[LAST CALL] General Assembly Authorship Guidelines

[Islandwalk]

As part of their six point GA overhaul plan, mods nuked the old ruleset and built a new one from the ground up. Many people made salient points about issues with this ruleset, which were entirely ignored. Fast forward a few months and they're rebuilding the Relevance rule from first principles after the blank repeal. As such, I bring to you a declaration concerning a community standard for General Assembly authors. The aim is to have this be enough of a community consensus to have it effectively apply by default, and I believe that is mostly already the case. Nonetheless, I think it would be optimal to formalize this as a declaration. Of course, this is not intended to be something people get crucified over if they have one similar clause to a previous resolution, just a bare minimum that should be trivial to follow if you do your due diligence. One big advantage here is formalizing blockers though clause 1 of the main list.

Someone will inevitably bring up the issue of legality due to rule 3a, but I think this is legal as written. It doesn't explicitly mention the rules overhaul or even frame itself specifically as a fix to that, it exists independently to any site staff decision. In July last year Sedge wrote:

A ruleset along the lines of the one in Violet's proposal would be much easier for players to comply with, and it leaves decisions on standards directly in the hands of players.

General Assembly Authorship Guidelines

category: Declaration | Co-authors: Cretox State

---

The Security Council,

Valuing certain practices in General Assembly proposal drafting as fostering a healthier, more democratic, and more efficient international legislative body,

Finding that formal and informal rules have both varied greatly over the existence of the General Assembly and its predecessor which shall not be named, often being driven by international community standards,

Wishing therefore to adopt a formal community standard more stringent than current legal rules and timeless in its domain,

Defines such a community standard as follows, which nations are urged to conform to when writing General Assembly legislation:

1. Proposals and their mandates should not be contradictory to those of extant resolutions; contradicting laws significantly undermine the integrity and enforceability of the whole body of General Assembly law,
2. Proposals should not overtly mention or advertise any nation or region; the Security Council already provides mechanisms to recognize deserving nations and regions while the General Assembly risks losing legislative credibility if it is hijacked for such purposes,
3. Proposals should not duplicate the contents or mandates of standing resolutions; requiring the same acts or omissions multiple times produces entirely unnecessary complications in logistics, enforcement, and potentially other areas,
4. Repeals of passed resolutions should make a good faith effort not to misrepresent the target resolution; arguing for the repeal of standing legislation should be feasible using truthful information if it is in fact flawed or unnecessary,
5. Repeals should contain an argument for repeal which is relevant to the specific contents of the target resolution; such helps filter away vague assertions which could apply to any resolution,

Promotes the following additional guidelines for authoring nations to follow, as a matter of common courtesy:

1. Proposals should be drafted in public forums for a lengthy enough time period to receive feedback from other nations; public drafting and consideration of feedback results in less instances of faulty writing and gives WA members a chance to openly voice their concerns,
2. No proposal should be written using large language models; the Security Council has previously denounced the use of artificial intelligence for creative and diplomatic purposes in SC#578 for its theft of ideas and use in achieving recognition without authentic effort.

[Tinhampton]

The response to "there is a new ruleset; we expect players to individually self-govern their actions in accordance with this ruleset" should not be "every player ought to govern in full accordance with the 2018-25 ruleset."

Furthermore, with the onset of Adoption née GA Compliance, a variety of resolutions can be enacted - even about the same subject matter - and players can choose to adopt the resolutions that are most in accordance with their IC government's position. We no longer live in a world where every resolution binds every nation (or at least will no longer be doing so two weeks from now), so there is not a need for concern about Contradiction and Duplication.

[Islandwalk]

The response to "there is a new ruleset; we expect players to individually self-govern their actions in accordance with this ruleset"

Ignoring that this isn't what was said, why should I care? Playing NationStates precisely as expected by M/A is unnecessary and boring.

should not be "every player ought to govern in full accordance with the 2018-25 ruleset."

Okay I think maybe you should re-read the OP if you think that.

Furthermore, with the onset of Adoption née GA Compliance, a variety of resolutions can be enacted - even about the same subject matter - and players can choose to adopt the resolutions that are most in accordance with their IC government's position. We no longer live in a world where every resolution binds every nation (or at least will no longer be doing so two weeks from now), so there is not a need for concern about Contradiction and Duplication.

A reasonable point regarding duplication, but I do think contradiction is valuable because it allows us to keep blockers.

[The Orwell Society]

Full support. Will try and provide some feedback later

[Unibot III]

Just a few notes:

"Finding that formal and informal rules have both varied greatly over the existence of the General Assembly and its predecessor which shall not be named, often being driven by international community standards,"

The NSUN is the predecessor of the WA, not the GA. The GA has no predecessor, it was a product of the Great Schism.

"Proposals and their mandates should not be contradictory to those of extant resolutions; "

You should avoid slipping back and forth between the use of the word 'proposal' and 'resolution.'

'Proposals and their mandates...' is even more vague, unnecessarily so. No proposal can "contradict" an extant resolution because a proposal is by definition not in a state of enforcement. 'Should not be contradictory to,' is also a strange sentence structure - better to use 'should not contradict extant resolutions.' Then there is the question of what constitutes a contradiction, especially in relation to a mandate? Is a contradiction with the spirit of a previous law, a contradiction, for instance?

[Adriatic Democratic Empire]

I honestly don't know what to think.

I was gonna go with a hard against but now I'm more so less sure its necessary??

Like these are all standards that are already enforced. I don't really see why it needs to be formalised tbh

[Heavens Reach]

I honestly don't know what to think.

I was gonna go with a hard against but now I'm more so less sure its necessary??

Like these are all standards that are already enforced. I don't really see why it needs to be formalised tbh

Some of these standards have never been enforced because they were illegal to neglect. So this is establishing standards that did not need to exist prior to now

[Islandwalk]

I honestly don't know what to think.

I was gonna go with a hard against but now I'm more so less sure its necessary??

Like these are all standards that are already enforced. I don't really see why it needs to be formalised tbh

The way I see it, this is literally the point of declarations. If the community has an event they wish to commemorate for its importance or a pertinent opinion to express, declarations are precisely the right tool for such a thing. SC#578 wasn't strictly necessary, but then again no declaration is strictly necessary. These are fundamentally nonbinding and solely an expression of the community, the fact that most of them are currently enforced is irrelevant. I think your argument falls entirely flat as a result.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I think there could be a problem here:

No proposal should be written with the aid of artificial intelligence; the Security Council has previously condemned

No, its use wasn’t condemned, condemned has a specific meaning in the SC. Assume the Mods are literalists as far as the rules go and maybe change it to something like “declared its use abhorrent”.

[Islandwalk]

I think there could be a problem here:

No proposal should be written with the aid of artificial intelligence; the Security Council has previously condemned

No, its use wasn’t condemned, condemned has a specific meaning in the SC. Assume the Mods are literalists as far as the rules go and maybe change it to something like “declared its use abhorrent”.

Thanks for pointing that out. What do you think of using "denounced" instead? I don't see it being too much of a problem since proposals aren't bound to be factually accurate, so the distinction is just to avoid confusion for the reader.

[Bisofeyr]

I think there could be a problem here:

No proposal should be written with the aid of artificial intelligence; the Security Council has previously condemned

No, its use wasn’t condemned, condemned has a specific meaning in the SC. Assume the Mods are literalists as far as the rules go and maybe change it to something like “declared its use abhorrent”.

Thanks for pointing that out. What do you think of using "denounced" instead? I don't see it being too much of a problem since proposals aren't bound to be factually accurate, so the distinction is just to avoid confusion for the reader.

Denounced is what I first thought and it continues to make sense to me.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I think there could be a problem here:

No proposal should be written with the aid of artificial intelligence; the Security Council has previously condemned

No, its use wasn’t condemned, condemned has a specific meaning in the SC. Assume the Mods are literalists as far as the rules go and maybe change it to something like “declared its use abhorrent”.

Thanks for pointing that out. What do you think of using "denounced" instead? I don't see it being too much of a problem since proposals aren't bound to be factually accurate, so the distinction is just to avoid confusion for the reader.

Denounced works for me.

[Untecna]

An interesting proposal; not entirely sure where I stand on it at the moment, but perhaps a formal recognition of the community standard is worth doing.

[Merethin]

Agreed with all points on the draft. It is sensible to keep maintaining these standards as a community.

[Sedgistan]

As a heads-up, this proposal potentially runs into Rule 3b issues:

Beyond the SC's capacities: Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. In some circumstances rules violations may be legal to refer to in a proposal - you must always request a ruling prior to submission if you wish to do this. If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

This part of the rule likely needs to be reworked when the GA2026 changes go live on 2nd July, as GA categories will be removed. We therefore end up in a position where much of what could fit into an SC Declaration could also be covered by the GA.

The team haven't determined how to adjust the rule to take this into account, and we'd want to consult with players on that. However, there is potential that proposals covering solely, or predominantly GA matters, as this one does, would be directed to the General Assembly instead of the Security Council, where the premise is likely to be permitted post-categories.

[Heavens Reach]

As a heads-up, this proposal potentially runs into Rule 3b issues:

Beyond the SC's capacities: Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. In some circumstances rules violations may be legal to refer to in a proposal - you must always request a ruling prior to submission if you wish to do this. If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

This part of the rule likely needs to be reworked when the GA2026 changes go live on 2nd July, as GA categories will be removed. We therefore end up in a position where much of what could fit into an SC Declaration could also be covered by the GA.

The team haven't determined how to adjust the rule to take this into account, and we'd want to consult with players on that. However, there is potential that proposals covering solely, or predominantly GA matters, as this one does, would be directed to the General Assembly instead of the Security Council, where the premise is likely to be permitted post-categories.

Thanks, appreciate the heads up

[Islandwalk]

As a heads-up, this proposal potentially runs into Rule 3b issues:

Beyond the SC's capacities: Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. In some circumstances rules violations may be legal to refer to in a proposal - you must always request a ruling prior to submission if you wish to do this. If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

This part of the rule likely needs to be reworked when the GA2026 changes go live on 2nd July, as GA categories will be removed. We therefore end up in a position where much of what could fit into an SC Declaration could also be covered by the GA.

The team haven't determined how to adjust the rule to take this into account, and we'd want to consult with players on that. However, there is potential that proposals covering solely, or predominantly GA matters, as this one does, would be directed to the General Assembly instead of the Security Council, where the premise is likely to be permitted post-categories.

I don't think this would make sense as a GA proposal given the intent. This covers a much different level of in-character action. For example, you could RP that your proposal was written by an AI supercomputer, but I don't care, I want to declare that AI in the real sense of large language models should have no place in the GA. You could RP that your proposal was actually on the forums for years, while the SC is able to acknowledge that this is not true. I think the current proposal is very clear in the message it seeks to convey. If I proposed it in the GA, it might make sense in a vacuum, but the meaning changes entirely in a way I don't care to affect. There's clear value in the SC being able to comment on the affairs of General Assembly, such as by acknowledging trends or seeking changes.

[Fachumonn]

Support, I think this is a good idea.

I remember when people came out of the woodwork to support a repeal of "Recognition of the General Assembly" partially because "it didn't belong in the SC". Interesting to see times have changed.

[Islandwalk]

Support, I think this is a good idea.

I remember when people came out of the woodwork to support a repeal of "Recognition of the General Assembly" partially because "it didn't belong in the SC". Interesting to see times have changed.

I don't think this contradicts any of the points made in the repeal fwiw. I think this is a much more substantial declaration than recognition of the GA, in large part because that one was just factual statements while this takes a strong position on certain practices.

[Honeydewistania]

Yawn. Can this not be written in a more creative or interesting way than just paraphrasing the old ruleset? Make it in character, whether it's framing it as ambassador etiquette or rules of war or something. It's a declaration, it doesn't need to be in legal speak, no one's going to strictly adhere to this regardless, add some flavour.

[Adriatic Democratic Empire]

Suggestion: since these guidelines also apply to the SC shouldn't it be called "World Assembly" instead of just "General Assembly"

[Islandwalk]

Suggestion: since these guidelines also apply to the SC shouldn't it be called "World Assembly" instead of just "General Assembly"

This clearly does not apply to the SC

[Varanius]

Suggestion: since these guidelines also apply to the SC shouldn't it be called "World Assembly" instead of just "General Assembly"

This clearly does not apply to the SC

Interesting. But what if it did?

Support.

[Adriatic Democratic Empire]

Suggestion: since these guidelines also apply to the SC shouldn't it be called "World Assembly" instead of just "General Assembly"

This clearly does not apply to the SC

I don't see why it can't? Plus I don't see the point to ignore the SC when there is clearly stuff in here that applies to both chambers

[Heavens Reach]

This clearly does not apply to the SC

I don't see why it can't? Plus I don't see the point to ignore the SC when there is clearly stuff in here that applies to both chambers

They should be kept separate. The authoring logic of the chambers is very different, the constraints on what can be written are very different, the purpose of the writing is very different, and while all good writing shares things in common, that does not mean that this proposal should be subjected to scope creep and one size fits none