General Assembly Q&A

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You need to paste the text of your proposal under "Description." Make sure you have chosen the correct category/strength.

Best of luck.

[Separatist Peoples]

The new Health category/area of effect International Aid hasn’t really been explained technically, and I think I recall a moderator saying that the limits of the new categories will be something of a work in progress as new proposals/resolutions surface within them.

Sooo....I wouldn’t mind some clarification of exactly what scope the International Aid AoE is supposed to cover? Specifically, in my draft Humanitarian Aid Access, there are clauses requiring nations make denial of humanitarian aid illegal in specific circumstances. I want to know if this encroaches too much into the realm of International Security as to cause a category violation, and, if not, how far can it go?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Yep, would be good to get some clarification on that point.

[Separatist Peoples]

Yep, would be good to get some clarification on that point.

It'll be nice to know if I can toss the term "War Crime" into the bits making illegal the deprivation of humanitarian supplies or not. International Aid and International Security seem like intrinsically linked concepts, but it's hard to say what the technical limitations are.

[Pharthan]

Who should I message (which mod) about having a submission pulled?
I submitted a resolution (Nuclear Power Safeguards Act) which has a clause that might be a violation - it was pointed out to me that I made the error of not specifying a scale for earthquakes and still listed a required magnitude. Violation or not, I do agree that it should be changed and would like my submission pulled so that I may fix it.

[Separatist Peoples]

Who should I message (which mod) about having a submission pulled?
I submitted a resolution (Nuclear Power Safeguards Act) which has a clause that might be a violation - it was pointed out to me that I made the error of not specifying a scale for earthquakes and still listed a required magnitude. Violation or not, I do agree that it should be changed and would like my submission pulled so that I may fix it.

File a GHR, which you can find on the FAQs page, I believe. Fwiw, I don't think it's a likely issue. I just thought you should be prepared for the possibility

[Pharthan]

Who should I message (which mod) about having a submission pulled?
I submitted a resolution (Nuclear Power Safeguards Act) which has a clause that might be a violation - it was pointed out to me that I made the error of not specifying a scale for earthquakes and still listed a required magnitude. Violation or not, I do agree that it should be changed and would like my submission pulled so that I may fix it.

File a GHR, which you can find on the FAQs page, I believe. Fwiw, I don't think it's a likely issue. I just thought you should be prepared for the possibility

I believe I also had a BBCode error as well, which would look rather silly.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Who should I message (which mod) about having a submission pulled?
I submitted a resolution (Nuclear Power Safeguards Act) which has a clause that might be a violation - it was pointed out to me that I made the error of not specifying a scale for earthquakes and still listed a required magnitude. Violation or not, I do agree that it should be changed and would like my submission pulled so that I may fix it.

Don't message the mods directly: they don't appreciate that. Submit a gameside Getting Help Request saying you'd like for your proposal to be removed.

[Ardchoille]

The new Health category/area of effect International Aid hasn’t really been explained technically, and I think I recall a moderator saying that the limits of the new categories will be something of a work in progress as new proposals/resolutions surface within them.

The statistics it's based on aren't subject to change. What can change is the way we've described the category and its effects. For example, if we suddenly got a lot of Save The Whale! proposals in Healthcare, we'd (probably) remove the metaphorical comment about universal health care being the Great White Whale of some legislators' careers.

Sooo....I wouldn’t mind some clarification of exactly what scope the International Aid AoE is supposed to cover? Specifically, in my draft Humanitarian Aid Access, there are clauses requiring nations make denial of humanitarian aid illegal in specific circumstances. I want to know if this encroaches too much into the realm of International Security as to cause a category violation, and, if not, how far can it go?

International Aid increases a nation's health spending. International Security increases a nation's military and police spending. I can see what you meant in the thread about the concepts being "intrinsically linked", but statistically the categories are poles apart. We've rejected patchwork proposals that had more-or-less equal amounts of two categories. OTOH, we haven't killed props that were obviously and predominantly one category, but tipped the hat in a minor way to another.

I realise that equivocation like that doesn't help much, so, about your specific proposal: I'm not seeing anything in the two "It shall be illegal"" clauses that says adding these new crimes to a nation's legal system would necessarily or inevitably increase a nation's military and police budgets, ie, it doesn't bleed into the International Security category. (Yes, I can come up with my own RP reasons for an increase to happen, but I can also come up with RP reasons for it not to. Proposal legality shouldn't depend on the inventiveness of RPers.)

I do think your formulation in this thread -- requir(ing} nations [to] make denial of humanitarian aid illegal in specific circumstances -- is better than your draft's "It shall be illegal". The GA works through member nations. Good GA legislation explains what those nations have to do when the proposal becomes law. In this case, I'm guessing you want the GA to mandate that nations treat denial of aid as a serious crime (even a war crime, where appropriate under a nation's laws/current At Vote). According to the stats, the money for the aid will be allocated by the government, so if the aid doesn't get there it's the fault of the individuals who prevented it, not the nation collectively or its government, collectively.

If that's not clear, I'm thinking of denial of aid as being a situation similar to denial of a Mayday in maritime law. You may find this discussion helps. The International Maritime Organisation had issued

"A master of a ship at sea, which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance.”

When a cruise ship didn't turn aside to help, the predicted penalties were against

Possible penalties for the incident under Bermuda law include imprisonment for the ship’s captain, and a fine levied against him and his employer. The fishermen’s families will also most likely file a civil suit against the cruise company and the captain in the U.S. or in Panama.

Incidentally, when researching this I was surprised that the nearest I could find to a Mayday clause in a GA Resolution was Clause 3 of GA#50, International Salvage Laws, which is restricted to international waters and, it could be argued, to rescue + salvage, rather than rescue alone. Sea-lawyers, something to chew on.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Incidentally, when researching this I was surprised that the nearest I could find to a Mayday clause in a GA Resolution was Clause 3 of GA#50, International Salvage Laws, which is restricted to international waters and, it could be argued, to rescue + salvage, rather than rescue alone. Sea-lawyers, something to chew on.

WA admiralty law is in a pretty poor state. We miss Cob!

Thank you for the clarification on the category. That said, that line about the whale - which even I do understand was a joke - reminds me that that's somewhat misleading. The WA has already passed Quality in Health Services. Trying to write a resolution on "universal healthcare" would probably be illegal for duplication anyway.

[Atomic Utopia]

I am sorry for asking such a stupid question, but when entering the "submit proposal" section (I was merely checking it out, not submitting anything) it stated I had to have two WA endorsements to submit a proposal. So what exactly is an endorsement and how do I get them?

Again, sorry if this is covered in the FAQ, but I could not find it there.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

How do I endorse another nation?

You can only endorse another nation if:

• You are both members of the World Assembly
• You are both in the same region

If this is true, the other nation will have an "Endorse [Nation Name]" button in its World Assembly section.

[Atomic Utopia]

How do I endorse another nation?

You can only endorse another nation if:

• You are both members of the World Assembly
• You are both in the same region

If this is true, the other nation will have an "Endorse [Nation Name]" button in its World Assembly section.

So it was in the FAQ! Again, sorry for asking such a stupid question.

[Napantis]

Here is my first GA Prop. Any criticism would be extremely appreciated.
Description: NOTICES the serious nature of the existing branches of the WA
ALSO NOTICES the overall exaggerated/silly atmosphere of the NS
CONVINCED that there should be a third branch that continues the atmosphere of the NS
ADOPT the following resolution to create said branch:
Article I
(a) A new branch of the WA shall be coded in called "The Ministry of Absurdity"
(1) Said branch will accept proposals of a non-serious, inapplicable to real life nature
(2) Branch will have much loser regulations on proposals so as to allow newer nations to create proposals easier
(3) Branch does not require WA membership or endorsements to vote on or create proposals
(b) Though this infringes on current proposal rules, Nationstates is in dire need of some more new-user friendliness

[Separatist Peoples]

Here is my first GA Prop. Any criticism would be extremely appreciated.
Description: NOTICES the serious nature of the existing branches of the WA
ALSO NOTICES the overall exaggerated/silly atmosphere of the NS
CONVINCED that there should be a third branch that continues the atmosphere of the NS
ADOPT the following resolution to create said branch:
Article I
(a) A new branch of the WA shall be coded in called "The Ministry of Absurdity"
(1) Said branch will accept proposals of a non-serious, inapplicable to real life nature
(2) Branch will have much loser regulations on proposals so as to allow newer nations to create proposals easier
(3) Branch does not require WA membership or endorsements to vote on or create proposals
(b) Though this infringes on current proposal rules, Nationstates is in dire need of some more new-user friendliness

I'm afraid that this wouldn't be legal, but this isn't the place for general questions like this. If you want feedback, you should post drafts in their own threads.

[Napantis]

Here is my first GA Prop. Any criticism would be extremely appreciated.
Description: NOTICES the serious nature of the existing branches of the WA
ALSO NOTICES the overall exaggerated/silly atmosphere of the NS
CONVINCED that there should be a third branch that continues the atmosphere of the NS
ADOPT the following resolution to create said branch:
Article I
(a) A new branch of the WA shall be coded in called "The Ministry of Absurdity"
(1) Said branch will accept proposals of a non-serious, inapplicable to real life nature
(2) Branch will have much loser regulations on proposals so as to allow newer nations to create proposals easier
(3) Branch does not require WA membership or endorsements to vote on or create proposals
(b) Though this infringes on current proposal rules, Nationstates is in dire need of some more new-user friendliness

I'm afraid that this wouldn't be legal, but this isn't the place for general questions like this. If you want feedback, you should post drafts in their own threads.

Damn.

[Bears Armed Mission]

I'm afraid that this wouldn't be legal, but this isn't the place for general questions like this. If you want feedback, you should post drafts in their own threads.

Damn.

For your future guidance, in case you hadn't already noticed, the relevant rules are at viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(This isn't a direct mod question, but it didn't seem worth starting a whole thread for.)

I was reading today about Malawi finally banning child marriages. Let's set aside for a moment the whole different age of consent/species/particulars of NS stuff. Is child marriage illegal in the WA?

Freedom of Marriage Act has been repealed.
Prevention of Child Abuse bans "any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child", but it doesn't specifically cite marriage contracts.
Freedom to Contract doesn't contain an age limit.
Forced Marriages Ban Act requires "informed consent" but not that participants actually be past a particular age.

[Frisbeeteria]

Is child marriage illegal in the WA?

First glance, no interpretation of existing law: It sounds like there are enough loopholes to justify a separate resolution.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The one time I'm not asking for a mod comment I get one straightaway...

Thanks, anyway. I'll give it a think over and see if anyone else has thoughts.

[Bananaistan]

How does the informed consent requirement of the Forced Marriages Ban Act interact with Legal Competence? Legal Competence also uses the term informed consent but the question remains as to whether the legal guardian can give consent for a child to be married, assuming that a marriage is a legally binding contract. There is probably enough of a lack of an explicit statement in the resolutions that there is room for a specific proposal on the question without duplication but it would be my opinion that current law prohibits only "forced" child marriages and permits a child marriage with the informed consent of the child where the guardian also approves:

1) Forced Marriages Ban Act makes no mention of age. One must assume therefore that a child, just the same as any adult, cannot be forced to marry against their will by a guardian (or anyone else).
2) Legal Competence came after Forced Marriages Ban Act. It cannot effect the interpretation or implementation of Forced Marriages Ban Act but it seems to extend to disallowing a child to marry without the approval of their guardian.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Very good call: I hadn't accounted for Legal Competence.

[Bears Armed Mission]

How does the informed consent requirement of the Forced Marriages Ban Act interact with Legal Competence? Legal Competence also uses the term informed consent but the question remains as to whether the legal guardian can give consent for a child to be married, assuming that a marriage is a legally binding contract. There is probably enough of a lack of an explicit statement in the resolutions that there is room for a specific proposal on the question without duplication but it would be my opinion that current law prohibits only "forced" child marriages and permits a child marriage with the informed consent of the child where the guardian also approves:

1) Forced Marriages Ban Act makes no mention of age. One must assume therefore that a child, just the same as any adult, cannot be forced to marry against their will by a guardian (or anyone else).
2) Legal Competence came after Forced Marriages Ban Act. It cannot effect the interpretation or implementation of Forced Marriages Ban Act but it seems to extend to disallowing a child to marry without the approval of their guardian.

I agree with that interpretation.
... and I really should get moving on the planned follow-up to Legal Competence, which would cover the respective rights of guardians and wards: That could cover this point, but if anybody wants to go ahead with a more specific proposal first then that's fine by me.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Ardchoille just delivered an incredibly alarming ruling here but then locked the thread before comment was possible. Why would we "have to repeal" On Universal Jurisdiction in order to create an ICJ? The concept has absolutely nothing to do with "preempting" a claim of universal jurisdiction.

[Ardchoille]

*sigh* I was summarising another player's post for a newbie in a bit of drive-by commentary and I got it wrong.

I swear I will take every Resolution that passed while I was away to bed with me tonight and get to know them all intimately, orright?

I will also post a strikeout and link to this comment in the locked thread so anyone who wants to can also be incredibly alarmed, and then unalarmed, too.

Anyone who wants to discuss what On Universal Jurisdiction actually does, please don't do it here. Take it to TGs (but don't send them to me, I have my night planned).