General Assembly Q&A

[Gruenberg]

First of all, in case no one did so yet though they probably already have, I'd like to give you an official Welcome to the General Assembly.

Yeah, this needs addressing.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This player is admittedly trying to appear as an official part of the game to get new players to listen to them. In any other section of the game this would be hammered down without a second thought, as impersonating the mods or whatever.How is this acceptable?

This. It has been proven on this very page that new players may be fooled into believing a certain player has more authority than they actually do. Allowing players to masquerade as official authorities on anything when they are not does not contribute anything to the game except confusion.

This was the trouble with Auralia's R&D repeal, btw, even if it was killed on the bullshit grounds of "advertising for a group." They weren't advertising, they were trying to imply official status when they had none, and broader consensus support than they actually had (the "working group" had just two members, IIRC).

[Talkistan]

This player is admittedly trying to appear as an official part of the game to get new players to listen to them. In any other section of the game this would be hammered down without a second thought, as impersonating the mods or whatever.How is this acceptable?

This. It has been proven on this very page that new players may be fooled into believing a certain player has more authority than they actually do. Allowing players to masquerade as official authorities on anything when they are not does not contribute anything to the game except confusion.

I think I might have read somewhere that the WA flag (similar to the ex-nation flag) was off-limits for players to use. Maybe I read wrong or maybe it wasn't a moderator that said it, but I'm pretty sure someone masquerading as the WA and sending campaign TGs should be frowned upon rather furiously with both eyebrows.

[Auralia]

...they were trying to imply official status when they had none, and broader consensus support than they actually had (the "working group" had just two members, IIRC).

This is simply wrong. Glen-Rhodes and I will both attest to the fact that our intent in creating the "World Assembly Charter Working Group" nation was so that no one nation would "own" (so to speak) the GAR #2 repeal and replacement, not because we wanted to disguise the level of support for the proposal. I decided to use the WA logo because it seemed appropriate given the nation's purpose, not because I wanted to imply official status.

I will certainly concede that using the Working Group nation was a mistake, given the confusion it caused and the fact that submitting proposals under that nation turned out to be illegal under the branding rule. But I assure you we were acting in good faith; the motivations you ascribe to our actions are false.

[Araraukar]

Since I appear to have started somewhat of a.... well - I am not sure what it is, I thought I would add something.

You didn't start anything, WAIF has annoyed a fair number of people ever since EP created it. I especially dislike undeclared puppets (that is, puppets that don't have, say, a forum siggy that mentions their main nation), and even more so puppet accounts that appear to have any sort of authority over others.

First of all, in case no one did so yet though they probably already have, I'd like to give you an official Welcome to the General Assembly.

Yeah, this needs addressing.

And that is exactly why I was strongly opposed to that puppet.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Normally, I don't delve deeply into TG matters. They are a form of private communication, after all. However, as someone who has received EP's telegram, I feel as if I need to add my two cents.

I actually think that the telegram itself (apart from the word 'official') would be very useful for newbies. It's certainly allowed me, at least, to voice my opinions on the WA in a private manner, something which is vital for new players who may be too scared to jump straight into the forum. Heck, I was the one who mentioned that the inaccessibility of active resolutions was an obstacle for new members.

What I find a problem with is that EP is attempting to make it seem official. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'd imagine that most newbies would listen to veterans (or, I don't know, mentors? ) without the need for any official standing as long as said veterans are polite, which the TG is. We've already seen Calladan be confused by it and they've spent some time here. Imagine the confusion of someone who's just started playing!

I will also provide some free advice to those players that feel it's necessary to use puppets because they wouldn't otherwise be taken seriously - don't be terrible to other players (especially new players) and maybe you won't need to trick them.

It's especially strange as EP has actually supported me the most out of all the regulars here. Because of that, I don't want to be harsh, but I will say this (warning: soapbox ahead):

No newbie is going to scour through your posting history, looking for a shameful post. No newbie is going to discover your attempted condemnation of Bitely unless you explicitly mention it. Even if they did, the same would apply to your WAIF account, which has already participated in debates. You don't need to hide behind a puppet. I'd have absolutely no problem or objection with what you're doing if you were open about it. I think that what you're doing is great, but I think that you're doing it in the worst possible way. Some of us will have received a telegram listing the players who newbies thought were very helpful. Notice that EP was listed in that telegram, but WAIF wasn't. I already knew that they were both the same person, but Calladan clearly didn't know and I doubt that the other person who received the welcome telegram knew, though I may be wrong. Newbies already look up to you, EP, as do I; don't ruin it by deceiving them.

tl;dr: Help newbies using your main account instead of WAIF. Just be honest about it.

I especially dislike undeclared puppets (that is, puppets that don't have, say, a forum siggy that mentions their main nation)

Just to be clear, you're fine with puppets in cases where it's obvious who the puppetmaster is?

[WA Anti-Crappiness Service]

Normally, I don't delve deeply into TG matters. They are a form of private communication, after all. However, as someone who has received EP's telegram, I feel as if I need to add my two cents.

I actually think that the telegram itself (apart from the word 'official') would be very useful for newbies. It's certainly allowed me, at least, to voice my opinions on the WA in a private manner, something which is vital for new players who may be too scared to jump straight into the forum. Heck, I was the one who mentioned that the inaccessibility of active resolutions was an obstacle for new members.

What I find a problem with is that EP is attempting to make it seem official. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'd imagine that most newbies would listen to veterans (or, I don't know, mentors? ) without the need for any official standing as long as said veterans are polite, which the TG is. We've already seen Calladan be confused by it and they've spent some time here. Imagine the confusion of someone who's just started playing!

I will also provide some free advice to those players that feel it's necessary to use puppets because they wouldn't otherwise be taken seriously - don't be terrible to other players (especially new players) and maybe you won't need to trick them.

It's especially strange as EP has actually supported me the most out of all the regulars here. Because of that, I don't want to be harsh, but I will say this (warning: soapbox ahead):

No newbie is going to scour through your posting history, looking for a shameful post. No newbie is going to discover your attempted condemnation of Bitely unless you explicitly mention it. Even if they did, the same would apply to your WAIF account, which has already participated in debates. You don't need to hide behind a puppet. I'd have absolutely no problem or objection with what you're doing if you were open about it. I think that what you're doing is great, but I think that you're doing it in the worst possible way. Some of us will have received a telegram listing the players who newbies thought were very helpful. Notice that EP was listed in that telegram, but WAIF wasn't. I already knew that they were both the same person, but Calladan clearly didn't know and I doubt that the other person who received the welcome telegram knew, though I may be wrong. Newbies already look up to you, EP, as do I; don't ruin it by deceiving them.

tl;dr: Help newbies using your main account instead of WAIF. Just be honest about it.

EP/WAIF: You'd do well to read this through and take it to heart. Doing it the way you did makes it look like you're appointing yourself spokesman for the whole WA. Making a clear puppet ("Excidian WA Welcoming Board" or something?) would give a nice RP faction for you to use for exactly what you've been doing, but without giving the impression that you think you have the power to speak for all the veterans. Because doing that is... well... kinda crappy.

And you know you should take my word for that, because I'm the WA Anti-Crappiness Service and I speak for all WA nations on the topic of things that are crappy. [/pedagogical irony]

[Araraukar]

Just to be clear, you're fine with puppets in cases where it's obvious who the puppetmaster is?

Or in the nation's name or such, yes. After all, I have two puppets of my own (both have forum siggies linking to this acc).

(And while talking about nations that have "WA" in their name and WA flag as full or in part as their flag, I have to say that if someone manages to mistake WA Kitty Kops for anything official, they've critically failed their reality check. )

EDIT: Whoever is behind the nation that posted above: har-de-har-har.

[Board Committed to Embiggening the WA]

It seems only fair that we all get one of these. I'm off now to send official TGs to all the newbies. While others deal with improvement, or anti-crappiness, I'll handle all the embiggening side of things on behalf of the WA.

[The Anti-World Assembly]

Bah! Who even needs the World Assembly? I say we abolish it. It's the only way.

In all seriousness, this is one of many reasons why trying to use the WA flag and name shouldn't be encouraged. We've already seen two joke puppets and other people are going to try their hand at doing it. People will be making a mockery of the WA! As it isn't already enough of a mockery!

Unfortunately, I don't have any official TGs to send, though considering what this nation represents, that's probably for the best.

[World Dissembly]

In all seriousness, this is one of many reasons why trying to use the WA flag and name shouldn't be encouraged. We've already seen two joke puppets and other people are going to try their hand at doing it. People will be making a mockery of the WA! As it isn't already enough of a mockery![/spoiler]

People should be barred from making a mockery of the WA...especially by creating nations whose name sound like "World Assembly" when you speak very rapidly.

[New World Assembly Order]

In all seriousness, this is one of many reasons why trying to use the WA flag and name shouldn't be encouraged. We've already seen two joke puppets and other people are going to try their hand at doing it. People will be making a mockery of the WA! As it isn't already enough of a mockery![/spoiler]

People should be barred from making a mockery of the WA...especially by creating nations whose name sound like "World Assembly" when you speak very rapidly.

Absolutely, because the infinite power of the World Assembly can only be espoused by the True WA, any pretenders to the absolute throne of the Secretariat must be obliterate, for the good of New World Order Assembly!

I had to, I'm sorry.

[Wrapper]

The puppet spamming stops now.

[Araraukar]

The puppet spamming stops now.

In that case, could we also have an official ruling (which Gruen sort of requests here) for an official-looking (aka not-a-joke) WA puppet nation acting as any sort of official authority? I realize this may take some time if the mod hivemind needs to discuss it as a whole, but it would be highly appreciated.

Oh and for the record, none of those joke puppets are mine, as I'm sure the mods can confirm if needed.

[Wrapper]

In that case, could we also have an official ruling (which Gruen sort of requests here) for an official-looking (aka not-a-joke) WA puppet nation acting as any sort of official authority? I realize this may take some time if the mod hivemind needs to discuss it as a whole, but it would be highly appreciated.

We'll discuss this. In the meantime, as a reminder, this is still a Q&A thread.

[Tzorsland]

I especially dislike undeclared puppets (that is, puppets that don't have, say, a forum siggy that mentions their main nation), and even more so puppet accounts that appear to have any sort of authority over others.

I tend to do the opposite, I tend to list all my puppets on my main nation. Mind you the number of puppets I have are ... see below ... and most tend to be very inactive.

[Excidium Planetis]

Well, since apparently asking new players for feedback resulted in two whole pages dedicated to me and how WAIF is "the worst possible way" to do what I did...

Here's a long post.

If they used WAIF solely in its pseudo-official capacity, I'd be fine with it, but it's really just become another face with which Excidium can make the same arguments. So yeah, you're not the only one.

Now that's not true. WAIF engaged in arguments, but they weren't the same as my arguments. Creating a WA puppet is legal (maybe?) but using a puppet to argue the same points your main is making is not (IIRC that falls under spam). WAIF's arguments, with the exception of that argument in Internet Act or whatever proposal it was called, have all been about new players and improving the WA. Yes, that includes the argument with you about whether or not a player who returned after 3 years was a new player, as that was directly connected to WAIF's "pseudo-official capacity".

It may not be against the letter of the rules as far as the mods are concerned, but as players we should definitely be concerned about this, with it being demonstrated some people are already getting confused as to whether the nation has any official status or no.

Why should players be concerned that someone is welcoming players to the GA and asking for feedback on the job regulars did in welcoming players?

First of all, in case no one did so yet though they probably already have, I'd like to give you an official Welcome to the General Assembly.

Yeah, this needs addressing.

Why?

As time has shown, though, there's no real way of combating a telegram campaign, so it'll have to be a concerted effort on the forum.

Concerted effort to do what? Not welcome people to the WA? Not make things easier for new players?

I'm sorry, there absolutely needs to be a rule regarding player use of game imagery/names/logos/whatever when it comes to communicating with other players.

Are we also going to delete all the NationStates and Max Barry puppets? Because there is an awful lot of them. We might also want to delete all the United Nations puppets too, we don't want those players who still think the UN is part of NS to get confused and think that the UN puppets are official (and yes, those players exist).

And why stop at NS, why not include the real world too? We should ban the use of real life people like Donald Trump in nation names or flags so that people don't mistakenly assume those players actually speak for Donald Trump.

I fail to see the difference between a player using a puppet to assume an illusion of authority when dealing with others in the WA and someone pretending to be the nation of "Nationstates Moderators Compliance Agency" and sending rules clarifications to others. That kind of nonsense would get someone disciplined immediately.

How do you not see the difference? Impersonating moderators is inherently malicious because it undermines the authority of the moderators. Impersonating a moderator, has not, to my knowledge, ever been used for a good purpose and I don't see how it really could. It's the NS equivalent of vigilante justice.

Using the WA flag/name/logo however, is not inherently bad. In fact, it has been used by many players for years to no real detriment in the vast majority of cases. Do you think Bears Armed WA Mission and WA Kitty Kops both hurt the game by using WA in their titles (and in the flag for the latter case)?

What makes it even worse is that this player has openly admitted that their use of WA imagery and the appearance of authority is intentional:

Well, I have as much authority as you. Well, maybe a little bit more, but that's negligible.

I'm trying to appear as an authority because human nature dictates that people are more likely to submit to authority figures than random people telling them what not to do.

This player is admittedly trying to appear as an official part of the game to get new players to listen to them.

You can argue that is a bad thing because it is me in this case, but can you really argue that is a bad thing in itself? Is wanting new players to listen to your advice an inherently bad thing?

This. It has been proven on this very page that new players may be fooled into believing a certain player has more authority than they actually do.

I can't read minds, but it doesn't appear that Calladan was fooled. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Allowing players to masquerade as official authorities on anything when they are not does not contribute anything to the game except confusion.

WAIF did not and does not masquerade as anything other than an official representative of the WA Improvement Foundation, which it is. I have never attempted to impersonate the NationStates administration, moderation, or any system telegram.

Excidium Planetis seems to be mocking their critics by continuing to post using their sham account.

If I wanted to mock my critics, I would do so with my own account. It should be pretty clear that where people have issues with me I am not afraid to openly respond to them.

I will also provide some free advice to those players that feel it's necessary to use puppets because they wouldn't otherwise be taken seriously - don't be terrible to other players (especially new players) and maybe you won't need to trick them.

That's excellent advice. Maybe you should try not being terrible to people yourself. You know, like not mocking other players and pretending it is "advice".

Maybe I read wrong or maybe it wasn't a moderator that said it, but I'm pretty sure someone masquerading as the WA and sending campaign TGs should be frowned upon rather furiously with both eyebrows.

Well, since Auralia's repeal, that hasn't happened AFAIK. And it isn't really relevant to this discussion.

Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'd imagine that most newbies would listen to veterans (or, I don't know, mentors? ) without the need for any official standing as long as said veterans are polite, which the TG is.

It's a matter of debate, but I think Auralia's repeal effort demonstrated that players are far more likely to listen to a WA flag than just some GA regular they've never heard of before.

We've already seen Calladan be confused by it and they've spent some time here. Imagine the confusion of someone who's just started playing!

Calladan's confusion was regrettable, but hardly problematic, I'd say. Even if Calladan assumed that WAIF was in some way officially representing the WA as a game system, I hardly think being welcomed and answering a few questions (which, sadly, Calladan has not answered yet, leaving the sample size at 3 for the survey) would have resulted in harm.

No newbie is going to scour through your posting history, looking for a shameful post. No newbie is going to discover your attempted condemnation of Bitely unless you explicitly mention it. Even if they did, the same would apply to your WAIF account, which has already participated in debates.[/quote]
WAIF's debates did not venture into debates on policy, like, for example, pro-choice or anti-communism. The debate on whether or not governments had the authority to provide for free TV broadcasting or whatever that argument was about was a mistake, I will say. But even then, WAIF didn't have a stance on the proposal itself, merely that it was an area governments could have an interest in. WAIF was intended to be something that didn't have any official position on IC matters.

Contrast this to Excidium Planetis. Not only has this puppet been aligned with many IC matters (EP is clearly pro-life, pro-capitalism, jingoistic, etc.) but I've even aligned it OOCly with certain values (especially through discussion on General).

Ovybia's Child Destruction ban or whatever the title ended up being showed that even OOC affiliation with certain values can cause others to question your motives and your proposal (by this I mean idea, not a literal resolution-to-be proposal). So why would I want to risk new players associating my words with EP's values, when nothing of the sort is intended? This can even occur for players who do not read a single one of my posts, because EP is a WA Delegate of a region and thus players may assume that I would be speaking in my capacity as a Delegate.

As WAIF, I am nothing but an organization filled with happy people dedicated to make the GA a better place.

Some of us will have received a telegram listing the players who newbies thought were very helpful. Notice that EP was listed in that telegram, but WAIF wasn't.

This is a very important point. Yes, EP was listed and not WAIF. But that actually lends support to my use of WAIF. You only saw your telegrams, of course, so you might assume EP was listed because you mentioned me. But you didn't list EP, you said "you, of course", so technically I could have listed WAIF. EP was listed because another player mentioned EP as being helpful in a whole list of players, and I do not believe that player realized WAIF and EP were the same person. I was only able to list myself because the person mentioned me without knowing I was the one asking.

On top of that, I would rather EP get recognized for EP's actions and WAIF recognized for WAIF's actions. I don't want EP to get the credit for what WAIF does. WAIF, while only one player right now, is supposed to represent a whole organization of players (that I already tried to start), and those players are the ones who deserve the credit, not me. If I ran everything with EP, new players might give me credit for things I didn't do.

And you know you should take my word for that, because I'm the WA Anti-Crappiness Service and I speak for all WA nations on the topic of things that are crappy. [/pedagogical irony]

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by making this puppet, but if you actually used it to make the WA less crappy, I would be happy. As it is now, it just looks like you made it to mock me, which is pretty crappy.

snip

This isn't funny and doesn't add anything to the discussion.

In all seriousness, this is one of many reasons why trying to use the WA flag and name shouldn't be encouraged. We've already seen two joke puppets and other people are going to try their hand at doing it.

So your argument is that nobody should be allowed to do it because you and two other people ruined it for everyone?

snip

snip

Correction, four other people.

It's pretty clear all those puppets are pointless and exist for no reason than to be jokes. WAIF was created for a reason and was not a joke.

[Sciongrad]

-snip-

Any argument you make that doesn't acknowledge some intention on your part to assume more authority is literally a lie. You said the following publicly:

I'm trying to appear as an authority because human nature dictates that people are more likely to submit to authority figures than random people telling them what not to do.

When you use the GA flag and send telegrams from an official-sounding account, you are assuming authority you don't have. Even if that is not your intention (which it obviously is, given the above quote), you are still assuming authority that you do not have.

And to be perfectly candid, I know you're going to try to argue every single point into oblivion, despite almost unanimous condemnation, so I won't be engaging in any back and forth. You're free to respond however you please, but I hope the moderators realize the mistake they're making by allowing regulars to mislead new players.

And by the way, you may not like what I have to say, but I am not terrible to players - especially not new players. I'm not the one who admitted that their reputation was so poor that they needed to use a puppet account so as not to scare new players. I'm not the one who tried to condemn a relatively new player for being a minor inconvenience. So get some perspective before you accuse anyone else of mistreating other players.

And for the record, while I wasn't one of the players who posted with puppet WA accounts in this thread, I planned on doing so, and don't see why they can't post here and telegram new players freely unless there is some rule against them.

[States of Glory WA Office]

It may not be against the letter of the rules as far as the mods are concerned, but as players we should definitely be concerned about this, with it being demonstrated some people are already getting confused as to whether the nation has any official status or no.

Why should players be concerned that someone is welcoming players to the GA and asking for feedback on the job regulars did in welcoming players?

That's not at all what Gruen was complaining about.

I'm sorry, there absolutely needs to be a rule regarding player use of game imagery/names/logos/whatever when it comes to communicating with other players.

Are we also going to delete all the NationStates and Max Barry puppets?

I'm pretty sure that "Max Barry Puppets" are considered impersonation and already deleted on sight.

We might also want to delete all the United Nations puppets too, we don't want those players who still think the UN is part of NS to get confused and think that the UN puppets are official (and yes, those players exist).

There's a difference between a newbie thinking that someone is acting on the behalf on a defunct organisation and thinking that someone is acting on the behalf of an active organisation.

And why stop at NS, why not include the real world too? We should ban the use of real life people like Donald Trump in nation names or flags so that people don't mistakenly assume those players actually speak for Donald Trump.

There's been an example of someone getting confused by the use of the WA flag. Show me where someone has gotten confused by the use of Donald Trump's image.

Using the WA flag/name/logo however, is not inherently bad. In fact, it has been used by many players for years to no real detriment in the vast majority of cases. Do you think Bears Armed WA Mission and WA Kitty Kops both hurt the game by using WA in their titles (and in the flag for the latter case)?

Are you actually suggesting that people are going to mistake an obvious WA puppet and a nation with 'Kitty' in the title for official representatives of the World Assembly? What, are newbies suddenly going to think that my WA puppet speaks for the entirety of the WA?

I will also provide some free advice to those players that feel it's necessary to use puppets because they wouldn't otherwise be taken seriously - don't be terrible to other players (especially new players) and maybe you won't need to trick them.

That's excellent advice. Maybe you should try not being terrible to people yourself. You know, like not mocking other players and pretending it is "advice".

Is this the impression that we want to give newbies? The impression that all we do is argue with each other?

Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'd imagine that most newbies would listen to veterans (or, I don't know, mentors? ) without the need for any official standing as long as said veterans are polite, which the TG is.

It's a matter of debate, but I think Auralia's repeal effort demonstrated that players are far more likely to listen to a WA flag than just some GA regular they've never heard of before.

Or, you know, people just liked Auralia's repeal.

Ovybia's Child Destruction ban or whatever the title ended up being showed that even OOC affiliation with certain values can cause others to question your motives and your proposal (by this I mean idea, not a literal resolution-to-be proposal). So why would I want to risk new players associating my words with EP's values, when nothing of the sort is intended? This can even occur for players who do not read a single one of my posts, because EP is a WA Delegate of a region and thus players may assume that I would be speaking in my capacity as a Delegate.

Like I said, who's going to check?

Some of us will have received a telegram listing the players who newbies thought were very helpful. Notice that EP was listed in that telegram, but WAIF wasn't.

EP was listed because another player mentioned EP as being helpful in a whole list of players, and I do not believe that player realized WAIF and EP were the same person.

That's exactly my point! If they didn't know that you were the same person, why didn't they list both? Even without that welcome telegram, newbies still find you helpful! Your main concern was that newbies would be turned away by you, but this proves the opposite! I'm telling you to stop beating yourself up and to acknowledge that you're not as despised as you think you are!

It's pretty clear all those puppets are pointless and exist for no reason than to be jokes. WAIF was created for a reason and was not a joke.

That's not the point. Obviously, all the examples there were clearly jocular, but it does demonstrate how easy it is for someone to make an official-looking puppet and then use it to give bad advice. It doesn't even have to be malicious. What would you do if you ended up giving bad advice someday and a newbie, not knowing any better, placed your advice over other people's advice because of your flag? You yourself said that people are more likely to listen to nations that look official, so my scenario, according to you, shouldn't be far-fetched.

In that instance, the only way for everyone to be on an equal footing again would be for everyone to create a WA puppet (a few players have already done so). That would be a nightmare scenario.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ovybia's Child Destruction ban or whatever the title ended up being showed that even OOC affiliation with certain values can cause others to question your motives and your proposal (by this I mean idea, not a literal resolution-to-be proposal). So why would I want to risk new players associating my words with EP's values, when nothing of the sort is intended? This can even occur for players who do not read a single one of my posts, because EP is a WA Delegate of a region and thus players may assume that I would be speaking in my capacity as a Delegate.

Like I said, who's going to check?

Or, just make a different puppet called something else. That is why Hannasea, Gruenburg, Quintessence of Dust, etc exist(ed).

[Excidium Planetis]

Are we also going to delete all the NationStates and Max Barry puppets?

I'm pretty sure that "Max Barry Puppets" are considered impersonation and already deleted on sight.

Well, maybe, but this one seems to have survived for a year: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=i_love_max_barry

We might also want to delete all the United Nations puppets too, we don't want those players who still think the UN is part of NS to get confused and think that the UN puppets are official (and yes, those players exist).

There's a difference between a newbie thinking that someone is acting on the behalf on a defunct organisation and thinking that someone is acting on the behalf of an active organisation.

Not to the newbies who do not realize the UN is defunct.

And why stop at NS, why not include the real world too? We should ban the use of real life people like Donald Trump in nation names or flags so that people don't mistakenly assume those players actually speak for Donald Trump.

There's been an example of someone getting confused by the use of the WA flag. Show me where someone has gotten confused by the use of Donald Trump's image.

There was an example of Calladan doubting that WAIF was official. I am not Calladan obviously, so I will wait until they respond before saying whether or not they were actually fooled into thinking WAIF represented some actual component of the WA itself.

Are you actually suggesting that people are going to mistake an obvious WA puppet and a nation with 'Kitty' in the title for official representatives of the World Assembly? What, are newbies suddenly going to think that my WA puppet speaks for the entirety of the WA?

No, I am suggesting that hardly anyone would assume WAIF speaks for the actual World Assembly itself, and that even if they did the damage would be as severe as someone mistakenly believing the World Space Administration was a region officially created by a WA resolution.

Wait, does naming a region "The General Assembly" count as the kind of technically legal "ex post facto branding" that I condemned in my Condemnation of Bitely? I guess it does, but that was kinda my weakest argument anyways.

Is this the impression that we want to give newbies? The impression that all we do is argue with each other?

Isn't that what we do?

Or, you know, people just liked Auralia's repeal.

It failed miserably when it was resubmitted under Railana. So that can't be the case.

Like I said, who's going to check?

The same people who checked Ovybia and discovered he was a member of Right to Life.

That's exactly my point! If they didn't know that you were the same person, why didn't they list both?

Because other than that telegram, WAIF had never interacted with them. Kinda hard to describe someone as helpful if they haven't helped you out yet, right? EP has an advantage over WAIF simply because WAIF is new and hasn't been operational a whole lot yet.

without that welcome telegram, newbies still find you helpful! Your main concern was that newbies would be turned away by you, but this proves the opposite! I'm telling you to stop beating yourself up and to acknowledge that you're not as despised as you think you are!

Tell that to Sciongrad.

What would you do if you ended up giving bad advice someday and a newbie, not knowing any better, placed your advice over other people's advice because of your flag? You yourself said that people are more likely to listen to nations that look official, so my scenario, according to you, shouldn't be far-fetched.

Well, that would be bad. But that's why I intended WAIF to be part of a group effort, and I have always asked for advice.

In that instance, the only way for everyone to be on an equal footing again would be for everyone to create a WA puppet (a few players have already done so). That would be a nightmare scenario.

Not really. If someone else wants to make a WA organization and hand out free advice to noobs, I won't stand in their way.

[Snefaldia]

This conversation is probably best continued somewhere else; Wrapper has already reminded us this is a Q&A thread.

[Wallenburg]

AN: Fair enough. I've continued this to the improvement thread. It's more appropriate there.

[Separatist Peoples]

I have more hypothetical!!!!!

I am considering draft of a resolution to deal with the transitory nature of membership with the GA. I am looking to include a committee that will assist prospective nonmembers seeking membership (ICly, of course), into transitioning into compliance with GA resolutions (in a nonbinding nature). Essentially, it's a carrot for membership: Prove that you're making a good-faith effort to transition to compliance and membership, and get financial and logistical aid from the WA to that end.

For example, Access to Sanitation requires a potentially massive investment in infrastructure that a nonmember with no money couldn't afford. If they joined the WA, they would immediately be in noncompliance and have no funds to get into compliance. This would allow the GA, through a committee, to provide that financial and technical support so the transition is one of a state either in or actively making progress toward compliance into membership.

Having explained the idea, here is my question: Would this constitute Affecting Nonmembers?

I don't believe so, since the support is nonbinding, and would be withdrawn if there is any indication of a lack of good faith in transitioning, like not taking steps to getting rid of state-sanctioned racial segregation but trying to claim that they are going to join, and just need a big lump of cash first. As such, it's all carrot and no stick, which is where the issue of telling nonmembers what to do comes from. However, I don't want to waste time writing a complex draft if the idea is flawed at it's core.

[Bears Armed Mission]

I have more hypothetical!!!!!

I am considering draft of a resolution to deal with the transitory nature of membership with the GA. I am looking to include a committee that will assist prospective nonmembers seeking membership (ICly, of course), into transitioning into compliance with GA resolutions (in a nonbinding nature). Essentially, it's a carrot for membership: Prove that you're making a good-faith effort to transition to compliance and membership, and get financial and logistical aid from the WA to that end.

For example, Access to Sanitation requires a potentially massive investment in infrastructure that a nonmember with no money couldn't afford. If they joined the WA, they would immediately be in noncompliance and have no funds to get into compliance. This would allow the GA, through a committee, to provide that financial and technical support so the transition is one of a state either in or actively making progress toward compliance into membership.

Having explained the idea, here is my question: Would this constitute Affecting Nonmembers?

I don't believe so, since the support is nonbinding, and would be withdrawn if there is any indication of a lack of good faith in transitioning, like not taking steps to getting rid of state-sanctioned racial segregation but trying to claim that they are going to join, and just need a big lump of cash first. As such, it's all carrot and no stick, which is where the issue of telling nonmembers what to do comes from. However, I don't want to waste time writing a complex draft if the idea is flawed at it's core.

It looks interesting to me, and potentially legal, but if it doesn't do anything to/for existing members as well then aren't you in danger of a 'Committee Only' illegality?
However if members are already allowed a [honestly] reasonable amount of time to come completely into compliance with new resolutions in those cases where immediate change would obviously not be possible (e.g. housing standards) but no timescale is actually specified within those laws themselves, as I seem to recall seeing at least one Mod say before this, then maybe aiming the proposed resolution at all members that "need" such help -- with newcomers mentioned as particularly likely to need help, due to the potentially high number of resolutions with which they must come into compliance simultaneously -- instead might be better?
Category and strength?