[Completed] TNS Symposium Edition

[Cretox]

While the recently published TNL Issue XXXII is an excellent collation of the four guest essays from the second WA Symposium, it would be prudent to also summarize the event's various panels themselves so that the discussions had are not lost to anyone who was not present for the actual event. The North Star appears to provide the best format for this purpose.

I've written the introduction as well as the second panel summary to provide an example. I'm looking for volunteers willing to put together similar summaries and be credited for the remainder of the panels. If turnout is too low, I'll simply make it a collective effort and not credit anyone.

This will be coordinated in this thread and on the Executive Staff Discord. Please feel free to post any comments or feedback you may have- especially pertinent are section titles (numbered panels? By day of the week? By day?), whether the NBS show warrants its own summary (likely at the top), and whether the summaries are an appropriate length, or should be abbreviated or split up among other NBS releases.

Where you come in- I'm looking for six people willing to summarize and pull quotes for the remaining six discussion events. Quotes can be from the event's Discord or forum threads. Anyone who writes a topic overview will receive a free legendary card. Please reach out if interested. I'd like all submissions to be in by Sunday the 25th at the latest- preferably earlier.

---

The Second World Assembly Symposium

by the TNP Ministry of World Assembly Affairs, with special mention to Minister Cretox State and staffers Westinor and Makdon​

The second World Assembly Symposium was a three-day event held from Friday, 28 August 2020 to Sunday, 30 August 2020. The primary purpose of the event was to serve as a forum for discussion on a variety of historical and contemporary topics significant to the World Assembly. Each day consisted of two or three panels; each panel was dedicated to a particular area of interest. Every panel was further divided among specific points for discussion in order to provide a more concrete framework for discourse on any given subject matter. Each panel consisted of short-form discussion guided by the aforementioned points, which took place on the event's Discord server, in addition to long-form discussion taking place in dedicated forum threads.

A brief overview of the event's panels is as follows (in Eastern time):

Spoiler: Topic Overview

Friday, August 28:

9AM - Subforum becomes public and long-answer responses can begin being posted.
1PM-4PM - Liberations: When and how should they be used?

• Offensive liberations: Legitimate tactic or misuse of mechanics?
• How much drafting should a liberation undergo before it becomes ineffective?

5PM-8PM - Manipulating voting trends through politics.

• Blocs and their place within the World Assembly
• The lemming effect and how it's used
• Informational Dispatches and their effect on the voter psyche

Saturday, August 29:

9AM-12PM - Repeals: Why they should be written and what should be included.

• Differences between repeals in the GA and SC, and what this means.
• What constitutes the grounds for a proper repeal?
• How to make a repeal convincing and how to properly convey your argument.

1PM-4PM - Commendations, Condemnations, and Recent Shifts in Oft-Recognized Areas.

• Who is deserving of being recognized by the World Assembly?
• Recent shifts in those being recognized (such as c/cs relating to Cards) have been rising in prominence - is this a good or bad change?
• How much should OOC factors play into mostly IC recognitions?

5PM-8PM - Noncompliance - dangerous trend, legitimate roleplay, or godmodding?

• How should non-compliance be handled within the World Assembly?
• Is there a legitimate way to be non-compliant or is compliance put into place instantly and by force?
• How do 'non-compliance pacts' effect gameplay within the World Assembly?

Sunday, August 30:

9AM-12PM - Approval raiding - Curating proposals or interfering with democracy?

• Is delegate-bumping (or any other raiding tactics) okay under any circumstances in order to influence delegate approval?
• When should it be utilized, if it is?

1PM - 4PM - Trends, History, and the Future of the World Assembly

• How has the World Assembly changed recently, and are those changes good?
• Is the exchange of authors between the GA and SC good for increasing activity?
• What are some predictions for the future of the World Assembly?

In addition to written discussion, the Symposium included a Northern Broadcast Service (NBS) voice show on Sunday the 30th, from 5pm to 8pm EST. This show included but was not limited to a Q&A session with some prominent WA figures, commentary on discussions that occurred over the course of the event, and closing marks to round off the Symposium. The schedule can be found here in gameside dispatch form.

The Symposium also incorporated four guest essays on critical topics, which acted as an excellent supplement to discussion and can be found in the recently published Issue XXXII of The Northern Lights (TNL). Our goal with this Issue of The North Star (TNS) is to provide an effective overview of each of the event's panels and preserve their contents for posterity in an easily accessible format.

---

Friday Panel 1 - Liberations and Their Usage

​

Friday’s first panel was held between 1PM and 4PM EST on the 28th of August 2020. The focus of this panel was when and how liberations should be used. This topic was divided into two subcategories:

• Offensive liberations: Legitimate tactic or misuse of mechanics?
• How much drafting should a liberation undergo before it becomes ineffective?

Longer-form responses are available here, with shorter-form discussion taking place on the event’s Discord. A guest essay by Lord Dominator titled “Offensive and Defensive Liberations” related to the topic is viewable here. A key focus of the discussion was the acceptability and use of symbolic liberations, with some arguing that symbolic liberations serve to spark change in OOC-bad communities and regions, while others asserted that they fail to serve that purpose and instead attract unnecessary attention and animosity to and from the targeted region. The discussion then covered the question of whether there should be a difference in acceptability between symbolic and offensive liberations, with most agreeing that there should be and is a divide in both purpose and acceptability. From there, speakers discussed how long liberations should be drafted for, with most arguing that liberations should be passed quickly as to avoid warning raiders, though some speakers preferred a longer-term approach to things, pointing out that liberations already take a while to get through quorum and the voting period. There was an agreement, however, that symbolic liberations may and should take longer periods of time to draft, seeing as time is not a factor in the usage of a symbolic liberation. The discussion ended on the topic of when liberations should be repealed, with speaker Kenmoria stating that symbolic liberations should be repealed when the target region has changed, and speaker Tinhampton affirming that more “classic” liberations should be repealed at a time in which the region has reached a state of equilibrium.

I am a proponent of drafting for as long as possible, which for liberations is often unfortunately short, so I think people should draft for as long as might be reasonable. A region can be retaken, but an SC resolution is on the books forever.

---

Friday Panel 2 - Manipulating Voting Trends Through Politics

​

Friday's second panel was held between 5pm and 8pm EST on the 28th of August 2020. The focus of this panel was the manipulation of voting threads through interregional politics. This topic was divided into three subcategories:

• Blocs and their place within the World Assembly
• The lemming effect and how it's used
• Informational Dispatches and their effect on the voter psyche

Longer-style responses are viewable here, with shorter-form discussion occurring on the event's Discord. Two guest essays submitted for the Symposium are of particular relevance here: The Role of IFVs in the General Assembly by Kenmoria, and Regional Delegates and General Assembly Canon by Maowi. Discussion naturally centered around the effectiveness of IFVs and voting blocs, and how valuable they are at informing voters and influencing votes. Some prominent voices argued that IFVs serve an important role in informing WA member nations and strengthening regional communities, and that voting blocs allow for easier campaigning and a concentration of voting power and therefore competence in the WA. Others argued that IFVs are effectively useless in swaying votes (since region members arguably follow the Delegate's vote more often than not), and that at-vote telegram campaigns are of questionable value.

Here are some select opinions from Friday's second panel:

I feel that Information Dispatches (IFVs) and Voting Blocs have a really large part to play in the current situation in the WA. Both serves rather different purposes, playing different roles in deciding whether a proposal gets passed through the halls or is voted down.
IFVs are mainly due to the voting demographics. Not everyone is in the WA because they study the proposal to the finest detail and say, "Eh maybe this proposal is not that good I am voting against." The utilisation of IFVs would really help the voters understand some of the reasonings behind a certain leaning. Some of the people may just look at these IFVs and follow them blindly. Others may gain new insights that somehow "convince" them to vote that way. After all, you would always think experienced people know what they are saying with these Dispatches.
As for Voting Blocs - they are an entirely different beast, swaying the way the votes are being casted in reality. The psychological effect of early stomps is really huge - you simply sway voters to jump on the bandwagon and follow the trend.

I'm going to start this off with what may be a controversial opinion, I am not sure IFV dispatches do anything. If you are already going to vote whatever way your delegate votes, it doesn't add anything. Otherwise I assume most nations get their info from domestic sources or no source at all. The latter brings me to the lemming effect, I think it is huge. Probably the biggest determiner of a proposals success is if a couple of big delegates stomp or stack it.

---

Saturday Panel 1 - Repeals: How and Why to Write Them

​

Saturday’s first panel was held between 9AM and 12PM EST on 29th of August 2020. The focus of this panel was why and how a repeal should be written. This topic was divided into three subcategories:

• Differences between repeals in the GA and the SC, and what this means
• What constitutes the grounds for a proper repeal?
• How to make a repeal convincing and how to properly convey your argument

A majority of the discussion took place on the event’s Discord, though you can view the forum thread here. The discussion generally focused on what warrants a repeal, how to make a convincing argument, and how important having replacements ready are in passing a repeal. Most speakers agreed that the importance of having a replacement ready for the repealed resolution is situational, with some noting that in many cases, particularly in the SC, a replacement is often unneeded depending on the intent of the repeal, whereas in the GA replacements are far more common, with repeals being passed to make way for the intended replacements. There was a general consensus that repeals are justified when a resolution has unintended consequences, blocks a better resolution, or generally does not serve its purpose, and that minor grammar or spelling mistakes do not justify a repeal (so long as the mistakes do not undermine the original intent). The discussion then sidetracked as the speakers explored the question of when an illegal resolution might be forcibly removed (which has not happened since 2003) before turning back to the question of how to create a convincing repeal, with most speakers concurring that crafting concise arguments that attack specific weaknesses of the target proposal while trying to avoid stating the reverse of the target resolution's arguments (as to avoid an Honest Mistake challenge) is a good way to start. The panel closed out on a discussion of how repealing an older and unliked resolution might run into HM problems, with speakers Graintfjall and Morover making the point that a repeal running into HM problems is hardly a consequence of the target resolution’s age, but rather due to the WA’s recent shift into a far more litigious environment that backs the rationale for arguments that often fall into the category of an HM mistake.

I think it's also valid to repeal a resolution if it's got significant, unintended consequences, or otherwise does nothing that it was promised to do. A replacement is often ideal but not necessary in those instances.

---

Saturday Panel 2 - Commendations, Condemnations, and Recent Shifts Thereof

​

Saturday’s second panel was held between 1PM-4PM EST on the 29th August. This panel was focused on the discussion of the standard of what qualifies for a commendation or condemnation, and how that has changed as of late.
Three specific questions divided the panel into subcategories:

• Who is deserving of being recognized by the World Assembly?
• Recent shifts in those being recognized (such as c/cs relating to Cards) have been rising in prominence - is this a good or bad change?
• How much should OOC factors play into mostly IC recognitions?

No forum responses were made, though if you wish to see forum thread that was intended for this, it can be found here. Much discussion took place on the event’s Discord, however. It largely dealt with some borderline examples of C&C worthiness, the specific point at which a line should be drawn on OOC matters being factored into the SC’s actions, and a brief discussion of dual commendations and condemnations. While shifts in the areas of the game being recognized were mentioned, quick consensus in favor of, or at least not opposed to, was reached. Most voices suggested that there are many OOC actions that quickly disqualify a candidate or author, and that you cannot view a proposal without OOC actions in mind. However, there was some disagreement over whether or not simply being a very rude and abrasive person should be considered even if the nominee has done nothing specific that would specifically eliminate them. Dual C&Cs were generally thought to be reasonable, with Evil Wolf being raised as a potentially deserving candidate.

I think the unifying thing about these achievements though is that even while some important achievements go unrecognized, it is those achievements which impact the wider NS game that receive resolutions, as opposed to any nation's impact in just one region.
While this isn't entirely a recent shift, I think the expansion of resolutions from mainly R/D based to those that also encompass RP, Issues, NS Cards, and so on serve to better highlight the work of deserving nations.

I think that if someone is controversial it's often conflated with being OOC bad. Obviously we shouldn't be praising someone who pushes harmful views upon everyone, but someone who comes across as a bit rude doesn't really disqualify them from a c/c imo.

---

Saturday Panel 3 - Noncompliance in the General Assembly

​

Saturday's third panel discussion was held between 5PM and 8PM on the 29th of August 2020. This discussion focused on the subject of noncompliance and its consequences. Specifically, discussion centered around the following three subcategories:

• How should non-compliance be handled within the World Assembly?
• Is there a legitimate way to be non-compliant or is compliance put into place instantly and by force?
• How do 'non-compliance pacts' effect gameplay within the World Assembly?

Discussion on these topics was primarily hosted on the event's Discord server. The initial point of interest was distinguishing between noncompliance from the perspective of game mechanics and noncompliance from the perspective of roleplay (RP). The speakers largely agreed that noncompliance has been extensively recognized from an RP perspective in the General Assembly, and that there is a substantial difference between being creatively compliant with GA law and openly flaunting noncompliance. The speakers also largely agreed that OOC WA membership for raiding and similar purposes is inherently different from IC WA membership.

From there, the conversation shifted to the specifics of how noncompliance and creative compliance can be RPed effectively. Tinfect was held up as an example of what well-done noncompliance looks like, with noncompliance being clearly present in-character and making sense in context, without being abrasively advertised at every opportunity. Noncompliance pacts such as the one formed in response to WA abortion law garnered a more mixed response. On the one hand, that particular pact was poorly executed, backfired spectacularly, and failed to achieve its stated goals. On the other hand, there were points made that noncompliance pacts are not inherently worse than individual noncompliance in the abstract, and that noncompliance pacts when RPed well, especially regarding consequences, could prove interesting. However, that has not been the case thus far. There was also a point made by several speakers that blatant noncompliance should be treated in kind by the GA. In other words, shameless noncompliant actors are hypocrites if they expect legislation that they attempt to pass to be taken seriously.

Discussion then moved to enforcement mechanisms for GA compliance, with the concept of a WA military taking center stage. It was generally agreed that a WA military force tasked with enforcing compliance would not really be a positive addition to the WA, both due to the power level of such a force and the fact that it can easily be used excessively to enforce comparatively minor mandates. The discussion concluded with whether noncompliance-based RP should be recognized in Security Council resolutions, with the general consensus being that such RP could potentially be recognized if performed well and with consequences.

The current enforcement mechanisms do well enough if you ask me; you have to be RPing a kind of circumstance which itself severely limits the things you can do anyway in order to escape the issues of noncompliance otherwise.

---

Sunday Panel 1 - Approval Raiding

​

Sunday's first panel was held between 9AM and 12PM EST. This discussion was dedicated to the subject of approval raiding, the practice of raiding small regions whose delegates are approving a certain proposal in order to displace said delegates and remove their approval. Specific topic areas covered included:

• Is delegate-bumping (or any other raiding tactics) okay under any circumstances in order to influence delegate approval?
• When should it be utilized, if it is?

The focus of this panel was quite singular, and centered around the question of whether approval raiding is justified, and in what circumstances. This topic was easily one of the most divisive of this Symposium, with speakers being fairly cleanly split between those who believed approval raiding is a valid and useful, if somewhat damaging, tactic and those who believed it to be something that should not be in the game. Major points brought up included the collateral damage inherent to approval raiding (given that delegates hit by the tactic can easily be approving multiple proposals simultaneously), interaction between approval bumping and counter-campaigns, and whether approval raiding is prolific enough to even warrant significant attention. An interesting suggestion was brought up towards the end of the discussion: making it so that only delegates who initially approved a proposal could remove their approval. This was posted on the NS forum as a technical suggestion, but was quickly shot down.

Some select quotes from the Discord discussion:

The issue is that delegate bumping for one proposal makes it substantially harder for other proposals to reach quorum at the same time

It undermines the process of the WA and the ability for the people to choose what should be voted on or passed. TBH has bumped at vote proposals too

I strongly oppose update bumping for all the above reasons. It’s inconsiderate to people who have worked hard on a GA proposal to have their submission delayed because of something happening in Gameplay.

On one hand, approval raiding is kind of interfering with the natural course of a proposal. On the other, this is a game at the end of the day and approval raiding is just another interesting feature. It doesn't cause problems that often, and if a proposal didn't reach quorum because of it, then it probably wouldn't have passed anyway

---

Sunday Panel 2 - Trends, History, and the Future of the World Assembly

​

Sunday’s second panel was held between 1PM and 4PM on the 30th of August 2020. The panel focused on the trends, history, and future of the World Assembly. This topic was divided into three subcategories:

• How has the World Assembly changed recently, and are those changes good?
• Is the exchange of authors between the GA and SC good for increasing activity?
• What are some predictions for the future of the World Assembly?

Discussion on these topics generally took place on the event’s Discord. You can find a relevant essay that goes over RP and In-Character discussions in the GA by Maowi titled “Regional Delegates and General Assembly Canon” here. The initial discussion focused on the presence of newer authors and the shift away from RP in the GA. There was a general consensus that with the coming of newer (and often prolific) authors in the WA that participation in the GA, SC, and even GI increased, with many noting that the three forums have begun to converge as newer authors began to dabble in each. However, some speakers pointed out that among the changes that came with the uptick of newer authors was a shift away from RP and IC drafting. Notable speaker Graintfjall voiced concerns about this, asserting that RP was integral to the magic of drafting in the WA and that its gradual disappearance was a sign of the WA’s decline. Others argued that the loss of RP in the WA was an inevitable consequence of feedback shifting towards a more efficient and rules-based style, with duplicity and writing quality becoming larger concerns than the topic of a proposal itself.

From there, the focus turned towards the early days of the WA (then the UN) and the evolution of the formatting of proposals, with speakers such as Jutsa pointing out that to the untrained eye, a well-formatted proposal is more appealing and thus likely to get a vote for than a short and concise one. A few potential additions to the WA like amendments and a total reset were then brought up (and quickly shot down), at which point the discussion turned to the question of whether the WA was still largely under the influence of the GP community. Jakker corroborated this assertion, citing the influence and impact delegates of larger regions have on at-vote proposals, while others like Morover pointed to the recent trend of C/Cs on individuals outside of the GP community as evidence that, while GP continues to hold power over SC voting, SC writing is increasingly shifting away from GP as authors continue to branch out. The discussion rounded off with an analysis of the growth of C/Cs in the SC, with the speakers overall concluding that the creativity and innovation utilized in recent C/Cs, particularly those in communities unfamiliar to the SC like Sports and Cards, were positive developments for the SC as a whole.

Even outside of their huge voting power, TNP usually has a lot more influence in this regard because of how much they're engaged with "voting early and voting often"

I think all of this speaks to the notion that nothing is objectively condemnable or commendable. Creativity and innovation is about having the flexibility to take communities and actions and so it can be either. And the SC should be open to that. Stifling creativity does not help to bring in new players

---

The North Star: Lighting The Way To The Truth
Publisher: @TlomzKrano :: Executive Editor: @BMWSurfer :: Managing Editor: @Cretox State

The North Star is produced by the Ministry of Communications on behalf of the Government of The North Pacific and is distributed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs externally and the Ministry of Home Affairs internally. Except where otherwise indicated, all content represents the views of the Government of The North Pacific.

Index of Issues​

---

---

 

[Westinor]

Sunday’s second panel was held between 1PM and 4PM on the 30th of August 2020. The panel focused on the trends, history, and future of the World Assembly. This topic was divided into three subcategories:

• How has the World Assembly changed recently, and are those changes good?
• Is the exchange of authors between the GA and SC good for increasing activity?
• What are some predictions for the future of the World Assembly?

Discussion on these topics generally took place on the event’s Discord. You can find a relevant essay that goes over RP and In-Character discussions in the GA by Maowi titled “Regional Delegates and General Assembly Canon” here. The initial discussion focused on the presence of newer authors and the shift away from RP in the GA. There was a general consensus that with the coming of newer (and often prolific) authors in the WA that participation in the GA, SC, and even GI increased, with many noting that the three forums have begun to converge as newer authors began to dabble in each. However, some speakers pointed out that among the changes that came with the uptick of newer authors was a shift away from RP and IC drafting. Notable speaker Graintfjall voiced concerns about this, asserting that RP was integral to the magic of drafting in the WA and that its gradual disappearance was a sign of the WA’s decline. Others argued that the loss of RP in the WA was an inevitable consequence of feedback shifting towards a more efficient and rules-based style, with duplicity and writing quality becoming larger concerns than the topic of a proposal itself.

From there, the focus turned towards the early days of the WA (then the UN) and the evolution of the formatting of proposals, with speakers such as Jutsa pointing out that to the untrained eye, a well-formatted proposal is more appealing and thus likely to get a vote for than a short and concise one. A few potential additions to the WA like amendments and a total reset were then brought up (and quickly shot down), at which point the discussion turned to the question of whether the WA was still largely under the influence of the GP community. Jakker corroborated this assertion, citing the influence and impact delegates of larger regions have on at-vote proposals, while others like Morover pointed to the recent trend of C/Cs on individuals outside of the GP community as evidence that, while GP continues to hold power over SC voting, SC writing is increasingly shifting away from GP as authors continue to branch out. The discussion rounded off with an analysis of the growth of C/Cs in the SC, with the speakers overall concluding that the creativity and innovation utilized in recent C/Cs, particularly those in communities unfamiliar to the SC like Sports and Cards, were positive developments for the SC as a whole.

Here are some select opinions from Sunday's second panel:

But the rigidity to meet new players halfway was what discouraged me from continuing when I first started to get involved. It's worth thinking about that, since the game relies a lot on new blood. Surely old players would like things to stay the same, but they're also largely moving on in their lives to other adventures. So it makes no sense to chase people off for a status quo that benefits no one that can be found.

Most of the new authors don't put much effort into roleplay, so I feel like it will eventually shift out of GA to some extent.

I think it's important to differentiate quality of format and quality of content.

There are still terrible resolutions passed they just look like good resolutions

I'm curious if the recent downturn of roleplay in the General Assembly is representative of further future decline into something far more NSG-esque?

This assumes that such a thing can be viewed in a linear sliding scale of goodness. It has transitioned to an English forum for the purposes of drafting, evidenced by how the standard of quality in writing is very high. It comes with an accompanying expectation (especially in the SC) that every resolution is drafted there. Even proposals of outstanding quality are shot down by some people in WA ministries if they haven't been drafted on the NS forums first. That's nothing related to the forums turning into NSG, it's more of a transition to a more law-centric environment.

My point was in reference to a few people controlling thousands of votes and the lemming effect which is why i figure no matter what some might argue that GP controls the WA either way

I think all of this speaks to the notion that nothing is objectively condemnable or commendable. Creativity and innovation is about having the flexibility to take communities and actions and so it can be either. And the SC should be open to that. Stifling creativity does not help to bring in new players

 

[Makdon/system failure]

Saturday’s second panel was held between 1PM-4PM EST on the 29th August. This panel was focused on the discussion of the standard of what qualifies for a commendation or condemnation, and how that has changed as of late.
Three specific questions divided the panel into subcategories:

• Who is deserving of being recognized by the World Assembly?
• Recent shifts in those being recognized (such as c/cs relating to Cards) have been rising in prominence - is this a good or bad change?
• How much should OOC factors play into mostly IC recognitions?

No forum responses were made, though if you wish to see forum thread that was intended for this, it can be found here. Much discussion took place on the event’s Discord, however. It largely dealt with some borderline examples of C&C worthiness, the specific point at which a line should be drawn on OOC matters being factored into the SC’s actions, and a brief discussion of dual commendations and condemnations. While shifts in the areas of the game being recognized were mentioned, quick consensus in favor of, or at least not opposed to, was reached. Most voices suggested that there are many OOC actions that quickly disqualify a candidate or author, and that you cannot view a proposal without OOC actions in mind. However, there was some disagreement over whether or not simply being a very rude and abrasive person should be considered even if the nominee has done nothing specific that would specifically eliminate them. Dual C&Cs were generally thought to be reasonable, with Evil Wolf being raised as a potentially deserving candidate.

Here are some thoughts and opinions stated in this panel:

I think the unifying thing about these achievements though is that even while some important achievements go unrecognized, it is those achievements which impact the wider NS game that receive resolutions, as opposed to any nation's impact in just one region.
While this isn't entirely a recent shift, I think the expansion of resolutions from mainly R/D based to those that also encompass RP, Issues, NS Cards, and so on serve to better highlight the work of deserving nations.

I agree with that (re: Fiji's comments). I also think though that writing about those newer topics in commends and condemns encourages greater creativity in authors' language - in some cases necessitated by SC proposal rules - which is great for having interesting resolutions but also means it takes a bit more scrutiny to work out whether a candidate is actually deserving or not.

I think that if someone is controversial it's often conflated with being OOC bad. Obviously we shouldn't be praising someone who pushes harmful views upon everyone, but someone who comes across as a bit rude doesn't really disqualify them from a c/c imo.

If the author is problematic or the target is, then there's obviously there's no obligation by the WA to support either of them until the circumstance changes. If a C&C is a celebratory function to recognise a player in an OOC way for IC achievements, it's not surprising that being problematic OOC impacts its recognition mechanisms. An resolution that's written by an unsavoury member of the game will be characterised in terms of that author more than their content. Joco comes to mind. A well written resolution whose target is considered bigoted for their personal views will also be voted in in terms of that issue.

Ihese has been repeatedly calling Pigeonstan a troll and was banned from RMB posting for three days as a result, despite claiming after the fact that "I proved his multiples lies and inconsistencies" (and urging Pigeonstan's ejection from TNP). He has also urged people to wear face coverings and has quite a reputation within the North Pacific Vision community; does that render him unbadgable, even if we are to assume that such contributions are recognisable by the SC? I say yes

 

[Westinor]

Saturday’s first panel was held between 9AM and 12PM EST on 29th of August 2020. The focus of this panel was why and how a repeal should be written. This topic was divided into three subcategories:

• Differences between repeals in the GA and the SC, and what this means
• What constitutes the grounds for a proper repeal?
• How to make a repeal convincing and how to properly convey your argument

A majority of the discussion took place on the event’s Discord, though you can view the forum thread here. The discussion generally focused on what warrants a repeal, how to make a convincing argument, and how important having replacements ready are in passing a repeal. Most speakers agreed that the importance of having a replacement ready for the repealed resolution is situational, with some noting that in many cases, particularly in the SC, a replacement is often unneeded depending on the intent of the repeal, whereas in the GA replacements are far more common, with repeals being passed to make way for the intended replacements. There was a general consensus that repeals are justified when a resolution has unintended consequences, blocks a better resolution, or generally does not serve its purpose, and that minor grammar or spelling mistakes do not justify a repeal (so long as the mistakes do not undermine the original intent). The discussion then sidetracked as the speakers explored the question of when an illegal resolution might be forcibly removed (which has not happened since 2003) before turning back to the question of how to create a convincing repeal, with most speakers concurring that crafting concise arguments that attack specific weaknesses of the target proposal while trying to avoid stating the reverse of the target resolution's arguments (as to avoid an Honest Mistake challenge) is a good way to start. The panel closed out on a discussion of how repealing an older and unliked resolution might run into HM problems, with speakers Graintfjall and Morover making the point that a repeal running into HM problems is hardly a consequence of the target resolution’s age, but rather due to the WA’s recent shift into a far more litigious environment that backs the rationale for arguments that often fall into the category of an HM mistake.

Here are some select opinions from Saturday's first panel:

Speaking of the SC, I think a trend is emerging of people looking to repeal and replace resolutions from a long time ago that contain historical inaccuracies. But overall the SC seems content with letting a little bit of inaccuracy slide. Then of course there are inaccuracies that people believe make the nominee undeserving of their badge, and seek to repeal without replacing.

Having a replacement already in drafting would seem to me to be the best policy

I think repeals should not promise a replacement unless you’re willing to take on that mantle or you can Ensure someone else will do it

Can't talk about the SC, but I think that minor errors such as spelling or grammatical errors are not enough of a reason to repeal a GA resolution

I think it's also valid to repeal a resolution if it's got significant, unintended consequences, or otherwise does nothing that it was promised to do. A replacement is often ideal but not necessary in those instances.

Okay, then let’s move on - how does someone write a repeal to be convincing of an argument

choose good points to attack the resolution, and dont include filler arguments as they dont help. if you have a very strong argument use it only and save yourself a HM challenge

how does repealing a resolution that is old and no longer well liked "run into HM problems", other than people just liking lodging frivolous HM arguments because that's pretty much all the WA is in the absence of a well developed RP culture?

I think the argument was more that it is easier for HM arguments to be made in fruitless attempts to repeal the resolution than the fact that repealing the resolution itself runs into HM problems - I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, given that HM arguments are far rarer with more seasoned authors who are bound to be more likely to understand the rules and to actually draft their proposals, but I don't think it's completely without merit. I'm trying to justify a claim that I didn't make here, so I may be entirely misrepresenting the original post.

Note: I may be entirely misinterpreting the last bit there

 

[Westinor]

Friday’s first panel was held between 1PM and 4PM EST on the 28th of August 2020. The focus of this panel was when and how liberations should be used. This topic was divided into two subcategories:

• Offensive liberations: Legitimate tactic or misuse of mechanics?
• How much drafting should a liberation undergo before it becomes ineffective?

Longer-form responses are available here, with shorter-form discussion taking place on the event’s Discord. A guest essay by Lord Dominator titled “Offensive and Defensive Liberations” related to the topic is viewable here. A key focus of the discussion was the acceptability and use of symbolic liberations, with some arguing that symbolic liberations serve to spark change in OOC-bad communities and regions, while others asserted that they fail to serve that purpose and instead attract unnecessary attention and animosity to and from the targeted region. The discussion then covered the question of whether there should be a difference in acceptability between symbolic and offensive liberations, with most agreeing that there should be and is a divide in both purpose and acceptability. From there, speakers discussed how long liberations should be drafted for, with most arguing that liberations should be passed quickly as to avoid warning raiders, though some speakers preferred a longer-term approach to things, pointing out that liberations already take a while to get through quorum and the voting period. There was an agreement, however, that symbolic liberations may and should take longer periods of time to draft, seeing as time is not a factor in the usage of a symbolic liberation. The discussion ended on the topic of when liberations should be repealed, with speaker Kenmoria stating that symbolic liberations should be repealed when the target region has changed, and speaker Tinhampton affirming that more “classic” liberations should be repealed at a time in which the region has reached a state of equilibrium.

Legitimate tactic or misuse of mechanics?

It really depends on the situation for me. I think that if a fascist/OOC bad region has a:

1. reasonable chance of the founder ceasing to exist and not returning before an operation can be completed,

2. reasonable chance of the region being passworded in the near future,

3.the region does not have an enormous amount of influence (the stat) that would take eons to kick even with a sleeper.


If a region does not have the above, I will be against. All of the current 'preemptive liberations' are crap, and they only serve to give attention to these regions. It is a misuse of mechanics. But if my criterion is satisfied, it's fair game. Bash the fash.

How much drafting should a liberation undergo before it becomes ineffective?

Very little. I think like whip up a proposal in a few minutes, send it to a few friends for peer review, then submit asap. It is a sprint and not a marathon in this case, because any time squandered is time for raiders to destroy a region/fascists to protect their region.

I think offensive liberations can occasionally have value when done symbolically too, even if there's no or little chance of using that to raid. E.g. CCD was never going to be raided but their liberation acted as a sort of badge of shame which, unlike a Condemnation would have, didn't so much let them play it off as "we're the IC bad guys and we do it well". Obviously if they're overused in that way they lose their value for that, but I don't think they necessarily need to be restricted to helping secure a raid.

I disagree Maowi. I think CCD deserved no attention at all at the time, and being spammed with their crappy repeals is even worse. I hope no one follows with that precedent. If you want symbolism, condemn someone.


To clarify, I am against both repealing the liberation and condemning them. I mentioned condemning if you wanted symbolism, but CCD doesn't deserve symbolism. I would also rather not waste 4 days of voter time on repealing a liberation that serves no purpose

Re: the "liberations are for those who are bad at being bad" - while the content of each specific resolution is of course important, in general the meaning of an SC badge is only really defined whichever way the community as a whole chooses to define them. CCD was liberated before I was around but I think as long as people view it that particular way, that's what the badge represents?

I am a proponent of drafting for as long as possible, which for liberations is often unfortunately short, so I think people should draft for as long as might be reasonable. A region can be retaken, but an SC resolution is on the books forever.

I think that you should draft as quickly as possible and drafting on the forums isn’t even necessary. I think send it to a couple people get their opinion submit it and then make a forum thread for it

I feel like I'm just stating the obvious here, but we seem to have established that liberations can vary, i.e. offensive/defensive, symbolical and probably something else. So symbolic would probably warrant a normal drafting process like say GA resolutions or SC commends/condemns, while offensive/defensive ones should be shorter simply to increase the chance of succeeding in their goals.

Opinion: Offensive liberations can be used to single out active-founder regions that are bad on an ooc level. In theory, the liberation could be lifted when the region has became better again, however, to my knowledge this has not happened.

I can’t really talk about the exact mechanics of when a standard liberation should be repealed, due to my focus on the GA. However, I think that symbolic liberations should be repealed at such a time as the region they were targeting has changed so as to no longer warrant it.