NationStates Jolt Archive

To start with, some background to look over.

Fris’s subtle illegality post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10795763&postcount=39)

GMC’s “excessive nitpicking” post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10701664&postcount=2)

The whole Repeal "Sexual Freedom" thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476212

---------

So here I am, armed with some links to recent rulings on a couple of controversial issues with the NSUN. Surprisingly, I'm not here to get the rulings overturned completely. I want the content/handling of the rulings changed in some ways, but not the ultimate result of the rulings.

First, let's look at Fris's post in the murder resolution thread. The stated reason for not deleting it was that the illegality was "too subtle" to unilaterally enforce.

Do I agree that the illegality could legitimately be viewed as subtle or even iffy? Yes. I do. But this whole subtle illegality business as a ruling jives wrong, I think.

1. I was under the impression that subtle illegalities were enforceable. In the past there have been cases (I suspect some Mods remember these) where the illegality was more subtle than the proposal author could be reasonably expected to divine on their own, and so the proposal was deleted but the author was not given a warning. Could this procedure have not been used here if the proposal was indeed illegal, however subtly so?

2. But I'll assume that the legality was uncertain enough that the proposal wasn't necessarily illegal at all (at least under the contradiction rule). So given that the category violation was pointed out too late for it to change anything and is ultimately irrelevant, let's consider that the proposal wasn't illegal at all at the time Fris made his post. If that was indeed the case, why not just rule that it was legal because there was insufficient evidence to rule it illegal? That is much more clear and much more unlikely to cause confusion than the subtle illegality thing.

Second, let's look at GMC's post in the repeal thread for "Sexual Freedom" and the subsequent "discussion". The stated reason for deletion in this case was "excessive nitpicking".

Do I agree that there was excessive nitpicking? Yes. I do. But there isn't an "excessive nitpicking" rule in the UN Proposal Rules (aka Most Glorious Protocols), which makes it sort of a moot point.

1. I can't, for example, legitimately claim a proposal is illegal under the "excessive nitpicking" rule and send a GHR asking to have it deleted. Y'all would think I had done too much LSD and/or suffered brain damage or something, citing a rule that doesn't exist.

2. There was a legitimate reason for the deletion of the proposal, and GMC did mention the relevant precedents that proved his case for deleting the proposal later in the thread. The problem wasn't that GMC was wrong to delete the proposal, in my opinion. He may well have been quite correct in doing so (though the illegality was subtle). ;) But he cited an irrelevant reason for doing so, a reason that did not exist in the ruleset. It was my impression that when making a ruling based on the proposal rules (in this case Metagaming), it was Moderator policy to state what the rule being violated was as the reason for deleting it. Just as in the case of a proposal that was deleted because it was in the wrong category, I would expect a proposal deleted for what was essentially metagaming to be deleted because it was metagaming, not because it was "excessive nitpicking". At least part of the point of posting on the forum why it was deleted is to make it clear what the rule is and how it was violated so people know how to avoid making their proposals illegal, right? This "excessive nitpicking" ruling confused (and even angered) the regulars of the forum, so I seriously doubt it was going to help anyone else understand the rules and make better proposals. Shouldn't we avoid making the rules more confusing than they already are?

That's all, folks. Thanks for your consideration and patience.

I have a feeling that use of 'subtle' is going to be hanging around for quite a while. It wasn't really the right word for the situation, and I still don't have it exactly pinned down.

Essentially. the mods who discussed the issue felt that there was some unexplored grey areas in the definitions involved, and we wanted the UN to figure those out rather than have the decision imposed from above. If we define every word in every proposal at the broadest possible level, we could effectively shut down virtually any new proposal and veto every suggestion. Obviously, we would prefer not to do that.

Different mods have interpreted cases in different ways. That's inevitable, given that we aren't professional jurists, with volumes of case law at hand and para-moderators standing by to research all our decisions. No, as a rule, we'll look at a given case for a few minutes, make a quick decision, and move on. I know that several of us have been doing this long enough that we can tell at a glance that "it just looks wrong" without having a relevant precedent in hand to cite. When asked about it later (as in the GMC case), a detailed examination can prove that there were enough issues to justify the deletion. The fact that we didn't do the detailed exam at the time of deletion doesn't invalidate the action. I apologize for my and my fellow mods minor inconsistencies, but the fact is, we don't have as much time to devote to the UN as you guys do. It's just one of many things we do, and all of them take precious minutes that have other potential uses.

Every once in a while we'll all gather 'round and do some analysis of a particularly thorny issue, and every once in a GREAT while it'll take us a few days to reach consensus. Mostly, though, we'd rather let players dedicate their NS time to the analysis and destruction of UN proposals. We can then look at the Silly Proposals thread and say, "yep, good call", followed by the *snickt* of the Sword of DEAT.


The real point of the rules is not so that we can control the UN, it's so the UN can control itself without breaking the game. Every one of them ultimately comes down to one of two options: "don't try to redefine game mechanics", and "don't spam". The rest of that massive rules sticky is just clarifications. The UN should be self-governing. Do so.

In that case, is it too much to ask that if the mods are going to publicly state why they deleted a proposal, that they scan the list of rules, figure out the term that would be most accurate and use that instead of terms such as "excessive nitpicking" which don't appear anywhere? I agree that there was a bad feel to the proposal GMC deleted and that it could be seen as a metagaming violation depending upon your perspective. However, if he had said "metagaming violation", we probably would've left it at that, looked closer at the proposal to see if we could spot it, and then move on. Instead, we had an extensive issue, caused considerable frustration within the UN Regular community (leading to one user getting a temp ban for an inappropriate sig, and at least one other sig changed) and plenty of discussion of more extensive moderation challenges. Even when the term was challenged, GMC didn't go back to find a more accurate term - it took Hack and a few regulars commenting to find the correct term 2 pages later.

I have a feeling that use of 'subtle' is going to be hanging around for quite a while. It wasn't really the right word for the situation, and I still don't have it exactly pinned down.

Essentially. the mods who discussed the issue felt that there was some unexplored grey areas in the definitions involved, and we wanted the UN to figure those out rather than have the decision imposed from above. If we define every word in every proposal at the broadest possible level, we could effectively shut down virtually any new proposal and veto every suggestion. Obviously, we would prefer not to do that.

Different mods have interpreted cases in different ways. That's inevitable, given that we aren't professional jurists, with volumes of case law at hand and para-moderators standing by to research all our decisions. No, as a rule, we'll look at a given case for a few minutes, make a quick decision, and move on. I know that several of us have been doing this long enough that we can tell at a glance that "it just looks wrong" without having a relevant precedent in hand to cite. When asked about it later (as in the GMC case), a detailed examination can prove that there were enough issues to justify the deletion. The fact that we didn't do the detailed exam at the time of deletion doesn't invalidate the action. I apologize for my and my fellow mods minor inconsistencies, but the fact is, we don't have as much time to devote to the UN as you guys do. It's just one of many things we do, and all of them take precious minutes that have other potential uses.

Every once in a while we'll all gather 'round and do some analysis of a particularly thorny issue, and every once in a GREAT while it'll take us a few days to reach consensus. Mostly, though, we'd rather let players dedicate their NS time to the analysis and destruction of UN proposals. We can then look at the Silly Proposals thread and say, "yep, good call", followed by the *snickt* of the Sword of DEAT.


The real point of the rules is not so that we can control the UN, it's so the UN can control itself without breaking the game. Every one of them ultimately comes down to one of two options: "don't try to redefine game mechanics", and "don't spam". The rest of that massive rules sticky is just clarifications. The UN should be self-governing. Do so.

Thanks for the response and the apology. Both are very much appreciated. I'll give your points some serious thought and probably come back to them much much later.

I agree that there was a bad feel to the proposal GMC deleted and that it could be seen as a metagaming violation depending upon your perspective. However, if he had said "metagaming violation", we probably would've left it at that, looked closer at the proposal to see if we could spot it, and then move on.

As far as I can see looking back I described a metagaming violation quite clearly [post #8, #12] and the only error I made was not to use the word metagaming to describe the violation, instead using an improper [and, I admit, rather unclear] term for it.