NationStates

The Akashic Records wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Not sure what you mean. We have one for chemical weapons and one for mens incontinence. Oh, and a couple bad ones on animals and the environment.

They tend to follow something of a pattern. You'll see them follow real world issues as the news reports march by. With New Jersey legalizing gay marriage, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a draft repealing FoMA soon.

Don't we already have those on a regular basis, courtesy of the daily issue?

Forgot about that. Damn. And here I thought I had it down to a science. Well, most proposals follow the direction the real world news is going in. Out of sight, out of mind and vice-versa.

I sent this proposal but they removed it and said that I breached rules but I don't know what I did wrong. Please can you tell me what's wrong with it and suggest changes.

It was in the wrong category.

How is that in the wrong category? It was submitted as Recreational Drug Use -> Outlaw, and it bans tobacco (in certain places). It does a few other things, but its main effect doesn't seem horribly out of whack...

Edit: not sniping, genuinely curious.

Eire Ireland wrote:I sent this proposal but they removed it and said that I breached rules but I don't know what I did wrong. Please can you tell me what's wrong with it and suggest changes.

If you'd like comments on your proposal, I'd suggest making a new thread for it, and posting your proposal at the beginning. You can see lots of other people have done similarly in this forum, in the threads marked [DRAFT]. It's also generally a good idea to try to draft a proposal before submitting it.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:How is that in the wrong category? It was submitted as Recreational Drug Use -> Outlaw, and it bans tobacco (in certain places). It does a few other things, but its main effect doesn't seem horribly out of whack...

When submitted, it originally only prohibited tobacco use in the public sphere. The category of "Outlaw" requires that the entire product be outlawed, not just its use in public sphere. Due to the restriction rather than the prohibition of this right, it is not in the correct category.

I am new to the wa and I have no clue how or what I am to do. If anyone can help me send me a telegram At pladland. Thank you

Kryozerkia wrote:

The Dark Star Republic wrote:How is that in the wrong category? It was submitted as Recreational Drug Use -> Outlaw, and it bans tobacco (in certain places). It does a few other things, but its main effect doesn't seem horribly out of whack...

When submitted, it originally only prohibited tobacco use in the public sphere. The category of "Outlaw" requires that the entire product be outlawed, not just its use in public sphere. Due to the restriction rather than the prohibition of this right, it is not in the correct category.

Really - wow. I honestly didn't understand till now the category was so narrowly defined that a partial or qualified ban is illegal. That's incredibly limiting, and makes an already difficult-to-use category virtually worthless.

Thanks for the explanation.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Kryozerkia wrote:When submitted, it originally only prohibited tobacco use in the public sphere. The category of "Outlaw" requires that the entire product be outlawed, not just its use in public sphere. Due to the restriction rather than the prohibition of this right, it is not in the correct category.

Really - wow. I honestly didn't understand till now the category was so narrowly defined that a partial or qualified ban is illegal. That's incredibly limiting, and makes an already difficult-to-use category virtually worthless.

Thanks for the explanation.

There are other categories like that (i.e.: Gambling, Gun Control). Unfortunately these are what Max programmed into the game and how the Enodian Accords - when the rules for proposals were laid out - defined the categories.

Is it possible for me, as a WA nation, to propose a resolution defending research operations vis a vis the current (pending) Zombie Apocalypse. Not just research done to cure the Zombie threat, but also research to cultivate and expand the zombie population? This would cover not only research for the October outbreak, but also the April Outbreak? Imperium Californium feels that no matter what research was conducted, no matter its ultimate goal, research should be protected for the pure sake of research.

Kryozerkia wrote:There are other categories like that (i.e.: Gambling, Gun Control). Unfortunately these are what Max programmed into the game and how the Enodian Accords - when the rules for proposals were laid out - defined the categories.

Yes, those three proposals are generally accountable for at least a third of all the Silly/Illegal proposals. I just hadn't appreciated till now how strict the interpretation of their mechanical effects was.

Imperium Californium wrote:Is it possible for me, as a WA nation, to propose a resolution defending research operations vis a vis the current (pending) Zombie Apocalypse. Not just research done to cure the Zombie threat, but also research to cultivate and expand the zombie population? This would cover not only research for the October outbreak, but also the April Outbreak? Imperium Californium feels that no matter what research was conducted, no matter its ultimate goal, research should be protected for the pure sake of research. :twisted: :D

Ugh...

In general, proposals can't reference in game actions, so I doubt a specific reference to the Outbreak would be permitted. A general treatment on zombies might be allowed. I have no idea whether the moderators would allow that or not (though I suspect not) but for the WA players, it might get a bit old. I mean, the Zombie outbreak thing will die off in a few days, but a WA law remains on the books for life.

Maybe you could make it a bit broader than just zombies - infectious disease in general? or, a resolution promoting scientific and medical research? I'm sure a proposal could cleverly hint at such a thing, while actually tackling serious issues.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:Maybe you could make it a bit broader than just zombies - infectious disease in general? or, a resolution promoting scientific and medical research? I'm sure a proposal could cleverly hint at such a thing, while actually tackling serious issues.

A general WA policy for "pandemics that alter consciousness and behavior" would probably be legal, internationally relevant and perhaps important enough to legislate. But you would have to see if it is compatible with the existing GAR #53 or not.

My question: Will the behavior of the WA be affected in any way by the zombie invasion? (I don't mean WA nations' behaviors, I mean the WA aspect of the game itself)

Talkistan wrote:My question: Will the behavior of the WA be affected in any way by the zombie invasion? (I don't mean WA nations' behaviors, I mean the WA aspect of the game itself)

Will the brainless and oft-shambling diplomats that populate the WA be bothered by an invasion of brainless, shambling corpses...Not if the Stranger's Bar starts serving raw flesh as a regular meal. It'll be business as usual.

Talkistan wrote:My question: Will the behavior of the WA be affected in any way by the zombie invasion? (I don't mean WA nations' behaviors, I mean the WA aspect of the game itself)

No more than it was the last time. So, no.

Per this post and this post:

The proposal rules used to make it clear that: "Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does." While this judgement can be abstracted from the current proposal rules and a link within them, it is no longer explicitly stated. Given there have been at least two recent examples of players being confused about this, should the original language, or something like it, be returned to the proposal rules in explicit form?

Your lightest wish is our command.

Ardchoille wrote:Your lightest wish is our command.

Thanks! *leaves plenty of milk and cookies*

Thanks, Ard, I approve of this change.

Are there any laws about maritime safety and trade?

Du Pont wrote:Are there any laws about maritime safety and trade?

Passed GA resolutions: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

Bears Armed wrote:

Du Pont wrote:Are there any laws about maritime safety and trade?

Passed GA resolutions: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

#168: Laws of the Sea springs to mind....

I try to figure out how to do bold. But nothing is happening. What do I do?

Rotterwerp wrote:I try to figure out how to do bold. But nothing is happening. What do I do?

Use tags. Using [b*]Text goes here[/b*] without the stars works. Also, when posting a reply, there are two lines of buttons between the subject and the area where you enter the post. The first button will give you the tags, just right what you want bold between them. Somewhere around here there is a formatting guide, but I can't seem to find it.

Barunia wrote:

Rotterwerp wrote:I try to figure out how to do bold. But nothing is happening. What do I do?

Use tags. Using [b*]Text goes here[/b*] without the stars works. Also, when posting a reply, there are two lines of buttons between the subject and the area where you enter the post. The first button will give you the tags, just right what you want bold between them. Somewhere around here there is a formatting guide, but I can't seem to find it.

The formatting guide is going to be, I'm guessing, this part of the Technical FAQ in the Technical Forum.

Why do we have a rule that prevents us from amending or fixing laws? Since I've joined WA it keeps repealing law after law because is a tiny flaw in the wording. I've yet to see a new proposal after the repeal that fixes the minor flaw. Is the rule designed to ensure that the WA remains dysfunctional?

Ambystomatica wrote:Why do we have a rule that prevents us from amending or fixing laws? Since I've joined WA it keeps repealing law after law because is a tiny flaw in the wording. I've yet to see a new proposal after the repeal that fixes the minor flaw. Is the rule designed to ensure that the WA remains dysfunctional?

Amending is illegal, both per Fris & Ard.

Only the original author of the now-repealed legislation would be able to resubmit the original with aforementioned minor flaws. If a different player writes the replacement, it needs to be wholly different (in wording, at least) so as to avoid getting dinged for plagiarism.