Difference between revisions of "Rules for WA Security Council proposals"
(Created page with "The '''rules for WA Security Council proposals''' are comparatively lax by GA standards, but they still set a modicum of standa...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''rules for [[WA Security Council]] proposals''' are comparatively lax by [[Rules for WA General Assembly proposals|GA standards]], but they still set a modicum of standards for what are allowable and appropriate proposals to submit to the Council. With most of them in existence since shortly after the creation of the SC in 2009, they've more or less organically developed in the course of the SC's history. | The '''rules for [[WA Security Council]] proposals''' are comparatively lax by [[Rules for WA General Assembly proposals|GA standards]], but they still set a modicum of standards for what are allowable and appropriate proposals to submit to the Council. With most of them in existence since shortly after the creation of the SC in 2009, they've more or less organically developed in the course of the SC's history. | ||
| − | Four overarching principles dictate the rules of the Council (often referred to by their rule number: "'''Rule 3'''," "'''Rule 4'''," etc.): 1) No [[Commend and Condemn|Commend-/Condemning]] [[administrator|mods/admins]] for doing their jobs; 2) No proposals dealing with actions that can be best dealt with elsewhere, such as moderation; 3) No proposals lacking an operative clause ("Hereby COMMENDS..." etc.); and 4) No proposals written from an out-of-game/universe or out-of-character standpoint. Other sub-rules have naturally arisen from these four basic rules, originally introduced by the WA mods. | + | Four overarching principles dictate the rules of the Council (often referred to by their rule number: "'''Rule 3'''," "'''Rule 4'''," etc.): 1) No [[Commend and Condemn|Commend-/Condemning]] [[administrator|mods/admins]] for doing their jobs; 2) No proposals dealing with actions that can be best dealt with elsewhere, such as moderation; 3) No proposals lacking an operative clause ("Hereby COMMENDS..." etc.); and 4) No proposals written from an out-of-game/universe or [[OOC|out-of-character]] standpoint. Other sub-rules have naturally arisen from these four basic rules, originally introduced by the WA mods. |
| − | Some of the rules, especially Rule 4, were the subject of controversy when first introduced. Rule 4, instituted some months after the first three rules, caused quite a commotion in the SC because gameplayers who like to use the Council thought it detrimental to their own style of play, in which there are different | + | Some of the rules, especially Rule 4, were the subject of controversy when first introduced. Rule 4, instituted some months after the first three rules, caused quite a commotion in the SC because gameplayers who like to use the Council thought it detrimental to their own style of play, in which there are different conventions for what constitute "in-character" or "out-of-character" comments or actions. There were protests that continued for several months, an attempt to "boycott" the SC through voting down and refusing to submit proposals in that body, and intensive talks with moderators over how to tailor the rule so that it was more "GP-friendly." The rule was reworded to some extent, but never essentially changed. Rule 4 survives to this day, and SC proposals are still expected to be written from the standpoint of nations operating in an international setting, not players playing a game. |
==Additional materials== | ==Additional materials== | ||
* [http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809 Rules for SC proposals] - the rules of the Council | * [http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809 Rules for SC proposals] - the rules of the Council | ||
* [http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=79106 Compendium of Mod Rulings & General Advice within the SC] | * [http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=79106 Compendium of Mod Rulings & General Advice within the SC] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:34, 4 January 2015
The rules for WA Security Council proposals are comparatively lax by GA standards, but they still set a modicum of standards for what are allowable and appropriate proposals to submit to the Council. With most of them in existence since shortly after the creation of the SC in 2009, they've more or less organically developed in the course of the SC's history.
Four overarching principles dictate the rules of the Council (often referred to by their rule number: "Rule 3," "Rule 4," etc.): 1) No Commend-/Condemning mods/admins for doing their jobs; 2) No proposals dealing with actions that can be best dealt with elsewhere, such as moderation; 3) No proposals lacking an operative clause ("Hereby COMMENDS..." etc.); and 4) No proposals written from an out-of-game/universe or out-of-character standpoint. Other sub-rules have naturally arisen from these four basic rules, originally introduced by the WA mods.
Some of the rules, especially Rule 4, were the subject of controversy when first introduced. Rule 4, instituted some months after the first three rules, caused quite a commotion in the SC because gameplayers who like to use the Council thought it detrimental to their own style of play, in which there are different conventions for what constitute "in-character" or "out-of-character" comments or actions. There were protests that continued for several months, an attempt to "boycott" the SC through voting down and refusing to submit proposals in that body, and intensive talks with moderators over how to tailor the rule so that it was more "GP-friendly." The rule was reworded to some extent, but never essentially changed. Rule 4 survives to this day, and SC proposals are still expected to be written from the standpoint of nations operating in an international setting, not players playing a game.
Additional materials
- Rules for SC proposals - the rules of the Council
- Compendium of Mod Rulings & General Advice within the SC
