[Draft] GA Rules

[Wallenburg]

Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes.

Anyway, I'm just asking why the army rule has been removed.

I don't find the arguments in favor of keeping it convincing.

So...because you feel like it? Why aren't the arguments convincing? And why is the argument against it convincing?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't find the arguments in favor of keeping it convincing.

So...because you feel like it? Why aren't the arguments convincing? And why is the argument against it convincing?

The crux of the argument seems to be that the mods don't want to have to police the roleplay of those using the WA army should it come into being. The problem is that we don't police any roleplay anyways, so why would we have to start now? People are more than welcome to roleplay the other various committees created by the WA without us having to get involved. And as with all roleplay no one is forced to accept another player's story line.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Rephrased the no blocker rule and put it back in after thinking on it for awhile. Since all resolutions have a stat impact we'd either need a category for pure blockers or to switch over to a different stat system, neither of which seem likely.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't find the arguments in favor of keeping it convincing.

So...because you feel like it? Why aren't the arguments convincing? And why is the argument against it convincing?

I can't read Mallorea and Riva's mind, but the main argument against is that it makes no IC sense. Other than GA#2, why should the WA be prohibited from forming a military?

An additional argument against it is that it limits what areas WA resolutions can address without any real need. It prevents any resolutions from creating WA armies or WA Police or WA peacekeepers... Why can't players legislate on those things?

The only apparent argument for it is the potential for players to use WA peacekeepers in an attempt to metagame or force roleplay. But the rules already prevent the resolution itself from doing so, and players who RP as WA peacekeepers don't need to be policed by the mods... Especially since players already do that, even when there is no WA Police or military.

[Mallorea and Riva]

On a related note we are entertaining the idea of bringing another GA mod onboard, so if people have suggestions feel free to email them in to the nomination email address.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Bumping this to see if I've missed anyone's arguments/suggestions for improvement.

[Sciongrad]

This actually looks really good! I personally have some minor quibbles, but on balance I think this is quite the improvement.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This actually looks really good! I personally have some minor quibbles, but on balance I think this is quite the improvement.

Great! If your minor quibbles are worth wording or anything please feel free to voice them and I'll be happy to make changes where appropriate.

[Phydios]

I think these rules are quite reasonable. Perhaps, though, you could mention that ejection from the WA is permanent, and players can only rejoin with a different nation?

[Bears Armed]

I'm probably missing something, but why did the "ideological ban" rule get removed?

The argument that I find most convincing is that it is a mod attempt to enforce a policy on the GA rather than maintain any sense of order or decorum. As such it should be left to players to decide whether or not ideologies should be targeted by legislation.

Apart from the fact that membership in the WA is supposed to be open to all nations, at least in theory, rather than just to those that already follow a specific set of ideologies (since, after all, it is the 'World Assembly' rather than -- for example -- the 'Assembly of Secularist Socialist Republics)?

Well, how about the fact that under current game mechanics the stat effects of passing a resolution that bans some specific ideology might not actually be enough to bring member nations into compliance (according to their main page & official stats) without requiring further action by those nations' players themselves, which under current rules would constitute a 'Meta-gaming' violation?
After all, pass a resolution that bans private enterprise and any nation that currently has a thriving private sector will probably, according to its official stats, still have a thriving private sector.
Or pass a resolution that bans communism, and any nation that currently has all industry state-owned will probably, according to its official stats, still have all industry state-owned.
Or pass a resolution that bans any religion or mandate atheism, and nations that already have their national religions specified to the contrary will still have those national religions specified.
Or pass a resolution that bans Monarchy, and nations that already have their national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever] will still have those national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever].

[Vancouvia]

'Repeal' and 'resolution' and 'proposal' are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not.

---

"Optionality

Proposals are not optional. However the use mild language such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES" is acceptable."

Missing 'of'

---

"Real World Violations
World Assembly laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any specificreal world references"

specific, real

[Excidium Planetis]

Well, how about the fact that under current game mechanics the stat effects of passing a resolution that bans some specific ideology might not actually be enough to bring member nations into compliance (according to their main page & official stats) without requiring further action by those nations' players themselves, which under current rules would constitute a 'Meta-gaming' violation?
After all, pass a resolution that bans private enterprise and any nation that currently has a thriving private sector will probably, according to its official stats, still have a thriving private sector.
Or pass a resolution that bans communism, and any nation that currently has all industry state-owned will probably, according to its official stats, still have all industry state-owned.
Or pass a resolution that bans any religion or mandate atheism, and nations that already have their national religions specified to the contrary will still have those national religions specified.
Or pass a resolution that bans Monarchy, and nations that already have their national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever] will still have those national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever].

The same is true for pretty much all resolutions. I mean, with the number of sweeping civil rights resolutions, all WA nations should have high civil rights, but not all of them do.

Heck, if you are going to argue that an ideology ban on monarchy would be problematic because the custom fields would still allow kings... nations can still choose to stone gays despite CoCR.

[Mallorea and Riva]

'Repeal' and 'resolution' and 'proposal' are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not.

---

"Optionality

Proposals are not optional. However the use mild language such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES" is acceptable."

Missing 'of'

---

"Real World Violations
World Assembly laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any specificreal world references"

specific, real

Thanks, fixed.

Well, how about the fact that under current game mechanics the stat effects of passing a resolution that bans some specific ideology might not actually be enough to bring member nations into compliance (according to their main page & official stats) without requiring further action by those nations' players themselves, which under current rules would constitute a 'Meta-gaming' violation?
After all, pass a resolution that bans private enterprise and any nation that currently has a thriving private sector will probably, according to its official stats, still have a thriving private sector.
Or pass a resolution that bans communism, and any nation that currently has all industry state-owned will probably, according to its official stats, still have all industry state-owned.
Or pass a resolution that bans any religion or mandate atheism, and nations that already have their national religions specified to the contrary will still have those national religions specified.
Or pass a resolution that bans Monarchy, and nations that already have their national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever] will still have those national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever].

The same is true for pretty much all resolutions. I mean, with the number of sweeping civil rights resolutions, all WA nations should have high civil rights, but not all of them do.

Heck, if you are going to argue that an ideology ban on monarchy would be problematic because the custom fields would still allow kings... nations can still choose to stone gays despite CoCR.

Indeed. It has long been a... curiosity about NS that the issue choices are not confined by WA legislation. I think that would be a fascinating addition to the game, but it is a discussion for another time.

[Bears Armed]

The disconnection between UN/WA/GA and issues, whereby UN/WA members are still eligible to receive [& thus eligible to select] issue options that contradict existing resolutions is an unfortunate fact, dating back to the days when there far fewer issues and separate validities for single options weren't possible, and presumably now won't be fixed (even if that's only because the numbers of resolutions and options that would have to be cross-checked are too high for the project to be practical), but I don't see that as a valid reason for adding to the problem.
Allowing ideological bans would mean that if any were passed then, as I've pointed out, the number of member nations automatically shown as blatantly in non-compliance could increase drastically... so if you allow ideological bans then you might as well drop the 'automatic compliance' presumption too, but if you do that then writing "proper" resolutions and getting them passed would effectively [IC] be a waste of time because one could get the same effects simply by suggesting "Hey, wouldn't it be a good idea if...[WHATEVER]" and leaving it at that.

[Unibot III]

Compliance may not be as automatic though as we assume; it might be that every nation tries, under the law, to bring their nations towards compliance - but that full compliance can take years. This gives some nations some breathing room for apparent contradictions with WA law that occur in nation fields.

Take the telegram for example...

Laws have been enacted to bring Unibot III into compliance with the World Assembly resolution Explosive Remnants of War.

... it never actually says Unibot III is actually in compliance with the WAR, it says laws have been enacted to bring Unibot III into compliance. This can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) that Unibot III is now in full compliance, or (2) laws have been enacted that brings Unibot III closer towards compliance.

I would suggest my interpretation of how compliance works better fits with how the game mechanics works - and it makes more sense. Compliance with administrations takes eons.

[Bananaistan]

...... This can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) that Unibot III is now in full compliance, or (2) laws have been enacted that brings Unibot III closer towards compliance.

....'

If it meant "closer towards compliance" it would say "closer towards compliance". I could accept a lag between compliant laws being introduced and those laws being enforced but I think it's clear that the laws are immediately compliant.

[Sciongrad]

This actually looks really good! I personally have some minor quibbles, but on balance I think this is quite the improvement.

Great! If your minor quibbles are worth wording or anything please feel free to voice them and I'll be happy to make changes where appropriate.

My minor quibbles are things that I can live with but that would probably generate a lot of debate. For example, I'd rather we eliminate co-authors altogether, but I can live with one, out-of-text co-author. On balance though, I think this is much better.

[Unibot III]

...... This can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) that Unibot III is now in full compliance, or (2) laws have been enacted that brings Unibot III closer towards compliance.

....'

If it meant "closer towards compliance" it would say "closer towards compliance". I could accept a lag between compliant laws being introduced and those laws being enforced but I think it's clear that the laws are immediately compliant.

It never says the laws are immediately complaint, it says laws have been enacted to bring the country into compliance. We've always read it one way but in theory, it could be saying that the nation is on its way towards becoming compliant - that is, the laws enacted have the intent of bringing the country into compliance.

Under this interpretation, there's no need to fret about inconsistencies with ideological bans or nation fields or such because there's some room for non-compliance, nations are obligated to comply with WA law but it takes time for them to come into compliance and in some cases, eons. In fact, in some cases, the WA is pretty sure the nation isn't reading their emails.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Just giving this another kick in the hopes that some potential GA Mod suggestions could be sent in, we haven't received any and we'd like player feedback.

All comments about the rules are welcome too.

[Tinfect]

Just giving this another kick in the hopes that some potential GA Mod suggestions could be sent in, we haven't received any and we'd like player feedback.

So... Uh, how, exactly would one do that?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Just giving this another kick in the hopes that some potential GA Mod suggestions could be sent in, we haven't received any and we'd like player feedback.

So... Uh, how, exactly would one do that?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=85133

[Unibot III]

Just giving this another kick in the hopes that some potential GA Mod suggestions could be sent in, we haven't received any and we'd like player feedback.

All comments about the rules are welcome too.

In the thread with my alternative ruleset someone commented that "blocker doesn't mean repeal-proof" - so I rewrote the blocker rule and made a new "repeal-proof" rule. I think the wording I used to explain what blocker means might help newcomers because we've never actually used "blocker" as the rules have ever intended it to be used as, so newcomers always have to learn the hard way that blockers are allowed even though the rules say blockers aren't.

In that ruleset I proposed that there are legal and illegal blockers and you have to be careful that your legislation isn't an illegal blocker - I think that's closer to how we actually do things in the GA.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Unibot I'll take a look at what you posted in this upcoming week, I'm currently on vacation.

[Unibot III]

Unibot I'll take a look at what you posted in this upcoming week, I'm currently on vacation.

Have a good vacation, Mall!

If only all the moderators told us when they were on vacation, muhaha.

[Wrapper]

One thing that seems to be missing is no links. Ard/Sedge have this on the SC side:

Don’t use links in the text of your proposal. Successful proposals – resolutions – go into the permanent records of the World Assembly. But links die: the server shifts, posts gets deleted, whatever. The WA Librarian doesn’t like his records being messed up with dead links. Links in your proposal will make it illegal.