NationStates

Just a question are resolution titles capped at 30? Or some other number cap?

Aden Protectorate wrote:Just a question are resolution titles capped at 30? Or some other number cap?

Short (unofficial) answer: yes, 30.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Aden Protectorate wrote:Just a question are resolution titles capped at 30? Or some other number cap?

Short (unofficial) answer: yes, 30.

Okay thanks! I need that so I may update my resolution.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=290285
I was advised by Drasnia to get a legality check on this before submission. Can one of the mods please do it?

I'm hoping you already know that mods don't do blanket legality checks, so I'll make a wild guess and focus on the "weeping delegates".

On the evidence of the WA Headquarters Act --

The ambassadors and observers to the NationStates World Assembly:

Laboring to pay attention after lengthy drinking binges last night at a well-known local pub (which, for purposes of this resolution, and for liability reasons, cannot be named);

-- we have reason to believe that reasonable nations acknowledge that somebody does all that talking in the GA; that those somebodies react to circumstances; and that those reactions can be mentioned in proposals.

So the only problem might be that "Delegate" describes a game-generated position, and referring to game-generated features is metagaming.

However, not all delegates are Regional Delegates, and in the proposal "delegate" is a clear reference to the folk who do the talking, not to the in-game position. So you're home free on that count.

Note to rules-lawyers: yes, I know. "Region" and "Commends". If "Region", with or without the cap R, can be read as the game feature, it's dead. Otherwise, fine. If "Commends" refers to a single nation, it belongs in the SC, but the GA can generically commend almost anything its little heart desires, alpacas? Noooo! subject to the other rules limits.

What should I put in thehttp://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=290685 to make it to possible Quorum?

That link above will lead you to the Access to Sea ports resolution.

Er, isn't that the point to your draft thread? To help you write a viable WA proposal/resolution? I suggest you pay close attention to the suggestions you've already gotten, particularly this:

Goddess Relief Office wrote:"We agree with Ambassador Bell's point that you should spend more time drafting and participating in debates. Don't be too hasty in submitting 5 day old proposals. Give it time and keep rewriting. "

Many a sloppy/unpopular/illegal proposal has gotten to vote because authors got too impatient during drafting and submitted their work before it was ready for primetime.

Nucoclan wrote:What should I put in [edit]my proposal[/edit] to make it to possible Quorum?<snip>

This thread is not for advertising proposals. Ask specific questions, such as queries about interpretation, legality or procedure.

Ardchoille wrote:This thread is not for advertising proposals. Ask specific questions, such as queries about interpretation, legality or procedure.

I was trying to get help on it, not advertise it.

I know this sounds stupid, but where is the repeal category? I can't find it.

Former United Soviet Socialist republic wrote:I know this sounds stupid, but where is the repeal category? I can't find it.

Hey

It's not a category in the same sense as the others.

Generally you get your draft ready before, and then when you're ready to go, find the resolution in question and use the link "repeal this resolution" that'll be on the bottom of it.

I'd advise doing up a draft on the forums and getting the feedback of the regulars first before hitting the above stage though!

Hope this helps,

Aba.

I seem to recall seeing a list of passed resolutions by author. Can anyone direct me to that, and/or answer the following question: "How many GA authors have passed 10+ proposals?" Thank you!

SkyDip wrote:I seem to recall seeing a list of passed resolutions by author. Can anyone direct me to that,

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=237455

answer the following question: "How many GA authors have passed 10+ proposals?" Thank you!

Depends how you count them. Do you group Connopolis and Sciongrad together? Do Mousebumples's various co-authorships count? Does this include NSUN resolutions?

Glen-Rhodes once referred to such accounting as a "dick-waving contest". I'm inclined to agree.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

SkyDip wrote:I seem to recall seeing a list of passed resolutions by author. Can anyone direct me to that,

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=237455

answer the following question: "How many GA authors have passed 10+ proposals?" Thank you!

Depends how you count them. Do you group Connopolis and Sciongrad together? Do Mousebumples's various co-authorships count? Does this include NSUN resolutions?

Glen-Rhodes once referred to such accounting as a "dick-waving contest". I'm inclined to agree.

To be fair, I have over 10 in the GA, even without my co-authorships. But, yes.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=237455

Thanks.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:Depends how you count them. Do you group Connopolis and Sciongrad together? Do Mousebumples's various co-authorships count? Does this include NSUN resolutions?

Glen-Rhodes once referred to such accounting as a "dick-waving contest". I'm inclined to agree.

Yes, Scion and Conno count as one; no, co-authorships don't count; no, UN resolutions don't count.

I'm not here to...erm, wave any dicks. Just looking for how many there are in each assembly.

SkyDip wrote:I'm not here to...erm, wave any dicks.

Well... ahem... thank you for clearing that up.

Question: If someone authors a resolution that's later repealed, do they keep the badge?

Wrapper wrote:

SkyDip wrote:I'm not here to...erm, wave any dicks.

Well... ahem... thank you for clearing that up.

Question: If someone authors a resolution that's later repealed, do they keep the badge?

Last I checked, yes.

Sanctaria wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Well... ahem... thank you for clearing that up.

Question: If someone authors a resolution that's later repealed, do they keep the badge?

Last I checked, yes.

This is correct.

Abacathea wrote:

Former United Soviet Socialist republic wrote:I know this sounds stupid, but where is the repeal category? I can't find it.

Hey

It's not a category in the same sense as the others.

Generally you get your draft ready before, and then when you're ready to go, find the resolution in question and use the link "repeal this resolution" that'll be on the bottom of it.

I'd advise doing up a draft on the forums and getting the feedback of the regulars first before hitting the above stage though!

Hope this helps,

Aba.

Thanks!

I was reading about the Dictionary Definitions ruling in Douria's Rulings and Interpretations thread.

I have one question though: how can it be ascertained that another state hasn't, malevolently changed the wiki definition to suit what was defined in the GA proposal, in order to frame someone of plagiarism to lose his WA rights of that state?

(As you can see I'm very protective of assuring that EnE don't catch up in nonsensical frustrating situations that isn't self-imposed - and I've been hesitating to define definitions in my proposals for the exact same fear.)

Elke and Elba wrote:I have one question though: how can it be ascertained that another state hasn't, malevolently changed the wiki definition to suit what was defined in the GA proposal, in order to frame someone of plagiarism to lose his WA rights of that state?

Even in NS, no one would be that petty.

More practically, wikis have public edit histories.

Also, I'm confused as to what the "Discussion" thread is for, if this thread is also to be used for discussing rulings.

The Dark Star Republic, emphasis mine wrote:

Elke and Elba wrote:I have one question though: how can it be ascertained that another state hasn't, malevolently changed the wiki definition to suit what was defined in the GA proposal, in order to frame someone of plagiarism to lose his WA rights of that state?

Even in NS, no one would be that petty.

More practically, wikis have public edit histories.

Also, I'm confused as to what the "Discussion" thread is for, if this thread is also to be used for discussing rulings.

I thought so, but the ruling linked had Ard comment about people in other subforums in NS changing wiki articles to prove the other party wrong - so it does make it entirely possible for a malevolent character to do so.

The ruling allowing dictionary definitions was withdrawn.

This thread isn't for rehashing arguments about the rulings, but if there's anything that's been linked that players think shouldn't be included (eg, doesn't add much, not as clear as/duplicates some other version), or any queries about apparent discrepancies, posting here would be helpful.

EDIT next day: Sorry, please ignore: I thought I was posting in the Compendium comments thread. Too many tabs open.

Ardchoille wrote:The ruling allowing dictionary definitions was withdrawn.

This thread isn't for rehashing arguments about the rulings, but if there's anything that's been linked that players think shouldn't be included (eg, doesn't add much, not as clear as/duplicates some other version), or any queries about apparent discrepancies, posting here would be helpful.

No no no Ard, that's not my point.

I was referring to this comment:

Ard wrote:We don't want players changing Wiki to win arguments on NS, as has already happened in another NS forum.

And compounding onto the already-ensured fact that Dictionary Definitions are not allowed:

Elke and Elba wrote:How can it be ascertained that another state hasn't, malevolently changed the wiki definition to suit what was defined in the GA proposal, in order to frame someone of plagiarism to lose his WA rights of that state?

Since, well, Dictionary/Wiki definitions are not allowed, and someone can easily make another a scapegoat by changing the wiki's own definition. (Which is open to edits.)

In that case, wouldn't the nation involved be wrongly accused of plagiarism?

As Dark Star says, Wiki has a clear edit history, which I think they've improved since NS's early wild-west days. They've also clamped down a lot on edit wars. Plus, NS players have always been very quick about uncovering even minor skullduggery, so a truly malicious act like that would be pretty much doomed to discovery and failure. I think any player framed that way could easily prove their innocence, and the penalty for the perpetrator would be too severe -- both here and on WIki -- to be worth it.

/threadjack.