn't have a problem with a list of RP-regions), invading/defending, regional and interregional politics,..
Things based on the mechanical coded stuff of the game. From the moment you start inventing stuff about your nation, it isn't Gameplay anymore..

Roleplay is about players *doing* things and events. Gameplay is the setting which supports roleplay and how it is (exists). Roleplay will be dynamic, while gameplay will tend to be more static.
Role-Play might be more flexible (in opposition to the game's code) since it excist purely from your own imagination. And indeed, the game Nationstates is the foundation on which RP'ers base their nation. But the gameplay element can be considered as a game on itself, and isn't solely there to support Role-Play!

A river is not roleplay ... it is like national currency or national animals or maps.
I beg to differ. National currency is game-coded. Things like trading between nations, buying weapens, store fronts, making war, the name of your capital, the name of your King/President/Czar, names of cities, names of rivers.. aren't. From the moment you invent stuff that is not coded (either customisable fiels, or consequence of issues), it doesn't belong in Gameplay anymore.

Although Map-making are not directly supported by the game itself, they too are mentioned in TG's sticky, that's probably since it accompagnated/ related to Flag services.
Things like GDP-calculators and NSwiki are game supporting elements (NSwiki supports both gameplay and roleplay, giving a platform for players wanting to describe their nation, while the GDP-calculater uses game-coded elements to support RP'ers wanting more insight in the economy of their nation).

To be honest, I've grown to really like "nation building" things, in particular geography and will make use of the NSWiki geography page to help bring to text what the many talented map makers of NS create visually. I also enjoy taking real life photos and re-imagining them as being part of a larger fantasy collective!

The interesting part is when geography crosses player created borders, and the sorts of co-story telling and creation that goes on.
If "nation building" means to you answering issues, to find out for example what the outcome is on your nations UN-category, it's gameplay. If "nation building" means to you that you invent stuff, making a description of how you image your nation... Then it is definately NOT gameplay.

Customisable field like national animal/currecy/motto/flag go in Gameplay.. But in my opinion, things going further then that aren't gameplay anymore. Threads on how you image your country, threads with pictures of the "West-Flandrian Presidential Palace", or the "National West-Flandrian Art Gallery", the "West-Flandrian Ministry of Bureaucratic Nonsence", of the "West-Flandrian Natural History Museum" aren't gameplay anymore... If you just invented it, it has nothing to do anymore with gameplay, it's role-play stuff. You can put it on the NSwiki, but please, not in Gameplay..

Frisbeeteria

10-12-2005, 15:45

If "nation building" means to you answering issues, to find out for example what the outcome is on your nations UN-category, it's gameplay. If "nation building" means to you that you invent stuff, making a description of how you image your nation... Then it is definately NOT gameplay.
That's an excellent summary, and largely what I was trying to say earlier
You can put it on the NSwiki, but please, not in Gameplay.
Correct..

Cogitation

10-12-2005, 16:52

[Note that I drafted this only as of the time of Post #19, but due to my head cold, forgot to actually post it. I'm not feeling up to rereading the topic, so I will post as-is.]

Without specifically overruling Frisbeeteria on any given point, I just want to clear up a few things.

A river is not roleplay ... it is like national currency or national animals or maps. Wanting to talk about methods for standardizing how players organize and describe their nation's physical geography is gameplay.Incorrect. Rivers are not recognized by the game engine. Nor is geography. These are, therefore, strictly roleplay.

I have not had a chance to confer with other Moderators or with Tactical Grace, but I assume that map services were lumped in there because map services require the same graphical design skills as flag services (and flags are recognized by the game), so it is convenient to lump them together for this reason.

...whereas a post talking about ways to standardize types of store fronts would be a gameplay postIncorrect. OOC discussion about roleplay belongs in a roleplay forum. Store fronts are strictly roleplay.

Yeah, thanks Fris, you just changed the gameplay forum into roleplay forum number 3.I've got a head cold as I'm typing this, so I can't think straight. So, what implications are you drawing from Fris's ruling?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Crazy girl

10-12-2005, 18:29

okay, i'm going nuts...i thought last night fris was saying made up stuff like rivers and all do belong gameplay, but now i can't find it back...

think i read it wrong or mixed some stuff up...sorry fris:(

Mikitivity

10-12-2005, 19:22

Let me be clear ... I understand the ORIGIN of the gameplay forum, but let Max never really dreamed region crashing would happen because of the design of the game engine, it wasn't outlawed when the "game" adapted. The fact is there are currently five customizable player flavour text fields ... they ultimately mean nothing:

- Country Name
- Country Flag
- National Motto
- National Currency
- National Animal

Discussions about these obviously should have a place, including allowing for players to talk about how and why they created these items. However, if a player says, "My animal is the horned owl because they live near me", how is this post different than a post saying, "My climate is semi-arid, because I live in a high desert"?

The current ruling that five flavour elements which are used to support roleplay can be talked about in one forum because the game engine supports their customization, but the remaining elements can't be mentioned in the same thread is inconsisent!

Just like region crashing / tank rush became common place in the game as players adapted to things such as UN endorsements and the server updates, the design of the forums themselves *should* adapt.

Gameplay and the gameplay forum might not be the same thing, but to come up with a narrow definition that gameplay is anything that is supported by the game engine and then using that definition as your criterion for what is on-topic in the gameplay forum is confusing. Why are owls, euros, and funny country names allowed in one place, while mountains are somewhere else?

I think Tactical Grace and Myrth both recognized that maps (rivers, mountains, etc) might not be supported by the game engine, but that discussions about how to DESIGN and incorporate them into a larger setting *could* be game supported items. Heck, if NationStates 2 allowed you to name your ruler, would you need to make a point of telling people that the list of FIVE ALLOWED TOPICS has been expanded to SIX? Nah. Clearly their decisions were to take a relatively under used forum and allow similar items to be talked about there.

Furthermore, regional advertising it part roleplay / part gameplay. It really depends on how the advert is constructed. A group playing the invasion / defense aspect of the game, would be coordinating their activites on the game engine (though as has been pointed out, wouldn't do so on a public forum ... meaning the gameplay forum is barely used to support these discussions). A group looking to become a UN voting blox also is using the game engine ... but what if that group wants to also roleplay??? Is it allowed or not? I'm guessing a group that wanted to forum a region called "Dungeons and Dragons" and limit their interactions to fantasy roleplay would be directed to one of the in-character forums ... so why is it that the UN or region invasion groups get to post in the gameplay forum, while the others don't?

I think there is a fine (and rather arbitary) line that is being drawn here based solely on the ability to connect something to settings that the game itself remembers. If that is really want you guys want, that still leaves unanswered where things that are not in-character and not supported in one of five player fields can be discussed.

Naturally I'll follow the ruling, but that still leaves the following house cleaning details:

1) the stickies that currently allow NSWiki related material in the gameplay forum <--- you guys should decide where they belong and don't belong,

2) the forum sub-headings on the main Jolt screen which prevent non-in-character discussions in the NationStates and International Incidents forums <--- since it sounds like you guys now want non-in-character discussions in those two forums, Jolt's descriptions should be changed to account for non-in-character discussions about game features which aren't one of the five features directly supported by the game engine.

Crazy girl

10-12-2005, 19:46

just in case you didn't know...the gameplay forum was created when the invasion game already existed a long time. and i don't think keeping stuff that can't be seen in the game and that has nothing to do with the game mechanics is inconsistent. if you make it up, it's roleplay, and should go into one of the two roleplay forums.

Mikitivity

10-12-2005, 20:33

and i don't think keeping stuff that can't be seen in the game and that has nothing to do with the game mechanics is inconsistent. if you make it up, it's roleplay, and should go into one of the two roleplay forums.

To me:
- National Currency is "made up".
- National Motto is "made up".
- National Flags are "made up".
etc.

The difference is the game allows other players to see that information via the game engine itself. Cog's point was focusing on the game engine, not the source of inspiration. He'll correct me (of this I'm sure), but he seemed to say gameplay is only material that is directly connected to the game engine. So if they modified the game such that you could customize your national languages, those would then become gameplay ... if I'm reading his post correctly.

But what my concern is and remains, is finding a place for players to talk about how to DESIGN a country while not being in-character.

The Jolt descriptions for the NationStates and International Incidents forums currently are written to suggest that posts in those areas are limited to in-character posts.

Crazy girl

10-12-2005, 20:38

Languages won't be programmed into the game, I believe Sal has said this before. How I see it, what can be seen in the game or be manipulated in the game, belongs in gameplay. If you want to design a country with languages, rivers, and whatever, that's roleplay stuff.

SalusaSecondus

10-12-2005, 20:52

There is a gray area between the two, and a lot of it depends on context.

As far as my opinion on the NSWiki. It is neither gameplay nor roleplay. It depends on the topics being discussed.

If I'm talking about an NSWiki article about RP stuff, it's belongs in one of the RP forums. If I'm talking about an NSWiki article about Gameplay stuff, it belongs in the gameplay forum. If it's about NS2, it belongs in NS2. Etc. What's so difficult about that?

And finally, an observation as a player of the game. Gameplay more often seems to deal with the interactions of the nations, while Role Play more often seems to deal with the interactions of individuals.

Dread Lady Nathicana

10-12-2005, 23:25

Just some observations, as an rp'er, since it's been brought up.

No, rp doesn't belong in gameplay, though I can see where some of those gray areas Sal mentioned exist. Still, I'd think the forum is big enough for those using it to get along, whether they play in the same circles or not.

Context seems to be the deciding factor, and I happen to agree with that - not just in reference to this particular concern, since it's been raised. If it's a Wiki entry that has to do with Gameplay, why not? Or an off-site forum designed for folks involved in Gameplay mechanics - no problem, yes?

There's aspects of the game that overlap, like the maps and flags and such, or the calculators even, given how they use game code to come up with the stats. Can't see how 'in character' stuff would have much to do with the forum in question though, and even some 'out of character' bits, especially as how there are two entire forums devoted to such, where occ threads are often used as reference, clarification, or ways to keep rp threads clear of ooc traffic. I imagine if the powers that be thought the Gameplay forum didn't cover what all it did, or that Regional Politics/Gameplay needed its own forum just for that, they'd make one.

As for Mikitivity's getting all upset about any ruling's impact on rp, a clarification - he's not a 'roleplayer' in the sense that's generally used on NationStates, he's a UN player. In seven pages of past posts, he has one in the NS forum - a simple request for an embasy exchange in someone else's thread. Mind this isn't to say that UN players can't or don't roleplay (take Knootoss for example, whom I think has been fairly active in both capacities, if I'm not remembering things wrong). However it's worth noting that Mikitivity really isn't representative of the rp side of the game, pleas for 'official' rulings and impassioned argument and all aside. This is his own agenda, not that of roleplayers at large that I'm aware of, so I'd personally rather the two didn't get mixed or mistaken.

Nation-development is something I've seen traditionally handled on the roleplaying forums in posts and the like, and more recently, documented on NSWiki, which has been an excellent resource for all sorts of aspects of NationStates as a game. Nation-development as a whole is outside the realm of what the game provides after all, and relies entirely on the player's imagination.

Mikitivity's comment on 'only in character' posts in the rp forums is incorrect, as stated previously. There's ample room for discussion, just be aware of context and how you approach it. If it's out of character musings about this that or the other, maybe General is more the place for it - I've seen several discussions get moved there on account of their context.

Granted, this is all just my take on it, and based on things I've seen during my time here. I figure if there's questions on what does and doesn't belong in a particular forum, it's easy enough for anyone concerned to ask the mods here or on the IRC channel. It's part of what this forum is for, after all. Hopefully most of them can keep free of the endless debating and the inherent 'better than' attitudes that end up getting implied with a lot of that debate.

Mikitivity

11-12-2005, 01:40

As for Mikitivity's getting all upset about any ruling's impact on rp, a clarification - he's not a 'roleplayer' in the sense that's generally used on NationStates, he's a UN player. In seven pages of past posts, he has one in the NS forum - a simple request for an embasy exchange in someone else's thread. Mind this isn't to say that UN players can't or don't roleplay (take Knootoss for example, whom I think has been fairly active in both capacities, if I'm not remembering things wrong). However it's worth noting that Mikitivity really isn't representative of the rp side of the game, pleas for 'official' rulings and impassioned argument and all aside. This is his own agenda, not that of roleplayers at large that I'm aware of, so I'd personally rather the two didn't get mixed or mistaken.

Actually a number of UN players do roleplay, we just don't venture to the NationStates or International Incidents forums to do so. The UN forum and off-site boards allow UN players to pretend to be diplomats. The Prentema Panel Genocide hearings are a good example of that. Or you could use NSWiki and look at the summaries of the debate for many of the UN resolutions, where you will often see names of fictional ambassadors. Oh, it is roleplaying, and I do plenty of that. But it is a mistake to assume that just because somebody doesn't engage in your style of roleplay that they don't.

Second, I've been arguing that constructing a "map" (be it the graphic or talking about geography in nations) is *not* roleplay. In fact, I'm specifically trying to distance discussions related to imaginary things like flags, geography, and ecology from roleplaying.

Nation-development is something I've seen traditionally handled on the roleplaying forums in posts and the like, and more recently, documented on NSWiki, which has been an excellent resource for all sorts of aspects of NationStates as a game. Nation-development as a whole is outside the realm of what the game provides after all, and relies entirely on the player's imagination.

In the two years that I've been active in NationStates, I've also seen a number of nation development related discussions actually taking place on off-site regional forums -- in particular maps and regional government organizations / rules have always been key features of many of these sorts of things. While there is no doubt active that you've seen, my concern here is that there should be a place where it is made *clear* that players can talk about nation development.

Be it imagining your national animal, your national anthem, or perhaps a map. They all are nation development. In the case of the animal, it just so happens that the game *also* allows you to publically display your choice and then it incorporates that variable into the issue driven flavor text.

Aside from national prefix (i.e. I'm talking about the easter egg), daily issues, UN resolutions, and time, I'm not sure what other permanent stats really matter for our nations ... they are all imaginary / player created.

Mikitivity's comment on 'only in character' posts in the rp forums is incorrect, as stated previously.

See, when I log onto Jolt and read the descriptions of the International Incidents and NationStates forums, they both include notes that posts are supposed to be "in-character" in those forums. Seems pretty correct to me.

edit -- addition:

NationStates
Where nations come together and discuss matters of varying degrees of importance. [In-character]

International Incidents
A staging-point for declarations of war, international trade, and other major diplomatic events. [In-character; role-playing etiquette enforced]

Gameplay
Talk about nation management, regional politics, and why llamas are a cooler national animal than squirrels.

The United Nations
Where UN members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

OK, so you want to talk about how to design a river. You don't feel like creating a fictious "Department of Interior" to do so. Which of the above forums seems like the logical choice? The one that is in-character and requires specific roleplaying etiquette or the one dedicated to nation management?

The Most Glorious Hack

11-12-2005, 03:01

See, when I log onto Jolt and read the descriptions of the International Incidents and NationStates forums, they both include notes that posts are supposed to be "in-character" in those forums. Seems pretty correct to me.Quit trying to be cute by splitting hairs. There is plenty of OOC content on both NS and II, and it's perfectly allowable.

Either you're being purposefully obtuse, or you honestly don't know, in which case your claims of knowledge on what belongs where are suspect.

Dread Lady Nathicana

11-12-2005, 04:11

Mikitivity, you also missed the part where I defined 'roleplayer' as 'what has been traditionally thought of as rp on NationStates'. I never said there isn't rp in the UN, nor did I say that UN players do not rp. The fact remains, you play nearly exclusively in the UN, not in either one of the recognized rp forums. That is the distinction, and that is what I wanted people who are unfamiliar with this, and you, to understand. The one making assumptions there is you - please read again.

Your arguments here illustrate your style of play and your strengths - debating minutae in the UN forums where such little details can make a world of difference in a proposal. I pointed out specific examples of how out of character things are used, and interestingly enough, you chose to ignore that in favor of being pedantic. This leads me to the conclusion that you are obviously unfamiliar with how things actually work in the rp forums, and thus, are ill-equipped to be suggesting how they should and should not be run. You have equally illustrated that with your responses and statements in this thread. That was my second point. Their 'intended use' has been clear enough for those of us who use those forums regularly, after all.

There are ample places in other forums to discuss things regarding nation development and other such matters that may not belong in Gameplay. If you really feel so strongly that the NationStates forums do not meet your needs, you are free to create your own offsite forums, as many other groups have done to support their interpretations of play - take the alliances, the mechanical designers, the modelers, and others for example - and discuss things the way you'd like. Link the place in your sigs, advertise where allowed. Problem solved.

In any case, I hope this clarifies things somewhat.

SalusaSecondus

11-12-2005, 06:06

There are, as far as I'm concerned, 3 catagories of "play" on NationStates.

UN
Role Play
Gameplay

The more that I think about it, the more that I think that an important difference between the last to is whether all interaction are at a national level or whether interactions take place between smaller units than the full nation.

Mikitivity

11-12-2005, 09:03

Quit trying to be cute by splitting hairs. There is plenty of OOC content on both NS and II, and it's perfectly allowable.

Either you're being purposefully obtuse, or you honestly don't know, in which case your claims of knowledge on what belongs where are suspect.

You're out of line here. Just because you are a moderator doesn't give you a right to take subtle digs at people. Am I treating you this way? If you think so, please tell me where, as I'm not intending to do so at all.

My claims are made as a regular player. I read the forum descriptions and the stickies. And I've pointed you all to exactly where in those descriptions and stickies that *other* players have made similar assumptions. Every player as the right to bring these things up, and I've done so civily this entire time.

I honestly think any player who isn't familiar with the subtle differences it has taken several pages of moderators and players who are very attached to the game (things that are *good*) to describe do lead to honest and sincere confusions here. How many threads did Crazy Girl complain about originally? Clearly she was bothered by a number of posts she felt were out of place ... clearly there are a number of players all misunderstanding what sorts of posts are supposed to go where. And I really believe that the game admins can streamline things a bit.

Where:
1) the sub-forum descriptions,
2) the stickied threads.

How (A Suggestion):
In the NationStates and International Incidents forum descriptions, roleplaying and in-character interactions are stressed. Unstress that if that isn't what those forums are intended to be.

Then review Tactical Grace's gameplay forum sticky, because it honestly looks (to people who don't live and breath this game -- something which is fine, I spend plenty of time each week playing NationStates too, so don't START to get defensive here) that an OOC post asking players if there is an interest in building something like an economic calculator *or* a way to describe geography is OK. Change his sticky.

SalusaSecondus

11-12-2005, 09:13

No, Mikivity, you're out of line. You have been splitting hairs and so any valid and relevant points you might have are obscured by your fallacious arguments.

Yes, I'll take a look at the forum description and stickies, but the fact remains that they seem to work decently over all and there is no solution that will avoid all confusion because it is, in the end, a judgement call.

West-Flanders

11-12-2005, 14:02

Mikitivity, you might not consider descriptions of a nation als role-play, because it isn’t an event, and doesn't include interaction between players,.. But the thing is, nation building in the sence of creating cities, national anthemns, languages, history, geography,.. things which are imaginary, and not supported by the game engine, aren’t gameplay.

Anyway, this might be helpful. The One-Stop Rules Shop Thread gives a pretty good description on what goes where. And for those wanting to know where to post a description of their nation:

Forum-Specific - Sound & Fury
NationStates & International Incidents

<snip>
What belongs where?: NationStates threads tend to be more character-oriented and sports roleplay. International Incidents trends more towards wars and combats. Storefronts and factbooks mostly belong in II. "How do I ..." threads can go in either, though "How do I calculate my military?" would be an II question and "How do I become a better roleplayer?" Is more of an NS question. Most of those questions are answered in the stickies anyway.

<snip>

Storefronts and Factbooks: These topics allow a nation to develop and display various things about their nations. They may be open or closed at the topic originator's discretion. In many cases, using an offsite resource like NSwiki or the International Mall is preferable to creating a Factbook or Storefront thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784646&postcount=4

Mikitivity

11-12-2005, 17:51

Anyway, this might be helpful. The One-Stop Rules Shop Thread gives a pretty good description on what goes where.

Thanks West-Flanders! :) That is the sort of thing I was missing, and it is pretty clear.

Goobergunchia

11-12-2005, 23:47

I'd just like to note that NSwiki-related discussions that require any kind of thoughts from myself should go on NSwiki if anybody wants me to actually see them.

Ecopoeia

12-12-2005, 13:45

GMC Military Arms

12-12-2005, 14:09

Hack and Sal - yeah, maybe you don't like Mik's arguments and, yeah, maybe he's getting confused, but he has not been "cute" or "out of line" here. Was there really any need to introduce an element of unpleasantness to this thread?

Yes, he has. Miki is lecturing other players and the moderators on the forum rules, telling us we are 'out of line,' telling Crazy Girl she is flaming when she isn't and no moderator has said she is, and generally making statements he has no authority to make.

That's bad.

Logically it follows that elements of NationStates (game)play that are *not* in-character have a place on the Jolt forums, and they certainly are outlawed from areas that are described as being in-character.

We've eliminated:
NationStates (forum)
International Incidents (forum)

...Except out of character roleplay-related posts are allowed in both those forums; they're not 'outlawed' at all, and the fact that you make that statement shows you're not familiar with the content of either forum. It's dishonest to base your whole argument on the precise wording of the forum descriptions as opposed to what they're actually used for. Maps, the names of your nation's rivers, the appearence of your nation, it's people, the type of tanks it uses and whether those TANKS are FIGHT belong in the roleplay forums.

Really, your argument here is like my suggesting you put the groceries in the garage and you replying that the garage is for parking cars in, even though everyone can see the fridge is in there too. Simply looking in NS or II is enough to see out-of-character threads are allowed in them.

Ecopoeia

12-12-2005, 14:11

I disagree. Ah, well.

Knootian East Indies

12-12-2005, 15:10

If I can chip in a bit, I sorta agree with Nathicana and Mikitivity. ( :eek: ) She is also right that I have been active in both UN and RP capacities, and indeed I've been active in all of the forums at some point but I have my 'home base' firmly in NS and the NSUN.

I disagree with the 'Crazy Girl mentality' of going "eek, roleplay! disallowed!" and requesting that content be dumped on a fairly large scale in the roleplay forums. A policy of moving everything not directly related to gameplay off of this forum would in my opinion be a disastrous policy for all sides. The gameplay forum has grown to be used in a certain way, and I feel that the role of moderators should be to support this sort of development, not play 'roleplayer vs gameplayer' politics. Designing stuff in my opinion belongs in gameplay because it makes more sense there with the designer community.

I would like to suggest that rather than looking at this from a 'subject-related' perspective - splitting hairs on the context in which the placement of rivers is discussed - you can look at it from a 'community-related' perspective. The difference between II and NS for example isn't so much one of the type of thing that happens there, but one of community and culture. Subforums, as we all know, have their own communities of players who focus mostly on that particular forum. Even something seemingly as clear-cut functional as the moderation forum has a 'community' of its own with people who for some reason take pleasure in commenting on stuff that goes on there.

Therefore, if players start a certain thread they will likely want comments from their particular community. For example a while ago I started a thread about the possibilities of co-writing for a single nation. I don't give a fuck about what flag designers think about this issue, I want to discuss it with my fellow roleplayers. I am not so much interested, however, in seeing stuff like flag design and where-should-I-put-my-rivers threads clutter up the NS storywriting board and make the people interested in that sort of thing browse TWO forums with lots of irrelevancies for them.

NationStates Jolt Archive

sweeping through gameplay