NationStates

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The WAHQ is in international territory.

Also, if you don't comply, nobody in this forum is going to pay any attention. Noncompliance is broadly considered godmodding and gets you ignored. After all, if we all play by the rules, why on earth would we accommodate somebody not playing by the rules?

OOC: if non-compliance is OOcly banned under the God-modding rules why are their punishments in character?

Ooc: coercive fines and strict embargo/sanctions from all WA states.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:OOC: if non-compliance is OOcly banned under the God-modding rules why are their punishments in character?

Ooc: coercive fines and strict embargo/sanctions from all WA states.

OOC: exactly.

“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: coercive fines and strict embargo/sanctions from all WA states.

OOC: exactly.

(OOC: It’s mostly for realism. Even though OOC noncompliance is usually heavily frowned upon, from an IC perspective there must be at least some member states who do so, hence the sanctions. I will also add that noncompliance can rarely be done well, if a player is prepared to take into account the economic impact of fines and sanctions in a sensible manner.)

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”

I think it is. I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

The New California Republic wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”

I think it is. I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

(OOC: Neither have I, but IA hasn’t posted since this last failed to achieve quorum.)

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:OOC: exactly.

(OOC: It’s mostly for realism. Even though OOC noncompliance is usually heavily frowned upon, from an IC perspective there must be at least some member states who do so, hence the sanctions. I will also add that noncompliance can rarely be done well, if a player is prepared to take into account the economic impact of fines and sanctions in a sensible manner.)

OOC:
What about large empires that are mostly self-sufficient
(Based on an actual NS nation) or non-compliance is sufficiently lucrative to outweigh this, for example in slaver states.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”


(OOC: It’s mostly for realism. Even though OOC noncompliance is usually heavily frowned upon, from an IC perspective there must be at least some member states who do so, hence the sanctions. I will also add that noncompliance can rarely be done well, if a player is prepared to take into account the economic impact of fines and sanctions in a sensible manner.)

OOC:
What about large empires that are mostly self-sufficient
(Based on an actual NS nation) or non-compliance is sufficiently lucrative to outweigh this, for example in slaver states.

OOC: The penalties are in proportion to the magnitude of the noncompliance, and escalate further as that noncompliance continues. The point is that the Sanctions/Penalties/etc are an IC description of an OOC anti-godmoding convention. If a nation does not wish to comply with WA rules, the door exists for both coming and going.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”


(OOC: It’s mostly for realism. Even though OOC noncompliance is usually heavily frowned upon, from an IC perspective there must be at least some member states who do so, hence the sanctions. I will also add that noncompliance can rarely be done well, if a player is prepared to take into account the economic impact of fines and sanctions in a sensible manner.)

OOC:
What about large empires that are mostly self-sufficient
(Based on an actual NS nation) or non-compliance is sufficiently lucrative to outweigh this, for example in slaver states.

Ooc: ACA penalties are designed and mandated to be coercive. Which means their cost will always be calculated to exceed financial benefit from ignoring them.

Ideological benefit is harder to calculate. That's why the Compliance Commission can keep increasing them when states ignore the fines. A nation can theoretically survive, but any realistic nation would be economically devastated. Even North Korea can't handle total isolation.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”


(OOC: It’s mostly for realism. Even though OOC noncompliance is usually heavily frowned upon, from an IC perspective there must be at least some member states who do so, hence the sanctions. I will also add that noncompliance can rarely be done well, if a player is prepared to take into account the economic impact of fines and sanctions in a sensible manner.)

OOC:
What about large empires that are mostly self-sufficient
(Based on an actual NS nation) or non-compliance is sufficiently lucrative to outweigh this, for example in slaver states.

OOC: That raises the question of why such a state would even stay in WA in the first place and not just practise isolationism. If a nation is that self sufficient, cooperation of any kind seems rather detrimental.

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”

Draft 4 went live yesterday with a number of changes.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Is this draft still being pursued? It seems to me that we are arguing without cause.”

Draft 4 went live yesterday with a number of changes.

And was it passed?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Draft 4 went live yesterday with a number of changes.

And was it passed?

You can see that IA has clearly marked this thread as a draft thread. If it had passed (or failed), I or somebody else would have let you know through an exact voting tally posted on this thread.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Draft 4 went live yesterday with a number of changes.

And was it passed?

Passed? What on earth are you talking about? It's a draft...

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Draft 4 went live yesterday with a number of changes.

And was it passed?

It's... a draft.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

La xinga wrote:OOC: Shoot it, I'm also then.


OOC: I by mistake make something wrong with the quote, srry.

IC: It better not. In all, my nation's leader says this resolution is murder.

OOC: Where is this meeting held at? Ransium? Grays harbor?

OOC: The WAHQ is in international territory.

Also, if you don't comply, nobody in this forum is going to pay any attention. Noncompliance is broadly considered godmodding and gets you ignored. After all, if we all play by the rules, why on earth would we accommodate somebody not playing by the rules?

I..........in my post I didn't type anything about compliance?

La xinga wrote:I..........in my post I didn't type anything about compliance?

OOC: No, you just quoted someone else that had and said "Me too!" That's the only way we can read this post:

La xinga wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:If so, you are in violation of GAR #128 and #286, and therefore subject to fines and embargoes under the Administrative Compliance Act and prosecution in the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee.

OOC: Shoot it, I'm also then.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

La xinga wrote:I..........in my post I didn't type anything about compliance?

OOC: No, you just quoted someone else that had and said "Me too!" That's the only way we can read this post:

La xinga wrote:OOC: Shoot it, I'm also then.

OOC: I meant it as a bad thing, that I didn't know we were in violation of these, but NS doesn't let you repeal policies just like that.

"We stand opposed to this proposal. Not only does it prevent reasonable restrictions imposed to prevent selfish 'mothers' from denying their children their first wills, thus consigning the child to hell, it also assists those who wish to deny the creation of new soldiers for the crusade."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"We stand opposed to this proposal. Not only does it prevent reasonable restrictions imposed to prevent selfish 'mothers' from denying their children their first wills, thus consigning the child to hell, it also assists those who wish to deny the creation of new soldiers for the crusade."

"Hmm. The tourists are rowdy today."

Godular wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"We stand opposed to this proposal. Not only does it prevent reasonable restrictions imposed to prevent selfish 'mothers' from denying their children their first wills, thus consigning the child to hell, it also assists those who wish to deny the creation of new soldiers for the crusade."

"Hmm. The tourists are rowdy today."

((OOC:
WA has to be somewhere else for citizenship purposes, GVH has to be in another region again for citizenship purposes. I can't have my WA on GVH, or have GVH in the region I rp in. Great, right?))

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"We stand opposed to this proposal. Not only does it prevent reasonable restrictions imposed to prevent selfish 'mothers' from denying their children their first wills, thus consigning the child to hell, it also assists those who wish to deny the creation of new soldiers for the crusade."

"The hell bit is a feature not a bug. Its part of an orchestrated strategy to stage a revolution against your god by arming his enemies with waves and waves of infant souls. In three years, we'll have installed a sympathetic angel on the throne and enjoy unobstructed access to the untapped reserves of Heavenly Bliss."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"We stand opposed to this proposal. Not only does it prevent reasonable restrictions imposed to prevent selfish 'mothers' from denying their children their first wills, thus consigning the child to hell, it also assists those who wish to deny the creation of new soldiers for the crusade."

"The hell bit is a feature not a bug. Its part of an orchestrated strategy to stage a revolution against your god by arming his enemies with waves and waves of infant souls. In three years, we'll have installed a sympathetic angel on the throne and enjoy unobstructed access to the untapped reserves of Heavenly Bliss."

"I for one look forward to a lunch of angel wings and fries."

Godular wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The hell bit is a feature not a bug. Its part of an orchestrated strategy to stage a revolution against your god by arming his enemies with waves and waves of infant souls. In three years, we'll have installed a sympathetic angel on the throne and enjoy unobstructed access to the untapped reserves of Heavenly Bliss."

"I for one look forward to a lunch of angel wings and fries."

"Freedom fries!" hissed Bell. "You were at the meeting, you know the jargon we're supposed to drop."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Godular wrote:
"I for one look forward to a lunch of angel wings and fries."

"Freedom fries!" hissed Bell. "You were at the meeting, you know the jargon we're supposed to drop."

"Wait, there was meeting? Oy vey, nobody told Dasha about meeting..."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Godular wrote:
"I for one look forward to a lunch of angel wings and fries."

"Freedom fries!" hissed Bell. "You were at the meeting, you know the jargon we're supposed to drop."

"If such is the case, I shall be forced to substitute a helping of Oppression Fritters instead."