General Assembly Q&A

[NERVUN]

I know you can put on your WFE whether or not you like to receive WA TGs and/or whether you only want to receive WA or SC TGs.

Is it also possible to introduce further conditions such as only receiving TGs from certain WA categories? Or that if you are going to TG you should adapt it to follow the region's roleplaying theme?

You can put whatever you want on there (You can demand all WA TG's be cast in rhyme if you want), just note that if it isn't in the rules, we won't enforce it.

That said, there's nothing keeping YOU from enforcing it (Banjecting the offending nation, blocking TGs, etc).

[Ardchoille]

<snip>

Haven't forgotten this, Darenjo, just having trouble trying to think about it (or anything more complex than "Gimme drergs!!!") when my head's full of cotton wool.

[Darenjo]

<snip>

Haven't forgotten this, Darenjo, just having trouble trying to think about it (or anything more complex than "Gimme drergs!!!") when my head's full of cotton wool.

It's totally okay. Take your time - I know how busy the Mods are.

[Danatha]

Do I start a thread for a proposal, let people help me edit it, and then it goes to vote, or do I submit it first then it goes to forum automatically?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You can start a draft thread anytime you want, but there is no "automatic" posting of proposals here, and if your proposal is illegal it will be deleted anyway, so it's usually a good idea to post here first to check for errors.

[Baptovia]

I don't know how to go about asking the mods about legality of a proposition. It seems that the prop presently being voted on (SIDT) is in direct violation of WA resolution #2, in that
Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

EDIT: How do I go about getting a ruling on the question?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It says "Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention," not the WA. The WA can butt in whenever it feels like, wherever it feels like, even if you can't. And of course the "subject to immunities recognized by international law" bit is just code language for "unless we pass another resolution indicating otherwise" -- meaning the WA is free to pass all the resolutions it wants, whether or not they conform to the principles set out in that particular clause. This all may sound like hypocrisy, because that's what it is. You have to remember, the entire point to the WA is to violate the sovereignty of member states -- even as it admonishes those same member states to "do as we say, not as we do" -- and Res #2 is just a clever little reminder that "sovereignty is for the WA, not for you!"

Besides, even if the current resolution did violate Res #2, there's not a lot the mods can do about it after it reaches vote.

[Mousebumples]

With regards to the "decision" categories (i.e. Gambling, Recreational Drug Use, Gun Control, etc.) ... Would there be any problem if a given draft of that nature is otherwise composed of multiple "categories" ? (i.e. free trade, education & creativity, and human rights all within the same draft)

I know that with the "strength" categories, a proposal must be written to a given category to avoid a category violation. However, do the same limitations apply with the "decision" categories as they really cannot (or, at least, I'd figure should not) be submitted in a different category?

Many thanks!

[Ardchoille]

Remember that proposals in the "decision"categories are regarded as Strong.

All the same, I don't think I can really give you a flat yes/no answer on that. I think each proposal would have to be reviewed individually.

I tried to formulate an answer along these lines: ... The only reason for a "Decision" proposal is, ultimately, to put the decision. But it can persuade, so if the clauses that belong in other categories are part of persuading, they'd probably be okay, depending ... see the problem? Some of the answer would depend on whether they were active clauses, and some on how "active" they were, and some on whether they really should (or could) have been separate proposals because the matter was something the WA needed to make a decision on, not just a detail.

[Mousebumples]

Remember that proposals in the "decision"categories are regarded as Strong.

All the same, I don't think I can really give you a flat yes/no answer on that. I think each proposal would have to be reviewed individually.

I tried to formulate an answer along these lines: ... The only reason for a "Decision" proposal is, ultimately, to put the decision. But it can persuade, so if the clauses that belong in other categories are part of persuading, they'd probably be okay, depending ... see the problem? Some of the answer would depend on whether they were active clauses, and some on how "active" they were, and some on whether they really should (or could) have been separate proposals because the matter was something the WA needed to make a decision on, not just a detail.

Totally understandable, Ard. (And, honestly, about what I figured.) I've got a few ideas ... percolating around, and whenever I get something drafted, I'll flag down (and/or bribe) the lawyers to take a look and see how much of a category violation it is, heh.

Thanks!

[Scotian Britain]

1 How would you become a WA delegate for your region?

2 How do you declare war on a country

[Flibbleites]

1 How would you become a WA delegate for your region?

You first read the FAQ

What's a Regional Delegate?

The nation with the most endorsements in each region at the time of the daily tally is automatically elected Regional Delegate.

Usually, a Delegate is the region's administrator. She can access Regional Control to alter the region's World Factbook Entry, set a password, and eject other nations. (In regions with a Founder, though, the Founder may override Delegate decisions and even deny the Delegate access to administrative powers.)

A Delegate also represents the region before the World Assembly. She can review upcoming proposals for legislation and promote those she approves. When legislation reaches the resolution voting floor, she wields additional voting power over regular WA members: 1 extra vote for each endorsement. Delegates of large regions therefore have considerable influence over whether resolutions pass or fail.

A nation must have at least one endorsement to be elected Regional Delegate.

2 How do you declare war on a country

And again from the FAQ

How do I go to war against another nation? Or trade?

In one sense, you can't. NationStates doesn't include these things -- because it's a simple game, and because they would bias things in favor of militaristic and capitalist nations. One of the nice things about NationStates is that you can craft a nation into your idea of Utopia without having to worry about such pragmatic concerns as national defence.

There are, however, two types of wargame that have been developed by the NationStates community. One is regional invasions, where nations attempt to move into another region and topple the Regional Delegate; the other is an in-depth role-playing game that takes place in the International Incidents forum.

Many people have suggested a more sophisticated version of NationStates, with trade and military conflicts, but this is unlikely, as it would fundamentally change who we are. At its core, NationStates is a political game, not a wargame.

[Panmen]

Would it be legal to propose a tax on gasoline? I understand you cannot enforce taxation upon people, but if there was a law mandating that governments had a set tax on gasoline... ?
EDIT: Also, is there a resolution for this already?

[Mousebumples]

Would it be legal to propose a tax on gasoline? I understand you cannot enforce taxation upon people, but if there was a law mandating that governments had a set tax on gasoline... ?
EDIT: Also, is there a resolution for this already?

Question one: What category would you use for this?

Question two: Why? So many nations don't even use gasoline anymore. This seems like it would be micromanagement to me.

[Panmen]

Would it be legal to propose a tax on gasoline? I understand you cannot enforce taxation upon people, but if there was a law mandating that governments had a set tax on gasoline... ?
EDIT: Also, is there a resolution for this already?

Question one: What category would you use for this?

Question two: Why? So many nations don't even use gasoline anymore. This seems like it would be micromanagement to me.

1. Im not sure what category, I am still thinking about it.
2. Are you kidding? You realise that gasoline is what powers cars. Maybe your from a commonwealth nation. I mean petrol. Or maybe your right and most WA nations use only electric/hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles.

EDITL|: I am thinking the Environment category.

[Mousebumples]

2. Are you kidding? You realise that gasoline is what powers cars. Maybe your from a commonwealth nation. I mean petrol. Or maybe your right and most WA nations use only electric/hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles.

NS nations have all different sorts of technology. Some might be Past-Tech and use only horse-powered vehicles. Some might be Future-Tech and not use cars at all - or only use cars that are hydro-powered or solar-powered or ... whatever. NS does not equal the real world, which is a common mistake made by many.

But, still, just because gasoline (or petrol) is what powers cars doesn't mean that it needs WA oversight or WA interferences. I still maintain that this is not an international issue and, therefore, does not require WA legislation on that subject.

[Panmen]

2. Are you kidding? You realise that gasoline is what powers cars. Maybe your from a commonwealth nation. I mean petrol. Or maybe your right and most WA nations use only electric/hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles.

NS nations have all different sorts of technology. Some might be Past-Tech and use only horse-powered vehicles. Some might be Future-Tech and not use cars at all - or only use cars that are hydro-powered or solar-powered or ... whatever. NS does not equal the real world, which is a common mistake made by many.

But, still, just because gasoline (or petrol) is what powers cars doesn't mean that it needs WA oversight or WA interferences. I still maintain that this is not an international issue and, therefore, does not require WA legislation on that subject.

OK, I see your point. And yes, I know all about different techs. And to argue your doubts about it being a international issue due to the different tech levels, what about GA resolution #95 and #98?

[Mousebumples]

OK, I see your point. And yes, I know all about different techs. And to argue your doubts about it being a international issue due to the different tech levels, what about GA resolution #95 and #98?

My argument about it not being an international issue isn't solely based on tech levels. And, just because other resolutions exist on the topic doesn't mean it's an international issue. They were both passed around the same time as the BP oil spill, which tends to get non-international issues on such a subject passed much more easily.

Which reminds me ... I should add both of those resolutions to my To Repeal list .... *makes a mental note* Of course, being a fairly Nat Sov individual in these parts, that's quite a long list, heh.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Let's not make it seem like that's any kind of official rule, Mousebumples. Resolutions don't have to be for 'international issues,' nor do they have to subscribe to a tech-level-neutral format. A tax on gasoline would be legal, so long as it isn't a direct tax on people. And, for what it's worth, passing a gas tax isn't exactly the most unimaginable feat.

[Mousebumples]

Let's not make it seem like that's any kind of official rule, Mousebumples. Resolutions don't have to be for 'international issues,' nor do they have to subscribe to a tech-level-neutral format. A tax on gasoline would be legal, so long as it isn't a direct tax on people. And, for what it's worth, passing a gas tax isn't exactly the most unimaginable feat.

I never said it was a rule. My posts are all filled with "I think" or "I feel" and I think my Nat Sov stance on WA issues is fairly well-known - and also advertised in my sig.

And, no, a gas tax isn't the most unimaginable feat. I can say that, truly, only because there have been so many other -worthy proposals submitted to the queue over the years.

[Bears Armed]

The resolution that only banned a certain international organisation taxing people was back in the NS-UN period: What the relevant WA resolution does is

Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

which means that any gasoline taxation proposal would only be able to target the international trade in this substance.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The resolution that only banned a certain international organisation taxing people was back in the NS-UN period:

Nope; WAGF does the exact same thing, apart form the clause you've highlighted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I never said it was a rule. My posts are all filled with "I think" or "I feel" and I think my Nat Sov stance on WA issues is fairly well-known - and also advertised in my sig.

This thread is for questions about the rules. I obviously knew that you were expressing your opinion, but you were doing so authoritatively. To a new player, especially in this thread, what you said could easily come across as something more than a single player's political opinion. It's only exacerbated by the fact that you never said the idea was legal.

... which means that any gasoline taxation proposal would only be able to target the international trade in this substance.

I think you're reading far too much into that clause. It only means that the World Assembly cannot impose a tax upon the people within a state. The World Assembly is free to tax states themselves, whether or not they're engaged in international trade. A gas tax proposal could do just that: tax states for the total consumption of gas within their borders. How states get the money to pay the tax is up to them.

[Astrolinium]

Could someone clear up for me the details of what constitutes an ideological ban? This seems to me, having thought over it, to be a very fuzzy sort of area. For example, what is the distinction that allows CoCR not to be an ideological ban of Islamic fundamentalist theocracies?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Could someone clear up for me the details of what constitutes an ideological ban? This seems to me, having thought over it, to be a very fuzzy sort of area. For example, what is the distinction that allows CoCR not to be an ideological ban of Islamic fundamentalist theocracies?

Ideological bans, as I understand them, are explicit outlawing of ideologies. You can institute freedom of religion, but you can't actually ban theocratic forms of government. You can institute free trade (or fair trade), but you can't outlaw capitalism or socialism. Making it more difficult to hold any certain ideology is not illegal.

The question of cumulative effects has been raised before, but mods have deferred judgement so far.