General Assembly Q&A

[Kryozerkia]

I guess I'd argue that "etiquette" dates from a time it was remotely possible to conduct a drafting thread IC in this forum.

It still is. But you'll have to understand that many people will have to use RL examples, because similar info just doesn't exist for the WA. You could do what I tend to do on PPU: put OOC things inside a spoiler. You can't control what others do, but if they stray too far into RL stuff, and start NSG-type arguments, I think that can be grounds for asking moderation to remind them that this is the GA forum. It has happened a few times.

Yes it is. Report it to Moderation and we'll guide players back on topic.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

Yes it is. Report it to Moderation and we'll guide players back on topic.

Not really what I'm talking about. Take this thread - and though I'm using my own as an example, I've seen it happen to others: 15 posts in, we have by my count 2 on topic, plus a third containing one line of IC comment and a lot of OOC guff, and 10+ all OOC nonsense. Why should people have to put up with wading through such drek, when at the same time the pitchforks are duly waved for anyone who doesn't post a draft?

[Araraukar]

Not really what I'm talking about. Take this thread - and though I'm using my own as an example, I've seen it happen to others: 15 posts in, we have by my count 2 on topic, plus a third containing one line of IC comment and a lot of OOC guff, and 10+ all OOC nonsense. Why should people have to put up with wading through such drek, when at the same time the pitchforks are duly waved for anyone who doesn't post a draft?

I wouldn't call "talking about whether these rules apply to this proposal" OOC nonsense (and some of the rest of it was indeed talking about the OOC/IC dividing and if it should be done) but I guess you could ask mods to splice off those posts and maybe put them in here?

We probably should have a "dumping thread" for OOC stuff like that - so the arguments could still be read (and maybe argued further), but wouldn't clutter up any particular drafting thread. But that would require a lot of mod activity...

Alternatively, I wonder if there was any way to require people to spoiler the OOC stuff, like we're required to spoiler large pictures?

[Solarmania]

Would a resolution to install an auto-defenestration system in the General Assembly Chambers be legal?

[Gruenberg]

Would a resolution to install an auto-defenestration system in the General Assembly Chambers be legal?

No. Resolutions have to act on nations, not on the WA itself.

[Wallenburg]

Would a resolution to install an auto-defenestration system in the General Assembly Chambers be legal?

No. Resolutions have to act on nations, not on the WA itself.

Besides, the best part about defenestration is its unexpected quality. If everyone knows where the auto-defenestrator is, they won't go near it.

[The Blaatschapen]

No. Resolutions have to act on nations, not on the WA itself.

Besides, the best part about defenestration is its unexpected quality. If everyone knows where the auto-defenestrator is, they won't go near it.

Except the WA gnome engineer who has to provide maintenance

[Insoboria]

can somebody hook me up with some world assembly endorsements?
also, if anyone wants to move to my region, please feel free to do so... it's getting lonely, because most of the nations in it are run by me

[Bears Armed]

can somebody hook me up with some world assembly endorsements?

You can only be endorsed by [WA] nations in the same region as yourself.

also, if anyone wants to move to my region, please feel free to do so... it's getting lonely, because most of the nations in it are run by me

Is there actually anything special enough about your region to make people want to move there?

[Araraukar]

also, if anyone wants to move to my region, please feel free to do so... it's getting lonely, because most of the nations in it are run by me

Is there actually anything special enough about your region to make people want to move there?

Also, this is not the place to advertize regions.

[Tinhampton]

How legal would a "free education for all people, up to X years of age" bill be?

[Araraukar]

How legal would a "free education for all people, up to X years of age" bill be?

Well it could be written to be legal fairly easily, as long as you tip-toed around A Promotion of Basic Education, but many - including me - would tell you that specifying ages is a bad idea, when you consider the variety of the WA nations as compared to real life ones (RL ones have only one species to begin with ).

And you'd also probably have a really big fight to pass it, because many people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to the government needing to provide free education/healthcare/anything to their nation's people.

Similar things have been tried before, though, you can probably find the drafting threads if you search the GA forum.

[Phrenics]

Why do the "historical resolutions" not comply with the guidelines on the current World Assembly proposals?
Even in general it seems extremely subjective and restricts government activities of member nations.

[Araraukar]

Why do the "historical resolutions" not comply with the guidelines on the current World Assembly proposals?
Even in general it seems extremely subjective and restricts government activities of member nations.

What "historical resolutions" do you mean? The ones that were passed before the World Assembly existed, were repealed when the WA was created, to start from anew. Also, the proposal rules have changed slightly over the years since WA came to be, and some resolutions that were passed back when the rules were different, might not be able to pass now. And vice versa.

As for restricting government activities - well, that's only if your nation is a WA nation. Joining is voluntary. If you mean the daily issues in gameside, you can choose whatever you want on those. The resolutions, when they pass, change your nation's stats, that's all they do on your gameside account. If you want to roleplay your nation as complying with the resolutions (as is suggested, when partaking this forum with a WA nation), that's your choice - many people ignore WA existing when doing RP on NationStates or International Incidents forums.

[Phrenics]

Why do the "historical resolutions" not comply with the guidelines on the current World Assembly proposals?
Even in general it seems extremely subjective and restricts government activities of member nations.

What "historical resolutions" do you mean? The ones that were passed before the World Assembly existed, were repealed when the WA was created, to start from anew. Also, the proposal rules have changed slightly over the years since WA came to be, and some resolutions that were passed back when the rules were different, might not be able to pass now. And vice versa.

As for restricting government activities - well, that's only if your nation is a WA nation. Joining is voluntary. If you mean the daily issues in gameside, you can choose whatever you want on those. The resolutions, when they pass, change your nation's stats, that's all they do on your gameside account. If you want to roleplay your nation as complying with the resolutions (as is suggested, when partaking this forum with a WA nation), that's your choice - many people ignore WA existing when doing RP on NationStates or International Incidents forums.

Thanks for replying.

I mean the "United Nations" resolutions are very subjective, such as "the axis of evil", and contradicts with what one can decide on issues. I thinkthe World Assembly guidelines are very polished and sensible. I am new here but I can perceive sophistication from the history of this game.

[Gruenberg]

I mean the "United Nations" resolutions are very subjective, such as "the axis of evil"

That was a test resolution "submitted" before the game even went live, and which was repealed the first chance they got.

and contradicts with what one can decide on issues.

So do many WA resolutions.

I thinkthe World Assembly guidelines are very polished and sensible.

They are not. They are so obtuse and unclear that the moderators gave up on enforcing them altogether.

I am new here but I can perceive sophistication from the history of this game.

Stick around a little while, and see how your opinion on the quality of the WA starts to change.

[Wallenburg]

They are not. They are so obtuse and unclear that the moderators gave up on enforcing them altogether.

1 day 6 hours ago: The proposal "Increase military spending" was removed from the floor.
1 day 6 hours ago: The proposal "less puppets and more nations" was removed from the floor.
1 day 19 hours ago: The proposal "Repeal "WA General Fund"" was removed from the floor.
2 days 13 hours ago: The proposal "New WA Fund" was removed from the floor.

Removed for plagiarizing GAR#17. Thanks.

I've carried out the ejection, and removed their other proposal from the queue.

[Bears Armed]

How legal would a "free education for all people, up to X years of age" bill be?

Well it could be written to be legal fairly easily, as long as you tip-toed around A Promotion of Basic Education, but many - including me - would tell you that specifying ages is a bad idea, when you consider the variety of the WA nations as compared to real life ones (RL ones have only one species to begin with ).

Which is why GAR #299 'Legal Competence' (Clause 4) blocks the WA from setting "one-size-fits-all" ages for anything...

[Tinhampton]

Well it could be written to be legal fairly easily, as long as you tip-toed around A Promotion of Basic Education, but many - including me - would tell you that specifying ages is a bad idea, when you consider the variety of the WA nations as compared to real life ones (RL ones have only one species to begin with ).

Which is why GAR #299 'Legal Competence' (Clause 4) blocks the WA from setting "one-size-fits-all" ages for anything...

In this context, although GAR#299 would prohibit "All people up to X years of age are entitled to free education", would it prohibit "All people that are not legally considered competent are entitled to free education"? How about "...Strongly urges that governments make free education mandatory up to X years of age"?

[Bears Armed]

Which is why GAR #299 'Legal Competence' (Clause 4) blocks the WA from setting "one-size-fits-all" ages for anything...

In this context, although GAR#299 would prohibit "All people up to X years of age are entitled to free education", would it prohibit "All people that are not legally considered competent are entitled to free education"?

No, it wouldn't.

How about "...Strongly urges that governments make free education mandatory up to X years of age"?

Probably okay, I think, but others might disagree...

[Gruenberg]

Why don't you just write the proposal? If there's a legality problem, that can be cleaned up in drafting.

In this context, although GAR#299 would prohibit "All people up to X years of age are entitled to free education", would it prohibit "All people that are not legally considered competent are entitled to free education"?

Probably not. Legal Competence doesn't address this issue.

How about "...Strongly urges that governments make free education mandatory up to X years of age"?

Probably not. Non-binding language isn't a Contradiction.

Neither of which is to say the proposal as a whole would be legal, because the language is so vague it might be a category violation. Which is why it would be better to just write the proposal, and then see.

[Kryozerkia]

Which is why it would be better to just write the proposal, and then see.

This sums up every response ever to hypothetical proposals.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Has anyone seen the pie chart? I love it. https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_de ... /council=1

[Wallenburg]

Has anyone seen the pie chart? I love it. https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_de ... /council=1

Your name's on it, so I can see why you'd like it.

[Gruenberg]

Player suggestion: Let's hide votes to mitigate the documented "lemming" effect

Admin response: No, let's make the current voting patterns even more obvious!

Just as it ever was.