So...because you feel like it? Why aren't the arguments convincing? And why is the argument against it convincing?
Advertisement
by Wallenburg » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:59 am
by Mallorea and Riva » Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:03 am
by Mallorea and Riva » Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:13 pm
by Excidium Planetis » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:56 pm
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:48 pm
by Mallorea and Riva » Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:36 am
by Sciongrad » Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:13 pm
by Mallorea and Riva » Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:27 pm
Sciongrad wrote:This actually looks really good! I personally have some minor quibbles, but on balance I think this is quite the improvement.
by Phydios » Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:16 pm
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
by Bears Armed » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:03 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Kaboomlandia wrote:I'm probably missing something, but why did the "ideological ban" rule get removed?
The argument that I find most convincing is that it is a mod attempt to enforce a policy on the GA rather than maintain any sense of order or decorum. As such it should be left to players to decide whether or not ideologies should be targeted by legislation.
by Vancouvia » Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:47 pm
by Excidium Planetis » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:13 pm
Bears Armed wrote:Well, how about the fact that under current game mechanics the stat effects of passing a resolution that bans some specific ideology might not actually be enough to bring member nations into compliance (according to their main page & official stats) without requiring further action by those nations' players themselves, which under current rules would constitute a 'Meta-gaming' violation?
After all, pass a resolution that bans private enterprise and any nation that currently has a thriving private sector will probably, according to its official stats, still have a thriving private sector.
Or pass a resolution that bans communism, and any nation that currently has all industry state-owned will probably, according to its official stats, still have all industry state-owned.
Or pass a resolution that bans any religion or mandate atheism, and nations that already have their national religions specified to the contrary will still have those national religions specified.
Or pass a resolution that bans Monarchy, and nations that already have their national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever] will still have those national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever].
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Mallorea and Riva » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:22 pm
Thanks, fixed.Vancouvia wrote:'Repeal' and 'resolution' and 'proposal' are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not.
"Optionality
Proposals are not optional. However the use mild language such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES" is acceptable."
Missing 'of'
"Real World Violations
World Assembly laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any specificreal world references"
specific, real
Excidium Planetis wrote:Bears Armed wrote:Well, how about the fact that under current game mechanics the stat effects of passing a resolution that bans some specific ideology might not actually be enough to bring member nations into compliance (according to their main page & official stats) without requiring further action by those nations' players themselves, which under current rules would constitute a 'Meta-gaming' violation?
After all, pass a resolution that bans private enterprise and any nation that currently has a thriving private sector will probably, according to its official stats, still have a thriving private sector.
Or pass a resolution that bans communism, and any nation that currently has all industry state-owned will probably, according to its official stats, still have all industry state-owned.
Or pass a resolution that bans any religion or mandate atheism, and nations that already have their national religions specified to the contrary will still have those national religions specified.
Or pass a resolution that bans Monarchy, and nations that already have their national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever] will still have those national leaders specified as Kings or Emperors [or whatever].
The same is true for pretty much all resolutions. I mean, with the number of sweeping civil rights resolutions, all WA nations should have high civil rights, but not all of them do.
Heck, if you are going to argue that an ideology ban on monarchy would be problematic because the custom fields would still allow kings... nations can still choose to stone gays despite CoCR.
by Bears Armed » Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:11 am
by Unibot III » Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:59 am
Laws have been enacted to bring Unibot III into compliance with the World Assembly resolution Explosive Remnants of War.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Bananaistan » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:12 pm
Unibot III wrote:...... This can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) that Unibot III is now in full compliance, or (2) laws have been enacted that brings Unibot III closer towards compliance.
....'
by Sciongrad » Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:45 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Sciongrad wrote:This actually looks really good! I personally have some minor quibbles, but on balance I think this is quite the improvement.
Great! If your minor quibbles are worth wording or anything please feel free to voice them and I'll be happy to make changes where appropriate.
by Unibot III » Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:56 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Unibot III wrote:...... This can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) that Unibot III is now in full compliance, or (2) laws have been enacted that brings Unibot III closer towards compliance.
....'
If it meant "closer towards compliance" it would say "closer towards compliance". I could accept a lag between compliant laws being introduced and those laws being enforced but I think it's clear that the laws are immediately compliant.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm
by Tinfect » Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:33 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Just giving this another kick in the hopes that some potential GA Mod suggestions could be sent in, we haven't received any and we'd like player feedback.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:34 pm
by Unibot III » Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:33 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Just giving this another kick in the hopes that some potential GA Mod suggestions could be sent in, we haven't received any and we'd like player feedback.
All comments about the rules are welcome too.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Mallorea and Riva » Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:53 pm
by Unibot III » Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:11 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Unibot I'll take a look at what you posted in this upcoming week, I'm currently on vacation.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Wrapper » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:22 am
Don’t use links in the text of your proposal. Successful proposals – resolutions – go into the permanent records of the World Assembly. But links die: the server shifts, posts gets deleted, whatever. The WA Librarian doesn’t like his records being messed up with dead links. Links in your proposal will make it illegal.
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement