General Assembly Q&A

[Elke and Elba]

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.

Thank you.

(Subsequent question removed due to misreading)

*leaves a box of cookies*

[Port blood]

George Bush, Barack Obama, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), Earth, Milky Way, and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted. Also, while it acceptable to use real world laws and UN resolutions as a starting point, don't plagiarize.

Sooooo....where the hell do we live if earth doesn't exist?

Also,what if a NS monument is actually called the great wall of china?

[The Dark Star Republic]

George Bush, Barack Obama, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), Earth, Milky Way, and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted. Also, while it acceptable to use real world laws and UN resolutions as a starting point, don't plagiarize.

Sooooo....where the hell do we live if earth doesn't exist?

"The World".

Also,what if a NS monument is actually called the great wall of china?

Doesn't matter, still can't mention it: falls under MetaGaming.

[Port blood]

Doesn't matter, still can't mention it: falls under MetaGaming.

Why? if it's referring to a actual wall in china in the NS universe it isn't RL?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Doesn't matter, still can't mention it: falls under MetaGaming.

Why? if it's referring to a actual wall in china in the NS universe it isn't RL?

Mentioning any RPd anything is MetaGaming. The fairly draconian precedent dates back to at least 2004 and the Convention on Biodiversity, and possibly before even that.

[Goddess Relief Office]

You can go around it by creating a region or a nation called "Great Wall of China". But your references need to be clear that it's referring to the region or nation by that name.

[Port blood]

Why? if it's referring to a actual wall in china in the NS universe it isn't RL?

Mentioning any RPd anything is MetaGaming. The fairly draconian precedent dates back to at least 2004 and the Convention on Biodiversity, and possibly before even that.

Meta-gaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself.

Technically,referring to the stranger bar having a wall that came from china would be inside the WA - although a mod might need to rule on that lol

[The Dark Star Republic]

You can go around it by creating a region or a nation called "Great Wall of China". But your references need to be clear that it's referring to the region or nation by that name.

I am almost completely certain that that is absolutely wrong. Mentioning any nation or region in a proposal is a MetaGaming violation. If that is no longer true, that is one of the biggest shifts in moderation policy in the entire history of the NSUN/WA.

[Port blood]

You can go around it by creating a region or a nation called "Great Wall of China". But your references need to be clear that it's referring to the region or nation by that name.

I am almost completely certain that that is absolutely wrong. Mentioning any nation or region in a proposal is a MetaGaming violation. If that is no longer true, that is one of the biggest shifts in moderation policy in the entire history of the NSUN/WA.

I suspect hes referring to the SC workaround (because I'm a SC regular)

[The Dark Star Republic]

I am almost completely certain that that is absolutely wrong. Mentioning any nation or region in a proposal is a MetaGaming violation. If that is no longer true, that is one of the biggest shifts in moderation policy in the entire history of the NSUN/WA.

I suspect hes referring to the SC workaround (because I'm a SC regular)

This is not the forum for SC stuff. Go elsewhere if you want to discuss that.

[Port blood]

I suspect hes referring to the SC workaround (because I'm a SC regular)

This is not the forum for SC stuff. Go elsewhere if you want to discuss that.

Do I care? nope

You're not exactly a mod,or anything similiar


Also,I was giving a possible explanation for what he said,I wasn't even discussing the SC,nor was he

[Elke and Elba]

You can go around it by creating a region or a nation called "Great Wall of China". But your references need to be clear that it's referring to the region or nation by that name.

I am almost completely certain that that is absolutely wrong. Mentioning any nation or region in a proposal is a MetaGaming violation. If that is no longer true, that is one of the biggest shifts in moderation policy in the entire history of the NSUN/WA.

Gruen's right here.

The only time you can mention a "Great Wall of China" is if you are actually putting him as co-author or something along those lines.

[Eboestrana]

Do the UN resolutions still count as valid or have they been swept under the rug?

[Defwa]

Do the UN resolutions still count as valid or have they been swept under the rug?

Completely under the rug. Useful for reference only

[Metox]

Came up in a failed proposal I was writing.

Do common legal terms such as 'probable cause', 'reasonable doubt', 'malicious intent' etc. have to be defined within a resolution? Even though they already have common, widespread definitions?

[Defwa]

Came up in a failed proposal I was writing.

Do common legal terms such as 'probable cause', 'reasonable doubt', 'malicious intent' etc. have to be defined within a resolution? Even though they already have common, widespread definitions?

Those words are designed to give leeway. You don't want to give leeway to members of the World Assembly.
So if you do use those words, its best to define exactly how far probable cause and reasonable doubt go.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Dictionary hawks

While those specific phrases might need to be expanded depending on the context of the proposal, you don't need to define every last word. That is an unrealistic standard.

[Sciongrad]

Came up in a failed proposal I was writing.

Do common legal terms such as 'probable cause', 'reasonable doubt', 'malicious intent' etc. have to be defined within a resolution? Even though they already have common, widespread definitions?

Lexical references are useful, but not always strictly necessary. Terms with commonly understood meanings like "probable cause" don't really need definitions, in my opinion, but some players will always just redefine the word to suit their purposes anyways. Words that are not immediately understood or may invite reasonable interpretation on the other hand, like "biological weapon" may require some defining.

[Voltrovia]

Came up in a failed proposal I was writing.

Do common legal terms such as 'probable cause', 'reasonable doubt', 'malicious intent' etc. have to be defined within a resolution? Even though they already have common, widespread definitions?

Lexical references are useful, but not always strictly necessary. Terms with commonly understood meanings like "probable cause" don't really need definitions, in my opinion, but some players will always just redefine the word to suit their purposes anyways. Words that are not immediately understood or may invite reasonable interpretation on the other hand, like "biological weapon" may require some defining.

If I can ask, this issue has come up in a resolution I am currently drafting.. It is already quite long and I'm unsure whether I really need to define either "airlines" or "pilots".

Also, although its main responsibility and intentions are fundamentally separate, I feel that it augments but doesn't intrude on the International Transport Safety Act or the National Airspace Bill (currently being drafted). Is that so or do I need to change it?

[Cardoness]

Lexical references are useful, but not always strictly necessary. Terms with commonly understood meanings like "probable cause" don't really need definitions, in my opinion, but some players will always just redefine the word to suit their purposes anyways. Words that are not immediately understood or may invite reasonable interpretation on the other hand, like "biological weapon" may require some defining.

If I can ask, this issue has come up in a resolution I am currently drafting.. It is already quite long and I'm unsure whether I really need to define either "airlines" or "pilots".

Also, although its main responsibility and intentions are fundamentally separate, I feel that it augments but doesn't intrude on the International Transport Safety Act or the National Airspace Bill (currently being drafted). Is that so or do I need to change it?

*Not a Mod* No, I don't believe you need to define those terms. You appear to be ok in relation to ITSA. There is some minor overlap with NAB but could easily be corrected.

[Mousebumples]

For the record, mods will never require that you define terms, I don't think. Players might, but I don't think there's any rule requiring definitions of particular terms.

And, if you ask Mouse-the-Player/Notorious-NatSov ... most definitions aren't necessary. The only time I've really used them is when I want to use a shorter term to convey additional information - notably my Biomedical props, if memory serves. Definitions are generally a great way to repeal something, if something is left out (or included that shouldn't be), and I generally think that RNT strongly urges most nations to accept reasonable definitions for most common phrases and terms.

[Aligned Planets]

, and I generally think that RNT strongly urges most nations to accept reasonable definitions for most common phrases and terms.

Interesting; this might affect how I approach the Plant Protection Products draft.

[Voltrovia]

If I can ask, this issue has come up in a resolution I am currently drafting.. It is already quite long and I'm unsure whether I really need to define either "airlines" or "pilots".

Also, although its main responsibility and intentions are fundamentally separate, I feel that it augments but doesn't intrude on the International Transport Safety Act or the National Airspace Bill (currently being drafted). Is that so or do I need to change it?

*Not a Mod* No, I don't believe you need to define those terms. You appear to be ok in relation to ITSA. There is some minor overlap with NAB but could easily be corrected.

It's more a tradition question than anything else but, having taken a look at some past definition-heavy resolutions, should my definitions nearer to the beginning or are they fine where they are?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Traditionally, definitions go at the beginning of the operative section, either as Article 1, or as a precursor to Article 1. But it doesn't really matter.

[Mousebumples]

At minimum, I'd suggest defining whatever terms you're going to define before you use them in your proposal.