{Idea] - Loosening Filter on Illegal Proposal

[Amerieka]

I want to start drafting a proposal that broadens the kinds of things that can be proposed in the WA. I am not suggesting unlimited and unfiltered proposals, but just a broader definition of what is actually legal.

For example, nat-sov ideology is completely shut out of wa stuff when in actuality there is room to protect nat-sov through wa resolution.

Looking for more ideas because as you all know by now, I am not the most intelligent jock on the planet

[Separatist Peoples]

I want to start drafting a proposal that broadens the kinds of things that can be proposed in the WA. I am not suggesting unlimited and unfiltered proposals, but just a broader definition of what is actually legal.

For example, nat-sov ideology is completely shut out of wa stuff when in actuality there is room to protect nat-sov through wa resolution.

Looking for more ideas because as you all know by now, I am not the most intelligent jock on the planet

OOC: then all repeals could be based on "but muh national sovereignty!", which would make for a pointless legislative process. Terrible idea.

[Amerieka]

the dangerous word is "all" - what i am suggesting is a case-by-case look rather than a general disregard for it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Your idea is illegal. Proposals to change the game are not allowed. If you want a change in the rules, you will have to lobby the moderators.

For example, nat-sov ideology is completely shut out of wa stuff

This is in no way true. The only restrictions on national sovereignty resolutions are that:

1. national sovereignty cannot be the only argument in a repeal;
2. a resolution cannot be a pure blocker.

So long as your resolution contains at least some other arguments or your resolution does more than solely block legislation, NatSov away.

the dangerous word is "all" - what i am suggesting is a case-by-case look rather than a general disregard for it.

This is already the case.

[Amerieka]

see, when "ideas" are illegal, that's where the problem is with governance...

remember, ideas are bulletproof.

[Separatist Peoples]

see, when "ideas" are illegal, that's where the problem is with governance...

remember, ideas are bulletproof.

He means that the application of the idea is illegal. Have them all you want, but you can't implement them.

[Grays Harbor]

This is sounding quite a bit like "change the rules to suit meeee!".

[Amerieka]

it is change the rules to suit all nations' right to govern without fear. I merely want to expand the definitions, and legally reduce the power of the wa to decide what they can/can't govern.

"There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this assembly, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me..."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

"There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this assembly, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me..."

Okay there Dr. King. You can take a seat now. The simple fact of the matter is this is not going to happen. You can argue it until you are blue in the face, but it won't happen. I recommend you participate in ongoing drafts until you get a grasp on how things actually work around here.

[Amerieka]

jean trudy, i shall now take a seat.

[The Dark Star Republic]

it is change the rules to suit all nations' right to govern without fear. I merely want to expand the definitions, and legally reduce the power of the wa to decide what they can/can't govern.

Which is fine: but the way to do that is to petition the moderators, not to try to do it through a WA proposal. For example, I wanted the category system to be changed. So I made a thread about it, the moderators responded, and it does appear some changes are in progress (which I don't take credit for: there were evidently already changes being considered).

[Amerieka]

thank you for pointing me the right direction

[Ardchoille]

jean trudy, i shall now take a seat.

Step carefully there. I didn't say anything the first time I saw you do this, because it might have been a typo or caused by the device you're using to post, but this repetition looks deliberate. Note that some players accept nicknames, some don't. If the object of your disaffection complains about it, you will run head-on into the rules against insulting other players. In particular, don't try to use a nickname to devalue a player's arguments.

[Amerieka]

Noted. I will treat Jean Pierre Trudeau more properly and take my seat.

[Hirota]

jean trudy, i shall now take a seat.

Step carefully there. I didn't say anything the first time I saw you do this, because it might have been a typo or caused by the device you're using to post, but this repetition looks deliberate. Note that some players accept nicknames, some don't. If the object of your disaffection complains about it, you will run head-on into the rules against insulting other players. In particular, don't try to use a nickname to devalue a player's arguments.

I know this isn't really the place for it (but heck, this thread is doomed anyway). But what if someone else complains about the use of nicknames?

[New World Management]

Busted for using nicknames, no mention of this.



Okay there Dr. King. You can take a seat now. The simple fact of the matter is this is not going to happen. You can argue it until you are blue in the face, but it won't happen. I recommend you participate in ongoing drafts until you get a grasp on how things actually work around here.

[New World Management]

Step carefully there. I didn't say anything the first time I saw you do this, because it might have been a typo or caused by the device you're using to post, but this repetition looks deliberate. Note that some players accept nicknames, some don't. If the object of your disaffection complains about it, you will run head-on into the rules against insulting other players. In particular, don't try to use a nickname to devalue a player's arguments.

I know this isn't really the place for it (but heck, this thread is doomed anyway). But what if someone else complains about the use of nicknames?

All animals are created equal, some are more equal than others

[Ardchoille]

I know this isn't really the place for it (but heck, this thread is doomed anyway). But what if someone else complains about the use of nicknames?

Sorry if it's causing confusion. I was trying to give a one-post version of a mod discussion on nicknaming that went on for pages. What it really comes down to is what it always comes down to: player history, circumstances and apparent intent. If a reasonable person, seeing an insulting nickname apparently go unnoticed, pointed it out in Moderation, we'd look at it. Red text would be on the cards because we can't let apparent rulebreaking go unchecked.

It's just politeness, pretty much. If somebody says they don't like being called [whatever], then don't call them [whatever]. Relax with your friends, but remember you're "in public" when posting on the forums, so don't relax too much. Especially if you're prone to insult your friends more than you insult your enemies.

Busted for using nicknames, no mention of this.
Okay there Dr. King ...<snip>

Amerieka wasn't busted, but advised. Do you mean you think the "Dr King" bit was nicknaming? I took it to mean that Jean Pierre Trudeau believed the original source of Amerieka's rhetoric was Dr Martin Luther KIng. In fact, Google tells me, it's from V for Vendetta. Whatever, even as a nickname, "Dr King" isn't something a reasonable person would immediately assume was an insult.

Here endeth the modstuff. To return to the topic, Dark Star and Separatist Peoples have touched all the bases. All I can add is that a proposal based on the OP's idea would result in either a metagaming violation or a game mechanics violation, depending on how it was written, which would make it "illegal" in the GA Rules sense of the word.

[St Nevis And Kitts]

the dangerous word is "all" - what i am suggesting is a case-by-case look rather than a general disregard for it.

What is the dangerous word

[Ardchoille]

One of NS's dangerous words is "spam", which is what your posts were (I killed the one that just said "HI", because this thread is supposed to be a discussion.)

You can find out what "spam" is here. Please don't do it anywhere on NS, as it annoys other posters.

You can find out what the General Assembly does here.

You can find out a bit about the General Assembly posters here.

You can find out the gossip about their ambassadors here.

You can say "HI" (and maybe a bit more) to NSers who want to chat here, in the General forum.

EDIT: On second thoughts, locking the thread, as the proposal idea couldn't go anywhere.