NationStates

Posted: **Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:53 pm**

I'm fairly certain this has been done before, but I'm dying to see it implemented:

Proposal: Creation of two new WA categories: "Medicine and Healthcare" as well as "International Standards".

Details:

World Health: As of now, Healthcare proposals normally go under Human Rights or Social Justice, (increasing humans rights, or decreasing national economies respectively), while leaving Healthcare spending untouched. If a nation spends nothing on healthcare, and QiHS passes, they're still spending nothing on healthcare, which I personally see as making no sense. This would be much more convenient to authors drafting proposals in the field of healthcare, as it would manifest their intent into actions as opposed to them having express intent, but have no effect on individual member states.

Current Resolutions that would fall under this category:

GAR#31 World Health Authority
GAR#41 Access to Lifesaving Drugs
GAR#49 Stem Cells for Greater Health
GAR#53 Epidemic Response Act
GAR#54 Dignified End of Life Choices
GAR#97 Quality in Health Services
GAR#103 International Drug Education
GAR#124 Essential Medication Act
GAR#128 On Abortion
GAR#141 Institutional Psychiatry Act
GAR#143 Permit Male Circumcision

Also:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:A comprehensive General Assembly reform proposal should be written, so that Max Barry and the game coders have a clear picture of what the General Assembly looks like today and how the game can be rewritten to facilitate better gameplay. That might fare better than these single category suggestions that crop up every now and then.

Current Flaws:

Environmental Protection/All Businesses:

As of now, if an environmental resolution doesn't affect Uranium Mining, Automobile Manufacturing, or Wood-chipping, than it must be placed in the "All Businesses" AoE. If a resolution is drafted about Toxic Emissions, it would be wholly unnecessary to have it affect any of the current AoEs. Proposing such a resolution would require it be placed under "All Businesses', and therefore, would severely impair a nation's economy, despite its relatively mild nature. Several new categories should be added, as stated by:

Examples of resolutions being placed under "All Businesses", despite their mild effects on economies:

GAR#63 --- This enacts unnecessary ramifications on economies, despite its mild natures
GAR#98 --- This would only affect the oil industry
GAR#95 --- This would only affect the oil industry

It's become quite evident that the AoEs in this category need a revamp, considering that no resolution has ever been passed under any category besides "All Businesses", despite the fact that no resolution to date affects All Businesses.

Social Justice:

The category itself is not at fault - rather some legislation that is submitted under this category is not intended to harm the economy. This is a result of authors being forced to "shoehorn" proposals into categories that they don't necessarily correlate with, and as a result, having their proposals have unintended effects on the technical aspects of individual nations. Some of these resolutions include:

GAR#31
GAR#44
GAR#49
GAR#50
GAR#64
GAR#97

Your thoughts? Questions? Criticism?

Yours in eagerness,

Posted: **Sun Sep 04, 2011 2:25 pm**

I'd agree on the condition that no currently accepted proposals be altered, or repeals alloud on them for the sole reason of changing the category. This may have a chain reaction on current proposals, but rather new proposals become placed under theese categories.

All in All, I approve this. I think we need to get the opinion of the top WA mod. ; Fibbs.

Posted: **Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:36 pm**

A general health category would be useful. Not so sure about International Standards. What do you mean by "International Standards," anyways? Like, standardized measurement? If so, that's too specific for its own category.

The categories system was created to mirror Jennifer Government, rather than to mirror how the WA resolutions game is now played. A complete change of the categories should be done, but don't get your hopes up. Plenty of old players will oppose it because they don't see the point. They'll say the current system works fine, and don't fix things that aren't broken. That's how these category ideas have typically died in the past.

A comprehensive General Assembly reform proposal should be written, so that Max Barry and the game coders have a clear picture of what the General Assembly looks like today and how the game can be rewritten to facilitate better gameplay. That might fare better than these single category suggestions that crop up every now and then.

Posted: **Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:42 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:A general health category would be useful. Not so sure about International Standards. What do you mean by "International Standards," anyways? Like, standardized measurement? If so, that's too specific for its own category.

The categories system was created to mirror Jennifer Government, rather than to mirror how the WA resolutions game is now played. A complete change of the categories should be done, but don't get your hopes up. Plenty of old players will oppose it because they don't see the point. They'll say the current system works fine, and don't fix things that aren't broken. That's how these category ideas have typically died in the past.

A comprehensive General Assembly reform proposal should be written, so that Max Barry and the game coders have a clear picture of what the General Assembly looks like today and how the game can be rewritten to facilitate better gameplay. That might fare better than these single category suggestions that crop up every now and then.

Noted. I personally, would be ecstatic if the admins reworked the entire WA. As of now, many of the categories are useless (e.g. Gambling, Recreational Drugs). I'd be glad to here input from a mod/admin in regard to this topic.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:15 am**

An 'International Standards' catgeory has already been suggested several times before this...

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:21 pm**

If we're discussing change to WA categories, may I suggest more subcategories in the Environmental section? At present we can choose from Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchiping and All Businesses. Categories such as Air Pollution, Toxic Emissions, Waste Dumping and so on would be useful.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:40 pm**

South Pacific Belschaft wrote:If we're discussing change to WA categories, may I suggest more subcategories in the Environmental section? At present we can choose from Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchiping and All Businesses. Categories such as Air Pollution, Toxic Emissions, Waste Dumping and so on would be useful.

Yes please.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:49 pm**

South Pacific Belschaft wrote:If we're discussing change to WA categories, may I suggest more subcategories in the Environmental section? At present we can choose from Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchiping and All Businesses. Categories such as Air Pollution, Toxic Emissions, Waste Dumping and so on would be useful.

The woodchipping one really makes me want to punch something every time I try to draft an environmental proposal. Deforestation would be far more general and actually usable. *nods*

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:35 pm**

South Pacific Belschaft wrote:If we're discussing change to WA categories, may I suggest more subcategories in the Environmental section? At present we can choose from Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchiping and All Businesses. Categories such as Air Pollution, Toxic Emissions, Waste Dumping and so on would be useful.

I personally see the entire system as being outdated. As G-R stated, the WA was originally created to resemble Jennifer Government - not to accommodate for what it has progressed into. Your reference is a perfect example - if I author a resolution that reduces Toxic Emissions, I don't want to shoehorn it into the "All Industries" category - I'd much rather see a category that reasonably represented what I was trying to legislate on.

Yours,

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:53 pm**

Connopolis wrote:
South Pacific Belschaft wrote:If we're discussing change to WA categories, may I suggest more subcategories in the Environmental section? At present we can choose from Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchiping and All Businesses. Categories such as Air Pollution, Toxic Emissions, Waste Dumping and so on would be useful.

I personally see the entire system as being outdated. As G-R stated, the WA was originally created to resemble Jennifer Government - not to accommodate for what it has progressed into. Your reference is a perfect example - if I author a resolution that reduces Toxic Emissions, I don't want to shoehorn it into the "All Industries" category - I'd much rather see a category that reasonably represented what I was trying to legislate on.

Yours,

And compounding the problem there is that All Industries is the strongest of the Environmental AoEs which results in situtations where people have had to put Environmental proposal that are written to be mild in effect into a category that is not mild in effect.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:51 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:A general health category would be useful. Not so sure about International Standards. What do you mean by "International Standards," anyways? Like, standardized measurement? If so, that's too specific for its own category.

The categories system was created to mirror Jennifer Government, rather than to mirror how the WA resolutions game is now played. A complete change of the categories should be done, but don't get your hopes up. Plenty of old players will oppose it because they don't see the point. They'll say the current system works fine, and don't fix things that aren't broken. That's how these category ideas have typically died in the past.

A comprehensive General Assembly reform proposal should be written, so that Max Barry and the game coders have a clear picture of what the General Assembly looks like today and how the game can be rewritten to facilitate better gameplay. That might fare better than these single category suggestions that crop up every now and then.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:00 pm**

Both categories suggested by the OP have been considered before, but even after much discussion among regulars and moderators no agreement on the parameters could ever be finalized, since it was determined that nearly the entire remit of either suggested category was already amply covered by existing categories.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:04 pm**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Both categories suggested by the OP have been considered before, but even after much discussion among regulars and moderators no agreement on the parameters could ever be finalized, since it was determined that nearly the entire remit of either suggested category was already amply covered by existing categories.

I personally don't see forcing certain proposals into categories that they may/may not barely fit into as being "amply covered". As Mr. Flibble brought up - even the environmental protection category is outdated, and many of its AoE have unintended consequences.

Yours,

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:06 pm**

Told you so, Connopolis. You need to make a very convincing argument and pose it to the admins directly. Certain players tend to always oppose new categories, no matter what, because apparently things "work." You should describe why the current category system doesn't work, rather than simply suggesting new ones. Right now, we can shoehorn things into various catch-all categories, which gives the facade that the system "works."

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:08 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Told you so, Connopolis. You need to make a very convincing argument and pose it to the admins directly. Certain players tend to always oppose new categories, no matter what, because apparently things "work."

Noted.

I'll construct an argument, and propose it to the admins as soon as possible.

Yours,

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:29 am**

Connopolis wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Both categories suggested by the OP have been considered before, but even after much discussion among regulars and moderators no agreement on the parameters could ever be finalized, since it was determined that nearly the entire remit of either suggested category was already amply covered by existing categories.

I personally don't see forcing certain proposals into categories that they may/may not barely fit into as being "amply covered". As Mr. Flibble brought up - even the environmental protection category is outdated, and many of its AoE have unintended consequences.

Yours,

Since this is an OOC forum, I'm not posting as a character.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:46 am**

Flibbleites wrote:
Connopolis wrote:
I personally don't see forcing certain proposals into categories that they may/may not barely fit into as being "amply covered". As Mr. Flibble brought up - even the environmental protection category is outdated, and many of its AoE have unintended consequences.

Yours,

Since this is an OOC forum, I'm not posting as a character.

Sorry, force of habit. :blush:

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:54 am**

Whatever, GR. The category discussions I was referencing weren't exactly recovered from ancient scrolls in a dusty cave or anything - they were relatively recent, and the general consensus was - again, this was recently - that health care and standardization categories are already covered by existing ones...You know, it occurs to me, these discussions actually took place while you were playing the game; where were you? Feuding with SP or something? Anyway...apart from your usual "generational" crap, choosing categories has always been tricky at times - well before you started playing, I assure you - and no one ever found the need to completely reconfigure the category scheme (i.e., fix what ain't broke) because of it. It's just how NationStates (a rudimentary Web-based game originally designed to advertise a book, and certainly not the slick sophisticated game matrix you would prefer) works. If you don't like NationStates, perhaps you should find something else to play?

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:26 pm**

Kenny, I'm not getting into this fight with you. You say the same thing every time somebody suggests a new category. I give the same retort. No need to repeat it here.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:56 pm**

Right, GR. "Just ignore Aunt Talola; she's always cranky after her fifth bottle of wine..." :roll:

If you didn't want to get into a fight, then why were you baiting me?

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:31 pm**

Might I note that just because something isn't broken doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't need tweaking. I can't possibly understand why anyone would find a wider selection of WA categories as a negative thing. The point that I haven't seen refuted yet is the fact that many WA resolutions have unintended ramifications on the technical aspect of Nationstates. If I pass a resolution that promotes healthcare, I would like to see more spending in healthcare - not a significant dent in my economy, despite the resolution having nothing to do with it. I believe it's fair to say that the current system is in fact obsolete, now that the WA has progressed to its current state.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:45 pm**

Connopolis wrote:If I pass a resolution that promotes healthcare, I would like to see more spending in healthcare - not a significant dent in my economy, despite the resolution having nothing to do with it.

Part of the game is built on the premise that your decisions will have unintended consequences. You issues, the impact of your membership in the World Assembly etc.

While I'm all for the introduction of new categories, but it's been decided that it's not going to happen any time soon. That decision's come down from the head honcho himself. It might be considered in the future when it becomes more difficult to come up with resolutions, but until then, it's not going to happen. I really don't understand why these things come up every now and then when the thread starters should know the answer. We're just wasting our time.

If you want new categories I suggest passing resolutions in the categories we have until they've been exhausted.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:49 pm**

Sanctaria wrote:
Connopolis wrote:If I pass a resolution that promotes healthcare, I would like to see more spending in healthcare - not a significant dent in my economy, despite the resolution having nothing to do with it.

Part of the game is built on the premise that your decisions will have unintended consequences. You issues, the impact of your membership in the World Assembly etc.

While I'm all for the introduction of new categories, but it's been decided that it's not going to happen any time soon. That decision's come down from the head honcho himself. It might be considered in the future when it becomes more difficult to come up with resolutions, but until then, it's not going to happen. I really don't understand why these things come up every now and then when the thread starters should know the answer. We're just wasting our time.

If you want new categories I suggest passing resolutions in the categories we have until they've been exhausted.

My point is that there might be resolutions passed that have consequences that don't correlate with the resolution. Simply shoehorning as many resolutions into a certain category until it's become so bloated that another is necessary is absurd, and is against the point of adding these new categories. If all of the resolutions that would normally fall under "General Health" are forced into social justice, then implementing the category in the future is pointless.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:55 pm**

Connopolis wrote:My point is that there might be resolutions passed that have consequences that don't correlate with the resolution. Simply shoehorning as many resolutions into a certain category until it's become so bloated that another is necessary is absurd, and is against the point of adding these new categories. If all of the resolutions that would normally fall under "General Health" are forced into social justice, then implementing the category in the future is pointless.

It might be absurd but it's what's been said. Anyway, we play by Max's rules here and while they may seem ridiculous at times, we just gotta live with it. This isn't the first time the addition of new categories has been brought up and the answer is always the same. I just don't see the necessity in wasting your time when you could be doing things like proposing new resolutions to fill the categories that we have.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:48 pm**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:If you didn't want to get into a fight, then why were you baiting me?

If you think someone is flamebaiting you, report it in Moderation, don't respond in kind.

NationStates

New WA Categories [Admins Preferably]

New WA Categories [Admins Preferably]