Advertisement
by Tzorsland » Thu May 28, 2015 11:49 am
by Christian Democrats » Thu May 28, 2015 12:15 pm
Tzorsland wrote: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.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Tzorsland » Fri May 29, 2015 10:16 am
Christian Democrats wrote: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.
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri May 29, 2015 10:44 am
by Old Hope » Fri May 29, 2015 10:53 am
Tzorsland wrote:Christian Democrats wrote: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.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Christian Democrats » Fri May 29, 2015 11:29 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote: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.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Luna Amore » Fri May 29, 2015 11:31 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote: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.
by Unibot III » Fri May 29, 2015 6:52 pm
Mousebumples wrote: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?
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Frisbeeteria » Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:55 pm
by Sedgistan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:19 am
by Sciongrad » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:12 pm
Sedgistan wrote: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.
by Tinfect » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:32 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Sedgistan wrote: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.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:59 pm
Tinfect wrote:...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.
by Tinfect » Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:02 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:08 pm
Tinfect wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Tinfect » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:18 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Free Trade =/= Capitalism. You should know that.
Excidium Planetis wrote:Also, every Furtherment of Democracy resolution ever. Where would you put a resolution that increases political freedoms?
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:31 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote: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.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by The Candy Of Bottles » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:51 pm
by Sciongrad » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:52 pm
The Candy Of Bottles wrote: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.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:33 pm
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:43 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Oh, and can we please change Human Rights to Civil Rights? The GA has made it clear that Non-human Rights matter.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:11 pm
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement