General Assembly Q&A

[States of Glory WA Office]

*snip*

Ty, I'll post there once I'm more awake (I know it's not late evening here, but I've had a few long days with not enough sleep).

It says to send an email to nominations@nationstates.net.

[Araraukar]

It says to send an email to nominations@nationstates.net.

Eh, well, whatever. When I have enough braintime to think OOCly about NS stuff, I'll get it done.

[New Taborea]

Sorry if this has already been answered somewhere, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm curious how exactly WA resolutions affect member nations once they actually pass. For example, if the WA passed a resolution prohibiting member nations from possessing nuclear weapons, and in response to an issue I received I chose to have my nation state develop nuclear weapons anyway, am I correct in assuming that would be considered illegal? If so, what sort of punishment would be levied against me/my nation?

[Wallenburg]

Sorry if this has already been answered somewhere, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm curious how exactly WA resolutions affect member nations once they actually pass. For example, if the WA passed a resolution prohibiting member nations from possessing nuclear weapons, and in response to an issue I received I chose to have my nation state develop nuclear weapons anyway, am I correct in assuming that would be considered illegal? If so, what sort of punishment would be levied against me/my nation?

Passage of World Assembly resolutions will automatically affect your nation's stats in one way or another, depending on the resolution's category and strength. You as a player are under no obligation to answer issues in accordance with WA law.

Also, as a note, the World Assembly's "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" guarantees you the right to keep nuclear weapons, and that isn't going to be repealed any time soon.

[Techislovakia]

Hi guys, just wondering what is acceptable in terms of RL references. I have a series of FACTUAL (yes I have sources if you want them) information and want you guys to judge for each one whether or not it breaches rules and could not be used in a GA proposal:

1. nuclear power has been proven to be among the most environmentally friendly power sources, producing even less pollution than solar power
2. nuclear power plants are responsible for fewer deaths/birth defects each year than people killed in car crashes.
3.It is also estimated that up to 7 million people die prematurely each year due to pollution.
4. Nuclear power is the least popular form of energy, even less than coal or oil and this is based on prejudices rather than fact.
5. nuclear power plants produce vastly more power than any other type of green energy.

please respond with the number and a simple A for allowed of P for prohibited.

[World Dissembly]

Hi guys, just wondering what is acceptable in terms of RL references. I have a series of FACTUAL (yes I have sources if you want them) information and want you guys to judge for each one whether or not it breaches rules and could not be used in a GA proposal:

1. nuclear power has been proven to be among the most environmentally friendly power sources, producing even less pollution than solar power
2. nuclear power plants are responsible for fewer deaths/birth defects each year than people killed in car crashes.
3. It is also estimated that up to 7 million people die prematurely each year due to pollution.
4. Nuclear power is the least popular form of energy, even less than coal or oil and this is based on prejudices rather than fact.
5. nuclear power plants produce vastly more power than any other type of green energy.

please respond with the number and a simple A for allowed of P for prohibited.

Except (3), you could simply include all the other statements under a "BELIEVING" or "UNDERSTANDING" section without worrying about legality issues.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Except (3), you could simply include all the other statements under a "BELIEVING" or "UNDERSTANDING" section without worrying about legality issues.

Although then you'd run into the problem of proving any of that was true without resorting to RL statistics...

[The Blaatschapen]

Except (3), you could simply include all the other statements under a "BELIEVING" or "UNDERSTANDING" section without worrying about legality issues.

Although then you'd run into the problem of proving any of that was true without resorting to RL statistics...

Ah, but that's not part of legality, is it?

[Araraukar]

Ah, but that's not part of legality, is it?

No, but it would make crushing it all that easier. And proposals that are too easy to crush, are no fun to anyone.

[Sciongrad]

Although then you'd run into the problem of proving any of that was true without resorting to RL statistics...

Ah, but that's not part of legality, is it?

It wouldn't be illegal, but conventionally, resolutions don't assume specific facts because some hoohaw will just come in and say "well, actually, in my nation, launching coal emissions straight into the lungs of our citizens is considered much healthier than nuclear power." It's best to stick to factual generalization, like "recognizing that nuclear power is generally considered one of the least environmentally destructive forms of energy production."

[The Blaatschapen]

Ah, but that's not part of legality, is it?

It wouldn't be illegal, but conventionally, resolutions don't assume specific facts because some hoohaw will just come in and say "well, actually, in my nation, launching coal emissions straight into the lungs of our citizens is considered much healthier than nuclear power." It's best to stick to factual generalization, like "recognizing that nuclear power is generally considered one of the least environmentally destructive forms of energy production."

I know, nations are weird like that. But illegality was asked, and this is all "shape your proposal to my sandbox" so quite out of scope.

[Araraukar]

But illegality was asked, and this is all "shape your proposal to my sandbox" so quite out of scope.

Just because only an illegality was asked about, doesn't mean additional well-meaning advice could not be given as a bonus side dish.

[New Taborea]

Sorry if this has already been answered somewhere, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm curious how exactly WA resolutions affect member nations once they actually pass. For example, if the WA passed a resolution prohibiting member nations from possessing nuclear weapons, and in response to an issue I received I chose to have my nation state develop nuclear weapons anyway, am I correct in assuming that would be considered illegal? If so, what sort of punishment would be levied against me/my nation?

Passage of World Assembly resolutions will automatically affect your nation's stats in one way or another, depending on the resolution's category and strength. You as a player are under no obligation to answer issues in accordance with WA law.

Also, as a note, the World Assembly's "Nuclear Arms Possession Act" guarantees you the right to keep nuclear weapons, and that isn't going to be repealed any time soon.

Ok. I did peruse some of the earlier resolutions to try to find an answer, so I noticed the nuclear arms one had been repealed, but it still seemed a good example. Thanks for the quick answer though.

[Imperium Britannicum]

Do decisions in the WA actually affect my nation's stats? For example, if I had a massive basket-weaving industry and the GA decided to ban basket weaving, would I actually see that industry decline in my nation?

[Gruenberg]

Do decisions in the WA actually affect my nation's stats? For example, if I had a massive basket-weaving industry and the GA decided to ban basket weaving, would I actually see that industry decline in my nation?

Yes and no.

The only thing that has an effect is the category. For example, if a Human Rights resolution passes, your nation's Civil Rights go up.

However, the text of the resolution does not matter. So, if a Human Rights resolution banning capital punishment passes, your nation could still have capital punishment and receive issues about it.

[Imperium Britannicum]

Do decisions in the WA actually affect my nation's stats? For example, if I had a massive basket-weaving industry and the GA decided to ban basket weaving, would I actually see that industry decline in my nation?

Yes and no.

The only thing that has an effect is the category. For example, if a Human Rights resolution passes, your nation's Civil Rights go up.

However, the text of the resolution does not matter. So, if a Human Rights resolution banning capital punishment passes, your nation could still have capital punishment and receive issues about it.

Thanks. I've usually been apprehensive about joining, but now I know it's easier to reverse the damage done by the GA.

[Araraukar]

Thanks. I've usually been apprehensive about joining, but now I know it's easier to reverse the damage done by the GA.

Adding to that, that the resolution text basically only matters if you come to partake this forum in in-character (IC) manner. Otherwise you can completely ignore everything and use issue choices to change your stats.

[Enfaru]

Brief question:

Would a Resolution be allowed that defines extra standards for General Assembly proposals to meet on top of existing rules?

Like for example... a minimum word limit? With the intention of improving quality of Resolutions.

I can't seem to find a rule against it but a number of GA members have been...heated on the matter.

[Kaboomlandia]

Brief question:

Would a Resolution be allowed that defines extra standards for General Assembly proposals to meet on top of existing rules?

Like for example... a minimum word limit? With the intention of improving quality of Resolutions.

I can't seem to find a rule against it but a number of GA members have been...heated on the matter.

Wouldn't that be Game Mechanics? If something's too short it isn't necessary illegal.

[Enfaru]

I didn't say it was illegal, but it tends to be very short proposals (50 words or so) tend to be...well...spam and usually badly drafted. It would be nice if mods had the GA authorised ability to remove 'em.

So far as I can tell it wouldn't actually even attempt to affect the Game mechanics... seeing how the rule was created... it implies things that would require techies to take action to change. But that's why I'm asking here.

[Sciongrad]

Brief question:

Would a Resolution be allowed that defines extra standards for General Assembly proposals to meet on top of existing rules?

Like for example... a minimum word limit? With the intention of improving quality of Resolutions.

I can't seem to find a rule against it but a number of GA members have been...heated on the matter.

Wouldn't that be Game Mechanics? If something's too short it isn't necessary illegal.

In my (totally unofficial) opinion, that's about right. Resolutions cannot place constraints on future resolution except where those constraints are incidental to the game rules. In other words, a resolution cannot limit future resolutions, only the rules can. For example, blockers can only foreclose future legislation on a given topic because the contradiction rule exists. In the absence of the contradiction rule, blockers could not block future legislation. Therefore, any proposal that tries to limit an author's ability to write a resolution that isn't already present in the rules is a meta gaming violation.

If a 50 word proposal violates some rule, it will be removed. If it is legal, there is no reason to remove it.

Edit: typos

[Excidium Planetis]

I didn't say it was illegal, but it tends to be very short proposals (50 words or so) tend to be...well...spam and usually badly drafted. It would be nice if mods had the GA authorised ability to remove 'em.

So far as I can tell it wouldn't actually even attempt to affect the Game mechanics... seeing how the rule was created... it implies things that would require techies to take action to change. But that's why I'm asking here.

It isn't Game Mechanics, it is Metagaming, which is a "Mechanics" violation under the current rules.

Mechanics: There are aspects of gameplay and the game itself that cannot be legislated on, either because it requires a code change or it breaks the 'fourth wall'.

• Meta-Gaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.
• Game Mechanics: Proposals can not affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of member nations for non-compliance. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum.

Because the character limit would attempt to force action outside the IC WA (it would attempt to force mods to remove proposals, by your own statement, and would attempt to force players to write longer proposals), it would be Metagaming.

[Enfaru]

I reject EPs explanation because it wouldn't break the fourth wall. It has nothing to do with the players, it's the legislators (i.e the characters/writers) that would be bound. But that's beside the point because...

That's a good point Sciongrad, I hadn't thought about that angle. I guess a resolution asking the Judicial Committee (mods) to consider changing said rules would also be illegal. Ho hum. Though I'd argue that you're looking at the wrong rule. It's not a meta-gaming violation per se but a Format violation which is the closest I can get to "resolutions cannot place constraints on future resolutions".

[United Irish Counties]

I reject EPs explanation because it wouldn't break the fourth wall.

Reject it all you want, he's right. It would also be a certain category violation as you will not find a category to put this in.

[Gruenberg]

the Judicial Committee (mods)

When have the moderators ever been referred to as the "Judicial Committee" in the WA?