General Assembly Q&A

[Nucoclan]

(and partly one of me being an anal nutjob).

Why would you say that?

[Ardchoille]

I already brought this up before, and Ardchoille indicated she had already replied; however, I've yet to find that post in the forum. I'm hoping clarification will be forthcoming - but I don't believe the mods are unaware of the situation ...

Sorry, you won't find it; I misunderstood which question you meant. So I'll have a swing at this one in this thread, instead of sending you on Easter-egg hunts.

The situation, as far as I'm aware, is that you believe a Resolution should be repealed, and know that a repeal requires non-NatSov, text-based arguments in support of that. I don't read the rule about excessive back referencing as applying here. As you say, it's subjective, but as your argument depends in part on the volume of Resolutions you see as involved, it seems reasonable for you to cite them in volume.

TheOppressedOnes, as to the "ïllegality" of the listed Resolutions (ïllegality" in quotes there because all Resolutions are deemed to be legal by virtue of being Resolutions): any or all of the reasons suggested above is part of the answer, though I'm not really sold on the "more vigilant" argument for anybody, players or mods. Interpretation and perception don't depend on vigilance alone, and both alter over time, with different mods and different players taking different roles in the GA. In the long run, I think NS's regular "generational" change makes some drift inevitable. IRL, look at the way interpretations of real states' constitutions vary with time, as the framers die off and different groups give different interpretations of weight, intent and content.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I already brought this up before, and Ardchoille indicated she had already replied; however, I've yet to find that post in the forum. I'm hoping clarification will be forthcoming - but I don't believe the mods are unaware of the situation ...

Sorry, you won't find it; I misunderstood which question you meant. So I'll have a swing at this one in this thread, instead of sending you on Easter-egg hunts.

The situation, as far as I'm aware, is that you believe a Resolution should be repealed, and know that a repeal requires non-NatSov, text-based arguments in support of that. I don't read the rule about excessive back referencing as applying here. As you say, it's subjective, but as your argument depends in part on the volume of Resolutions you see as involved, it seems reasonable for you to cite them in volume.

The query I've been referencing is this one. You said you were occupied for the holidays, and I completely understood that and waited, patiently, for a response.* It was the new year shortly after so I thought it was reasonable to wait a bit more. But it's now been over three months, and there is a limit to patience.

The excessive back-referencing clarification is appreciated, though.

TheOppressedOnes, as to the "ïllegality" of the listed Resolutions (ïllegality" in quotes there because all Resolutions are deemed to be legal by virtue of being Resolutions): any or all of the reasons suggested above is part of the answer, though I'm not really sold on the "more vigilant" argument for anybody, players or mods. Interpretation and perception don't depend on vigilance alone, and both alter over time, with different mods and different players taking different roles in the GA. In the long run, I think NS's regular "generational" change makes some drift inevitable. IRL, look at the way interpretations of real states' constitutions vary with time, as the framers die off and different groups give different interpretations of weight, intent and content.

When there was a "generational" change from Enodia's sense of the rules to The Most Glorious Hack's, he held a drafting discussion before promulgating the final version of his new rules. (For example: all committees would have been banned had it not been for PC and Hotrodia's objections to that draft; the "gnomes" are the compromise resulting from that.) But what we have now is another "generational" change in which the sense of the rules has completely drifted - as mentioned above, the huge and lengthy discussions of the UN Security Act have all been unilaterally overruled by that decision - without any real discussion with the players. As unhelpful as I find Glen-Rhodes's outbursts of spleen, I don't entirely disagree with their basic premise: enforcement of the WA rules has become totally detached from the players' understanding of them, which makes your recent suggestion - that "regulars" help "befuddled newcomers" - impossible.

* Although I will say I expressly posted a legality challenge early so as to avoid the Christmas period, and the lack of any sort of a response meant I didn't even know that my challenge had been rejected until December 23rd.

Edit: I really cannot spell for shit.

[Defwa]

I've had a small flaw pointed out in my Bodily Integrity Act that could make its repeal a cinch. I've heard mention I can try to get it taken down so I can correct it but I don't know how to do that.

[The Dark Star Republic]

If you want to have a proposal removed, file a GHR. It will be removed and you'd have to recampaign for it when resubmitted, of course.

For the record I'm sorry I didn't see the error in your proposal until now: I hadn't give it a careful read.

[Defwa]

If you want to have a proposal removed, file a GHR. It will be removed and you'd have to recampaign for it when resubmitted, of course.

For the record I'm sorry I didn't see the error in your proposal until now: I hadn't give it a careful read.

And I have a terrible eye for things like that.
Well last time I didn't have to campaign, so if I can get it pulled, I'll let it sit another week just in case and notify the previous delegates of the resubmission.

[Nucoclan]

Is acesss to ports a good thing to write about?
Otherwise, does anybody else have any topic suggestions?

[Defwa]

Is acesss to ports a good thing to write about?
Otherwise, does anybody else have any topic suggestions?

Thats a very good idea. But before you do so, look up all the resolutions regarding trade and maritime regulation.

[Nucoclan]

Thats a very good idea. But before you do so, look up all the resolutions regarding trade and maritime regulation.

Sounds good and great advice, so that will happen.

[Stormwind-City]

Due to uh, certain recent occurrences within the WA. Would it be possible/legal to propose a resolution cracking down on the use of puppets to quasi-impersonate (The WA) or mislead the masses when it comes to resolutions and repeals?

_{Edited for clarification}

[Rotwood]

Due to uh, certain recent occurrences within the WA. Would it be possible/legal to propose a resolution cracking down on the use of puppets to quasi-impersonate (The WA) or mislead the masses when it comes to resolutions and repeals?

_{Edited for clarification}

That is.. a very good question, though I would prefer to see it brought back as an official rule rather than through a proposal that could possibly fail or be repealed.

[Stormwind-City]

Due to uh, certain recent occurrences within the WA. Would it be possible/legal to propose a resolution cracking down on the use of puppets to quasi-impersonate (The WA) or mislead the masses when it comes to resolutions and repeals?

_{Edited for clarification}

That is.. a very good question, though I would prefer to see it brought back as an official rule rather than through a proposal that could possibly fail or be repealed.

Gotta start somewhere though

[The Dark Star Republic]

Due to uh, certain recent occurrences within the WA. Would it be possible/legal to propose a resolution cracking down on the use of puppets to quasi-impersonate (The WA) or mislead the masses when it comes to resolutions and repeals?

_{Edited for clarification}

In the past, that would 100% have fallen under the Game Mechanics/MetaGaming section of the rules and been completely illegal.

Today? Who knows.

[Eireann Fae]

In the past, that would 100% have fallen under the Game Mechanics/MetaGaming section of the rules and been completely illegal.

Today? Who knows.

I don't think such rules should apply, really. The World Assembly is mentioned in almost every resolution, if not all of them, and I've always assumed that its flag was flying at the very real WAHQ. I see no reason a resolution couldn't be passed barring nations from impersonating the institution.

Enforcement of the resolution would be a Game Mechanics thing, but I think the text can be written into law.

[The Dark Star Republic]

In the past, that would 100% have fallen under the Game Mechanics/MetaGaming section of the rules and been completely illegal.

Today? Who knows.

I don't think such rules should apply, really. The World Assembly is mentioned in almost every resolution, if not all of them, and I've always assumed that its flag was flying at the very real WAHQ. I see no reason a resolution couldn't be passed barring nations from impersonating the institution.

Enforcement of the resolution would be a Game Mechanics thing, but I think the text can be written into law.

Great...let's start changing all the proposal rules just to spite a player the entitled forum regulars believe they have a mod-given right to bait the shit out of! If Auralia hadn't been the source of this attempt to throw absolutely any rules challenge at his repeal, this wouldn't even be an issue - did a single WA player raise this issue when Liegeois actually impersonated the WA?

Seriously, "it's only a matter of enforcement" is the case for most things that would fall under the Game Mechanics rules, like requiring a single currency or mandating delegates vote according to their region's wishes.

Anyone remember when the mods banned the word "ass" from nation names, but made an exception for Assington, because it was a real place, and people began finding other real places with "ass" or similar words in the name and creating nations? Yes, that's definitely the kind of road we should go down again.

[Eireann Fae]

Great...let's start changing all the proposal rules just to spite a player the entitled forum regulars believe they have a mod-given right to bait the shit out of! If Auralia hadn't been the source of this attempt to throw absolutely any rules challenge at his repeal, this wouldn't even be an issue - did a single WA player raise this issue when Liegeois actually impersonated the WA?

It's not about Auralia. I'm not familiar with Liegeois, but I would raise the issue had I been there. Just like I'd raise the issue if it were Rotwood, Defwa, Abacathea, Separatist Peoples, you, Mousebumples, or any other player I typically get along with. Is it really so hard to believe that someone can be opposed in principle to anyone impersonating the WA?

Edit: I do lol at WA Building Mgmt, but they aren't trying to support or pass resolutions. If they did, I'd speak out against that, too.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Great...let's start changing all the proposal rules just to spite a player the entitled forum regulars believe they have a mod-given right to bait the shit out of! If Auralia hadn't been the source of this attempt to throw absolutely any rules challenge at his repeal, this wouldn't even be an issue - did a single WA player raise this issue when Liegeois actually impersonated the WA?

It's not about Auralia. I'm not familiar with Liegeois, but I would raise the issue had I been there. Just like I'd raise the issue if it were Rotwood, Defwa, Abacathea, Separatist Peoples, you, Mousebumples, or any other player I typically get along with. Is it really so hard to believe that someone can be opposed in principle to anyone impersonating the WA?

The original complaint specifically cited:

Due to uh, certain recent occurrences within the WA. ...

So, I don't really believe you.

But that's not going anywhere profitable. So, on the "impersonation" issue itself, I guess I'll just say that it seems to me that such a rule change would have to come through the mods, not through a player resolution, and that if such a change did happen, I hope there would be an opportunity to discuss it first, unlike with the many other changes we've seen warp the sense of the rules.

Yay - agreement, for once.
|
V

[Ardchoille]

Can't see how you'd ban it via a proposal without going into game mechanics. Even if you kept it to "WA nations are forbidden to impersonate the WA" -- how can a nation impersonate the WA? With the WA flag? You can't ban WA member nations from using the WA flag, because nation flags are an in-game choice, and using the WA flag is allowed in-game. Same with nation pre-titles that don't violate other site rules. The WA can't do in a proposal what the WA can't do in-game (or, if you prefer the Proposal Rules version, the WA can't change how the game works). TGs? Players can't send official WA TGs. Pretending to be a mod? Rules against that already exist, with DEAT as the penalty. Signing off as "Frednation, for the WA"? Depending on circumstances, that might step over a line, but in any case, it'd be either an in-game offence or permitted roleplay.

Apart from that, this is a political site and the action we're discussing is a political move in a notoriously political den lovingly called the Snakepit. Players have their own avenues to deal with political moves, as any community does. If you want a mod to impose it by fiat, or ask the admins to do so, I wouldn't give much for your chances. It was the GA mods who defended a player group's right to try to stop any proposals getting through the SC, because, however annoying the effect, it used legitimate game-based mechanisms. [EDIT: There weren't any SC-based mods at the time.[/EDIT]

Most "if it isn't forbidden, it's allowed" shock moves tend to be once-offs. This technique would probably not succeed again while people who experienced it are still playing: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After that, will everything old be new again? Who knows? (Darkwing Duck voice: The Shadow knows ...)

[Bears Armed]

I haven't tried my hand at drafting any repeals before this, but am thinking about doing so (for one resolution in particular) in the near future. However before doing so i would appreciate clarification about how the rule against relying on 'NatSov' arguments in repeals works.
i realise that both "Believing that Nations should be free to do what they want" and "Noting that the resolution requires member nations to legalise the practice of [WHATEVER], but that that practice offends against many nations' ideologies and so nations should be able to ban it if they want to do so" count as NatSov arguments -- and therefore invalid as justifications for repeal -- but would an argument that

Noting that the The resolution requires member nations to legalise the practice of [WHATEVER], but that that practice could potentially cause the practical problem of [SITUATION DESCRIBED].
Believing therefore nations that are concerned about the problem should be allowed to ban the practice.

be allowed, or would I have to claim the desirability of a "universal" ban on the practice instead?

[Rotwood]

I don't think such rules should apply, really. The World Assembly is mentioned in almost every resolution, if not all of them, and I've always assumed that its flag was flying at the very real WAHQ. I see no reason a resolution couldn't be passed barring nations from impersonating the institution.

Enforcement of the resolution would be a Game Mechanics thing, but I think the text can be written into law.

Great...let's start changing all the proposal rules just to spite a player the entitled forum regulars believe they have a mod-given right to bait the shit out of! If Auralia hadn't been the source of this attempt to throw absolutely any rules challenge at his repeal, this wouldn't even be an issue - did a single WA player raise this issue when Liegeois actually impersonated the WA?

Seriously, "it's only a matter of enforcement" is the case for most things that would fall under the Game Mechanics rules, like requiring a single currency or mandating delegates vote according to their region's wishes.

Anyone remember when the mods banned the word "ass" from nation names, but made an exception for Assington, because it was a real place, and people began finding other real places with "ass" or similar words in the name and creating nations? Yes, that's definitely the kind of road we should go down again.

For us, it isn't about baiting Auralia but to prevent it happening again. A number of players raised it during the issue, and IIRC from either one of the mods or players, back in the old NSUN days there was a rule about it, yet it was rescinded somewhere along the way when it was reformed as the WA, so it would be a case of bringing it back rather than it being bringing a new rule in

[Nucoclan]

Still in the pre-draft process for Access to Ports. I will write the resolution in a writing notebook while looking at all of the passed free trade resolutions. then I will post it to the GA forum after I have made any necessary changes to it to make it into what might be a successful proposal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

For us, it isn't about baiting Auralia but to prevent it happening again. A number of players raised it during the issue, and IIRC from either one of the mods or players, back in the old NSUN days there was a rule about it, yet it was rescinded somewhere along the way when it was reformed as the WA, so it would be a case of bringing it back rather than it being bringing a new rule in

I would find it incredibly surprising if that were the case. I never saw any mod objection to Sovereign UN Territory or the various other inhabitants of The Halls of the UN, a region which contained at least one mod puppet!

That said, Ardchoille has already indicated above that there really isn't anything to stop from "happening again". Using WA in a nation name has always been legal; using the WA flag has been ruled legal; using the Charter Group nation or a similar one has been ruled illegal.

[Stormwind-City]

Can't see how you'd ban it via a proposal without going into game mechanics. Even if you kept it to "WA nations are forbidden to impersonate the WA" -- how can a nation impersonate the WA? With the WA flag? You can't ban WA member nations from using the WA flag, because nation flags are an in-game choice, and using the WA flag is allowed in-game. Same with nation pre-titles that don't violate other site rules. The WA can't do in a proposal what the WA can't do in-game (or, if you prefer the Proposal Rules version, the WA can't change how the game works). TGs? Players can't send official WA TGs. Pretending to be a mod? Rules against that already exist, with DEAT as the penalty. Signing off as "Frednation, for the WA"? Depending on circumstances, that might step over a line, but in any case, it'd be either an in-game offence or permitted roleplay.

Apart from that, this is a political site and the action we're discussing is a political move in a notoriously political den lovingly called the Snakepit. Players have their own avenues to deal with political moves, as any community does. If you want a mod to impose it by fiat, or ask the admins to do so, I wouldn't give much for your chances. It was the GA mods who defended a player group's right to try to stop any proposals getting through the SC, because, however annoying the effect, it used legitimate game-based mechanisms. [EDIT: There weren't any SC-based mods at the time.[/EDIT]

Most "if it isn't forbidden, it's allowed" shock moves tend to be once-offs. This technique would probably not succeed again while people who experienced it are still playing: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After that, will everything old be new again? Who knows? (Darkwing Duck voice: The Shadow knows ...)

What if it was along the lines of discouraging it from taking place?

[Rotwood]

For us, it isn't about baiting Auralia but to prevent it happening again. A number of players raised it during the issue, and IIRC from either one of the mods or players, back in the old NSUN days there was a rule about it, yet it was rescinded somewhere along the way when it was reformed as the WA, so it would be a case of bringing it back rather than it being bringing a new rule in

I would find it incredibly surprising if that were the case. I never saw any mod objection to Sovereign UN Territory or the various other inhabitants of The Halls of the UN, a region which contained at least one mod puppet!

That said, Ardchoille has already indicated above that there really isn't anything to stop from "happening again". Using WA in a nation name has always been legal; using the WA flag has been ruled legal; using the Charter Group nation or a similar one has been ruled illegal.

The rule wasnt about <insertnation> WA Mission, it was about about using World Assembly <insertstuffhere>, and as I stated, they did say it was back in the old UN days but had been discarded

[Separatist Peoples]

For us, it isn't about baiting Auralia but to prevent it happening again. A number of players raised it during the issue, and IIRC from either one of the mods or players, back in the old NSUN days there was a rule about it, yet it was rescinded somewhere along the way when it was reformed as the WA, so it would be a case of bringing it back rather than it being bringing a new rule in

I would find it incredibly surprising if that were the case. I never saw any mod objection to Sovereign UN Territory or the various other inhabitants of The Halls of the UN, a region which contained at least one mod puppet!

That said, Ardchoille has already indicated above that there really isn't anything to stop from "happening again". Using WA in a nation name has always been legal; using the WA flag has been ruled legal; using the Charter Group nation or a similar one has been ruled illegal.

I believe the concern was primarily the fact that the WA Charter Group had multiple people behind it (it was openly stated as such). The "Group" was a group organized out of the game, where, if we were operating under the one player-per-nation idea, the group would be a RP'd group of individuals.