General Assembly Q&A

[Nickso]

I see that a large part of resolutions are repealed. Bigger is the number of repealed resolutions than of those accepted and not repealed.
so World Assembly has little influence, as it has ratified very few resolutions, most of the others are repealed. Isn't this wrong?

[Kryozerkia]

I see that a large part of resolutions are repealed. Bigger is the number of repealed resolutions than of those accepted and not repealed.
so World Assembly has little influence, as it has ratified very few resolutions, most of the others are repealed. Isn't this wrong?

It means those are the few topics the current delegates agree are internationally relevant.

Why do you think it's wrong?

[Barunia]

I've made a draft for a repeal, but I want to write an act to replace the one I'm repealing. Should I post that in my repeal thread, or as a separate thread?

[Frisbeeteria]

I've made a draft for a repeal, but I want to write an act to replace the one I'm repealing. Should I post that in my repeal thread, or as a separate thread?

Separate threads, though you should probably link them.

[Kryozerkia]

I've made a draft for a repeal, but I want to write an act to replace the one I'm repealing. Should I post that in my repeal thread, or as a separate thread?

It's normal to have a repeal thread and a replacement thread and encouraged. This prevents any misunderstanding that may arise from having two different proposals in the same thread.

[Bears Armed]

Can a proposal that reached quorum but was voted down be re-submitted later on (a couple of years later, for example) for another try without any major changes to its contents, or does it have to be significantly altered in order for this new submission to be legal?

[Ardchoille]

I can't personally see any objections to its being submitted years later, provided that's done by its original (player) author or an agent he has publicly authorised on-site. I would think the lapse of time would require some changes (possibly significant) to take account of other legislation that it might now duplicate or contradict. Note that this view is both personal and hypothetical. If you have a concrete example, please submit a GHR so the Secretariat as a whole can discuss it.

[Bears Armed]

Thank you for the quick response. I'll submit a GHR when my current "legislative programme" is a bit further along and that proposal is therefore getting closer to the top of the list. Fortunately it's in a field where there hasn't been much legislation, and one resolution passed since the previous attempt that would have caused problems has already been repealed.
The proposal whose re-submission I'm considering is ‘Wise Woodland Management’.

[Talkistan]

Apparently there have been no resolutions passed in Education and Creativity/Artistic. Does this have to do with the fact that anyone who tries to make a proposal will have to, sooner or later, define "art"?

On a more serious note, where can I find out if there has ever been a legal and non-silly proposal (which failed to get approved/passed) on any particular topic? Also, it be considered "plagiarism" if I borrowed the definitions from an earlier proposal, or should I completely reword them?

[Kryozerkia]

Thank you for the quick response. I'll submit a GHR when my current "legislative programme" is a bit further along and that proposal is therefore getting closer to the top of the list. Fortunately it's in a field where there hasn't been much legislation, and one resolution passed since the previous attempt that would have caused problems has already been repealed.
The proposal whose re-submission I'm considering is ‘Wise Woodland Management’.

I don't believe there is a contradiction/duplication issue, however, it doesn't hurt to do your research. I doubt you'll need to change much. Especially since the rain forest resolution was repealed.

Apparently there have been no resolutions passed in Education and Creativity/Artistic. Does this have to do with the fact that anyone who tries to make a proposal will have to, sooner or later, define "art"?

On a more serious note, where can I find out if there has ever been a legal and non-silly proposal (which failed to get approved/passed) on any particular topic? Also, it be considered "plagiarism" if I borrowed the definitions from an earlier proposal, or should I completely reword them?

"Art" is far too subjective. It also is borderline with culture. These are two possible reasons why no resolution exists in that category.

As for finding non-silly proposals, you can use the "search" feature in this forum. You can refine your search to filter certain terms.

"Borrowing" would be plagiarism unless you had explicit permission from the author - a telegram, an RMB post, a forum post, a GHR in which the person states they give you permission. Anything that creates a paper trail on the site. Rewording is your best bet.

[Talkistan]

"Art" is far too subjective. It also is borderline with culture. These are two possible reasons why no resolution exists in that category.

As for finding non-silly proposals, you can use the "search" feature in this forum. You can refine your search to filter certain terms.

"Borrowing" would be plagiarism unless you had explicit permission from the author - a telegram, an RMB post, a forum post, a GHR in which the person states they give you permission. Anything that creates a paper trail on the site. Rewording is your best bet.

Thanks for the clarification... I would probably reword anyway, but if I find a very good definition, I'll make sure to consult with whoever drafted it first.

[The Akashic Records]

I know that this is a bit sudden, and what with this thread having clarified things on definition, but, does a repeal that asks for definitions of common words used in proper context giving no misunderstanding whatsoever when read as a whole, qualify for the status of bloody stupid?

The repeal of #266 was the reason that I'm asking, as this would, inevitably set a precedent on what authors need to define in their proposals, and I fear we might end up with dictionaries for proposals in the future.

[Talkistan]

I know that this is a bit sudden, and what with this thread having clarified things on definition, but, does a repeal that asks for definitions of common words used in proper context giving no misunderstanding whatsoever when read as a whole, qualify for the status of bloody stupid?

The repeal of #266 was the reason that I'm asking, as this would, inevitably set a precedent on what authors need to define in their proposals, and I fear we might end up with dictionaries for proposals in the future.

If defining everything becomes the standard, we'll soon need a 300,000 character limit for proposals...

[The Nation of Nietzsche]

Has there been a proposal defining what constitutes a nation? Does a nation constitute a rigorous boundary thereby constraining individuals as citizens of one area or is a nation defined by the citizens who reside within said nation?

[United Territories of Progorica]

I have noticed a very common criticism about GA proposals claiming that they are not "an international issue." I would like some clarification on what "an international issue" constitutes. Are we talking about issues that affect many different nations that makes it international, or does it have to be an issue that affects how nations interact with each other? I'm wondering if this criticism is actually used in a valid way.

[Araraukar]

Has there been a proposal defining what constitutes a nation? Does a nation constitute a rigorous boundary thereby constraining individuals as citizens of one area or is a nation defined by the citizens who reside within said nation?

In the NS multiverse a nation pretty much is whatever says it is a nation. So I doubt you even can define a nation satisfactorily.

[Talkistan]

Has there been a proposal defining what constitutes a nation? Does a nation constitute a rigorous boundary thereby constraining individuals as citizens of one area or is a nation defined by the citizens who reside within said nation?

I think "nation" is the one thing that requires absolutely no definition in NS. (The real world is a different story, but NS isn't RealWorld^TM)

[The Akashic Records]

I have noticed a very common criticism about GA proposals claiming that they are not "an international issue." I would like some clarification on what "an international issue" constitutes. Are we talking about issues that affect many different nations that makes it international, or does it have to be an issue that affects how nations interact with each other? I'm wondering if this criticism is actually used in a valid way.

That's actually a rather difficult subjective question. What one nation considers as an international issue may not be so for another, hence, the variation in interpretation, much like how National Sovereingtists would disagree with International Federalists on one thing, yet agree on another.

As a general rule of thumb, anything that affects other nations, as well as international interaction, are international issues. However, the dependency on whether or not it becomes something that an international consideration is needed depends on the severity and justification. Pollution for example, would be an international issue, but how can we deal with it effectively enough that an international community standard would be able to handle it better than national standard? Given the multitude of the multiverse in NS, it becomes near impossible to have a catch all resolution that can handle it. What counts as pollution for one world may not be so for another, and for the most part, the most common source of pollutant would be sapient creature activities, including but not limited to traffic, industries, and basic survival, to a point. I'm not going to delve any further on the subject, as I have very much limited knowledge of environmental concerns.

Back to the matter of international issue; if the author can't sufficiently justify and resolve said issue on an international scale, then it wouldn't be something worth the attention of the international community, or so the my general interpretation of it goes.

[United Territories of Progorica]

I have noticed a very common criticism about GA proposals claiming that they are not "an international issue." I would like some clarification on what "an international issue" constitutes. Are we talking about issues that affect many different nations that makes it international, or does it have to be an issue that affects how nations interact with each other? I'm wondering if this criticism is actually used in a valid way.

That's actually a rather difficult subjective question. What one nation considers as an international issue may not be so for another, hence, the variation in interpretation, much like how National Sovereingtists would disagree with International Federalists on one thing, yet agree on another.

As a general rule of thumb, anything that affects other nations, as well as international interaction, are international issues. However, the dependency on whether or not it becomes something that an international consideration is needed depends on the severity and justification. Pollution for example, would be an international issue, but how can we deal with it effectively enough that an international community standard would be able to handle it better than national standard? Given the multitude of the multiverse in NS, it becomes near impossible to have a catch all resolution that can handle it. What counts as pollution for one world may not be so for another, and for the most part, the most common source of pollutant would be sapient creature activities, including but not limited to traffic, industries, and basic survival, to a point. I'm not going to delve any further on the subject, as I have very much limited knowledge of environmental concerns.

Back to the matter of international issue; if the author can't sufficiently justify and resolve said issue on an international scale, then it wouldn't be something worth the attention of the international community, or so the my general interpretation of it goes.

Thank you very much for an answer. It seems to me that this international issue criticism isn't usually used in a helpful way when discussing the shortfalls of a resolution. I think a lot of the time it is used like NatSov but just with different words. I can see if a resolution is very narrow and is unreasonably specific, then it couldn't be an international issue. It's just frustrating to see that it's argued that pollution isn't a international issue, and then no will make the same argument about limitation on hunting. Huh? Hunting is an international issue and pollution isn't? I think there should be some modly ruling about the use of "international issue" because there is no mention of it in the rules thread and its a recurring criticism that is annoying to constantly argue against.

[Talkistan]

Thank you very much for an answer. It seems to me that this international issue criticism isn't usually used in a helpful way when discussing the shortfalls of a resolution. I think a lot of the time it is used like NatSov but just with different words. I can see if a resolution is very narrow and is unreasonably specific, then it couldn't be an international issue. It's just frustrating to see that it's argued that pollution isn't a international issue, and then no will make the same argument about limitation on hunting. Huh? Hunting is an international issue and pollution isn't? I think there should be some modly ruling about the use of "international issue" because there is no mention of it in the rules thread and its a recurring criticism that is annoying to constantly argue against.

Well, you can argue "NatSov" or "Not International Issue" or "Not really necessary" for just about any topic, in the forums. However, these are legislative arguments, not questions of legality. What individual nations have to decide during the voting process is whether it is important enough to override NatSov, or whether it is important enough as an international issue.
Every WA legislation attempts to override NatSov to some extent and/or declare an issue is internationally relevant. If it doesn't, then it does absolutely nothing, and can actually be illegal.

As long as it isn't illegal or "bloody stupid" it is an international issue, if enough nations decide it is.

[Alotopia]

Why are all the WA proposals mostly weapon bans?

[Araraukar]

Why are all the WA proposals mostly weapon bans?

They aren't. Those have just cropped up recently. Before that they were "all" environmental. Usually things inspire more of the same type.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why are all the WA proposals mostly weapon bans?

Not sure what you mean. We have one for chemical weapons and one for mens incontinence. Oh, and a couple bad ones on animals and the environment.

They tend to follow something of a pattern. You'll see them follow real world issues as the news reports march by. With New Jersey legalizing gay marriage, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a draft repealing FoMA soon.

[The Akashic Records]

Why are all the WA proposals mostly weapon bans?

Not sure what you mean. We have one for chemical weapons and one for mens incontinence. Oh, and a couple bad ones on animals and the environment.

They tend to follow something of a pattern. You'll see them follow real world issues as the news reports march by. With New Jersey legalizing gay marriage, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a draft repealing FoMA soon.

Don't we already have those on a regular basis, courtesy of the daily issue?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why are all the WA proposals mostly weapon bans?

Actually, more than twice as many International Security resolutions have passed than have Global Disarmament ones, and those latter have been overwhelming preoccupied with continually revisiting the issues of NBC weaponry. Including the Child Firearm Safety Act, just 4 out of over 250 articles of international law can be classified as weapons bans.