First draft of the rules for roleplaying: These are up for discussion by all the citizens of the region and cabinet, but do consider this the first official draft and I am submitting it for cabinet approval. I will approve all changes to these rules through cabinet from hereon in. I believe this falls mainly in the jurisdiction of the MoRA, MoDB, and the MoJ.

ROLEPLAY RULES AND GUIDELINES:

Article I - Basic roleplay guidelines:

1. All nations must submit to the constitution of the region of Canada

2. All nations must submit to the dispute resolution legislation, and the board use and ejection guidelines, when applicable. This is particularly in regards to flaming and indecent or slanderous remarks.

3. Remembering that this is roleplay, players must respect IC (in character) and OOC (out of character) designations.

4. The moderator is the manager of all roleplay situations. He has the power to refute or dispute claims and start and end all arguements. The roleplay moderator is the cabinet designated body by which all disputes can be solved regarding all roleplay situations. He/she is appointed by the Minister of Regional Affairs and the Minister of Donuts and Beer and therefor any complaints against a moderator must be brought to the Minister Of Regional Affairs or Donuts and Beer directly. The moderator must abide by all roleplay rules and be as fair and impartial as possible. Moderators are allowed to roleplay themselves but must be impartial and fair to all situations even regarding themselves. Moderators do make mistakes too, so bring to the attention of the moderator any mistakes made and they will attempt to resolve the matter. There are several designations of moderator:
A. War and Military roleplay Moderator
B. Canadian Sports Association President and Vice President


Article II - War and Military roleplay:

1. Nations that battle in regards to magic or advanced civilizations must respect the rp rules and assume that their weapons are no more superior or inferior to that of an equal weapon of another players (dragons are equal to bomber/fighters for example).

2. Nations are encouraged but not limited to discuss their plans in PM's amongst each other, or in a designated OOC thread, before engaging in a war, to avoid any arguements that may arise during the roleplay.

3. Saboteurs and spies and terrorists are only allowed with permission from the other player. "Intelligence reports" and "speculation" are allowed, however. Keep in mind the size of the nation or alliance you are facing and how great his might may yet be.

4. No godmodding another players military might. Don't assume you are 100% right in regards to anything, as anything is refutable.

5. Only one nation per player is allowed on the map at a time. This means no one player can create or have two nations to roleplay with at one time. Any and all cheaters caught doing so will be banned from roleplaying and ignored in IC threads for an indefinite period. Any nation that chooses to replace or reset their nations with another must do so at the expense of their single map nation.

6. All military RPing nations must have a nation on the regional map.

7. War results:
--->STALEMATE: Both nations are in a tied battle and must resort to diplomatic means to solve the dispute, or continue to fight at a stalemate until someone wishes to go to a moderator or determine a winner in PM's. Nations can continue to be at war indefinitely if they so choose and have decided to do so with each other. (wars can be fought by several means, including terrorism with the other nations permission)
--->DEFEAT: The defeatee is still sovereign but their nation will shrink on the map according to what the moderator works out with each nation, and their government must submit to diplomatic defeats. Territory will be (temporarily in some cases) ceeded to the winner. The sovereign nation must work out with the moderator or the victor as to how his nation will go about rebuilding. Full sovereignty must be restored to the nation within 1 month, unless otherwised determined by both players for RP purposes.
---> TRIUMPH: The victor will be allowed to ceed territory from the defeated, can trade or sell that territory to other nations, ceed it back to the loser at some point, or keep it indefinitely (according to the map of Canada). The amount of territory will be determined between the two players unless a decision cannot be reached in which case a moderator will hear both sides of the coin and judge. The victor must force the defeated nation to admit diplomatic defeat and proceed to do whatever it is they wish to do in/with that nation. Full sovereignty must be restored to the remainder of the nation within 1 month. The nation will be considered rebuilt within that month unless otherwise stated by both players for RP purposes.
--->WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT: The defeated nation is considered decimated on whatever scale the attack was wrought. Same rules apply as above, except the nation must take 2 months or one election period in order to be considered rebuilt completely. The nation may feel free to start a new nation afterwards and scrap their old one if they so choose to do so. It will not be forced though. The nation will regain full sovereignty according tot he rules of DEFEAT except the period will be extended to 2 months.

8. Because nationstates does not allow RP wars to decimate populations, after that 1 or 2 month defeat period, all nations are considered to have their population restored fully. The 1 and 2 month period is realtime.

Article III - Canadian Sports Association:

1. Nations wishing to participate in held events must sign up to do so. If a nation does not sign up in time they may not participate in the events held.

2. Nations do not have to be on the map of the region to participate in sporting and other events hosted by this department of the government. Nations must, however, be a member of the forum to participate in said events.

3. All results are final. They are determined randomly by dice and/or online number generators, or by roleplay at the moderators discression.

Good work MP. This is a good looking system that allows for individuality within conflicts.

Looks good MrPopo. Anyway, your duties as:

Vice President of the CSA

- To asisit the president in time of need
- To fill in for the president if he/she is absent
- Work closely with the Minister of Doughnuts and Beer & the president to hold events like the olympics
- To asisit with history reports

- More coming.

Cabinet has discussed this proposal, and finds it generally acceptable. There are, however, two issues. First, if you recall, when I appointed you to the position of RP coordinator, I asked that the rules be ratified through a referendum, not just a cabinet vote. That request still stands.

Second, there is some concern about Article I, Section 4. Centralizing everything in a single moderator position, and allowing that person to moderate him or herself, doesn't seem ideal. A system with multiple moderators (as many as are needed) would be more open, and would ensure impartiality. Therefore, we propose an alternate version of that section, as follows.

Given that the intention was for the population to approve (or reject) the rules in a referendum, cabinet will not insist on this change. It is a recommendation that is open for discussion.

Can I put an addendum on this bill? Due to issues in the current RP, I would like to suggest adding a Rule 5 to Article I that reads:

Any thoughts?

I agree with the principle that each participant should have sole control of his or her own actions. However, there is a cabinet vote in progress on the existing draft. I would prefer to allow that vote to complete, before amendments are considered.

What is the intent of the last sentence? I'm not certain I like the idea of introducing quality judgements as grounds for intervention. What form would such an intervention take?

Agreed.

It's just to prevent stuff that is completely unrealistic to human psychology. Stuff that is clearly and flagrantly breaking from the RP tone of their country for tactical or strategic benefit. These are action in the order of having a peaceful democratic country that respects and honours human rights to say "I will send the women and children of my country to clear the minefield with their bodies". It would cut the other way too; it would be completely unreasonable for me to expect my soldiers to not commit a horrible atrocity and generally disrespect the idea of a “non-combatant” if they were sent on a mission somewhere.

I would also retort that the moderator's job consists mostly quality judgments. While this is certainly an increase in the scope of the moderator's powers, it is not really granting him domain over an entirely different spectrum of powers. I will note the controversy, and propose two different versions of the addendum with and without the controversial sentence.

OK. I would propose then that the scope of the intervention be limited to disallowing an unreasonable action, which I think would already fall under the moderator's authority. The moderator should not determine the replacement action, by the same principle that underlies the rest of the amendment. Given such an interpretation, I don't think two variants would be necessary.

I will reword to clearify this when the time comes. Thank you for your input.