General Assembly Q&A

[Separatist Peoples]

It looks interesting to me, and potentially legal, but if it doesn't do anything to/for existing members as well then aren't you in danger of a 'Committee Only' illegality?

There are other aspects, but this is the one most likely to cause legality issues.

However if members are already allowed a [honestly] reasonable amount of time to come completely into compliance with new resolutions in those cases where immediate change would obviously not be possible (e.g. housing standards) but no timescale is actually specified within those laws themselves, as I seem to recall seeing at least one Mod say before this, then maybe aiming the proposed resolution at all members that "need" such help -- with newcomers mentioned as particularly likely to need help, due to the potentially high number of resolutions with which they must come into compliance simultaneously -- instead might be better?

This is one of my biggest gripes with the instantaneous compliance argument, and I can see a lot of value in expanding this to include them, too.

Category and strength?

I have definitely not gotten that far. Tentatively, I'd call this Health | International aid, because it is definitively aiding the international community with support funding. The Health bit is a little more questionable, but just from a coding perspective, I'd be looking to bump up the International Aid statistic.

[The Blaatschapen]

I have more hypothetical!!!!!

I the egam considering draft of a resolution to deal with the transitory nature of membership with the GA. I am looking to include a committee that will assist prospective nonmembers seeking membership (ICly, of course), into transitioning into compliance with GA resolutions (in a nonbinding nature). Essentially, it's a carrot for membership: Prove that you're making a good-faith effort to transition to compliance and membership, and get financial and logistical aid from the WA to that end.

For example, Access to Sanitation requires a potentially massive investment in infrastructure that a nonmember with no money couldn't afford. If they joined the WA, they would immediately be in noncompliance and have no funds to get into compliance. This would allow the GA, through a committee, to provide that financial and technical support so the transition is one of a state either in or actively making progress toward compliance into membership.

Having explained the idea, here is my question: Would this constitute Affecting Nonmembers?

I don't believe so, since the support is nonbinding, and would be withdrawn if there is any indication of a lack of good faith in transitioning, like not taking steps to getting rid of state-sanctioned racial segregation but trying to claim that they are going to join, and just need a big lump of cash first. As such, it's all carrot and no stick, which is where the issue of telling nonmembers what to do comes from. However, I don't want to waste time writing a complex draft if the idea is flawed at it's core.

I wonder if this is not a game mechanics violation?

[Snefaldia]

I wonder if this is not a game mechanics violation?

I rather think it would depend on how the resolution is written and what the operative clauses are. I quite like the idea of legislation dealing with what happens procedurally when new members join and leave, as long as it's carefully written.

[Tzorsland]

I wonder if this is not a game mechanics violation?

Only if it actually wanted to do its objectives through game mechanics. Technically speaking, entering and exiting the WA has no game mechanical effect. (But we tend to ignore that effect for general purposes and just assume in a non game mechanical way that nations entering the WA are obligated by all current resolutions.) If the proposal was structured more as a "feel good" resolution such as "Read the Resolution Act" it would not be a game mechanics violation. A gnome committee would assist with the transition at no cost to the nation which is precisely what currently happens according to the game mechanics.

[Kryozerkia]

I wonder if this is not a game mechanics violation?

No because a game mechanics violation would require that the proposal specifically targets how the game works. Legislation to specify how to assist new member nations in becoming compliant is not. This hypothetical sounds like a procedural document/proposal. It's likely written to take effect upon the nation joining the WA. The nation would be considered 'in transition' as it becomes fully compliant with existing legislation. It would take place behind the scenes similarly to committees. A "Transitory Act", which lays out how a new member nation will comply with existing legislation could be legal as long as it applies after assumption of membership.

[Snefaldia]

I wonder if this is not a game mechanics violation?

No because a game mechanics violation would require that the proposal specifically targets how the game works. Legislation to specify how to assist new member nations in becoming compliant is not. This hypothetical sounds like a procedural document/proposal. It's likely written to take effect upon the nation joining the WA. The nation would be considered 'in transition' as it becomes fully compliant with existing legislation. It would take place behind the scenes similarly to committees. A "Transitory Act", which lays out how a new member nation will comply with existing legislation could be legal as long as it applies after assumption of membership.

One issue could be optionality, though, so the resolution would have to be structured to apply equally to all nations, and not just those that are newly joined.

[Separatist Peoples]

I wonder if this is not a game mechanics violation?

No because a game mechanics violation would require that the proposal specifically targets how the game works. Legislation to specify how to assist new member nations in becoming compliant is not. This hypothetical sounds like a procedural document/proposal. It's likely written to take effect upon the nation joining the WA. The nation would be considered 'in transition' as it becomes fully compliant with existing legislation. It would take place behind the scenes similarly to committees. A "Transitory Act", which lays out how a new member nation will comply with existing legislation could be legal as long as it applies after assumption of membership.

The input is very much appreciated!

Additionally, anything that comes before will be strictly voluntary. Last I had heard, it wouldn't be Affecting Nonmembers if nonmembers voluntarily complied with resolutions, and could be allowed access to committee benefits, so long as the transaction was voluntary and not legally coercive. I think that came up in one of the Space Debris resolutions. Anything I theoretically write that affects nonmembers would be entirely nonbinding.

One could argue that, since membership is instantaneous, and compliance is required, there is no transitional period, but I think that would be a gross over-application of game mechanics to roleplay conventions. There is a massive amount of potential in transitory legislation, which could potentially spark a veritable renaissance of proposal writing to fill in perceived gaps. Just about any topic currently written on could have a transitory law written.

In essence, I believe that there is not only a black-letter line that this likely wouldn't cross, but that it would be obviously beneficial to the community to hold that interpretation over a more strict one.

Obviously, this is all very hypothetical at this point. I would welcome collaboration and further discussion (maybe once there is a council?), because this has potential to be anywhere from one resolution to a large collection of more precise resolutions, and I'd like things to be a bit more legally and conceptually concrete before expending energy on a large project.

No because a game mechanics violation would require that the proposal specifically targets how the game works. Legislation to specify how to assist new member nations in becoming compliant is not. This hypothetical sounds like a procedural document/proposal. It's likely written to take effect upon the nation joining the WA. The nation would be considered 'in transition' as it becomes fully compliant with existing legislation. It would take place behind the scenes similarly to committees. A "Transitory Act", which lays out how a new member nation will comply with existing legislation could be legal as long as it applies after assumption of membership.

One issue could be optionality, though, so the resolution would have to be structured to apply equally to all nations, and not just those that are newly joined.

An excellent point. I would hope that, as the Council idea and the possibility for Category expansion continues, there would be a more secure way for a resolution to target a particular subgroup of members without having to take into account members that need no such assistance. I think a token requirement for liaison would probably satisfy that requirement.

[Kryozerkia]

The input is very much appreciated!

Additionally, anything that comes before will be strictly voluntary. Last I had heard, it wouldn't be Affecting Nonmembers if nonmembers voluntarily complied with resolutions, and could be allowed access to committee benefits, so long as the transaction was voluntary and not legally coercive. I think that came up in one of the Space Debris resolutions. Anything I theoretically write that affects nonmembers would be entirely nonbinding.

One could argue that, since membership is instantaneous, and compliance is required, there is no transitional period, but I think that would be a gross over-application of game mechanics to roleplay conventions. There is a massive amount of potential in transitory legislation, which could potentially spark a veritable renaissance of proposal writing to fill in perceived gaps. Just about any topic currently written on could have a transitory law written.

In essence, I believe that there is not only a black-letter line that this likely wouldn't cross, but that it would be obviously beneficial to the community to hold that interpretation over a more strict one.

Obviously, this is all very hypothetical at this point. I would welcome collaboration and further discussion (maybe once there is a council?), because this has potential to be anywhere from one resolution to a large collection of more precise resolutions, and I'd like things to be a bit more legally and conceptually concrete before expending energy on a large project.

Yes, you're right that compliance is required, and is instant. From a rules/game mechanics perspective, it is an over-application. I would like to see this play out. It's a fascinating concept.

One issue could be optionality, though, so the resolution would have to be structured to apply equally to all nations, and not just those that are newly joined.

It would apply to all but it would be relevant/applicable to new nations and nations previously practicing active non-compliance. There are resolutions which are mandatory for all nations but not applicable. A popular example is #168: Laws of the Sea. It applies to all member nations but it is not applicable to landlocked nations.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Actually it does apply to landlocked nations, since if they happened to have any vessels in another nation's waters (they sailed to the sea via river or whatever), they would be required to respect that nation's jurisdiction and sovereignty.

[Kryozerkia]

Actually it does apply to landlocked nations, since if they happened to have any vessels in another nation's waters (they sailed to the sea via river or whatever), they would be required to respect that nation's jurisdiction and sovereignty.

Nations can be compliant even if the law is non-applicable.

[Snefaldia]

Actually it does apply to landlocked nations, since if they happened to have any vessels in another nation's waters (they sailed to the sea via river or whatever), they would be required to respect that nation's jurisdiction and sovereignty.

Nations can be compliant even if the law is non-applicable.

I actually like this interpretation; I remember the optionality rule had always been applied quite narrowly (Ardchoille, I think, was in favor of a strict interpretation).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Actually it does apply to landlocked nations, since if they happened to have any vessels in another nation's waters (they sailed to the sea via river or whatever), they would be required to respect that nation's jurisdiction and sovereignty.

Reminds me of a game of EU4. I got a Trade War casus belli so I can blockade enemy ports... right after fighting a war to retake a core which also happened to be their last port... So there was nothing to blockade.

[Torikan]

New Nation, Government: socialist, my nation appears as "inoffensive Centrist Democracy"

[Wallenburg]

New Nation, Government: socialist, my nation appears as "inoffensive Centrist Democracy"

Exactly what is it that you are asking of us here? I don't think the GA is the place to talk about nation classifications.

[Talkistan]

Question:
Would a hypothetical proposal to control the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport fit in the "Recreational drug use/ban" category?

I won't draft an full proposal unless it fits within the scope of the category, but it would basically do the following things:

• Define performance enhancing drugs (PEDs)
• Establish an anti-doping committee tasked with identifying PEDs, particularly those with potentially high risks of harmful effects
• Require nations to keep a regularly updated database of PEDs
• Encourage nations to take steps to prevent the use of PEDs in national and international sporting events

Edit: After a bit of searching, I found a few past proposals ( like viewtopic.php?f=9&t=167433 and viewtopic.php?f=9&t=243394 and viewtopic.php?f=9&t=77228 ), but they used categories like "Education and Creativity," "Moral Decency" and "International Security"

So, I rephrase the question: Does the use of drugs have to be recreational in itself, or do drugs used for enhancing performance in recreational activities like sport (or even art) fit into "Recreational Drug Use?"

[Gruenberg]

Without being able to comment on the specifics, I would have thought "yes": proposals on medicinal and sacramental/entheogenic drug use were filed in that category, so it seems like it's about "drug use" irrespective of what the drugs are actually being used for.

[Novo Port]

How do regions operate. Are they like alliances? Or can two people in the Sam region war with each other.

[Snefaldia]

How do regions operate. Are they like alliances? Or can two people in the Sam region war with each other.

Try this thread for advice on the Gameplay side of things, like how regions work. This forum is for the World Assembly's General Assembly, and if you want to learn more about that, start here!

[Kryozerkia]

Without being able to comment on the specifics, I would have thought "yes": proposals on medicinal and sacramental/entheogenic drug use were filed in that category, so it seems like it's about "drug use" irrespective of what the drugs are actually being used for.

That's correct.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, the Great Reddit Surge of 2016 has started to peter out. And now we have an extra 5 000 WA member nations! The world-domination conspiracy grows!

[Kryozerkia]

Well, the Great Reddit Surge of 2016 has started to peter out. And now we have an extra 5 000 WA member nations! The world-domination conspiracy grows!

Here's hoping the new authors who may emerge from there will consult the rule set before diving head first into the shallow end.

[Wistomerobi Metland]

Dumb question from a noob. Are the resolutions enforced automatically by the game system? Or are they "enforced" by just the assumption players will follow them fairly?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Dumb question from a noob. Are the resolutions enforced automatically by the game system? Or are they "enforced" by just the assumption players will follow them fairly?

Depends. RP-ly, in the GA, it is a convention that compliance is adhered to. In the NS stats, compliance is adhered to because your stats change when a resolution is passed. In forums like International Incidents, they don't really follow what we do (with some exceptions).

[Singularity of the Will]

hello all nations,

There is a proposal i would like to give approval, but i am new and have no endorsements. I am in a closed region that I made when I first joined so I do not have that option from neighbors.

My actual question is there a way to gain endorsements from within the WA?

thank you

[Imperium Anglorum]

There is a proposal i would like to give approval, but i am new and have no endorsements. I am in a closed region that I made when I first joined so I do not have that option from neighbors.

My actual question is there a way to gain endorsements from within the WA?

People from inside your region need to endorse you. Those people must be WA members. If you have no region members which are part of the WA, then to make that work, you should leave your region. A region like Europe (which is my region) will give you tons of endorsements really fast. (By the way, Europe has the most average endorsements of any region. True fact.) Similarly, any of the feeders (like The North Pacific) will also allow you to get 2 endorsements extremely quickly.

However, if you want to propose something PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post it to this forum first so we can look at it. There are rules and what-not which proposals have to follow and it is best to look at drafts before direct submission.