NationStates

Divergia wrote:Considering that the only use for it would be as a RPing Plot device and would be in-able to effect in-game stats I say we should repeal this rule.

Agreed. If the rule was eliminated, it wouldn't cause too many headaches for non-RPers.

You know, it just struck me today: why couldn't the WA set troops on an uncooperative nation? How would that affect a non-WA's stats? There aren't stats for invasions and foreign troops in your nation etc. just general 'safety' stats and stuff. The principle of 'the WA can't force non-member nations' is rooted in the principle that the WA cannot affect policy outside of the WA - but putting troops on the ground isn't affecting policy, per se. It might be affecting the specific regime and the local politics of an area, but that doesn't mean the WA is affecting a foreign nation's general policies.

I'm inclined to say that intervention should still be voluntary, but I did think of that alternative counterargument today. Thought I should bring it up.

A humanitarian intervention or mission to disarm a dangerous regime absolutely would affect non-member state policy. Particularly if the army is trying to stop or prevent instances of slavery, genocide, biological warfare, nuclear attacks on civilians, nonproliferation, state-sponsored terrorism -- the list goes on -- all subjects of WA resolutions, which presumably the army would seek to uphold.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:And? Why is that justification for the rule? Literally everything we do here is just doing "what the cool folks at the UN do."

The Real World UN provides a large number of its resolution to specific member and non member states. We don't do that here.
This is the 2014-2015 session which consists of...
Permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan
Saving the cultural heritage of Iraq
Financing of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire ... etc (each as a separate resolution)
Situation of human rights in Myanmar
Assistance to the Palestinian people
Oil slick on Lebanese shores
Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic
And so on.

Of course the UN also provides global initiatives and we love to imitate these (as long as they are not real world violations which they sometimes are) but there is no WA mandate that the WA can apply its resolutions in a non uniform way to specific member states as opposed to all member states.

I still don't get your point, Tzorland. We haven't banned the International Trade Administration just because we can't pass a resolution saying specifically that Glen-Rhodes' farm subsidies are illegal. There's an understanding that the machinations of the WA, even if not roleplayed, are always happening behind the scenes.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:A humanitarian intervention or mission to disarm a dangerous regime absolutely would affect non-member state policy. Particularly if the army is trying to stop or prevent instances of slavery, genocide, biological warfare, nuclear attacks on civilians, nonproliferation, state-sponsored terrorism -- the list goes on -- all subjects of WA resolutions, which presumably the army would seek to uphold.

Depends on how you interpret the stats, Kenny. Let's say the WA Army is intervening in a non-WA state against a genocide - does intervening against the genocide improve the human rights stat of a nation? It's how you see the stats reflecting the nation.

There are two main possibilities:

(1) The 'civil rights' of a nation is bolstered because a genocide is forcibly averted by the WA.

(2) The 'civil rights' stat is unaffected because the genocide was forcibly averted - the local government itself was still committed to pursuing the genocide, so no raising or lowering of the human rights stat is warranted. The locals, as far as the local government is concerned, are still sorely lacking recognition for their civil rights.

The difference is whether you see the stat reflecting the de facto state of personal freedoms in a nation, or the nation's general policy (which may not always be put in practice, due to stuff like foreign intervention, out of their control).

Unibot III wrote:You know, it just struck me today: why couldn't the WA set troops on an uncooperative nation? How would that affect a non-WA's stats? There aren't stats for invasions and foreign troops in your nation etc. just general 'safety' stats and stuff. The principle of 'the WA can't force non-member nations' is rooted in the principle that the WA cannot affect policy outside of the WA - but putting troops on the ground isn't affecting policy, per se. It might be affecting the specific regime and the local politics of an area, but that doesn't mean the WA is affecting a foreign nation's general policies.

I'm inclined to say that intervention should still be voluntary, but I did think of that alternative counterargument today. Thought I should bring it up.

It seems the logical conclusion of several points:

1. WA membership is 100% voluntary, and can be entered into and broken effectively at will.
2. WA resolutions automatically take effect in WA members.
3. WA resolutions do not affect nations outside the WA.

Effectively, the only way the WA can intervene in a nation is through either mandatory legislation binding on its members or through voluntary participation - usually denoted by entering the WA itself. Are you really suggesting that the WA should be able to have binding effects on nonmember states? That would be a dramatic departure from the philosophy of voluntary membership. I feel that this is a separate issue from the mechanical/statistical effects of membership and the impact of membership on region control.

In any case, I am against the idea of imposing WA resolutions on nonmembers.

Krioval wrote:

Unibot III wrote:You know, it just struck me today: why couldn't the WA set troops on an uncooperative nation? How would that affect a non-WA's stats? There aren't stats for invasions and foreign troops in your nation etc. just general 'safety' stats and stuff. The principle of 'the WA can't force non-member nations' is rooted in the principle that the WA cannot affect policy outside of the WA - but putting troops on the ground isn't affecting policy, per se. It might be affecting the specific regime and the local politics of an area, but that doesn't mean the WA is affecting a foreign nation's general policies.

I'm inclined to say that intervention should still be voluntary, but I did think of that alternative counterargument today. Thought I should bring it up.

It seems the logical conclusion of several points:

1. WA membership is 100% voluntary, and can be entered into and broken effectively at will.
2. WA resolutions automatically take effect in WA members.
3. WA resolutions do not affect nations outside the WA.

Effectively, the only way the WA can intervene in a nation is through either mandatory legislation binding on its members or through voluntary participation - usually denoted by entering the WA itself. Are you really suggesting that the WA should be able to have binding effects on nonmember states? That would be a dramatic departure from the philosophy of voluntary membership. I feel that this is a separate issue from the mechanical/statistical effects of membership and the impact of membership on region control.

In any case, I am against the idea of imposing WA resolutions on nonmembers.

Yet like Unibot says, those troops nor the WA would be affecting that nations national policy (i.e.No stat change), so where is the problem? What if per se a nation is in the middle of a civil war, and the opposition to the government wants to join the WA. If that opposition is on the verge of overthrowing the government and is in the process of their application (pure role-play here, as it probably takes months or years to join) should the WA not have the power to intervene to ensure that membership process proceeds smoothly up to and including using military force?

Krioval wrote:Are you really suggesting that the WA should be able to have binding effects on nonmember states? That would be a dramatic departure from the philosophy of voluntary membership. I feel that this is a separate issue from the mechanical/statistical effects of membership and the impact of membership on region control.

I'm suggesting that we have been mistaken to assume that if you force a nation to do something and an effect is caused, that the stats must necessarily change for a nation. The fact that a nation was coerced into doing something suggests there was no change of government policy at all.

This idea would challenge some orthodoxy around the WA:

(1) The game stats would be interpreted as being normative (what a nation's policies look like if the nation was able to always implement its policies without interference from war, famine, bad weather, norms etc.), instead of being perfectly definitive.

(2) The WA would be allowed to affect non-WA nations - it already does in many respects, by, say affecting the global economy. But it would not have the jurisdiction to set policy for non-WA members. That's where membership decides whether you must meet the legal expectations of the WA or not.

For now, presume that WA resolutions only affect WA member nations. I'm trying to remember if we've already had the "affecting non-member nations" discussion elsewhere, but given the game mechanics regarding WA membership (and stat effects), I somehow doubt that we'll be able to expand the impact of WA resolutions beyond affecting WA member nations.

Unibot III wrote:The game stats would be interpreted as being normative (what a nation's policies look like if the nation was able to always implement its policies without interference from war, famine, bad weather, norms etc.), instead of being perfectly definitive.

But the game stats obviously are definitive. Take, for example, the economy. Nations generally want to attain Frightening status, but various circumstances stand in their way. Issues, also called "dilemmas," are problems that appear that national governments must confront (e.g., bad weather: due to a recent drought, your government must decide what to do about water). Issue answering is a process whereby nations try to attain their ideals (normative) in the face of situations that they cannot control (descriptive).

If game stats were normative, all of my stats would be exactly where I want them to be. My country, for instance, would not have a lifespan problem. My citizens would live longer than they do at present.

Okay, I vote legalizing the WA Army.
1) As others pointed out, there is absolutely no in character reason for the rule. Unlike the Real World violations and Game Mechanics rules, where in character nations would simply not be aware of the Game Mechanics and Real World stuff, there isn't a reason the WA cannot form an Army.

2) The WA is clearly not against war. It allows war between consenting nations. So the whole "WA should promote peace!" is BS.

3)The kind of people who would draft resolutions to deploy such an Army to "win" an RP are complete numbskulls who would do such a thing even if the rule was in place. And I doubt such a resolution could be passed.

4) Even if it was, we could simply RP it away. Either ignore cannon, or say "the WA forces are taking too long, it will be another 6 months before they are ready to invade!" or just go to war with the WA. Heck, I'd go to war with the WA.

5) Resolutions can be passed banning such use of the Army anyways.

6) the Metagaming rule prevents you from actually forcing any other player to do something.

All in all, it's a lot like the "no WA currency" Metagaming rule. It makes no sense, and only exists to prevent something other rules already prevent (Game Mechanics and Metagaming).

Now, in case you are confused as to my argument to eliminate the "forced roleplay" rule and my argument that you can't force a role player to acknowledge the WA invasion, it makes sense: You should be able to pass a WA resolution that, for example, acknowledges that sapient bears do exist. But you cannot actually force players to recognize the existence of sapient bears.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I still don't get your point, Tzorland. We haven't banned the International Trade Administration just because we can't pass a resolution saying specifically that Glen-Rhodes' farm subsidies are illegal. There's an understanding that the machinations of the WA, even if not roleplayed, are always happening behind the scenes.

The International Trade Administration regulates uniformly across all nations. It doesn't specifically direct Geln-Rhodes. It's like a speed limit. There is a universal speed and anyone who goes above the limit is fined. It's not like we create a speed limit for Glen-Rhodes and Glen-Rhodes alone. But let me repeat that, the resolution creates a UNIVERSAL LAW. An Army is not a law, right? And it's not just another committee either. It is an active force.

Mousebumples wrote:For now, presume that WA resolutions only affect WA member nations. I'm trying to remember if we've already had the "affecting non-member nations" discussion elsewhere, but given the game mechanics regarding WA membership (and stat effects), I somehow doubt that we'll be able to expand the impact of WA resolutions beyond affecting WA member nations.

Out of curiosity, is it even possible - code wise - for a resolution to have a global impact on the stats of ALL ~150,000 nations in Nationstates? Because it seems to me that some of our resolutions, though effecting only WA member nations activities would nonetheless have a global impact. For instance, many environmental proposals would presumably benefit non-member nations even though they themselves are not directly changing policies.

So long as we're changing rules and talking about changing how categories work, etc., is it possible for the game to allow some (even very small) effect of WA laws on non-member nation stats? It would simulate the "real" effect of a considerable number of nations taking a concerted action.

I'm not absolutely sure that this comment belongs in this discussion, but it seems a great deal of the debate centers around what a WA army could do, game mechanics wise.

Losthaven wrote:Out of curiosity, is it even possible - code wise - for a resolution to have a global impact on the stats of ALL ~150,000 nations in Nationstates? Because it seems to me that some of our resolutions, though effecting only WA member nations activities would nonetheless have a global impact. For instance, many environmental proposals would presumably benefit non-member nations even though they themselves are not directly changing policies.

I'm not so sure that there would be a sufficiently strong effect on nonmember states. There are 22,350 WA nations out of 144,738 total nations. That comes out to 15.4%, which seems too small to have NSverse-wide effects. That would be my IC argument against WA policy affecting nonmember states. My OOC position is that, in a game where players try to get certain statistical arrangements on their nations, it would be a pain to try to counteract the statistical nudges brought about by WA resolutions.

Losthaven wrote:Out of curiosity, is it even possible - code wise - for a resolution to have a global impact on the stats of ALL ~150,000 nations in Nationstates?

From a game rules perspective, players are told that joining the WA is an optional activity. To enforce changes on them that they chose to opt out of seems to be rather rude.

From a tech perspective, the answer is clearly "no" or at least "not at present". While all active nations are processed at update, the passage of a WA proposal is currently controlled by the WA module of the updater. That module contains a list of current WA members, and totally ignores non-members.

From a RP perspective, if you want "SuperDuper Ocean Improver Act" to impact your nation's roleplay because your RP neighbors are all WA members, have at it. Bear in mind that spacedey nations and landlocked nations and such wouldn't necessarily be affected by an Oceans act either, but if they're members, they get the same stat effect. We can't/don't/won't enforce RP compliance.

Tzorsland wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I still don't get your point, Tzorland. We haven't banned the International Trade Administration just because we can't pass a resolution saying specifically that Glen-Rhodes' farm subsidies are illegal. There's an understanding that the machinations of the WA, even if not roleplayed, are always happening behind the scenes.

The International Trade Administration regulates uniformly across all nations. It doesn't specifically direct Geln-Rhodes. It's like a speed limit. There is a universal speed and anyone who goes above the limit is fined. It's not like we create a speed limit for Glen-Rhodes and Glen-Rhodes alone. But let me repeat that, the resolution creates a UNIVERSAL LAW. An Army is not a law, right? And it's not just another committee either. It is an active force.

How is it "not a law" any more than creating any other committee is "not a law"? The resolutions we would pass wouldn't be, "The GA declares that the WA Army shall enter into Nation X and stop the ongoing genocide."

The resolutions would be, "Under a, b, and c circumstances, the WA Army Committee is authorized to do x, y, and z, with a big list of exceptions and special rules."

It's literally the same thing. We can write a resolution right now that creates a committee that can go in to any random member state and slaughter all its pigs in the name of moral decency. Just because that committee is called an "army" and the mission is to stop conflict instead of slaughter pigs, doesn't mean there's any kind of fundamental difference between the two.

You're just caught up on the novelty.

G-R wrote:You're just caught up on the novelty.

This is not a new thing. The NS United Nations had an army.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:The NS United Nations had an army.

???

Uh, Resolution #92?

If that's the case, why wasn't the resolution deleted? You interpret the No Army rule far more expansively than most people - I believe you've also argued International Criminal Court was illegal on similar grounds - but the point of this thread should be to concentrate on how the mods are likely to interpret it.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:If that's the case, why wasn't the resolution deleted?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the UN didn't have a no army rule?

Bezombia wrote:

The Dark Star Republic wrote:If that's the case, why wasn't the resolution deleted?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the UN didn't have a no army rule?

The No Army rule has existed in some form or other since at least 2004, and probably earlier. It certainly existed before Humanitarian Intervention was passed. You can read some debate about whether or not the resolution violated the rule in the original discussion. (I wasn't around then, I only joined the game in 2005.)

So, no, it hasn't occurred to me.

The No UN Army was part of the original Enodian ruleset, whenever that was first posted. The original concept that "mods won't be roleplaying a UN Army" came from Enodia. When Hack and I discussed the first major revision of the Enodian Rules in 2004/2005, I don't recall really discussing that rule. We just left it in place and moved on.

I had already built it in as Clause 5 of UN#49, the original Rights and Duties of UN States, so I know it existed when I composed that in January 2004. As that resolution was enacted on Tue Feb 24 2004, those dates are firm.

Frisbeeteria wrote:I had already built it in as Clause 5 of UN#49, the original Rights and Duties of UN States...

It wasn't in the UN Rights and Duties (it is in the WA one), and in fact the UN at your request tried to pass a Prohibition of UN Military resolution in 2007, which failed.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:If that's the case, why wasn't the resolution deleted?

LOTS wasn't deleted either; it was illegal. So was Promotion of Solar Panels - if I remember correctly.