Repeal GAR #2 [SPLIT from Silly and/or Illegal]

[Individuality-ness]

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#2
Proposed by: Afforess

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Understanding that the choice of accepting World Assembly membership in Nationstates comes with responsibilities,

Agreeing that membership in the World Assembly is a choice,

Concerned that the resolution prevents unrequested intervention in internal or external Nation States, and this may prevent vital humanitarian or other good-will actions,

Displeased that the resolution prevents intervention in civil conflicts in other Nation States, when such an intervention may help provide aid or comfort,

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

Disturbed that the duties the resolution outlined are frequently ignored, as the World Assembly frequently participates in or denounces armed conflicts or military activities in Security Council Condemnations and Security Council Liberations,

Determines that this resolution has overly broad restrictions and content that is no longer relevant to World Assembly members,

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more relevant version of this resolution to the World Assembly,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States"

I get the feeling that this writer seeks to rewrite the WA proposal rules.

[Grays Harbor]

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#2
Proposed by: Afforess

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Understanding that the choice of accepting World Assembly membership in Nationstates comes with responsibilities,

Agreeing that membership in the World Assembly is a choice,

Concerned that the resolution prevents unrequested intervention in internal or external Nation States, and this may prevent vital humanitarian or other good-will actions,

Displeased that the resolution prevents intervention in civil conflicts in other Nation States, when such an intervention may help provide aid or comfort,

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

Disturbed that the duties the resolution outlined are frequently ignored, as the World Assembly frequently participates in or denounces armed conflicts or military activities in Security Council Condemnations and Security Council Liberations,

Determines that this resolution has overly broad restrictions and content that is no longer relevant to World Assembly members,

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more relevant version of this resolution to the World Assembly,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States"

I get the feeling that this writer seeks to rewrite the WA proposal rules.

Looks like. Metagaming just from tossing "security council" in there too, and that makes this one big stinking heap of illegal.

[Dragomere]

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#2
Proposed by: Afforess

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Understanding that the choice of accepting World Assembly membership in Nationstates comes with responsibilities,

Agreeing that membership in the World Assembly is a choice,

Concerned that the resolution prevents unrequested intervention in internal or external Nation States, and this may prevent vital humanitarian or other good-will actions,

Displeased that the resolution prevents intervention in civil conflicts in other Nation States, when such an intervention may help provide aid or comfort,

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

Disturbed that the duties the resolution outlined are frequently ignored, as the World Assembly frequently participates in or denounces armed conflicts or military activities in Security Council Condemnations and Security Council Liberations,

Determines that this resolution has overly broad restrictions and content that is no longer relevant to World Assembly members,

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more relevant version of this resolution to the World Assembly,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States"

I get the feeling that this writer seeks to rewrite the WA proposal rules.

Looks like. Metagaming just from tossing "security council" in there too, and that makes this one big stinking heap of illegal.

I don't think that the mods would let this pass. If I remember right, this would destroy the functionality of the WA, and thus, requires metagaming. Also this would require the mods to rewrite the programming of NS, which is illegal in WA proposals.

[Afforess]

Looks like. Metagaming just from tossing "security council" in there too, and that makes this one big stinking heap of illegal.

I must protest. The proposal was not meta-gaming. It was not restricting, creating or altering the rules of the game, nor was it optional. I don't see how it could be interpreted as metagaming.

I don't think that the mods would let this pass. If I remember right, this would destroy the functionality of the WA, and thus, requires metagaming. Also this would require the mods to rewrite the programming of NS, which is illegal in WA proposals.

You sir are incorrect, that would be GA#1, which is in fact, impossible to repeal as there is no link for the repeal proposal.

Moderators, please give me clarification on the metagaming business. I do not see how merely mentioning the existence of the Security Council is illegal.

[Damanucus]

Looks like. Metagaming just from tossing "security council" in there too, and that makes this one big stinking heap of illegal.

I must protest. The proposal was not meta-gaming. It was not restricting, creating or altering the rules of the game, nor was it optional. I don't see how it could be interpreted as metagaming.

I don't think that the mods would let this pass. If I remember right, this would destroy the functionality of the WA, and thus, requires metagaming. Also this would require the mods to rewrite the programming of NS, which is illegal in WA proposals.

You sir are incorrect, that would be GA#1, which is in fact, impossible to repeal as there is no link for the repeal proposal.

Moderators, please give me clarification on the metagaming business. I do not see how merely mentioning the existence of the Security Council is illegal.

I'm no Mod, but I can show you this:

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself. Proposals dealing with the Security Council, Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the forums are examples. This also includes proposals that try to affect non-WA nations.

Hence, the mere and simple fact that other nations and the Security Council were mentioned, makes this immediately illegal.

[Afforess]

I must protest. The proposal was not meta-gaming. It was not restricting, creating or altering the rules of the game, nor was it optional. I don't see how it could be interpreted as metagaming.

You sir are incorrect, that would be GA#1, which is in fact, impossible to repeal as there is no link for the repeal proposal.

Moderators, please give me clarification on the metagaming business. I do not see how merely mentioning the existence of the Security Council is illegal.

I'm no Mod, but I can show you this:

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself. Proposals dealing with the Security Council, Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the forums are examples. This also includes proposals that try to affect non-WA nations.

Hence, the mere and simple fact that other nations and the Security Council were mentioned, makes this immediately illegal.

The proposal doesn't deal with the Security Council at all though. The proposal does not cite any legislation from the security council, nations, nor regions. It only mentions that it exists. I'm not seeing how noticing the other half of the WA exists is breaking the 4th wall. If the Moderators seriously feel the tiniest mention is horrible, I can just remove the 2nd half of that sentence and the proposal has the same effect.

[Individuality-ness]

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

That suggests that you seek to change the proposal rules, since according to THOSE rules, the WA cannot have a military/police force. This was what caught my eye as "illegal", because that's pretty much metagaming.

[Alqania]

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

That suggests that you seek to change the proposal rules, since according to THOSE rules, the WA cannot have a military/police force. This was what caught my eye as "illegal", because that's pretty much metagaming.

Attempts to change how the WA works are illegal for game mechanics, not metagaming.

[Individuality-ness]

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

That suggests that you seek to change the proposal rules, since according to THOSE rules, the WA cannot have a military/police force. This was what caught my eye as "illegal", because that's pretty much metagaming.

Attempts to change how the WA works are illegal for game mechanics, not metagaming.

... wow, my bad. I keep confusing the two.

[Afforess]

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

That suggests that you seek to change the proposal rules, since according to THOSE rules, the WA cannot have a military/police force. This was what caught my eye as "illegal", because that's pretty much metagaming.

Not sure where you got that idea. I am simply noting the text of the resolution. I don't create or propose creating any sort of WA-sanctioned military. Read the proposal.

[Frisbeeteria]

Afforess, next time you want to have a discussion, create an actual discussion thread. Don't clog up the Silly Proposals thread.

SPLIT.

[The Akashic Records]

Ahem If I may have your attentions please.

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#2
Proposed by: Afforess

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Understanding that the choice of accepting World Assembly membership in Nationstates comes with responsibilities,

Agreeing that membership in the World Assembly is a choice,

Concerned that the resolution prevents unrequested intervention in internal or external Nation States, and this may prevent vital humanitarian or other good-will actions, we believe that the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee already has this covered.

Displeased that the resolution prevents intervention in civil conflicts in other Nation States, when such an intervention may help provide aid or comfort,

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner, You want to do what now? What did the rules say about about WA military or any such variations?

Disturbed that the duties the resolution outlined are frequently ignored, as the World Assembly frequently participates in or denounces armed conflicts or military activities in Security Council Condemnations and Security Council Liberations, We believe that Section II already covers this, specifically, Article 7. The part where members are to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. could be interpreted as allowing for liberations to occur, while Article 6, in order to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife, may condemn them.

Determines that this resolution has overly broad restrictions and content that is no longer relevant to World Assembly members, It still is, actually, if we want to keep things within the rules while still giving enough leeway for proposals and repeals to actually do anything.

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more relevant version of this resolution to the World Assembly, If you already have a replacement in the works, bring it up for scrutiny and maybe, just maybe, this repeal might garner some support.

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States"

I get the feeling that this writer seeks to rewrite the WA proposal rules.

Of course, my interpretations could be wrong, but then, I must be reading the rules and the resolution to be repealed wrong.

[Afforess]

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#2
Proposed by: Afforess

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Understanding that the choice of accepting World Assembly membership in Nationstates comes with responsibilities,

Agreeing that membership in the World Assembly is a choice,

Concerned that the resolution prevents unrequested intervention in internal or external Nation States, and this may prevent vital humanitarian or other good-will actions, we believe that the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee already has this covered. Repeal proposals can not cite nor count on other legislation always existing. See: "House of Cards" rule.

Displeased that the resolution prevents intervention in civil conflicts in other Nation States, when such an intervention may help provide aid or comfort,

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from promoting, denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner, You want to do what now? What did the rules say about about WA military or any such variations? This could be a misunderstanding of the term 'participating', as frankly, any legislation that touches any sort of military, even indirectly, is 'participating' in my eyes. If this word bothers you, I can leave it at "promoting or denouncing".

Disturbed that the duties the resolution outlined are frequently ignored, as the World Assembly frequently promotes or denounces armed conflicts or military activitiesWe believe that Section II already covers this, specifically, Article 7. The part where members are to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. could be interpreted as allowing for liberations to occur, while Article 6, in order to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife, may condemn them.

Determines that this resolution has overly broad restrictions and content that is no longer relevant to World Assembly members, It still is, actually, if we want to keep things within the rules while still giving enough leeway for proposals and repeals to actually do anything.

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more relevant version of this resolution to the World Assembly, If you already have a replacement in the works, bring it up for scrutiny and maybe, just maybe, this repeal might garner some support. I don't recall there being any rules that statements need to be made in good faith. I can lie and it's not against the rules. I am aware of other nations lying on their proposals to help get them passed.

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States"

I get the feeling that this writer seeks to rewrite the WA proposal rules.

My comments added in red.

[Individuality-ness]

Damn it, now I'm the OP of a discussion thread of a resolution that I didn't write? DAMN IT!

[The Akashic Records]

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#2
Proposed by: Afforess

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Understanding that the choice of accepting World Assembly membership in Nationstates comes with responsibilities,

Agreeing that membership in the World Assembly is a choice,

Concerned that the resolution prevents unrequested intervention in internal or external Nation States, and this may prevent vital humanitarian or other good-will actions, we believe that the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee already has this covered. Repeal proposals can not cite nor count on other legislation always existing. See: "House of Cards" rule. Yes, I'm aware of the "House of Cards". However, if you really want to stay within the repealed resolution itself, 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. They are to refrain, but, if any international laws requires them to do so, then they are obliged to give unrequested aid. Unless of course, you mean that all proposals must include every single possibility and instances wherein it must direct the local government to a T.

Displeased that the resolution prevents intervention in civil conflicts in other Nation States, when such an intervention may help provide aid or comfort,

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from promoting, denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner, You want to do what now? What did the rules say about about WA military or any such variations? This could be a misunderstanding of the term 'participating', as frankly, any legislation that touches any sort of military, even indirectly, is 'participating' in my eyes. If this word bothers you, I can leave it at "promoting or denouncing". That could work, so long as no direct military action is taken on the part of the WA.

Disturbed that the duties the resolution outlined are frequently ignored, as the World Assembly frequently promotes or denounces armed conflicts or military activitiesWe believe that Section II already covers this, specifically, Article 7. The part where members are to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. could be interpreted as allowing for liberations to occur, while Article 6, in order to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife, may condemn them.

Determines that this resolution has overly broad restrictions and content that is no longer relevant to World Assembly members, It still is, actually, if we want to keep things within the rules while still giving enough leeway for proposals and repeals to actually do anything.

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more relevant version of this resolution to the World Assembly, If you already have a replacement in the works, bring it up for scrutiny and maybe, just maybe, this repeal might garner some support. I don't recall there being any rules that statements need to be made in good faith. I can lie and it's not against the rules. I am aware of other nations lying on their proposals to help get them passed. Yes, I'm aware of that. Though, this repeal is the equivalent of breaking one of the central support pillars of a house. Let's hope the house doesn't crush itself under its own weight.

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States"

I get the feeling that this writer seeks to rewrite the WA proposal rules.

My comments added in red.

[Alqania]

The House of Cards rule does not apply to repeals. Repeals may reference resolutions as much as they want.

[Ardchoille]

Damn, ninja'd. As there's an explanation in it, I'll still post my reply:

OK: House of Cards is not a problem in repeals, and

To quote Mousebumples, (1) a repeal cannot be "undermined" in the same way that a resolution could be, should those referenced resolutions later be repealed (2) you can't repeal a repeal. There's a much longer post from me full of As and Cs here, but Mousie got the gist of it.

(I'll reply more fully later about why the proposal was deleted, but I was in the middle of checking some details when I noticed this query.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

That suggests that you seek to change the proposal rules, since according to THOSE rules, the WA cannot have a military/police force. This was what caught my eye as "illegal", because that's pretty much metagaming.

I'm not going to touch on this specific proposal's legality, but Rights & Duties does not exactly reflect the rules, especially with regards to the No Army Rule. There are a lot of things in Rights & Duties that aren't in the rules. In fact, the only rules codified in Rights & Duties is that the WA cannot have its own standing army, and that WA resolutions are supreme over domestic law and must be followed. Everything else is Fris' own ideas.

[Ardchoille]

As advertised, more detail on the reasoning for the deletion (it's long, so if you put the jug on now, it should be boiled by the time you get to the end):

... Noting that the resolution prevents the World Assembly from promoting, denouncing or participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner,

Disturbed that the duties the resolution outlined are frequently ignored, as the World Assembly frequently promotes or denounces armed conflicts or military activities in Security Council Condemnations and Security Council Liberations ...

Here's what a Liberation resolution says: A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.

Here's what a Condemnation resolution says: A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region

Despite their light roleplay gloss, those SC descriptions are about functions and positions that are part of the game NationStates, and that are applied to individual nations and individual regions.

Referring so explicitly to the gameside activities of the Security Council is metagaming. That's the thinking behind the first part of the Moderation TG you received: Your proposal was deleted for metagaming. The Security Council has Gameplay activities of regions and nations within its remit. The General Assembly does not.

The second part may have overstated your position a little: Furthermore, GA#2 could not legally refer to Security Council activities and to repeal it on the grounds that it does not is a misunderstanding of the ambit of the original resolution.

By my reading, the "Noting" clause of your proposal effectively tried to repeal GA#2 for being legal. However, you did attempt to express the game mechanisms that underlie the Security Council in what you believed were GA-proposal terms, so you didn't entirely misunderstand what WA #2 tries to do (ie, express the ones that underlie the GA).

The trouble is, you went into enough detail to conjure up the metagaming aspects of the SC.

You also said that WA is doing something that the owner of the game says it can't do: promote ... "armed conflicts or military activities". These things don't exist in the game. Whatever players have managed to do that looks like war -- roleplaying IC conflicts or treating gameplay activities as the "military activities" of raiding and defending -- Max has said quite explicitly that he is not going to add war to the game mechanism. So if they don't officially exist, the WA can't be officially referred to as promoting them.

That's underpinned by the long-standing GA Proposal Rule:

Army, Police, SWAT, etc: The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

That's why some players responded to your proposal as if it were trying to alter game mechanics. Clothing SC activities in military metaphors will constantly set off GA alarm bells.

What the WA does through the SC is use two new game mechanisms that are aimed at making a judgment on individual nations or regions.

But what the WA does through the GA is use game mechanisms that are aimed at making international law for all WA nations -- no regions, no individual nations.

Does this mean that the GA can never acknowledge that the WA has new responsibilities? No, though the question of whether it should, given that the two councils' responsibilities have been separated, is another matter.

Does it mean GA #2 can never be repealed? No. But using SC-based arguments will make an author's task more difficult.*

So: now the jug's boiled. Tea-time.

*(The way to approach it legally, I think, would be to try for something that would cite, in very general terms, the international purpose of the new responsibilities. The preceding sentence is not a my-way-or-the-highway ruling. It's a freebie bit of advice. Like a McDonald's toy.)

[Afforess]

Thanks for the writeup Ardchoille.

I think the misunderstanding arises because I and many others are not into the role-playing scene, but are aware of the raider/defender battles of the SC. So the activities of the SC are the only "military" engagements I am aware of, even though as you state, there are no real war/military in the game. Some clarification in the GA rules about might be handy, maybe a note that raider/defender/region gameplay is not the same as a war or military engagements.

[Afforess]

How is this for a revised draft, breaking any rules?

Understanding that the choice of accepting World Assembly membership in Nationstates comes with responsibilities,

Agreeing that membership in the World Assembly is a choice,

Noting that the resolution prevents unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other Nation State,

Concerned that this restriction could prevent vital humanitarian aid, economic stabilization or other goodwill actions, especially in cases where the government of the Nation State is unprepared for a disaster and unable to request intervention,

Displeased that the resolution prevents intervention in civil conflicts in other Nation States, when such an intervention may help provide aid or comfort,

Also noting that the resolution provides the right to equality in the law with every other WA Member State,

Regretting that this equality is no longer observed as WA Members are frequently held in favor or in contempt by the World Assembly,

Determines that this resolution has overly broad restrictions and content that is no longer relevant to World Assembly members,

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more relevant version of this resolution to the World Assembly,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States"

In case it's not clear, Regretting that this equality is no longer observed as WA Members are frequently held in favor or in contempt by the World Assembly, is a subtle mention of the Security Council.

[Ardchoille]

Mods don't give all-encompassing "is this (whole) proposal legal?" rulings on unsubmitted proposals. Let other players advise you on any possible illegalities they see, and if a particular query can't be resolved by anyone, then you call the mods to cut the knot.

As to the specific clause you ask about, I'm still leery of it. I think the problem here is that you're still talking about what the WA (through the SC) does to individuals.

The fact that WA members are equal in law hasn't changed because of the SC. The SC doesn't make laws. The GA, which does make laws, still applies them equally to all members (by fiddling with their stats).

So, what new thing does the SC do/responsibility does it have? The idea I assume you want to get across is that the Resolution has been overtaken by events. The WA now does (new thing), and the Resolution should go because it doesn't take account of (new thing). Hypothetically, if you can come up with a formulation for that international (new thing), it'd be legal.

What role does the WA play via the SC in the international community? What's the SC's overall reason for being? What is the intended worldwide effect of having an official body condemning this nation, but praising that one? What's the SC's global mission statement? (Ugh, mission statements.)

I think that's something other players can help you with, so let's see what happens for a few days.

---

BTW, not as a ruling and not as a legality issue, but as player feedback: as a player, I'm finding myself reacting negatively to a tone that appears to be blaming the resolution for not taking account of something that was introduced after it was written. I'd react better to seeing that argument dealt with more in a "we need to get a new one because (new thing happens now)". But tone is up to the author and doesn't get proposals deleted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You also said that WA is doing something that the owner of the game says it can't do: promote ... "armed conflicts or military activities". These things don't exist in the game. Whatever players have managed to do that looks like war -- roleplaying IC conflicts or treating gameplay activities as the "military activities" of raiding and defending -- Max has said quite explicitly that he is not going to add war to the game mechanism. So if they don't officially exist, the WA can't be officially referred to as promoting them.

This doesn't really make sense, does it? I've never really heard a game mechanics reason for the No WA Army Rule. I'm not sure pointing to game mechanics is right, because the WA acknowledges war all the time. We do it directly through creating laws of war, and we do it indirectly by having a category that boosts military spending. The No WA Army Rule, even though I disagree with this validity of this reason, exists because you guys can't oversee roleplayed wars, right? At least, that's the only reason I've ever heard.

As to the SC, I thought it was never legal to mention it. I figured the GA and the SC existed in different universes, where the SC knew about the GA, but we didn't know about the SC. When I saw the SC mentioned, I assumed that's what got the proposal pulled.

[Ardchoille]

It's a negative-mechanics reason: there is no game-based way for the WA to have an army, so you can't make proposals giving the WA an army. I didn't say the proposal under discussion gave the WA an army. I was explaining why the discussion of the WA taking sides in a war (condemning a nation, helping a region) evoked GA fears of game mechanics violations.

It's not legal to mention the SC, and that was why the proposal was pulled. The GA is separate from the SC, but both are parts of the WA. It has to be legal to mention the WA, but you can't mention the things it does that the GA can't "see".

Somehow alluding in a GA proposal to the specific gameside SC activities of the WA is also illegal. If there's some purpose it serves internationally, alluding to it in a proposal is, in my opinion as a player, more trouble than it's worth; but as a mod I'm trying, so far, to stick to pointing out the pitfalls. I'm not sure it can be done legally at all, but players are ingenious.

[Frisbeeteria]

How is this for a revised draft, breaking any rules?

If you want a general discussion of your proposal, start a new thread. I broke this one out of the Silly/Illegal megathread since it was a major threadjack, but you should create your own discussion thread with yourself as OP if you plan to go forward with it.