General Assembly Proposal Coding

[Tzorsland]

This brings up an interesting question. When dealing with a resolution of title X and description Y which take precedent? Let's take the previous resolution up for a vote, the title says "bear" (as in to use and wield) and the operative clause says "own." Now this isn't a problem coding wise, but I can see other examples where the title might suggest one type of stat wank but the operative clause suggests another.

[Christian Democrats]

This brings up an interesting question. When dealing with a resolution of title X and description Y which take precedent? Let's take the previous resolution up for a vote, the title says "bear" (as in to use and wield) and the operative clause says "own." Now this isn't a problem coding wise, but I can see other examples where the title might suggest one type of stat wank but the operative clause suggests another.

Traditionally, short titles, long titles, and preambles are held to have no legislative effect. That said, they can shed light on the meaning of the operative sections.

[Tzorsland]

Traditionally, short titles, long titles, and preambles are held to have no legislative effect. That said, they can shed light on the meaning of the operative sections.

Yes but traditionally "legislative effect" was only a role playing thing. Stat wanking was based on category and strength alone. Mismatches between titles and text as long as they didn't drift from the category / strength was never a problem. But without a category / strength the question of which would take precedence for stat wanking purposes becomes a interesting question.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Your continual misuse of "stat wank" is really annoying.

As for the question: I agree the "resolution editors" would need a policy on this, but in my (completely unofficial) opinion, it's obvious: the proposal text takes precedence.

[Old Hope]

Traditionally, short titles, long titles, and preambles are held to have no legislative effect. That said, they can shed light on the meaning of the operative sections.

Yes but traditionally "legislative effect" was only a role playing thing. Stat wanking was based on category and strength alone. Mismatches between titles and text as long as they didn't drift from the category / strength was never a problem. But without a category / strength the question of which would take precedence for stat wanking purposes becomes a interesting question.

That what the resolution actually does is stated in the operative sections. Which includes wordings like defines, by the way.
Everything else, the title and the arguments, are there to convince. It matters what the resolution does, what is stated earlier can be of concern if there are more possible interpretations, but that is often not applicable.
It is like that for roleplay, and it should apply to stat-play, too. It would prevent situations where statplayers vote for something in the title(or the category, as of now), and the actual resolution is that badly written that any sensible roleplayer would vote against it. Currently, the stat players aren't interested if the repeal repeals a very bad resolution or if the resolution is so bad...
If the rules weren't there, you could submit a resolution with the text "Hi" and stat players would still vote for it if it would have the desired effect.
The huge roleplay/statplay (some do both, don't forget that)preference differences are bad.

[Christian Democrats]

Your continual misuse of "stat wank" is really annoying.

As for the question: I agree the "resolution editors" would need a policy on this, but in my (completely unofficial) opinion, it's obvious: the proposal text takes precedence.

Agree and agree.

As I've said before, though, the title and description should fit the text.

[Luna Amore]

Your continual misuse of "stat wank" is really annoying.

As for the question: I agree the "resolution editors" would need a policy on this, but in my (completely unofficial) opinion, it's obvious: the proposal text takes precedence.

Completely agree.

[Unibot III]

If we go ahead with this sort of process, how would we like to see the Proposal Submission form change?

(Image)

We obviously wouldn't have any set "categories" to submit to if we are using Resolution Editors instead of categories. So would it just be two text boxes? (Resolution Name & Description, as they are currently named) Should there be any new additions to the proposal submission page with regards to the change in Process? I know a few players mentioned wanting to have some sort of "description;" however, as Fris mentioned, giving mods more custom fields to have to police is something we'd just as soon do without. Other thoughts?

I'd suggest an automatic 'infobox' thingy pushes in, to describe the GA/SC when you click 'GA' or 'SC' on the dropdown.

This way you could explain in more specific terms than 'helping the world' what the two councils do and what the distinction is between the two of them.

GA develops general international law applicable for all member-nations.

SC responds to particular successes and crises abroad as they arise.

(???)

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

None really, because this is more about being informative than discussing a rule change.

However, [violet] is involved in a discussion with mods and IEs about implementing this. No timetable has been discussed, much less agreed upon.

[Sedgistan]

I think it's worth posting an update on this - unfortunately, the idea has effectively been dropped. I thought it was a good one, but we needed a back-up mechanism just in case something happened that resulted in stats not being approved in time, and we couldn't agree on one. More importantly, it was DSR's pet project that we envisaged him taking the lead on, and RL matters have taken him away from NS.

This means category reform is back on the table.

[Sciongrad]

I think it's worth posting an update on this - unfortunately, the idea has effectively been dropped. I thought it was a good one, but we needed a back-up mechanism just in case something happened that resulted in stats not being approved in time, and we couldn't agree on one. More importantly, it was DSR's pet project that we envisaged him taking the lead on, and RL matters have taken him away from NS.

This means category reform is back on the table.

I'm not sure why you expect anyone to participate in this discussion after you've already confirmed our opinions here probably won't impact what you decide to do.

[Tinfect]

I think it's worth posting an update on this - unfortunately, the idea has effectively been dropped. I thought it was a good one, but we needed a back-up mechanism just in case something happened that resulted in stats not being approved in time, and we couldn't agree on one. More importantly, it was DSR's pet project that we envisaged him taking the lead on, and RL matters have taken him away from NS.

This means category reform is back on the table.

I'm not sure why you expect anyone to participate in this discussion after you've already confirmed our opinions here probably won't impact what you decide to do.

I'm in agreement here.

But on the other hand, how about we drop the Free Trade and Furtherment of Democracy categories entirely? The Former has proven to be used solely for a small group of Member States to try and impose their national law on the others, and has more or less excluded Socialist/Communist Member States, as well as those that intent to maintain some measure of protectionist policy, from International Markets, and the latter is, at its core, incompatible with the Ideological Ban rule. Pretty much every Resolution in that category, that I can think of, is a better fit for Human Rights.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...how about we drop the Free Trade and Furtherment of Democracy categories entirely? The Former has proven to be used solely for a small group of Member States to try and impose their national law on the others, and has more or less excluded Socialist/Communist Member States, as well as those that intent to maintain some measure of protectionist policy, from International Markets, and the latter is, at its core, incompatible with the Ideological Ban rule. Pretty much every Resolution in that category, that I can think of, is a better fit for Human Rights.

I don't agree. Number 1, you think "Free Trade" is bad you should check out "Advancement of Industry" (in which I've seen exactly one resolution ever); number 2, dropping these categories would be a de facto ideological ban on the promotions of free markets in toto (not just capitalist ones) and of political freedoms. I supported Bananaistan's "no more meddling in elections" rule IC, but there's still some fertile ground in there.

[Tinfect]

I don't agree. Number 1, you think "Free Trade" is bad you should check out "Advancement of Industry" (in which I've seen exactly one resolution ever); number 2, dropping these categories would be a de facto ideological ban on the promotions of free markets in toto (not just capitalist ones) and of political freedoms. I supported Bananaistan's "no more meddling in elections" rule IC, but there's still some fertile ground in there.

I don't see how removing a category is an Ideological Ban. You don't need WA Backing to negotiate trade agreements, and you certainly shouldn't be allowed to use WA Backing to cripple the economies of the ideological opposition. And I don't see how limiting the ability of the WA to raise Political Freedoms is a bad thing if we are going to keep the Ideological Ban rule. Name one Furtherment of Democracy resolution that can't be reasonably shuffled into another category.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't agree. Number 1, you think "Free Trade" is bad you should check out "Advancement of Industry" (in which I've seen exactly one resolution ever); number 2, dropping these categories would be a de facto ideological ban on the promotions of free markets in toto (not just capitalist ones) and of political freedoms. I supported Bananaistan's "no more meddling in elections" rule IC, but there's still some fertile ground in there.

I don't see how removing a category is an Ideological Ban. You don't need WA Backing to negotiate trade agreements, and you certainly shouldn't be allowed to use WA Backing to cripple the economies of the ideological opposition. And I don't see how limiting the ability of the WA to raise Political Freedoms is a bad thing if we are going to keep the Ideological Ban rule. Name one Furtherment of Democractic resolution that can't be reasonably shuffled into another category.

Free Trade =/= Capitalism. You should know that. Advancement of Industry is the pro-Capitalist category, and it sucks. No one ever uses it. Free Trade merely promotes Globalism, which is not Capitalism.

Also, every Furtherment of Democracy resolution ever. Where would you put a resolution that increases political freedoms?

[Tinfect]

Free Trade =/= Capitalism. You should know that.

I never said that. Look at how it's been used. Go peruse Foreign Patent Recognition.

Also, every Furtherment of Democracy resolution ever. Where would you put a resolution that increases political freedoms?

First of all, that's not true, second, nowhere, because they shouldn't exist.
Most resolution is Furtherment of Democracy can fit into Human Rights, more accurately. Those few that can't, can be shuffled elsewhere.

[Excidium Planetis]

Free Trade =/= Capitalism. You should know that.

I never said that. Look at how it's been used. Go peruse Foreign Patent Recognition.

That's only one resolution. And it isn't like it is the only resolution to completely exclude whole classes of nations. AI Coexistence Protocol applies to very few WA nations.

What about GA#224 Promotion of Beekeeping? It applies to both Capitalist and Socialist nations. Do you hate bees, Tinfect!?

Also, every Furtherment of Democracy resolution ever. Where would you put a resolution that increases political freedoms?

First of all, that's not true, second, nowhere, because they shouldn't exist.
Most resolution is Furtherment of Democracy can fit into Human Rights, more accurately. Those few that can't, can be shuffled elsewhere.

Elsewhere, where? Where would Elections and Assistance Act go? It isn't Human Rights because assisting governmental transition is not a civil right. It isn't Free Trade, Advancement of Industry, Social Justice, it is literally the opposite of Political Stability, and it isn't Gun Rights or Drug Use or Health.

Likewise, Read the Resolution Act.

I agree, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Expression are arguably Human Rights Resolutions, and even "Disables Voters Act" could possibly be argued as a Human Rights Resolution, if you wanted to cram it into another category. But for Resolutions that affect only political freedoms and not civil rights, Furtherment of Democracy is there.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

I'd say the obvious one to drop would be 'Gambling'- Which, given a search through passed resolutions, has literally never been successfully used. Even "Reducing Problem Gambling" is under Education and Creativity/Educational.

[Sciongrad]

I'd say the obvious one to drop would be 'Gambling'- Which, given a search through passed resolutions, has literally never been successfully used. Even "Reducing Problem Gambling" is under Education and Creativity/Educational.

I forgot that was even a category.

[Excidium Planetis]

I say Gambling and Advancement of Industry get dropped.

We should get some kind of category added in case GA#2 ever needs to be replaced. Political Stability is not the right category (Some have said "Bookkeeping" should be allowed as a category).

I also personally want to see "Promote" and "Legalize" renamed for Drug Use. Legalize sounds stronger than Promote, honestly, and implies some kind of universal legalization of drugs, whereas if a resolution were passed on recreational drug use, it would focus on strict regulation but not a ban, I would think.

We also need a category for global research funding. Education is not right, and Health: Research applies only to medical research, not science in general.

Oh, and can we please change Human Rights to Civil Rights? The GA has made it clear that Non-human Rights matter.

[Araraukar]

Oh, and can we please change Human Rights to Civil Rights? The GA has made it clear that Non-human Rights matter.

To be fair, the "human" in the category is read - regardless of resolution language - as "sapient" these days. I seem to remember there was an official mod statement of that somewhere, but I can't remember where or how long ago it was. Also, "human rights" and "civil rights" aren't, to my understanding, 100% synonymous.

[Separatist Peoples]

This needs a new topic.