General Assembly Q&A

[UshraKerbal]

The listing (55 pages) of WA proposals is a complete list of all WA general assembly votes are active resolutions or are they every resolution passed and failed?

If it is every resolution, is there a listing of active resolutions I can refer to. The listings I have found so far in my investigations are DAUNTING to say the list.

Alacrity

[Mousebumples]

The listing (55 pages) of WA proposals is a complete list of all WA general assembly votes are active resolutions or are they every resolution passed and failed?

If it is every resolution, is there a listing of active resolutions I can refer to. The listings I have found so far in my investigations are DAUNTING to say the list.

Alacrity

It's not 100% up to date, but my GA Resolutions, sorted by category does separate out the repealed resolutions from the active resolutions. I'm a few weeks behind, and I hope to have time to update that ... maybe tomorrow, if everything goes according to plan.

[The Black Hat Guy]

The list maintained by Omigodtheykilledkenny is a list of passed resolutions only. It contains records of every resolution ever passed by the GA (even if that resolution was later repealed). It contains no record of resolutions that were put to vote but failed to pass.

[Lumeau]

My understanding is that interpretation of vague provisions in WA resolutions is up to the individual member-states.

Am I wrong? Is there any sort of "World Court," etc., to clarify these provisions and adjudicate disputes? If not, is there any way to establish one, or would this violate the rules of NationStates in some way?

I'm not sure whether such a body would be a good idea, mind you; I'm merely curious as to whether it's a possibility.

--The Executive-General of the Commonwealth of Lumeau

[Auralia]

Am I wrong? Is there any sort of "World Court," etc., to clarify these provisions and adjudicate disputes?

The mods serve that role, albeit in a limited capacity.

[Ardchoille]

My understanding is that interpretation of vague provisions in WA resolutions is up to the individual member-states.

You're supposed to have home-grown lawyers. Mods don't interpret provisions for your nation.

We really only get caught up in the meaning of proposals when there are irreconcilable differences in a draft, a legality challenge to a submitted proposal, or a misunderstanding of meaning in a Repeal.

Your fellow ambassadors are the ultimate authority on whether a given interpretation will fly. If they point and laugh, you've jumped the shark.

Besides, no WA Resolution has "vague" provisions unless you're trying to repeal it.

If you like the thing, its provisions are "broad", "general", "generous", "all-encompassing", "far-seeing" and, the ultimate accolade, "flexible".

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Am I wrong? Is there any sort of "World Court," etc., to clarify these provisions and adjudicate disputes?

The mods serve that role, albeit in a limited capacity.

Only as it applies to the legality of proposals. Nations are not obliged to recognize any modly interpretation of resolutions, unless they want to submit a proposal that could be affected by such.

[Strength of the Earth]

what is a common format for first drafts of proposals

[Mousebumples]

what is a common format for first drafts of proposals

I can't speak for others, but if you'd like, you're certainly welcome to check through the OP of the Debate threads for any of my passed resolutions. (Under "Passed Legislation" spoiler in my sig.) I - usually - break down my drafts, under spoilers, in each OP, so that the changes can be seen/documented over time.

I don't know that that's a super-common practice, but I find it helpful, if I cut a clause and then decide to re-add it later on. There's not really a set "common format," but I'm sure you'll find something that works for you.

First drafts often have negotiable proposal names, and the Category/Strength may also be arguable, to some extent. However, if you're looking to write your first draft, it is much easier to write a proposal to a given category, rather than writing a proposal on, say, Irrigation Practices and later trying to figure out where it belongs, category-wise.

And, if you haven't already, make sure to check out the rules and the like.

[Eireann Fae]

Furthermore, THANK YOU! for asking :) Best of luck with your first proposal - I look forward to one that's well-written by a newcomer for a change :)

[Sakash]

If the nation that proposed the legislation ceased to exist on NS. who do i take permission to use/refer text from that draft?

[Elke and Elba]

If the nation that proposed the legislation ceased to exist on NS. who do i take permission to use/refer text from that draft?

To extend this question - are you allowed to use someone else's draft even with permission? After all, it's plagiarism at best.

[Rotwood]

If the nation that proposed the legislation ceased to exist on NS. who do i take permission to use/refer text from that draft?

To extend this question - are you allowed to use someone else's draft even with permission? After all, it's plagiarism at best.

I'm not a mod, but I'd say yes, as long as there were changes made and the original author was included as co-author. That would probably get around the plagiarism ban

[Elke and Elba]

To extend this question - are you allowed to use someone else's draft even with permission? After all, it's plagiarism at best.

I'm not a mod, but I'd say yes, as long as there were changes made and the original author was included as co-author. That would probably get around the plagiarism ban

EDIT: This scenario is a response with the understanding that you have done minor tweaks to the draft resolution only.

That makes tad no sense since I would expect the original draft's creator to be given the chance to submit rather than co-submit - since the original idea and the original draft should be by him. It's as if asking someone if he could tweak a little and publish an original paper of yours which is as of yet unpublished, and you will be regarded as a co-author rather than as the main author.

That is unless - you've done substantial changes that makes the original draft and new draft so dissimilar one cannot tell the similarities.

[Rotwood]

I'm not a mod, but I'd say yes, as long as there were changes made and the original author was included as co-author. That would probably get around the plagiarism ban

EDIT: This scenario is a response with the understanding that you have done minor tweaks to the draft resolution only.

That makes tad no sense since I would expect the original draft's creator to be given the chance to submit rather than co-submit - since the original idea and the original draft should be by him. It's as if asking someone if he could tweak a little and publish an original paper of yours which is as of yet unpublished, and you will be regarded as a co-author rather than as the main author.

That is unless - you've done substantial changes that makes the original draft and new draft so dissimilar one cannot tell the similarities.

True, but if the original author gives permission for someone else to post it with them as co-author, it might be hard to rule over it.

But again, as I said, I'm not a mod, I was just surmising.

[Elke and Elba]

EDIT: This scenario is a response with the understanding that you have done minor tweaks to the draft resolution only.

That makes tad no sense since I would expect the original draft's creator to be given the chance to submit rather than co-submit - since the original idea and the original draft should be by him. It's as if asking someone if he could tweak a little and publish an original paper of yours which is as of yet unpublished, and you will be regarded as a co-author rather than as the main author.

That is unless - you've done substantial changes that makes the original draft and new draft so dissimilar one cannot tell the similarities.

True, but if the original author gives permission for someone else to post it with them as co-author, it might be hard to rule over it.

But again, as I said, I'm not a mod, I was just surmising.

That's a non-problem; as stated in the abovementioned post.
However, I'm more worried with what Sakash is planning to do - can you actually take a ex-nation's draft and tweak it? It sounds like hijack even if it is recognised as a co-submitter (which would be peculiar to see since the nation has already CTE'd).

[Rotwood]

True, but if the original author gives permission for someone else to post it with them as co-author, it might be hard to rule over it.

But again, as I said, I'm not a mod, I was just surmising.

That's a non-problem; as stated in the abovementioned post.
However, I'm more worried with what Sakash is planning to do - can you actually take a ex-nation's draft and tweak it? It sounds like hijack even if it is recognised as a co-submitter (which would be peculiar to see since the nation has already CTE'd).

The nation in question would have to give permission. If there is no form of provable permission given, usually in thread, then yeah, it's flat-out plagiarism. I think there are precedents for both instances before (Nation has given up on the draft but given permission for someone to carry on, and someone plagiarising an ex-nation's proposal), and I think it has come down to the need for proof of permission to decide which way

[Sakash]

please focus on the part that the original nation has ceased to exist. how do i take their permission?

[Rotwood]

please focus on the part that the original nation has ceased to exist. how do i take their permission?

You don't. If you can't contact them you can't use their previous proposal as a base for yours. The best suggestion would be to look over it and the groundwork laid out in the thread and come up with something of your own without taking direct parts from the original

[Ardchoille]

If the nation that proposed the legislation ceased to exist on NS. who do i take permission to use/refer text from that draft?

please focus on the part that the original nation has ceased to exist. how do i take their permission?

Give up on this idea. Rotwood is right: you don't. This is definitely no-go, Not Done, bad. It's plagiarism. Nations are expelled from the WA for plagiarism.

If the original nation has CTEd, their draft is not yours to tweak. Nor can you name the author as co-author. Don't even try to go with "substantial changes"; as long as they're "changes", rather than "original thought", it won't wash.

<snip> It's as if asking someone if he could tweak a little and publish an original paper of yours which is as of yet unpublished, and you will be regarded as a co-author rather than as the main author.

Pretty much this.

The topic itself isn't off-limits. If, for example, someone wrote a draft forbidding fracking, then CTEd, this does not prevent you from writing another, totally different draft forbidding fracking. But you'll have to do the work from scratch: choosing a category and strength, working out non-Wiki definitions, the whole deal.

The only advantage you'd enjoy in this case would be being able to avoid all the mistakes the first author made.

To extend this question - are you allowed to use someone else's draft even with permission? After all, it's plagiarism at best.

If the original author gives permission publicly, on this forum, you're OK to use it. There are circumstances in which we'd accept a TGd permission. But any permission-giving must happen on the NS site so that mods can verify the identity and informed agreement of the original author. Permission given offsite is not enough. You should also make clear from the start and throughout the drafting thread that the text is not yours.

The problem with using someone else's draft, even with their permission, is that the GA may have passed resolutions since their draft was written that would make it now illegal in its original form. The amount of work you'd face making sure this hadn't happened could well be as intricate as writing your own version.

[Lobbyists]

]If the original author gives permission publicly, on this forum, you're OK to use it. There are circumstances in which we'd accept a TGd permission. But any permission-giving must happen on the NS site so that mods can verify the identity and informed agreement of the original author.

This would be acceptable, I suppose? The note at the opening post of the thread should suffice, I hope. (Not pimping; honest inquiry)
(My drafting just after this issue being brought up in Q&A is pure coincidence, by the way... I hadn't visited this thread in a while and didn't know what was being discussed until five minutes ago.)

[Ardchoille]

Yes, it meets the criteria for permission. (This is not a ruling on the proposal's legality or an endorsement of the idea.)

Normally I'd lock the thread, as a proposal with no-one to nurse it is not going anywhere; but if you're sticking around to draft and alter the OP as needed, I'll leave it be for now.

[Imperial Aaronia]

Is it acceptable for a non-endorsed member to post-up a proposal for debate and re-drafting etc and ask someone else (eligible) to propose it in a formal submission?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Is it acceptable for a non-endorsed member to post-up a proposal for debate and re-drafting etc and ask someone else (eligible) to propose it in a formal submission?

(Non-official, non-mod answer) Yes: I did that with a couple of my proposals when I was having trouble maintaining 2 endorsements.

Though, I would recommend holding off on asking someone else to submit. Drafting a proposal usually takes a while; by the time you have a finished draft ready for submission, you may well have gained 2 endorsements anyway.

[ALMF]

Two rolls questions on an replacement I working on.

As to "house of cards:

RECOGNIZING: this belief, as applied, violates the spirit of World Assembly Resolution #35 but is not covered as applied in many places.

SIMILARITY: this belief is used to end-run the spirit of medical access guaranteed by GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 29.

REQUIRES: nations to include actions against abortions, providers, and patients as "criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice" (against females) under all existing laws (WA and national) including World Assembly Resolution #35 and respond accordingly.


Also a conflict has been suggested for:

SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES: usage of parent, mother, father, person, individual, et al with regards
to fetuses as a violation of universal right analogous to the (false) clam that members of a religious minority sacrifice children of the majority religion in there religious rituals.

FORBIDS: nations from recognizing the belief in fettle person-hood as "reasonable" (or equivalent) for the purpose of "state interest" (or equivalent) nor for criminal/civil defenses.

REQUIRES: nations to include actions against abortions, providers, and patients as "criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice" (against females) under all existing laws (WA and national) including World Assembly Resolution #35 and respond accordingly.

Edit: also what happens if moitipal proposes are qued simultaneously and pass?