General Assembly Q&A

[Mahaj]

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.

Thanks, helps me as well.

[Mallorea and Riva]

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.

Solid explanation. Here's the official rule statement:

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

[Knootoss]

Is the right to petition already codified in WA Law?

[Kryozerkia]

Is the right to petition already codified in WA Law?

Not as far as I remember.

[Opaloka]

We question the legality of 'freedom from want' on the basis of optionality. We believe the discussion on the draft thread demonstrate this , we have posted to that effect but it has been submitted. Where in that event do we question legality here? In which case consider it done. If not where?

[Mousebumples]

We question the legality of 'freedom from want' on the basis of optionality. We believe the discussion on the draft thread demonstrate this , we have posted to that effect but it has been submitted. Where in that event do we question legality here? In which case consider it done. If not where?

Given that there is not presently anything at vote, you may want to submit a GHR. However, it is a courtesy to post the same material/questions/etc., in the proposal thread to allow the proposal's author to dispute your argument, if they disagree with your conclusions.

I don't know that the proposal will reach quorum in the next 12-ish hours, but given that there's nothing to prevent this from making it to a vote should it gain enough approvals to attain quorum.

I'm not going to comment on the legality/illegality of the proposal as I haven't had time to review it myself. But the above is appropriate protocol if you feel a submitted proposal is illegal and should be removed from the proposal list.

[Mallorea and Riva]

We question the legality of 'freedom from want' on the basis of optionality. We believe the discussion on the draft thread demonstrate this , we have posted to that effect but it has been submitted. Where in that event do we question legality here? In which case consider it done. If not where?

Given that there is not presently anything at vote, you may want to submit a GHR. However, it is a courtesy to post the same material/questions/etc., in the proposal thread to allow the proposal's author to dispute your argument, if they disagree with your conclusions.

I don't know that the proposal will reach quorum in the next 12-ish hours, but given that there's nothing to prevent this from making it to a vote should it gain enough approvals to attain quorum.

I'm not going to comment on the legality/illegality of the proposal as I haven't had time to review it myself. But the above is appropriate protocol if you feel a submitted proposal is illegal and should be removed from the proposal list.

His statement has been put in the thread for the author to read. Feel free to submit the GHR if you have legality concerns, personally I don't see an issue. It's a mild proposal that uses mild language. A game moderator can look at it and ensure that it is either kept in place or removed from the voting line.

[Zoingo]

I had an idea for a resolution for the WA (left due to inactivity; getting back in due to activity), and it involved instituting a process to codify all of the committees established by WA resolutions (and any relevant subcommittees) as well as the resolution under which they were authorized, and maybe a little excerpt on their purpose. Basically the purpose is to aid people in finding committees established from within the piles and piles of resolutions previously passed by the WA, with an added side benefit of helping others draft resolutions containing committees.

My question is, could it be submitted to the WA as a resolution? (Most likely under "bookkeeping," which I have no idea if a regular person can use)

And/Or, could I draft here in the GA, and/or have someone help me draft, a sticky that lists all the departmental committee's established by the WA?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Bookkeeping is no longer an active category, and all present committees are currently codified here: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_Committees

The most recent few additions to the WA committee framework still have to be added, but there you have it.

[Zoingo]

Bookkeeping is no longer an active category, and all present committees are currently codified here: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_Committees

The most recent new additions to the WA committee framework still have to be added, but there you have it.

Oh Herp Derp I forgot to check the NSWiki.

Thanks a bunch. You wouldn't happen to have an IRC channel would you?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=100401&p=5098137#p5098137

[Panmen]

This is pretty much OOC, as I am referencing RL stuff.

So I was thinking about creating a Draft of a proposal that would be called "On dissolved nations" or something, and it would basically mandate a successor nation to a dissolved group of nations be named, and held responsible for debts and such. Like Russia is responsible for the USSR's debts. The first issue that comes to mind is the fact that the successor nation may not be in the WA.

Also, would I be allowed to use the word "Balkanization?" It is basically the breakup of a state, but it has etymology in a RL region, the Balkan Peninsula.

[Mousebumples]

This is pretty much OOC, as I am referencing RL stuff.

So I was thinking about creating a Draft of a proposal that would be called "On dissolved nations" or something, and it would basically mandate a successor nation to a dissolved group of nations be named, and held responsible for debts and such. Like Russia is responsible for the USSR's debts. The first issue that comes to mind is the fact that the successor nation may not be in the WA.

Also, would I be allowed to use the word "Balkanization?" It is basically the breakup of a state, but it has etymology in a RL region, the Balkan Peninsula.

I'm not going to speak on the legality of the word query you asked (since I'm not a mod and haven't a clue as to what their ruling will be), but ... so far as the concepts go, I'm guessing that you might run into trouble with the meta-gaming rule.

Also, I'm not sure if you're drawing a parallel between a dissolved group of nations and a nation CTE'ing in NS. If you are, I'd guess that your concept will be DOA - although I suppose I should probably check out a first draft to be sure.

I guess my point is that this seems like a very ... touchy subject that will be difficult to write a legal proposal on. Step carefully - there's a minefield of issues ahead.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Are workfare programmes consistent with GA#23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is pretty much OOC, as I am referencing RL stuff.

So I was thinking about creating a Draft of a proposal that would be called "On dissolved nations" or something, and it would basically mandate a successor nation to a dissolved group of nations be named, and held responsible for debts and such. Like Russia is responsible for the USSR's debts. The first issue that comes to mind is the fact that the successor nation may not be in the WA.

Also, would I be allowed to use the word "Balkanization?" It is basically the breakup of a state, but it has etymology in a RL region, the Balkan Peninsula.

I'm not going to speak on the legality of the word query you asked (since I'm not a mod and haven't a clue as to what their ruling will be), but ... so far as the concepts go, I'm guessing that you might run into trouble with the meta-gaming rule.

I ran into trouble for using the word "Africanized" (i.e., the honey bee) in a proposal once, so I'm pretty sure using the same logic "Balkanization" would be similarly out.

[Beldonia]

Would I be allowed to use the word "Balkanization?" It is basically the breakup of a state, but it has etymology in a RL region, the Balkan Peninsula.

Like the other guys said, probably not. However, it would be easy to find a different word.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Would I be allowed to use the word "Balkanization?" It is basically the breakup of a state, but it has etymology in a RL region, the Balkan Peninsula.

Like the other guys said, probably not. However, it would be easy to find a different word.

The author could simply use 'fragmentation,' as that is what they seem to be really talking about. Balkanization is used for states that break up into highly hostile regions that hate each other.

In response to Mousebumples, I don't think there'd be any metagaming issues at all. State fragmentation can't even occur in the game, so it's impossible to talk about it happening in the game. Regardless, if it can happen in roleplay, there's no reason for it to flout metagaming rules. But the author is right to worry about 'successor state' not being members of the World Assembly. We wouldn't be able to touch them if they aren't members.

[Beldonia]

Like the other guys said, probably not. However, it would be easy to find a different word.

The author could simply use 'fragmentation,' as that is what they seem to be really talking about. Balkanization is used for states that break up into highly hostile regions that hate each other.

In response to Mousebumples, I don't think there'd be any metagaming issues at all. State fragmentation can't even occur in the game, so it's impossible to talk about it happening in the game. Regardless, if it can happen in roleplay, there's no reason for it to flout metagaming rules. But the author is right to worry about 'successor state' not being members of the World Assembly. We wouldn't be able to touch them if they aren't members.

I think the metagaming issue at hand is the use of a word that comes from the name of a RL region.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think the metagaming issue at hand is the use of a word that comes from the name of a RL region.

No, that would be a real-world reference issue. Mousebumples was saying that it might be metagaming to discuss the dissolution of nations.

[Mousebumples]

I think the metagaming issue at hand is the use of a word that comes from the name of a RL region.

No, that would be a real-world reference issue. Mousebumples was saying that it might be metagaming to discuss the dissolution of nations.

You're right. And I can kinda see what you're saying - but it all depends on how the proposal is written. I can envision a few ways in which such a proposal could violate meta-gaming rules, but it's not really worth getting into those sorts of hypotheticals. If we have a proposal drafted, we can check out the draft at that time.

[Slaytesics]

Would if be acceptable if I do a never-before-done joke proposal?

edit: and yes, I have read the stickies, but it pointed our joke proposals that were overdone, and thus banning joke proposals because of over-done proposals is kind of silly. (that's how I interpreted it)

[Mousebumples]

Would if be acceptable if I do a never-before-done joke proposal?

edit: and yes, I have read the stickies, but it pointed our joke proposals that were overdone, and thus banning joke proposals because of over-done proposals is kind of silly. (that's how I interpreted it)

Joke proposals are totally okay to draft on the forums ... Not okay to submit. (I'd figure they'd be pulled under the "Bloody Stupid" violation, but there may be a different rule that the Secretariat would cite.)

[Ardchoille]

(I'd figure they'd be pulled under the "Bloody Stupid" violation, but there may be a different rule that the Secretariat would cite.)

There is. Iä! Shub-Niggurath!

[Free Underwear Fliers]

Suppose someone writes a bill for repeal. The bill doesn't have enough votes to get to quorum,and dies. Can that someone resubmit the same bill?

[Nullarni]

Yes.