The Information Act

by **The Austria-Hungary** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:19 am

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=the_austria-hungary_1429891769

I have submitted my very first issue :clap:

It pertains to the creation of of an organization called the World Intelligence Agency (WIA)
I am curious of what everyone would think of this proposal.

by **The Sheika** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:35 am

Looking over what you have submitted, it does appear that you put a lot of thought into this proposal. However, it may have ~~behooved~~ been better for you to post a draft of your proposal here in the forum for other WA members to offer their input and suggestions. While prolonged, it is usually the best method for a proposal to be successful because the proposal itself can be altered until a majority of WA members are satisfied that it meets a specific criteria.

by **The Austria-Hungary** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:37 am

Behooved? WTF!

by **The Sheika** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:40 am

OOC: Oops, not English-ing well this morning. Let's see about fixing that.

by **Greater North American Confederacy** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:53 am

I support this

by **Defwa** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:03 am

This is illegal for a few reasons and you should file a GHR to get it removed before it becomes a strike against you.

Firstly, a resolution has to be more than a committee. The rule of thumb is if you removed everything about the committee from a resolution, the proposal should still do something.
Depending on how you interpret your committees duties, it may violate the "no WA army" rule. The WA can not have its own military branch or directly coordinate the military of member nations.
I'm pretty sure there's a rule against determining how committees are staffed, but I can't check that right now.

You should be aware that not all members are allies and an intelligence sharing agency, especially one with mandatory membership, can media nation's ability to protect themselves from threats also in the WA.

As stated, before you submit a proposal, you should post it on the forum for everyone to review. That will help hammer out a lot of issues.
But before even authorizing. Authoring a proposal, you should also consider reading the rules and permanent passed resolutions (available at the top of the forum) and participate in debates for other proposals to learn how they develop and the flow of the assembly.

by **The Austria-Hungary** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:14 am

Defwa wrote:This is illegal for a few reasons and you should file a GHR to get it removed before it becomes a strike against you.

Firstly, a resolution has to be more than a committee. The rule of thumb is if you removed everything about the committee from a resolution, the proposal should still do something.
Depending on how you interpret your committees duties, it may violate the "no WA army" rule. The WA can not have its own military branch or directly coordinate the military of member nations.
I'm pretty sure there's a rule against determining how committees are staffed, but I can't check that right now.

You should be aware that not all members are allies and an intelligence sharing agency, especially one with mandatory membership, can media nation's ability to protect themselves from threats also in the WA.

As stated, before you submit a proposal, you should post it on the forum for everyone to review. That will help hammer out a lot of issues.
But before even authorizing. Authoring a proposal, you should also consider reading the rules and permanent passed resolutions (available at the top of the forum) and participate in debates for other proposals to learn how they develop and the flow of the assembly.

It would tell government about threats, but they would not be able to do anything beyond that.

Why does everyone hate everything that I do? start to cry. :palm:

by **The Austria-Hungary** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:15 am

Fine! I might just take it down! continues to cry =(

by **Bears Armed Mission** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:21 am

Here's the analysis that I posted a few minutes ago in (but have now removed from) the 'Silly & Illegal Proposals' thread_

Information Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Significant

Creating an additional intelligence committee might not qualify as 'Significant' in strength

Proposed by: The Austria-Hungary

Description: Recognizing that there are many security
threats to all of the nations and that we as concerned
leaders ought to stop these threats before they become
actions and it is too late to do anything about them.

"We as concerned leaders" = not quite from the viewpoint of the WA (or its member nations collectively) as required?

Noting that there are various agencies that monitor
this activity and they are often not in concert to deal
with these threats.

Acknowledging that many of these agencies do
not know what the other agencies have discovered
and therefore cannot act in a way that would mobilize
a proper international response.

Therefore creates the World Intelligence Agency (WIA)

The Duties of the World Intelligence Agency (WIA)
are as follows

*Collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist The World Assembly in making decisions relating to national security.

The WA is not a 'nation'. And if they mean "the security of all member nations", instead, then what about cases where one member nation is itself a a threat to another member nation?

* To work with Intelligence agencies on a national
and International setting to combat security threats
from small scale attacks and plots to crisis' on a vast
multi national scale.

If that "combat" would go beyond information-gathering and into actual action, a point about which the proposal's wording is unclear, then this would break the 'No WA Police or Military' rule.

* To disseminate this valuable Information to other
agencies and the proper authorities, such as police,
paramilitary, and military forces and to key government
officials.

* This warrants the creation of a council of Advisers
and other personnel, whose roles will be discussed at the
first meeting of the council, which will be selected as soon as
possible

Looks like a potential violation of the committee membership rule.

Thus creates the World Intelligence Agency (WIA)

And does nothing but create the committee, which is enough in itself to make the proposal illegal regardless of any of the other possible arguments that I mentioned.

Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 91 more approvals)
Voting Ends: in 3 days 11 hours

The Sheika wrote:OOC: Oops, not English-ing well this morning. Let's see about fixing that.

I think that "behooved" was good English... an obscure term, but correctly used.

by **The Austria-Hungary** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:23 am

No! I will not take it down. YOU- SHALL-NOT-BREAK-MY-RESOLVE! YOU SHALL NOT WIN! I will
not back down from mundane attempts to rid Nationstates of my presence!

by **Kaboomlandia** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:57 am

The Austria-Hungary wrote:No! I will not take it down. YOU- SHALL-NOT-BREAK-MY-RESOLVE! YOU SHALL NOT WIN! I will
not back down from mundane attempts to rid Nationstates of my presence!

Fine. You do that. Then, when you get the mod telegram that says "proposal removed", don't come crying to us.

by **The Sheika** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:09 am

The Austria-Hungary wrote:No! I will not take it down. YOU- SHALL-NOT-BREAK-MY-RESOLVE! YOU SHALL NOT WIN! I will
not back down from mundane attempts to rid Nationstates of my presence!

I don't think that anybody is trying to rid NationStates of your presence. Quite the contrary actually. There are just a few issues with this proposal that do need addressed, and it is possible to fix those issues.

by **Kaboomlandia** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:10 am

You also can't choose who is on the council. Only the mystical gnomes can be on coommittes.

by **The Sheika** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:11 am

Bears Armed Mission wrote:
The Sheika wrote:OOC: Oops, not English-ing well this morning. Let's see about fixing that.
I think that "behooved" was good English... an obscure term, but correctly used.

I had figured it was, but due to its obscurity that it would be hard to follow. Thanks for that input.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:27 am

The Austria-Hungary wrote:No! I will not take it down. YOU- SHALL-NOT-BREAK-MY-RESOLVE! YOU SHALL NOT WIN! I will
not back down from mundane attempts to rid Nationstates of my presence!

OOC: If you can't play the game by the rules, you're gonna get dinged, no matter what you believe about your resolve and presence on the game and whatnot. Learn the rules, in the stickies Rules and General Advice topic at the top of the page, and get over it.

If you want to come back with a legal proposal and NOT submit it until people get a chance to debate it, we'll all give it a go.

by **Defwa** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:58 pm

The Austria-Hungary wrote:No! I will not take it down. YOU- SHALL-NOT-BREAK-MY-RESOLVE! YOU SHALL NOT WIN! I will
not back down from mundane attempts to rid Nationstates of my presence!

Well that came out of nowhere.
Sure, don't let anything so mundane as the rules get in the way.