[PASSED] Commend Nation of Quebec

[Gnejs]

First attempt at drafting a SC proposal for me. The ambition is to commend one of the most prominent issue authors in the game, namely Nation of Quebec.

Seeing as this is my first appearance here, I'd like to state for the record that I have indeed read the rules, and I have tried to abide by them to the best of my ability. For example, I am aware that commending someone for his or her work as an 'Issues Editor' is illegal. This proposal therefore solely deals with NoQ's work as an issue submitting player (written in a manner adhering to the rules), which is impressive enough in my own opinion.

Feedback will be appreciated.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

AWARE that nations of the world are consistently confronted by both major and minor political issues calling for government action,

FURTHER AWARE that individual nations across the world dedicate time and effort to highlighting and conveying such issues to individual governments,

GRATEFUL for the commitment of these nations in framing and emphasizing political matters that might otherwise not receive government attention,

RECOGNIZING Nation of Quebec as a prominent figure within the international community for political issues conveyance,

IMPRESSED that over the course of several years Nation of Quebec has gained recognition for bringing international attention to no less than 18 individual political matters facing nations of the world on a daily basis, including, but not limited to:

• Democratic Transitions (aka 'Got Democracy')
• Superfluity of Plastic Bags (aka 'Plastic, Plastic Everywhere')
• Unidentified Flying Objects (aka 'The Truth Is Out There?')
• Vigilantism (aka 'Vigilantes: Heroes or Hoodlums?')
• Consequences of Harsh Adultery Laws (aka 'An Affair To Remember')
• Unpaid Employment (aka 'No Vocation Without Remuneration')
• The Conduct of Members of Parliament and their Voting Methods (aka 'Parliamentary Playground' and 'A Farewell To Raised Arms?')
• The Role of Fraternities in Modern Society (aka 'Fraternity Furor')

PARTICULARY IMPRESSED that the nominee's contributions always operate with an eloquent and precise terminology, despite covering a wide variety of subject matter,

NOTING that the aforementioned contributions sets Nation of Quebec apart internationally, making them the leading nation in the world within their field of operations,

BELIEVING that the world would be a significantly less interesting place without the nominee's contribution,

URGES the international community not to dismiss these feats, and therefore

HEREBY COMMENDS Nation of Quebec

[We Are Not the NSA]

First attempt at drafting a SC proposal for me. The ambition is to commend one of the most prominent issue authors in the game, namely Nation of Quebec.

Seeing as this is my first appearance here, I'd like to state for the record that I have indeed read the rules, and I have tried to abide by them to the best of my ability. For example, I am aware that commending someone for his or her work as an 'Issues Editor' is illegal. This proposal therefore solely deals with NoQ's work as an issue submitting player (written in a manner adhering to the rules), which is impressive enough in my own opinion.

I tip my hat to you, good sir. (or clap, close enough)

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

AWARE that nations of the world are consistently confronted by both major and minor political issues calling for government action,

FURTHER AWARE that individual nations across the world dedicate time and effort to highlighting and conveying such issues to individual governments,

Hmm... Wording the mechanics of issues legally is a bit difficult, but this is one of the better attempts I've seen.

GRATEFUL for the commitment of these nations in framing and emphasizing political matters that might otherwise not receive government attention,

RECOGNIZING Nation of Quebec as a prominent figure within the international community for political issues conveyance,

IMPRESSED that Nation of Quebec over a series of years have gained recognition for bringing international attention to no less than 16 individual political matters facing nations of the world on a daily basis, including, but not limited to:

The placement of "over a series of years" feels a bit awkward to me. I would suggest changing it to:

IMPRESSED that over the course of several years Nation of Quebec has gained recognition for bringing international attention...

• Democratic Transitions (aka 'Got Democracy')
• Superfluity of Plastic Bags (aka 'Plastic, Plastic Everywhere')
• Unidentified Flying Objects (aka 'The Truth Is Out There?')
• Vigilantism (aka 'Vigilantes: Heroes or Hoodlums?')
• Consequences of Harsh Adultery Laws (aka 'An Affair To Remember')
• Unpaid Employment (aka 'No Vocation Without Remuneration')
• The Conduct of Members of Parliament (aka 'Parliamentary Playground')
• The Role of Fraternities in Modern Society (aka 'Fraternity Furor')

PARTICULARY IMPRESSED that the nominee's contributions always operate with an eloquent and precise terminology, despite covering a wide variety of subject matter,

NOTING that the aforementioned contributions sets Nation of Quebec apart internationally, making them the leading nation in the world within their field of operations,

BELIEVING that the world would be a significantly less interesting place without the nominee's contribution,

URGES the international community not to dismiss these feats, and therefore

IMO, pleading with people not to dismiss a proposal is just begging for them to dismiss it. If you've written a halfway decent proposal, you shouldn't need to to tell people not to ignore it, let your arguments speak for themselves.

HEREBY COMMENDS Nation of Quebec

I like it, and I'm willing to support. Issue writers don't get the love they deserve from the international community, even though they contribute to the most basic mechanic in the game. The proposal is well written, has the proper research and historical context included, and presents its arguments in an orderly fasion, unlike many proposals the SC receives. Well done.

[Wrapper]

Oh, wow. This tap-dances near the metagaming line nicely, without crossing over in my opinion. Alas, my opinion doesn't count for much; when this is in its final form, you should get some modly input just to ensure it's legal.

I do agree with the previous points, especially getting rid of that URGES clause. The proposal speaks for itself, and once (if) it passes, that clause does nothing.

[Sedgistan]

Oh, wow. This tap-dances near the metagaming line nicely, without crossing over in my opinion. Alas, my opinion doesn't count for much; when this is in its final form, you should get some modly input just to ensure it's legal.

For the record, I gave some brief comments via TG to Gnejs earlier, so I can't give any official ruling on this proposal. My unofficial view was that it was excellently phrased, and within the rules. Also, metagaming is a GA thing, unless you're really trying to be a troublemaker, like Unibot

[Wrapper]

Oh, wow. This tap-dances near the metagaming line nicely, without crossing over in my opinion. Alas, my opinion doesn't count for much; when this is in its final form, you should get some modly input just to ensure it's legal.

For the record, I gave some brief comments via TG to Gnejs earlier, so I can't give any official ruling on this proposal. My unofficial view was that it was excellently phrased, and within the rules. Also, metagaming is a GA thing, unless you're really trying to be a troublemaker, like Unibot

Moi? A troublemaker? Perish the thought! Okay, okay, the R4 line then. Damn, Sedge, stop being so technical.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This truly is very cleverly written.

However, I have been discouraged with the nominee's attitude in several instances, and therefore must withhold my support.

[Gnejs]

Thanks for all the nice comments. I'm glad this is resonating well with folks so far.

The placement of "over a series of years" feels a bit awkward to me. I would suggest changing it to:

IMPRESSED that over the course of several years Nation of Quebec has gained recognition for bringing international attention...

That flows better, thanks!

I like it, and I'm willing to support. Issue writers don't get the love they deserve from the international community, even though they contribute to the most basic mechanic in the game. The proposal is well written, has the proper research and historical context included, and presents its arguments in an orderly fasion, unlike many proposals the SC receives. Well done.

Thank you!

IMO, pleading with people not to dismiss a proposal is just begging for them to dismiss it. If you've written a halfway decent proposal, you shouldn't need to to tell people not to ignore it, let your arguments speak for themselves.

I do agree with the previous points, especially getting rid of that URGES clause. The proposal speaks for itself, and once (if) it passes, that clause does nothing.

Granted, that clause is kind of superfluous, and it might read a bit odd when/if the proposal is passed. But I'm having a hard time letting go of it nonetheless, as that is my (admittedly pretty poor) attempt at infusing some "issues humor" into the proposal; seeing as every issue comes with the possibility for dismissal, the clause's only purpose is being a nod to that aspect of issues. But if the general consensus is that it won't serve the proposal's chances of getting passed, I'll remove it.

Oh, wow. This tap-dances near the metagaming line nicely, without crossing over in my opinion. Alas, my opinion doesn't count for much; when this is in its final form, you should get some modly input just to ensure it's legal.

For the record, I gave some brief comments via TG to Gnejs earlier, so I can't give any official ruling on this proposal. My unofficial view was that it was excellently phrased, and within the rules. Also, metagaming is a GA thing, unless you're really trying to be a troublemaker, like Unibot

Balancing that line is challenging, so that's why I asked Sedge for some informal advice on how it looked. But yes, probably should get a official ruling before submitting. I'll see to that once it looks like this is nearing completion.

This truly is very cleverly written.

However, I have been discouraged with the nominee's attitude in several instances, and therefore must withhold my support.

Sorry you feel that way, but that's life. Thank you for the kind words.

[Gnejs]

I finally got around to updating the fifth clause with We are not the NSA's suggested phrasing.

The URGES clause is still there as of now, but I might reconsider it.

I'd be nice to hear from others as well.

To the regulars: as a rule of thumb, how do you know when your proposal is good enough for submission? A longer period without comments could indicate that people approve, or that they just don't care...

[Wrapper]

To the regulars: as a rule of thumb, how do you know when your proposal is good enough for submission? A longer period without comments could indicate that people approve, or that they just don't care...

Hard to tell sometimes. I stopped getting comments on the GA proposal up at vote, and figured it was a slam-dunk repeal. Whoops.

This does look good though, and I understand why you want to keep the URGES clause. Still don't agree with its presence, but I doubt it affects whether this passes or not. I'd still approve and vote for it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

the "no less than 16" is awkward if we're trying to make this sound like rp. "Numerous" or "many" would do just as well. And yes, it's probably OK just to say "issues facing nations," rather than the overly euphemistic "individual political matters."

The "URGES" might violate R3, as it is usually considered operative language.

And to how you know when your proposal is ready to submit, you never really do. If the thread hasn't gotten a lot of replies, you can always just call for any last-minute suggestions and then submit. But at least, unlike with issues, if you spot a critical error on an already-submitted proposal, you can request a mod delete it without penalty, and submit again. Hopefully this occurs before you've already spent your stamps campaigning for it.
(In that vein, waiting half a day before campaigning might not be a bad idea either; many proposals reach quorum in 24 hours or less anyway.)

[The Silver Sentinel]

This is very cleverly written. Full support.

[Gnejs]

Hard to tell sometimes. I stopped getting comments on the GA proposal up at vote, and figured it was a slam-dunk repeal. Whoops.
This does look good though, and I understand why you want to keep the URGES clause. Still don't agree with its presence, but I doubt it affects whether this passes or not. I'd still approve and vote for it.

And to how you know when your proposal is ready to submit, you never really do. If the thread hasn't gotten a lot of replies, you can always just call for any last-minute suggestions and then submit. But at least, unlike with issues, if you spot a critical error on an already-submitted proposal, you can request a mod delete it without penalty, and submit again. Hopefully this occurs before you've already spent your stamps campaigning for it.

Thanks for the advice, sounds sensible. I won't have the time to do a proper submission and follow-up at the moment, so I'll let this sit here until sometime after the holidays. If nothing else comes up I'll probably try calling for any "last-minute's" and go for it when we're in 2016.

the "no less than 16" is awkward if we're trying to make this sound like rp. "Numerous" or "many" would do just as well. And yes, it's probably OK just to say "issues facing nations," rather than the overly euphemistic "individual political matters."

That is a good point, about using a concrete number. Another factor is, of course, that there is no telling NoQ won't have more issues in the game in the future. But, "numerous" or "many" is so vague and interpretable. That might mean 4 for one person and 35 for another, depending on how well one knows the world of NS issues. What about "over a dozen" or "close to twenty"?

And I see your point about simply using "issues", but I like euphemisms 

The "URGES" might violate R3, as it is usually considered operative language.

Ok, I should have that looked at (and the entire proposal, to be sure). How does one go about requesting a formal legality ruling? Post in moderation?

This is very cleverly written. Full support.

Thank you!

[Bears Armed]

Ok, I should have that looked at (and the entire proposal, to be sure). How does one go about requesting a formal legality ruling? Post in moderation?

That's probably the best method, yes. You could try a GHR instead, but posting in Moderation makes it easier to remind the Mods if they seem to have forgotten your request.
However, usually they'll only answer questions about the legality of specific points within a proposal, they don't appreciate generalised "Is this proposal legal?" enquiries.

[Gnejs]

That's probably the best method, yes. You could try a GHR instead, but posting in Moderation makes it easier to remind the Mods if they seem to have forgotten your request.
However, usually they'll only answer questions about the legality of specific points within a proposal, they don't appreciate generalised "Is this proposal legal?" enquiries.

Thank you, that's very helpful, because I was thinking of just writing "please take a look at my entire proposal". I'll refrain from doing that now

[Crazy girl]

The "URGES" might violate R3, as it is usually considered operative language.

Ok, I should have that looked at (and the entire proposal, to be sure). How does one go about requesting a formal legality ruling? Post in moderation?

It's fine.

[Gnejs]

It's fine.

Thank you, much appreciated!

[Gnejs]

If there aren't any other suggestions/comments on this, I'll be looking to submit in a few days time.

On a side note, would you say campaigning is always necessary to achieve quorum? Having close to a 100 delegates approving your proposal seems difficult without making yourself known to them. Yeah. I should probably go find some thread about how to campaign.

[The Silver Sentinel]

If there aren't any other suggestions/comments on this, I'll be looking to submit in a few days time.

On a side note, would you say campaigning is always necessary to achieve quorum? Having close to a 100 delegates approving your proposal seems difficult without making yourself known to them. Yeah. I should probably go find some thread about how to campaign.

Yes, you definitely need to campaign to push a proposal to quorum.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=350586 That should be extremely useful.

[Gnejs]

Thank you, that should prove very handy.

I didn't factor in learning stuff about telegrams or writing and executing a campaign TG, so I'll wait and go ahead when I've read up on things properly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I didn't factor in learning stuff about telegrams or writing and executing a campaign TG, so I'll wait and go ahead when I've read up on things properly.

You can also campaign manually (though it takes much too much time) or buy stamps (I believe right now, the going rate is about a dollar-fifty American to send out the required telegrams). Stamps are the easiest, though they cost money. Manual is the hardest in time. API is the hardest to set up.

[New Leppikania]

I didn't factor in learning stuff about telegrams or writing and executing a campaign TG, so I'll wait and go ahead when I've read up on things properly.

You can also campaign manually (though it takes much too much time) or buy stamps (I believe right now, the going rate is about a dollar-fifty American to send out the required telegrams). Stamps are the easiest, though they cost money. Manual is the hardest in time. API is the hardest to set up.

Well, if you don't know how to code. I knew how to code, and it took me but an afternoon to get my campaign script set up. And not even a completely focused afternoon at that.

[Vancouvia]

You can also campaign manually (though it takes much too much time) or buy stamps (I believe right now, the going rate is about a dollar-fifty American to send out the required telegrams). Stamps are the easiest, though they cost money. Manual is the hardest in time. API is the hardest to set up.

Well, if you don't know how to code. I knew how to code, and it took me but an afternoon to get my campaign script set up. And not even a completely focused afternoon at that.

Manual takes about an hour

[The Silver Sentinel]

You can also campaign manually (though it takes much too much time) or buy stamps (I believe right now, the going rate is about a dollar-fifty American to send out the required telegrams). Stamps are the easiest, though they cost money. Manual is the hardest in time. API is the hardest to set up.

Well, if you don't know how to code. I knew how to code, and it took me but an afternoon to get my campaign script set up. And not even a completely focused afternoon at that.

Unnecessary comment. I already linked to the author several scripts that can be used. Please quit tooting your own horn, as you really are not proving anything by doing it.

[Consular]

Well written and the candidate is deserving.

Some more resources if you want to read:
"Campaigning for a Proposal" from Skydip's guide to the SC. The whole guide is pretty good though a tad old.
A dispatch on manual telegramming by Nephmir that explains a pretty efficient method.

A simple telegram asking for approvals should get it into quorum, then I don't think it will have any difficulty passing without any pushes.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

If you're interested in using an API client as well, I've got a guide to them in my sig. Communiqué, specifically, was designed for WA campaigning, though most if not all should be able to be set to target "delegates." Doing so would take slightly less than 13 hours to process.