General Assembly Q&A

[Applebania]

Would mentioning the World Assembly Compliance Gnomes in a resolution be legal?

[Bears Armed]

Would mentioning the World Assembly Compliance Gnomes in a resolution be legal?

No. Meta-gaming.

[Aligned Planets]

Hi Modly Secretariat,

I just wanted a quick update on NERVUN's previous mod ruling that the Human Rights category can be used universally to include non-Homo sapiens rights resolutions but CoCR does not itself cover non-humans.

I wanted to check that my interpretation in this thread was near enough correct?

Ta,


AP

[MRWOFFLE]

After checking, I couldn't find anything that said this, although people told me it wasn't allowed.

If your citizens agreed to a contract that prevented a certain proposal from affecting them, for example, the Patient's Rights Act in exchange for citizenship?

National Citizenship & Temporary Citizenship Agreements(Applies for tourists also)
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=mrwoffle/detail=factbook/id=258196

My arguement:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=285155&p=20144273#p20144273

[MRWOFFLE]

Also, what if in exchange for something like no medical bill in exchange for not using your rights proposed in the Patients Right Act...

[Mousebumples]

AP, if memory serves, there were conflicting rulings on that, but the one that said the CoCR only applied to humans has since been rescinded. So far as proposal-specific inquiries, they belong in your thread (not in the Q&A), and feel free to file a GHR if you want us to look over a specific question with regards to your proposal.

[EDIT FOR CLARITY: See this comment by Ard about the contradiction in previous CoCR-related rulings.]

MRWOFFLE, resolutions apply to all citizens in your nation. They cannot "opt out" of the rights granted to them by resolutions any more than you can opt out of having the gnomes change your nation's laws to ensure compliance after the passage of a given resolution. If you're wondering "where this is in the GA Rules," I'll refer you to this section of the rules:

Optionality

GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is.

Basically, compliance is mandatory and automatic. Loophole exploitation is certainly an art form - but your "workarounds" do not involve loopholes, and would therefore be considered godmodding by many players/ambassadors.

[Lutheran Germany]

how do you get endorsments for a proposal

[Aligned Planets]

how do you get endorsments for a proposal

Pre-submission endorsements? As in, support for a proposal? Through debating and discussing your idea, with a fully formed draft, in a thread in the GA forum. Players will give you an indication as to whether they endorse your idea.

Post-submission approval votes? From WA Delegates who choose to support your proposal once fully drafted.

"Endorsements" are really a different thing, and refer to support given to your WA nation by other WA nations in your region through your nation page.

[PanzaBjorn]

The GA forums are extensive and the limited searching I have done has been surprisingly ineffective.
1) If one would propose an amendment to a GA resolution, what is the correct format of the proposal?
2) Regarding wording of a given resolution, would it be considered a "mild" change in, for example GA#291 to include a clause that rules on deforestation for reasons other than biomass harvest? For example, one could argue that this would not cover clear felling in order to facilitate mining, as there is no harvest of trees, rather a slash and burn operation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The GA forums are extensive and the limited searching I have done has been surprisingly ineffective.
1) If one would propose an amendment to a GA resolution, what is the correct format of the proposal?
2) Regarding wording of a given resolution, would it be considered a "mild" change in, for example GA#291 to include a clause that rules on deforestation for reasons other than biomass harvest? For example, one could argue that this would not cover clear felling in order to facilitate mining, as there is no harvest of trees, rather a slash and burn operation.

Amendments are not allowed. There is no correct format for an amendment.

If you want to change a previous resolution, you have to repeal it, and then pass a replacement version.

[PanzaBjorn]

In that case, could one propose a repeal, then propose a similar act to the one previously repealed within a short timeframe?

[Bears Armed]

In that case, could one propose a repeal, then propose a similar act to the one previously repealed within a short timeframe?

Yes, but remember that you can't repeat any sections of the original resolution's actual wording unless you can publicly obtain its author's permission for you to do so.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Would a ban on 'leaded' petrol fall within the Environmental category's new 'Automotive' area of effect?

[Ardchoille]

Depends on how you spin it. The basic requirement is unchanged: proposals in that category have to be good for the environment at the expense of the relevant industry, so you'll need to allude somehow to an industry downside.

[Voltrovia]

Depends on how you spin it. The basic requirement is unchanged: proposals in that category have to be good for the environment at the expense of the relevant industry, so you'll need to allude somehow to an industry downside.

As far as industry downsides are concerned the main suspect must be efficiency losses, surely - necessitating design changes, increasing end user expenses, etc., IMHO.

If anybody would like to take a look, is there anything glaringly illegal in my latest draft of the Aerospace Regulation Charter?

[Bears Armed]

Depends on how you spin it. The basic requirement is unchanged: proposals in that category have to be good for the environment at the expense of the relevant industry, so you'll need to allude somehow to an industry downside.

Quite so. My question should maybeso be re-worded as "What does the new 'Automotive' area-of-effect cover, as compared to the former 'Automobile Manufacturing' one?" Is it still basically just car-building, does it now cover the production of other powered vehicles (ships, aircraft, etc) too, and -- as was the more relevant point for my potential proposal -- does it now also cover related matters such as the production & supply of fuel for automobiles?
Oh, and I also have a second question that's relevant for the same potential proposal: Would the term 'diesel' (as used to describe one type of engine that doesn't use leaded fuel) be illegal as a RL reference, or -- as I think should be the case -- has it passed far enough into the public domain by now to be acceptable?

[Ardchoille]

@Bears: you're safe with "diesel"; as the lower-case suggests, it's long since gone from being a direct reference to Rudolf Diesel. Wiki says it's sometimes called "distillate" in Australia, though not by anyone I know; but then, I don't know many engineers. I think using "distillate" might give you insurance against silly challenges, but you'd lose by having to explain the word all the time.

On the "automotive" thing: I'd say how far the GA can stretch "automotive" is largely a matter of player and mod interpretation. I'm currently willing to read it as "industry making motors". From IRL observation, regulations demanding the use of unleaded petrol had a significant impact on car-makers, so a proposal about @@fuel@@ having an impact on @@industry making motors@@ seems reasonable.

On ships, aircraft, and, gawdelpus, spacecraft, I can only say, show us the colour of your money. Can't really rule until there's something tangible to rule on.

As far as industry downsides are concerned the main suspect must be efficiency losses, surely - necessitating design changes, increasing end user expenses, etc., IMHO.

My point there wasn't argument, but legality. This isn't a Mild strength category, so effects need to be explicitly stated, rather than implied. Requiring that industry must undertake the changes you suggest would certainly fit the bill.

If anybody would like to take a look, is there anything glaringly illegal in my latest draft of the Aerospace Regulation Charter?

Not sure how this is intended. If it's addressed to mods, we don't do blanker legality rulings. If there's a conflict that players can't resolve, that's when you hit the Modsignal. If it's just a "hey everybody, lookit my proposal", then don't do that in this thread, it's not nice.

[Voltrovia]

If anybody would like to take a look, is there anything glaringly illegal in my latest draft of the Aerospace Regulation Charter?

Not sure how this is intended. If it's addressed to mods, we don't do blanker legality rulings. If there's a conflict that players can't resolve, that's when you hit the Modsignal. If it's just a "hey everybody, lookit my proposal", then don't do that in this thread, it's not nice.

Sorry, that was a mistake. It won't happen again.

[Thalsyer]

Under GAR#272, does the use of white phosphorus in war count as a chemical weapon or as an incendiary weapon?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Under GAR#272, does the use of white phosphorus in war count as a chemical weapon or as an incendiary weapon?

I doubt the mods will answer as they tend to leave matters of interpretation like that up to players, but I can unofficially say that no, it's not banned. It does not act "solely through toxic properties": it acts through incendiary properties.

Whether its use against civilians is banned by the ICC resolution is more questionable, but I still don't think most reasonable nations would call white phosphorus a chemical weapon.

[Araraukar]

Under GAR#272, does the use of white phosphorus in war count as a chemical weapon or as an incendiary weapon?

I doubt the mods will answer as they tend to leave matters of interpretation like that up to players, but I can unofficially say that no, it's not banned. It does not act "solely through toxic properties": it acts through incendiary properties.

I think in the original debate white phosphorous was brought up and eventually ruled outside the reach of the proposal - the "toxic properties" was put in to avoid stuff like tear gas being classed as chemical weapon, so it'd work for phosphorous too.

[Thalsyer]

I doubt the mods will answer as they tend to leave matters of interpretation like that up to players, but I can unofficially say that no, it's not banned. It does not act "solely through toxic properties": it acts through incendiary properties.

Whether its use against civilians is banned by the ICC resolution is more questionable, but I still don't think most reasonable nations would call white phosphorus a chemical weapon.

I think in the original debate white phosphorous was brought up and eventually ruled outside the reach of the proposal - the "toxic properties" was put in to avoid stuff like tear gas being classed as chemical weapon, so it'd work for phosphorous too.

ooc: well this is where you ask questions about things in the general assembly right? I was not particularly looking for ans answer from the mods; just clarification on a topic from another WA member.

Would either of you be willing to help me monitor an IC conflict raging between two alliances? Both sides have nations with WA membership, and there could be grounds for a condemnation there since I have reason to believe the members may violate multiple resolutions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

There is no such thing as a "condemnation". The GA can't condemn individual nations. And if that sort of thing happens in other parts of the game, well, this isn't the forum for discussing it.

[Araraukar]

Would either of you be willing to help me monitor an IC conflict raging between two alliances? Both sides have nations with WA membership, and there could be grounds for a condemnation there since I have reason to believe the members may violate multiple resolutions.

Definitely not. GA forum is as far as my roleplay goes.

[Defwa]

I doubt the mods will answer as they tend to leave matters of interpretation like that up to players, but I can unofficially say that no, it's not banned. It does not act "solely through toxic properties": it acts through incendiary properties.

Whether its use against civilians is banned by the ICC resolution is more questionable, but I still don't think most reasonable nations would call white phosphorus a chemical weapon.

I think in the original debate white phosphorous was brought up and eventually ruled outside the reach of the proposal - the "toxic properties" was put in to avoid stuff like tear gas being classed as chemical weapon, so it'd work for phosphorous too.

ooc: well this is where you ask questions about things in the general assembly right? I was not particularly looking for ans answer from the mods; just clarification on a topic from another WA member.

Would either of you be willing to help me monitor an IC conflict raging between two alliances? Both sides have nations with WA membership, and there could be grounds for a condemnation there since I have reason to believe the members may violate multiple resolutions.

Defwa would be happy to monitor for violation, act as arbiter in disputes in WA law, as well as facilitate civilian evacuation and peace talks if they are to occur. Please, lead the way.