Advertisement
by Normlpeople » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:39 am
by Defwa » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:51 am
by Dendodgia » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:07 pm
by Sanctaria » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:15 pm
by Elke and Elba » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:14 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Sanctaria » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:22 am
Elke and Elba wrote:Wait, so other than Sanctaria (who has stat reasons): this is better off MD than GD? I'm not sure about the implications since MD has a terrible rep, IMHO. I like it Human Rights though, it seems like you are giving rights to people a la Ard's linky that Knootoss argued so.
by The Dark Star Republic » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:25 am
Sanctaria wrote:Elke and Elba wrote:Wait, so other than Sanctaria (who has stat reasons): this is better off MD than GD? I'm not sure about the implications since MD has a terrible rep, IMHO. I like it Human Rights though, it seems like you are giving rights to people a la Ard's linky that Knootoss argued so.
Oh, please don't get me wrong - this is suited to Moral Decency. It's just a pity I can't vote for it even if I support its aims.
by Sanctaria » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:28 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Sanctaria wrote:Oh, please don't get me wrong - this is suited to Moral Decency. It's just a pity I can't vote for it even if I support its aims.
OOC: Out of interest, do you have a source on the claim that Moral Decency resolutions affect the economic ranking? I'd literally never seen that before. Or is it just that it affects the economic rankings off-site "calculators" come up with, because they incorporate a civil freedoms compnents?
by The Dark Star Republic » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:34 am
Sanctaria wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: Out of interest, do you have a source on the claim that Moral Decency resolutions affect the economic ranking? I'd literally never seen that before. Or is it just that it affects the economic rankings off-site "calculators" come up with, because they incorporate a civil freedoms compnents?
Moral Decency resolutions hit your economic strength, which is a hidden stat, rating on your nation page. This is very well documented at this stage.
by Sanctaria » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:37 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Sanctaria wrote:Moral Decency resolutions hit your economic strength, which is a hidden stat, rating on your nation page. This is very well documented at this stage.
OOC: Right, and I'm saying - could you provide said documentation, please?
If you're right, incidentally, the mods should definitely update the category descriptions, because that is absolutely not mentioned in the description of the Moral Decency effects.
by The Dark Star Republic » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:42 am
Sanctaria wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: Right, and I'm saying - could you provide said documentation, please?
If you're right, incidentally, the mods should definitely update the category descriptions, because that is absolutely not mentioned in the description of the Moral Decency effects.
Don't you track the effects of a passed WA resolution on your nation page?Free Trade resolutions increase Economy, Moral Decency hits it.
I got Moral Decency confused with Social Justice in my head. Again.
by Sanctaria » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:44 am
by Dendodgia » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:55 am
Elke and Elba wrote:Wait, so other than Sanctaria (who has stat reasons): this is better off MD than GD? I'm not sure about the implications since MD has a terrible rep, IMHO. I like it Human Rights though, it seems like you are giving rights to people a la Ard's linky that Knootoss argued so.
by Bears Armed » Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:35 am
OOC; Because it would effectively bar nations (even ones with democratically-elected governments that have clear mandates from their peoples to fight the wars in which they're engaged) from commanding members of their armed forces to commit "perfidious" acts, not just bar individual members of those forces from spontaneously committing such acts, couldn't it be argued as 'Political Stability' on the precedent of at least one previous resolution (the now-repealed 'Law of the Sea') that also restricted government actions?Dendodgia wrote:Human rights give people the right to do something; this tells them not to do something, so it's moral decency, the opposing category. There is no other category in which a proposal like this could fit, to be honest
by Dendodgia » Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:39 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Because it would effectively bar nations (even ones with democratically-elected governments that have clear mandates from their peoples to fight the wars in which they're engaged) from commanding members of their armed forces to commit "perfidious" acts, not just bar individual members of those forces from spontaneously committing such acts, couldn't it be argued as 'Political Stability' on the precedent of at least one previous resolution (the now-repealed 'Law of the Sea') that also restricted government actions?Dendodgia wrote:Human rights give people the right to do something; this tells them not to do something, so it's moral decency, the opposing category. There is no other category in which a proposal like this could fit, to be honest
by Elke and Elba » Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:43 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Because it would effectively bar nations (even ones with democratically-elected governments that have clear mandates from their peoples to fight the wars in which they're engaged) from commanding members of their armed forces to commit "perfidious" acts, not just bar individual members of those forces from spontaneously committing such acts, couldn't it be argued as 'Political Stability' on the precedent of at least one previous resolution (the now-repealed 'Law of the Sea') that also restricted government actions?Dendodgia wrote:Human rights give people the right to do something; this tells them not to do something, so it's moral decency, the opposing category. There is no other category in which a proposal like this could fit, to be honest
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Sanctaria » Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:44 am
Elke and Elba wrote:As for Sanctaria: aren't there issues that can adjust your hidden stats back into place? I'm sure you should know which one exactly to use.
by Ardchoille » Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:23 pm
Dendodgia wrote:That is a good point, and I wouldn't oppose that classification, although I stand by my Moral Decency recommendation. Besides, it's not quite a ruling, but there is a somewhat official category recommendation a couple of pages back.
by Elke and Elba » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:09 am
Ardchoille wrote:Dendodgia wrote:That is a good point, and I wouldn't oppose that classification, although I stand by my Moral Decency recommendation. Besides, it's not quite a ruling, but there is a somewhat official category recommendation a couple of pages back.
Don't take that as set in stone. I feel a certain fondness for MD because it's the poor little puppy that's never chosen from the pound, but everything depends on how a proposal's written. When no particular category jumps into your arms and licks your nose, then you have to think about which one you can best adjust to.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Elke and Elba » Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:29 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:09 pm
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Elke and Elba » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:15 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Sciongrad » Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:04 pm
Elke and Elba wrote:UNDERSTANDING that member states might engage in war,
NOTING that during warfare, member states might resort to deception and trickery by playing to the goodwill, altruism and/or trust of their opponents in order to win battles,
FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that such deceitful conduct should never be condoned in any form of warfare between member states and their respective combatants, yet,
WORRYING that if nothing is done to curb this, the practice will be de facto condoned due to its ability to win warfare, despite the act of perfidy being despicable and shameful, also,
FURTHER NOTING that limiting and restricting the power of the government(s) of the respective member states is thus needed in order to ensure member states are barred from commanding members of their respective armed forces to commit perfidious acts,
The World Assembly,
1. DEFINES perfidy to be the conducting of actions with the intent to secure the goodwill of an adversary or opponent in war, in order to betray such trust;
2. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including,bybut not limited to:
a) falsely declaring civilian status,
b) falsifying injury,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce;
4. BANS combatants of member states from utilising any form of identification, military or otherwise of any other sovereign state except their own during combat;of whichsuch identification includes but isencompasses but arenot limited to: flags, emblems, military uniforms and military insignia, unless,
i) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to utilise their own identification, and,
ii) the other sovereign state is not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;
5. MANDATES member states to prosecute any non-compliant combatant representing the said member state in warfare;
6. ASSURES member states that nothing in this resolution prohibits their combatants to practice ruses of war, which have the intent to mislead or invoke a reaction from their adversaries, so long as these ruses of war do not rely on malevolently utilising the goodwill extended by these combatants' adversaries;
8. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution governs the conduct of warfare between any conflict between a member state and a non-member state, or between any conflict between non-member states;
9. ASSERTS that the same protections and exemptions as dispensed in this resolution applies to conflicts with multiple parties, and;
10. HOPES that member states will extend these practices mandated by this resolution to instances of warfare with adversary non-member states too.
by Elke and Elba » Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:15 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement