General Assembly Q&A

[Imperium Anglorum]

Disagreements? Was there disagreement over the moderator reinterpretation of the Honest Mistake rule? Was there player disagreement when the moderators removed Bananaistan's resolution from the queue for no reason a couple of months ago? Was there player disagreement when you (no offense) misinterpreted the English language in your repeal of GAR#325? Is there even real player disagreement now over the new interpretation of the non-compliance rule? The players are largely in agreement most of the time. The real divide in opinion is not amongst players, but between players and moderators.

Just because you refuse to concede that disagreements exist does not mean that they do not exist. I too and say over and over again that EP and I are wrong for no particular reason until I delude myself that EP and I are wrong because of nothing but that statement's repetition. I would say: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes to all those questions.

[Sciongrad]

Disagreements? Was there disagreement over the moderator reinterpretation of the Honest Mistake rule? Was there player disagreement when the moderators removed Bananaistan's resolution from the queue for no reason a couple of months ago? Was there player disagreement when you (no offense) misinterpreted the English language in your repeal of GAR#325? Is there even real player disagreement now over the new interpretation of the non-compliance rule? The players are largely in agreement most of the time. The real divide in opinion is not amongst players, but between players and moderators.

Just because you refuse to concede that disagreements exist does not mean that they do not exist. I too and say over and over again that EP and I are wrong for no particular reason until I delude myself that EP and I are wrong because of nothing but that statement's repetition. I would say: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes to all those questions.

I'm not refusing to concede that disagreements exist, but they rarely concern some of the meta game issues that have popped up over the past couple of years. And if you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that there was actual player disagreement regarding the honest mistake rule or the removal of Bananaistan's resolution, you're not arguing in good faith.

EDIT:

I didn't say this earlier either, but Sedge: I'm looking forward to your upcoming announcement and really appreciate how you've taken the time to engage with us here. :)

[Kelssek]

That'd be very odd, if I had meant that. I mean that the WA should end its invocation of magic for any reason. If we can write resolutions which patch out the magic, we ought do it for the sake of cohesion. The part of compliance enforcement (or really, here, policing,) has to do with solving part of the issue that the UN faces itself.

On the one hand I don't mind the idea of giving RP flesh to the unstated RP conventions necessary to reconcile the RP world with the game mechanics. But invocation of magic was never necessary, simply the demand that RPers accept on some level the sign on the door that "all member nations must abide by legislation [the WA] passes" as the price of admission to be taken seriously in this GA forum. Compliance enforcement through "gnomes" could be taken literally or tongue-in-cheek, in the same way as the staffers who do the grunt work of IRL international diplomacy are referred to as "sherpas".

In the end, ignoring resolutions or continually RPing that you violate them is still not going to pass muster in this forum, because it denies the basis of even being here. As I argued in the other thread, "creative solutions" have been generally accepted since they still imply the acceptance of the resolution's effects, and is therefore categorically not the same as ignoring/godmoding.

Now, if you're thinking of going over to International Incidents to crack down on WA members violating resolutions, or even RPing here that the commission adopts one interpretation of the resolution as the One True Resolution (in my mind that would be godmoding), well, have fun with that.

[Gorinchem and Hoog-Hoornaar]

I have a problem with aplying to the World Assembly. I applied yesterday but I still haven't any confirm e-mail... I checked my e-mail if it was filled right and it is. Could someone help me?

[Hannasea]

I have a problem with aplying to the World Assembly. I applied yesterday but I still haven't any confirm e-mail... I checked my e-mail if it was filled right and it is. Could someone help me?

I would suggest you send in a Getting Help Request for a problem like this.

[Kryozerkia]

I have a problem with aplying to the World Assembly. I applied yesterday but I still haven't any confirm e-mail... I checked my e-mail if it was filled right and it is. Could someone help me?

Have you checked your junk folder?

[Bears Armed]

If you're using Hotmail, or Outlook, then those are notoriously bad for this: Using a gmail account (for example) instead is much more likely to work.

[Araraukar]

If you're using Hotmail, or Outlook, then those are notoriously bad for this: Using a gmail account (for example) instead is much more likely to work.

I use a Yahoo one for NS and while it puts the emails into the spam folder, at least they come through quickly.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I have a problem with aplying to the World Assembly. I applied yesterday but I still haven't any confirm e-mail... I checked my e-mail if it was filled right and it is. Could someone help me?

If you have Hotmail, there have been problems before with emails not going through at all. Create another account on gmail or Yahoo! or something; the emails still go through on those accounts. I was told by a mod to switch to gmail when the NS server apparently didn't like my Hotmail account.

[Kryozerkia]

I have a problem with aplying to the World Assembly. I applied yesterday but I still haven't any confirm e-mail... I checked my e-mail if it was filled right and it is. Could someone help me?

If you have Hotmail, there have been problems before with emails not going through at all. Create another account on gmail or Yahoo! or something; the emails still go through on those accounts. I was told by a mod to switch to gmail when the NS server apparently didn't like my Hotmail account.

It has something to do with hotmail/outlook's servers AFAIK.

[North Adstutia]

Hey there, I'm a newbie here and I wanted to ask for some details regarding the proposals. I've submitted one proposal today which was turned down by an admin because of reference to the real world. I understood after, that there are some rules regarding whether a document is or not valid. I cannot see the exact proposal anymore, but I'm sure that the single thing that was "real" was the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Long story short, I wanted to ask you if this might have been the mistake.
Thank you

[Bears Armed]

Hey there, I'm a newbie here and I wanted to ask for some details regarding the proposals. I've submitted one proposal today which was turned down by an admin because of reference to the real world. I understood after, that there are some rules regarding whether a document is or not valid. I cannot see the exact proposal anymore, but I'm sure that the single thing that was "real" was the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Long story short, I wanted to ask you if this might have been the mistake.
Thank you

Yes, that would have been it. If you look at this sub-forum's other stickied threads you'll find one that explains the rules for writing proposals and another that's a searchable list of the resolutions that have been passed so far.
It's generally a good idea to post your proposals in this forum, so that mistakes like that can be sorted out and maybeso some suggestions made for improvement, instead of going directly to submitting them.

[Kryozerkia]

Hey there, I'm a newbie here and I wanted to ask for some details regarding the proposals. I've submitted one proposal today which was turned down by an admin because of reference to the real world. I understood after, that there are some rules regarding whether a document is or not valid. I cannot see the exact proposal anymore, but I'm sure that the single thing that was "real" was the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Long story short, I wanted to ask you if this might have been the mistake.
Thank you

Yes it is.

[Separatist Peoples]

Regarding Advancement of Industry: Tort Reform

I notice that the category is firmly in a pro-business statistic, but I find that this is an inaccurate area of tort reform or even tort law. While I can accept that this is meant to deal strictly with civil liability as it deals with business, would tort reform dealing with parties that are between private parties not fall here? What about tort reform that seeks to give a business greater liability?

The main thrust here is that tort reform as a topic can have a greater breadth than merely pro-business restriction, so would tort reform resolutions necessarily all under AoI | Tort Reform, or would it have to fall into a different category, like Social Justice or Human Rights?

[Kryozerkia]

Regarding Advancement of Industry: Tort Reform

I notice that the category is firmly in a pro-business statistic, but I find that this is an inaccurate area of tort reform or even tort law. While I can accept that this is meant to deal strictly with civil liability as it deals with business, would tort reform dealing with parties that are between private parties not fall here? What about tort reform that seeks to give a business greater liability?

The main thrust here is that tort reform as a topic can have a greater breadth than merely pro-business restriction, so would tort reform resolutions necessarily all under AoI | Tort Reform, or would it have to fall into a different category, like Social Justice or Human Rights?

It would depend on the angle taken by the proposal itself. I can't say with certainty without an example.

[Separatist Peoples]

Regarding Advancement of Industry: Tort Reform

I notice that the category is firmly in a pro-business statistic, but I find that this is an inaccurate area of tort reform or even tort law. While I can accept that this is meant to deal strictly with civil liability as it deals with business, would tort reform dealing with parties that are between private parties not fall here? What about tort reform that seeks to give a business greater liability?

The main thrust here is that tort reform as a topic can have a greater breadth than merely pro-business restriction, so would tort reform resolutions necessarily all under AoI | Tort Reform, or would it have to fall into a different category, like Social Justice or Human Rights?

It would depend on the angle taken by the proposal itself. I can't say with certainty without an example.

Lets say a proposal that requires tort claims be treated with the same procedural and due process rights as criminal law? Just something off the cuff.

[Kryozerkia]

It would depend on the angle taken by the proposal itself. I can't say with certainty without an example.

Lets say a proposal that requires tort claims be treated with the same procedural and due process rights as criminal law? Just something off the cuff.

It would be tort, since it's specifically designed to focus on the civil aspect of law rather than criminal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Lets say a proposal that requires tort claims be treated with the same procedural and due process rights as criminal law? Just something off the cuff.

It would be tort, since it's specifically designed to focus on the civil aspect of law rather than criminal.

Even if that included purely intrapersonal intentional torts, such as Assault, Battery, Intent to cause Emotional Distress, or Trespass to Chattels that are not held by a business?

I just want to make sure I don't try writing a proposal that has to have a pro-business slant when the goal is, in terms of policy, to hold any negligent parties liable, not just business entities. Civil tort law seeks to address noncriminal violations of social mores, which doesn't necessarily have a pro-bushiness aspect. Its a terribly under-used category, so I don't have nearly as much precedent to draw from.

[Kryozerkia]

It would be tort, since it's specifically designed to focus on the civil aspect of law rather than criminal.

Even if that included purely intrapersonal intentional torts, such as Assault, Battery, Intent to cause Emotional Distress, or Trespass to Chattels that are not held by a business?

I just want to make sure I don't try writing a proposal that has to have a pro-business slant when the goal is, in terms of policy, to hold any negligent parties liable, not just business entities. Civil tort law seeks to address noncriminal violations of social mores, which doesn't necessarily have a pro-bushiness aspect. Its a terribly under-used category, so I don't have nearly as much precedent to draw from.

Neither do I. Perhaps this is an opportunity to use it more. I would love to see it used.

If we think about Tort Law practice as an "industry" (yes, it's stretching the definition very thin), it could be possible to use it in a non-business context.

[Separatist Peoples]

Even if that included purely intrapersonal intentional torts, such as Assault, Battery, Intent to cause Emotional Distress, or Trespass to Chattels that are not held by a business?

I just want to make sure I don't try writing a proposal that has to have a pro-business slant when the goal is, in terms of policy, to hold any negligent parties liable, not just business entities. Civil tort law seeks to address noncriminal violations of social mores, which doesn't necessarily have a pro-bushiness aspect. Its a terribly under-used category, so I don't have nearly as much precedent to draw from.

Neither do I. Perhaps this is an opportunity to use it more. I would love to see it used.

If we think about Tort Law practice as an "industry" (yes, it's stretching the definition very thin), it could be possible to use it in a non-business context.

Thats what I was thinking, but I wanted to make sure. Thank you!

[Kryozerkia]

Neither do I. Perhaps this is an opportunity to use it more. I would love to see it used.

If we think about Tort Law practice as an "industry" (yes, it's stretching the definition very thin), it could be possible to use it in a non-business context.

Thats what I was thinking, but I wanted to make sure. Thank you!

You're welcome. This is going to be an excellent opportunity to break ground on a severely underused category and set precedent for future use.

[Hannasea]

Isn't it a terrible idea to be trying to "break new ground" just at the point when GA rules moderation is about to significantly change?

[Separatist Peoples]

Isn't it a terrible idea to be trying to "break new ground" just at the point when GA rules moderation is about to significantly change?

I don't have the time to pursue this right now, and until we know just how much will change with the new rules, I figured it was valuable to figure out a starting point in the old ones.

[Kryozerkia]

Isn't it a terrible idea to be trying to "break new ground" just at the point when GA rules moderation is about to significantly change?

I don't see the rules changing overnight with the establishment of a council. It to me would be a slow process. There's no reason why in the interim new ground cannot be explored.

[Kristograss]

Hello,

This is likely a poor place to ask this, so if I should ask elsewhere, please direct me to a better place.

I am trying to apply for membership to the World Assembly. Me email address is correct and yet I do not recieve anything in my inbox, spam folder, or anything other place (as far as I know).

What should I do?