REGULATION (New Category proposal)

[Glen-Rhodes]

I would hope those aren't the actual descriptions being proposed. :\ What a fast way to make them completely unpopular...

[Sedgistan]

Stuff like Labour Regulation matters less because it's possible to do already: we already have laws on forced labour, workplace safety, child labour, living wages, and labour unions, and probably more topics I've forgotten.

Those are in Social Justice, presumably? It seems an odd fit for some of your examples, because Social Justice is about getting the government to pay through welfare spending, whereas the idea for "Labour Regulation" was that business pays. Would I be right in thinking that the government spending was often through nebulous "enforcement" clauses?

That could cover things like the recent nuclear safety proposal: regulating economic matters, but not so much in terms of environmental or labour standards, but rather to assure they won't blow up.

What category did that recent nuclear safety proposal go in, out of interest?

[Sedgistan]

I would hope those aren't the actual descriptions being proposed. :\ What a fast way to make them completely unpopular...

These are very initial drafts intended for feedback from players. So please, if you don't like them, give us an idea of what you think would be better.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Stuff like Labour Regulation matters less because it's possible to do already: we already have laws on forced labour, workplace safety, child labour, living wages, and labour unions, and probably more topics I've forgotten.

Those are in Social Justice, presumably? It seems an odd fit for some of your examples, because Social Justice is about getting the government to pay through welfare spending, whereas the idea for "Labour Regulation" was that business pays. Would I be right in thinking that the government spending was often through nebulous "enforcement" clauses?

Most of them were in Human Rights. The belief that enforcement has to be matched by literal game mechanics spending is a very recent ruling.

That could cover things like the recent nuclear safety proposal: regulating economic matters, but not so much in terms of environmental or labour standards, but rather to assure they won't blow up.

What category did that recent nuclear safety proposal go in, out of interest?

Environmental. But that was rewritten after the author had initially expressed frustration with the category system. Lest you think that's a recent problem, Cobdenia and Ausserland were two players who didn't much care for the category system, and had difficulty fitting their proposals to match them: despite their proposals being very good and widely hailed as some of the best of the NSUN/WA.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I would hope those aren't the actual descriptions being proposed. :\ What a fast way to make them completely unpopular...

These are very initial drafts intended for feedback from players. So please, if you don't like them, give us an idea of what you think would be better.

I think the categories themselves are fine. I like the idea overall and have no comments about it substantively. I just think framing the AOEs in a completely negative, anti-government/Big Brother light is completely counterproductive. Forgive me if it's just tongue-in-cheek placeholder for more traditional descriptions; given the propensity for admins/mods to over-emphasize the need for negative features in everything, it's easy to assume these descriptors are serious.

[Sedgistan]

Those are in Social Justice, presumably? It seems an odd fit for some of your examples, because Social Justice is about getting the government to pay through welfare spending, whereas the idea for "Labour Regulation" was that business pays. Would I be right in thinking that the government spending was often through nebulous "enforcement" clauses?

Most of them were in Human Rights. The belief that enforcement has to be matched by literal game mechanics spending is a very recent ruling.

Human Rights is a very odd fit for those, since they're a mish-mash of restricting economic freedoms and enhancing personal ones, and HR only does the latter. As for the enforcement ruling, I haven't seen it so I don't know the exact wording, but every GA proposal would effectively need some enforcement, but that doesn't mean they all increase government spending. Do you have a link to the ruling?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Human Rights is a very odd fit for those, since they're a mish-mash of restricting economic freedoms and enhancing personal ones, and HR only does the latter.

Well, again, interpreting categories so literally is a very recent phenomenon. So I don't disagree, but at the same time, when those proposals were written such considerations weren't really paramount.

As for the enforcement ruling, I haven't seen it so I don't know the exact wording, but every GA proposal would effectively need some enforcement, but that doesn't mean they all increase government spending. Do you have a link to the ruling?

It's quoted in this post.

Edit: I didn't mean to drag this too far off topic, though. I'm not opposed to a Labour Regulation (sub)category: I was merely pointing out that it seemed less of a priority than Commerce-type regulation.

[Unibot III]

"Regulation" seems like a weird category name. I think you mean "Harmonisation".

Anyways, I think the new system proposed is a bit a mess - seems like a mish-mash of new categories that nobody asked for, and could complicate our category system even more.

One area that's really lacking in terms of commerce is economic development - currently development projects have to be squished into either free trade or protectionist schemes when a development project might not have anything to do with free trade or protectionism, like microcredits.

[Sedgistan]

One area that's really lacking in terms of commerce is economic development - currently development projects have to be squished into either free trade or protectionist schemes when a development project might not have anything to do with free trade or protectionism, like microcredits.

Would that not fit under the "Subsidise" (terrible name, I know) sub-category of "Advancement of Industry" suggested over in the main thread?

[Unibot III]

One area that's really lacking in terms of commerce is economic development - currently development projects have to be squished into either free trade or protectionist schemes when a development project might not have anything to do with free trade or protectionism, like microcredits.

Would that not fit under the "Subsidise" (terrible name, I know) sub-category of "Advancement of Industry" suggested over in the main thread?

Perhaps. I'd try my damndest to make sure the resolution fit under "Social Justice" though, before trying to run it under the Advancement of Industry category which is something you and the other moderators seem to be forgetting - you build these categories and spin them to sound like we're frigging evil for using any of them - no wonder none of these categories get used at all except the more positive ones like Human Rights and Social Justice and Global Disarmament. The admins might as well have not wasted their time making "Environmental Deregulation" in the first place.

Changing "Advancement of Industry" to simply just "Commerce" would be smarter, and then breaking it down into four categories:
- Investment
- Development (Protectionism)
- Free Trade
- Harmonisation

Or something of that sort; categories that we can actually use. Not ones that sound like we're inviting vampires over to suck peoples blood. Admittedly, I've turned against subcategory systems - which is why I've suggested just broader categories (which are freer for the authors), as opposed to subcategories, but if you're going to make subcategories, make them things we'd use.

[Sedgistan]

This is going slightly off on a tangent here - but the GA in my view plays a vital role in bringing together the roleplay aspect of the site and the gameplay aspect (the nation management part). For this to work, GA proposals have to have a reasonable level of accuracy with their stats. Using categories means there's never going to be a perfect relation between the text and the stats, but having sub-categories allows for much more accuracy than broad categories would have. So while we could just have a single "restrict economic freedom" category, it wouldn't give you the detail that a category on regulating labour laws could have, where you'd be able to see clear knock-on effects on such measures as income inequality.

If certain categories don't get legislated in because of the names, then we can look to change them (e.g. "Advancement of Industry" could be something like "Economic Development"). I like the "Investment" name instead of "Subsidise". But much of this belongs in the other thread.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Can I ask again: how does adding a complicated new category help simplify the category base (which was the original motivation for this discussion)?

[The Dark Star Republic]

I think you mean "Harmonisation".

I like that name.

seems like a mish-mash of new categories that nobody asked for

Yes, they have. People were discussing such categories back in 2009!

One area that's really lacking in terms of commerce is economic development

Obviously, I agree.

Can I ask again: how does adding a complicated new category help simplify the category base (which was the original motivation for this discussion)?

Is fun.

[Sudarium]

If there's a lack of ideas, a suggestion I have is to look to the Real United Nations for ideas on categories and effects, or take inspiration from modern politics. I would personally suggest that ideas relating to commerce, diplomacy, or other categories is introduced as a strict roleplaying element at the start, and letting the masses react to the new features for a time, then making adjustments based upon preferences from the playerbase when adding stats to the categories.

I'd also suggest an announcement via news or game-wide Telegram alerting nations in the WA to this discussion. A handful of players should not be considered a general consensus for the 10000+ WA nations. It's a substitute for a weaker one.

[Araraukar]

Can I ask again: how does adding a complicated new category help simplify the category base (which was the original motivation for this discussion)?

I think the point is to add new catgories and remove old. Hence the references to some of the currently existing categories in the first post.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd also suggest an announcement via news or game-wide Telegram alerting nations in the WA to this discussion. A handful of players should not be considered a general consensus for the 10000+ WA nations. It's a substitute for a weaker one.

Seconded.

[Christian Democrats]

I agree with others here that a new Regulation category is undesirable.

First of all, regulation is inherent to most General Assembly proposals. It is not really a thing by itself and in itself. This proposed category is a hodgepodge. It would serve only to complicate a system that is already difficult to navigate.

Also, an International Governance subcategory would invite a plethora of committee-only proposals.