by Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:31 pm
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Flemingovia » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:37 pm
Note, however, that basing your proposal solely on a Real World ideology without reference to NationStates has been illegal since the introduction of Rule 4.
by Mousebumples » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:40 pm
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.
Would that work?
by Flemingovia » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:45 pm
by Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:54 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.
Would that work?
Once passed, WA law is presumed to be legal. Even if they are found to be otherwise after reaching a vote (or after passage), the mods/admins cannot and will not do anything about it.
Further, the GA and SC work as separate bodies. The rules of one do not apply to the other. (However, for the record, there is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.)
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:54 pm
Flemingovia wrote:thank you for that clarification. I did not realise that such a distinction existed. Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Flemingovia » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:58 pm
here is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.
by Mallorea and Riva » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:05 pm
Flemingovia wrote:Why not bring the SC resolution and we will find out?
...once the NS world has stopped laughing long enough to vote. it would be good for the lutz.
by A mean old man » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:05 pm
by Mallorea and Riva » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:09 pm
A mean old man wrote:There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.
by Mousebumples » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:12 pm
Flemingovia wrote:No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.
You said:here is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.
and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.
Rules for GA Proposals wrote:Game Mechanics
Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.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.
by Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:49 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Flemingovia wrote:No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.
You said:
and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.
The GA Rule in question that I was referencing was this one:Rules for GA Proposals wrote:Game Mechanics
Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.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.
I admit to not being super-familiar with SC rules - other than a general familiarity. However, as I understand it, R4 is not an ideological ban.
As others have said, the resolution "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" would be illegal if authored as a new proposal TODAY as it refers directly to the players within this region - not to the actions of the nations/leaders/etc. of the region. It's not about the actions of the region but really just about the name of the region.
Does that make sense? I can give it another go, if that doesn't help to explain things. Or, you know, members of our Modly Awesomeness can say it with more clarity.
No region or nation shall be disciplined for their ideology
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Warzone Codger » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:52 pm
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:
But is it possible to do the following:
Create a GA resolution which says something along the lines ofNo region or nation shall be disciplined for their ideology
and then submit a Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe and say that Condemn Nazi Europe violates the above GA resolution and should be repealed.
does that work? Is my explanation clear?
Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.
by Flemingovia » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:19 am
Mousebumples wrote: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.
by Flemingovia » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:29 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Flemingovia wrote:Why not bring the SC resolution and we will find out?
...once the NS world has stopped laughing long enough to vote. it would be good for the lutz.
Why is it funny? By the logic employed here the North Pacific is supporting Islamofascism. [arguments about how this brings bad press to the site, and how this condones fascism] [/arguments].
by Sedgistan » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:36 am
A mean old man wrote:There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.
Ardchoille wrote:Note, however, that basing your proposal solely on a Real World ideology without reference to NationStates has been illegal since the introduction of Rule 4.
by Meekinos » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:32 am
A mean old man wrote:There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.
by Sedgistan » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:26 am
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.
Would that work?
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:What I meant was taking the resolution on Idealogical Bans and applying it as stated, and in the Proposal to Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe mention as a side point that it violates the Idealogical Bans resolution.
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:I thought that the rules of the GA and SC DO apply to each other as they are both part of the WA
Flemingovia wrote:Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?
by Mahaj WA Seat » Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:26 pm
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Mousebumples » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:37 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.
Would that work?
No. As Mousebumples says, any resolution which is passed by the World Assembly is deemed legal by the fact it has passed. Therefore it's impossible to repeal a resolution on the grounds that it's illegal.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: IdontCare
Advertisement