Proposals to be submitted after the new rules take effect

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Prohibition of Communism
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing communism as force for evil in the world,

Acknowledging that many communist regimes are inherently undemocratic, tyrannical and oppressive,

Hereby abolishes any national system of government wherein major national industries are considered to be "collectively" owned "by the people" and effectively controlled by the state at the expense of private interests.

Ideological ban. Completely legal under the new rules!

Teddy bears are fun
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Description: The World Assembly,

blah-blah-ing,

Removes all protectionist devices on the trade of children's toys between member states.

Co-authored by the Fine Yeldan Puppets of Iron Felix, Destructor Bunnies, 77 Camaro, Newbomb Turk, Nerdocrombesia, La Nostra Famiglia, Aundotutunagir, Hiriaurtung Arororugul, WhaleCo Global LLC, Mad Sheep Railgun, Yeldan Puppet Army, Yeldan UN Mission and Yeldan Antarctica. On behalf of the people of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny, President Faisano, Secretary Baca and Ambassador Batko-Yovino extend their sincerest thanks.

Branding. Completely legal.

On Environmental Law
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing that environmental regulations provide only minimal protections for cute animals and pretty flowers, at severe cost to careless and destructive corporations, whose only crime is wanting to make money,

Declares that henceforth, any legislation to impose new environmental restrictions at the expense of industry shall not be considered by this body.

Pure blocker. No longer illegal!

Repeal "Disabled Voters Act"
A resolution to strike out previously passed legislation.

Argument: Recalling that Disabled Voters Act forces nations to make accommodations for physically and mentally impaired individuals,

Asserting that this is a grave violation of national sovereignty:

The World Assembly hereby REPEALS Disabled Voters Act.

NatSov repeal, devoid of any actual arguments. Legal!

What's That Up in the Sky?! It's a Bird! It's a Plane! No, It's a Planet!
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Description: A World Assembly committee shall be formed for the purposes of assigning official names and designations for all astronomical objects. Said committee shall classify and categorize all objects for purposes of nomenclature.

The committee shall be styled the Agency for Scientific Tracking and Recording of Objects, or ASTRO.

Committee only, contains no legislative effect on member states. Legal.

So what do you think?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think that if you dislike those proposals so much you should campaign against them. I don't see it as my place to be enforcing particular viewpoints or anything besides minimalistic standards upon the GA.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Most of them seem OK. I'd still rather all branding were banned, though.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Most of them seem OK. I'd still rather all branding were banned, though.

I've got to agree with this position. The Branding rule should be returned.

[Tinfect]

Most of them seem OK.

You can't be serious.

[Frisbeeteria]

In the spirit of the "Dissenting Opinions in Rulings" thread ...

I too am extremely opposed to removing the Branding rule. I saw a ton of that sort of crap before we instituted that rule back in 2005-6 or so - sometimes 30 pages of egoboo and regional recruitment poorly disguised as GA proposals. Not that any of them ever stood a chance of getting passed - they were just clutter. Hack and I added the Branding rule as an anti-clutter rule, and it worked. Mall's suggestion to leave it out does NOT reflect the majority opinion of the mods, as I think he'd be glad to confirm.

I think virtually all the others would fail to get approvals, and their authors would undoubtedly get bitchslapped a great deal here in the GA forum. Not that they'd learn anything from that, but I'd be amused. Still opposed to do-nothing Committees as well, though committees aren't the problem - it's the do-nothing part that offends me.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I think virtually all the others would fail to get approvals, and their authors would undoubtedly get bitchslapped a great deal here in the GA forum.

That's too bad. I actually kinds like some of these proposals, now that I've taken the time to flesh them out.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't see it as my place to be enforcing particular viewpoints or anything besides minimalistic standards upon the GA.

1. Proposals are supposed to have a statistical effect on nations. Establishing a committee with no statistical effect isn't just a "viewpoint"; it actually "undermines GA mechanics," the preferred rules standard expressed by CD, TDSR and others.
   
   
2. The GA exists to change laws in member states. Repealing a resolution on the basis that it shouldn't change members' laws isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it directly undermines GA mechanics.
   
   
3. The effects of GA laws effectively force an ideology on them. A nation type can be changed to "Iron Fist Socialists" after a resolution passes. For the GA to ban a type of ideology, when in fact it creates nations with that ideology all the time, isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it actually undermines GA mechanics.
   
   
4. Excessive branding, as expressed above, isn't merely a viewpoint. It is, essentially, spam. This actually goes against site rules. Allowing players to do so undermines OSRS.
   
   
5. Categories are part of the game. For a resolution to tell players they can't use one is just glorified game mechanics, which I don't need to tell you, isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it actually undermines GA mechanics.

Now, are you actually going to respond to my concerns with substance, or are you going to keep saying that "players should be the one to enforce standards," like a broken record?

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Proposals are supposed to have a statistical effect on nations. Establishing a committee with no statistical effect isn't just a "viewpoint"; it actually "undermines GA mechanics," the preferred rules standard expressed by CD, TDSR and others.
   
   
2. The GA exists to change laws in member states. Repealing a resolution on the basis that it shouldn't change members' laws isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it directly undermines GA mechanics.
   
   
3. The effects of GA laws effectively force an ideology on them. A nation type can be changed to "Iron Fist Socialists" after a resolution passes. For the GA to ban a type of ideology, when in fact it creates nations with that ideology all the time, isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it actually undermines GA mechanics.
   
   
4. Excessive branding, as expressed above, isn't merely a viewpoint. It is, essentially, spam. This actually goes against site rules. Allowing players to do so undermines OSRS.
   
   
5. Categories are part of the game. For a resolution to tell players they can't use one is just glorified game mechanics, which I don't need to tell you, isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it actually undermines GA mechanics.

Now, are you actually going to respond to my concerns with substance, or are you going to keep saying that "players should be the one to enforce standards," like a broken record?

I agree with all of these points. The point which OMGTKK has raised very well is that the World Assembly's part of NationStates must be both observed and enforced. We shouldn't find our own political motivations in this reform outpacing our own devotion to this game.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Proposals are supposed to have a statistical effect on nations. Establishing a committee with no statistical effect isn't just a "viewpoint"; it actually "undermines GA mechanics," the preferred rules standard expressed by CD, TDSR and others.

I don't know where the discussion on changing the category system has got to, but if that's changed, perhaps committee-only resolutions could be revisited. They're still not a great fit given how much the MetaGaming restrict the ability to get into specifics - if nothing else, committee-only resolutions are pretty boring. I'd agree with you on keeping this rule, at least until the category rules are reviewed, and probably thereafter.

The GA exists to change laws in member states. Repealing a resolution on the basis that it shouldn't change members' laws isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it directly undermines GA mechanics.

This is just a question of wording. Directly saying that the WA doesn't have the power to do something should remain illegal, because as you say it's misinterpreting game mechanics. But arguing that a particular decision is better decided on a national level, making a subsidiarist or federalist argument, is a viewpoint. That the WA technically has the power to overrule it doesn't change that.

I feel like the NatSov rule has suffered from creep since being introduced (it's not the only rule to do so). The original argument was - the WA can require nations to do stuff, so saying it can't is wrong. But it's now become more of a ban on value judgements. It also creates a bit of a double standard. Abortion Legality Convention makes the argument each nation should decide on abortion, and would probably - if Reproductive Freedoms and On Abortion were repealed - be legal. But actually using that argument in a repeal of RF/OA would not be legal!

So I would say: allow people to make national sovereigntist repeal arguments, even repeals solely predicated on that argument, but continue to enforce the Honest Mistake rule, and when people begin arguing that the WA cannot, rather than should not, that's where it crosses the line.

The effects of GA laws effectively force an ideology on them. A nation type can be changed to "Iron Fist Socialists" after a resolution passes. For the GA to ban a type of ideology, when in fact it creates nations with that ideology all the time, isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it actually undermines GA mechanics.

This amounts to arguing that violations of the ideological ban rule are themselves Game Mechanics violations. And you have a point. But if that's the case, why not simply make the Game Mechanics rule a bit clearer about its scope? If that happened, would there be any need to keep the ideological ban rule? (I'm not opposed to the rule as it's implemented - but it does lead to some awfully annoying arguments at times.)

Excessive branding, as expressed above, isn't merely a viewpoint. It is, essentially, spam. This actually goes against site rules. Allowing players to do so undermines OSRS.

I think that's taking it a bit far, but I do hate Branding. I actually thought a reasonable consensus towards not allowing branding in the proposal text - but permitting it if an extra customisable field were added - had developed in the original discussion.

Categories are part of the game. For a resolution to tell players they can't use one is just glorified game mechanics, which I don't need to tell you, [i]isn't merely a "viewpoint"; it actually undermines GA mechanics.

The blocker rule on categories was only introduced at the UN>WA switchover. Now, some of those latter NSUN resolutions - some of them by me! - were quite expansive, but, honestly, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with him, but I think Fris misinterpreted some of them when he created that rule. The only one that truly took out an entire category was Jey's UN Drug Act. The education blocker still permitted education proposals - I wrote two education resolutions after passing that blocker! - it just restricted a few specific things.

My view on expansive blockers has always been: they're annoying, but precisely because they're annoying if one of them actually passed either the mods would immediately interpret it out of existence (as they eventually did with National Economic Freedoms, which had the potential to be such an annoying blocker) or the players would get so pissed off they would repeal it (given the number of environmental resolutions submitted to the queue, having hundreds of WA authors being ejected for contradiction would probably lead to a blowback). I know that's shaky speculation, but still, I have always felt the blocker rule was an overreaction to the fact that a few slightly too expansive resolutions passed at a time when the NSUN was running very low on fuel, and that getting rid of it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Again, as per the other rule, specifically blocking an entire category could remain - as a Game Mechanics violation.

--

Sorry, that post was longer and pissier than I thought it would be. TLDR: You're mostly arguing that all of these rules can be considered forms of Game Mechanics violations. If that's the case, then let's just make the Game Mechanics rule clearer, and they all actually might be surplus to requirements.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I actually agree with a lot - if not most - of what you say. The differentiation on NatSov repeals makes sense. Proposal coding would make the committee-only rule essentially defunct. (Provided, of course, that the actions of a committee can be inferred to have an effect on nations - the essential changing-laws component of the WA can't be stifled.) The co-author field would deem the branding rule moot. And yes, the rest can be sorted by making Game Mechanics a bit clearer. (Although I maintain that blockers, no matter how expansive, must be read as having a statistical effect on nations, blah, blah, blah.)

But you and I agreeing is not going to change the tone of this discussion. It's Mall being willing to budge, and entertain some sort of reintroduction of the rules he seems hellbent on dropping (and stop using "players should set the standards" as a boilerplate response - that's just annoying, and it's not going to hold up forever).

[Mousebumples]

But you and I agreeing is not going to change the tone of this discussion. It's Mall being willing to budge, and entertain some sort of reintroduction of the rules he seems hellbent on dropping (and stop using "players should set the standards" as a boilerplate response - that's just annoying, and it's not going to hold up forever).

Just to echo Fris's comment from above, Mall is speaking for Mall - and he's in the minority for some/a lot of the rules he wants to remove.

I'm hoping to find time to post my comments/edits on his proposed ruleset, so you'll have that pseudo-trial run as a "Dissenting Opinion." I just never seem to have as much free time as I think I will.

[Christian Democrats]

Most of them seem OK. I'd still rather all branding were banned, though.

I've got to agree with this position. The Branding rule should be returned.

Yes.

Proposals are supposed to have a statistical effect on nations. Establishing a committee with no statistical effect isn't just a "viewpoint"; it actually "undermines GA mechanics," the preferred rules standard expressed by CD, TDSR and others.

I don't know where the discussion on changing the category system has got to, but if that's changed, perhaps committee-only resolutions could be revisited. They're still not a great fit given how much the MetaGaming restrict the ability to get into specifics - if nothing else, committee-only resolutions are pretty boring. I'd agree with you on keeping this rule, at least until the category rules are reviewed, and probably thereafter.

My position is that there ought to be a Committee Rule if and only if we maintain the category system. If the category system is abolished, on the other hand, I'd have no problem with committee-only proposals (e.g., a resolution to establish the World Committee on Gender Equality).

[Separatist Peoples]

Theoretically, could we simply find middle ground between keeping the Committee rule and scrapping it? The current rule of thumb is to scratch everything connected to the committee and see what's left. Well, why not change the way the rule is interpreted so that a resolution can be mostly a committee, but any action clauses that compel nations, even if they directly involve the committee, still count as action clauses? So requiring nations to liaise with X committee would still, in effect, be an action clause upon a nation that evades the rule, but a proposal which has no action clauses to operate upon a nation would be illegal? That seems pretty bright-line, but wouldn't exclude freedom to focus on the WA's bureaucracy.

[Bears Armed]

Theoretically, could we simply find middle ground between keeping the Committee rule and scrapping it? The current rule of thumb is to scratch everything connected to the committee and see what's left. Well, why not change the way the rule is interpreted so that a resolution can be mostly a committee, but any action clauses that compel nations, even if they directly involve the committee, still count as action clauses? So requiring nations to liaise with X committee would still, in effect, be an action clause upon a nation that evades the rule, but a proposal which has no action clauses to operate upon a nation would be illegal? That seems pretty bright-line, but wouldn't exclude freedom to focus on the WA's bureaucracy.

That's how the rule used to be interpreted, and I'd also favour a return to this interpretation.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

My suggested rewording, before Mall shut it down, was: "Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

[John Turner]

My suggested rewording, before Mall shut it down, was: "Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

Except nations don't serve on committees.

[Tinfect]

My suggested rewording, before Mall shut it down, was: "Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

Except nations don't serve on committees.

No, they don't, but, logically, they must interact with committees, if mandated to do so. For example, if there were a committee with the purpose of lowering trade barriers, that Member State were required to interact with, it stands to reason that income inequality and economic freedom would go up.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

My suggested rewording, before Mall shut it down, was: "Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

Except nations don't serve on committees.

That isn't what I meant. Like Tinfect said, if a committee is impaneled to review regulations or trade restrictions, for example, then it has an effect on member nations. You don't have to serve on a committee for it to affect you.

[Christian Democrats]

For example, if there were a committee with the purpose of lowering trade barriers, that Member State were required to interact with, it stands to reason that income inequality and economic freedom would go up.

For the record, when trade barriers between two nations are removed, income inequality in the richer nation increases while income inequality in the poorer nation decreases. GDP and economic liberty in both nations increase.

[The Dark Star Republic]

My suggested rewording, before Mall shut it down,

You're taking this way too personally. It's pretty clear that Mallorea was just floating some of his ideas, which don't necessarily even have the backing of the other mods. Fris even encouraged us to have a go at writing the rules ourselves!

"Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

So something like World Health Authority - which sets up a WHA Agency in every member nation - would probably pass muster, on the basis that even though it's "committee-only", it's still going to require some health spending from each nation? If so, that makes sense to me.

[Frisbeeteria]

"Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

I like it. Haven't looked for loopholes or anything, but I like the spirit. Is it your intent that this is the entire content of the Committee rule, or would it go under some other header?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

My suggested rewording, before Mall shut it down,

You're taking this way too personally. It's pretty clear that Mallorea was just floating some of his ideas, which don't necessarily even have the backing of the other mods. Fris even encouraged us to have a go at writing the rules ourselves!

Perhaps you're right. It's probably just frustration over not understanding how this process is supposed to work, because right now, I have no idea.

"Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

So something like World Health Authority - which sets up a WHA Agency in every member nation - would probably pass muster, on the basis that even though it's "committee-only", it's still going to require some health spending from each nation?

Yes. Does the wording make that clear, or does it need to be broken down more?

[Mousebumples]

My suggested rewording, before Mall shut it down, was: "Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. If the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as to have such an effect on member nations, then your proposal is probably fine."

Personally, I'm not a fan of words like "probably" since that doesn't provide clarity to the rules, but I'll agree with Fris that I like the spirit there.

Maybe:

Proposals must have a tangible statistical effect on member nations. This may include proposals where the actions of a committee can be reasonably inferred as having such an effect on member nations. Adding a non-committee clause is another option you may want to include to serve as a failsafe too ensure your proposal does not violate this rule.

Not sure if the third sentence is good or not, but I figure the "previous method of enforcement" is perhaps worth mentioning for newbies who want to make extra-sure that their proposals are legal. The wording probably needs some work though. :/

[Christian Democrats]

What on earth is "a non-committee clause"? May you give an example from any resolution currently on the books?