Secretariat

[Morgantown West Virginia]

I would like to ask a question to the Secretariat's, if nearly every is ruled as illegal by you guys, why don't you review every single WA resolution to see if those are legal. I mean with all of these illegal proposals being made, surely there is one WA resolution that was passed before that was illegal. If every proposal is illegal, then the WA can be slowed down by legality challenges, or lighten the rules so that more resolutions can be made.

[Separatist Peoples]

I would like to ask a question to the Secretariat's, if nearly every is ruled as illegal by you guys, why don't you review every single WA resolution to see if those are legal. I mean with all of these illegal proposals being made, surely there is one WA resolution that was passed before that was illegal. If every proposal is illegal, then the WA can be slowed down by legality challenges, or lighten the rules so that more resolutions can be made.

Not every proposal is illegal, and passed resolutions are presumed legal.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

I would like to ask a question to the Secretariat's, if nearly every is ruled as illegal by you guys, why don't you review every single WA resolution to see if those are legal. I mean with all of these illegal proposals being made, surely there is one WA resolution that was passed before that was illegal. If every proposal is illegal, then the WA can be slowed down by legality challenges, or lighten the rules so that more resolutions can be made.

Not every proposal is illegal, and passed resolutions are presumed legal.

I did not say every proposal, I said that you guys say nearly every proposal is illegal. Currently, of the 5 proposals in the GA queue, 3 of them have been labeled as illegal by at least 4 Secretariat's.

One proposal was classified as illegal because of it mentioning their nation in the last line of the resolution.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1487786458

Surely, this is not a big enough deal to rule it illegal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

One proposal was classified as illegal because of it mentioning their nation in the last line of the resolution.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1487786458

It violates the proposal rules. Why should the published rules, as they currently are now, not be enforced?

[The United Remnants of America]

Not every proposal is illegal, and passed resolutions are presumed legal.

I did not say every proposal, I said that you guys say nearly every proposal is illegal. Currently, of the 5 proposals in the GA queue, 3 of them have been labeled as illegal by at least 4 Secretariat's.

One proposal was classified as illegal because of it mentioning their nation in the last line of the resolution.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1487786458

Surely, this is not a big enough deal to rule it illegal?

But it is, that's the point.

The GA works for the betterment of the entire WA, not just one nation. The mention of a single nation makes it illegal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

A possible reason it may look like we declare every resolution illegal is that we've taken over the job formerly done by moderators of clearing every blatantly illegal proposal from the queue; and that, of the serious legal challenges we've grappled with thus far, some of the most visible ones have been ruled illegal. There are several people who believe that the great recent uptick in legality challenges generally is due to the WA running out of legislative 'space' for new, legal, correctly (rigidly) categorized laws that somehow don't duplicate or contradict existing law. I think there's still lots of room for new, interesting, legal resolutions, but slotting such pegs into the asymmetrical holes they need to fit in requires more patience than many people have and more nuance than many people are willing to devote to a browser game.

Welcome to the Festering Snakepit.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

One proposal was classified as illegal because of it mentioning their nation in the last line of the resolution.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1487786458

It violates the proposal rules. Why should the published rules, as they currently are now, not be enforced?

It is not that they should not be enforced, they should relaxed such as the branding rule this current topic about
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403450

And the political ideologies rule, which is absurd because which nation anywhere would not try push their ideology to the entire world.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403524

[Morgantown West Virginia]

I did not say every proposal, I said that you guys say nearly every proposal is illegal. Currently, of the 5 proposals in the GA queue, 3 of them have been labeled as illegal by at least 4 Secretariat's.

One proposal was classified as illegal because of it mentioning their nation in the last line of the resolution.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1487786458

Surely, this is not a big enough deal to rule it illegal?

But it is, that's the point.

The GA works for the betterment of the entire WA, not just one nation. The mention of a single nation makes it illegal.

Tell me what one nation anywhere would not try to further their policies.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It is not that they should not be enforced, they should relaxed such as the branding rule this current topic about
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403450

And the political ideologies rule, which is absurd because which nation anywhere would not try push their ideology to the entire world.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403524

Okay. Why should the rules as they currently are now not be enforced? If you don't change them, why should GS enforce rules different from those stated? And if they are to change them, why should GS be able to change rules immediately without extensive public comment?

[Tinfect]

Tell me what one nation anywhere would not try to further their policies.

OOC:
Realpolitik is a hell of a drug.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

A possible reason it may look like we declare every resolution illegal is that we've taken over the job formerly done by moderators of clearing every blatantly illegal proposal from the queue; and that, of the serious legal challenges we've grappled with thus far, some of the most visible ones have been ruled illegal. There are several people who believe that the great recent uptick in legality challenges generally is due to the WA running out of legislative 'space' for new, legal, correctly (rigidly) categorized laws that somehow don't duplicate or contradict existing law. I think there's still lots of room for new, interesting, legal resolutions, but slotting such pegs into the asymmetrical holes they need to fit in requires more patience than many people have and more nuance than many people are willing to devote to a browser game.

Welcome to the Festering Snakepit.

Well, if the WA is running out of legal legislative 'space' to work with, then relax the rules so that more resolutions can be legally proposed, and that the Festering Snakepit be less festering

[Separatist Peoples]

It violates the proposal rules. Why should the published rules, as they currently are now, not be enforced?

It is not that they should not be enforced, they should relaxed such as the branding rule this current topic about
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403450

And the political ideologies rule, which is absurd because which nation anywhere would not try push their ideology to the entire world.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403524

OOC: That's an utterly terrible reason to remove the Ideological Ban rule.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

It is not that they should not be enforced, they should relaxed such as the branding rule this current topic about
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403450

And the political ideologies rule, which is absurd because which nation anywhere would not try push their ideology to the entire world.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403524

Okay. Why should the rules as they currently are now not be enforced? If you don't change them, why should GS enforce rules different from those stated? And if they are to change them, why should GS be able to change rules immediately without extensive public comment?

I am not staying do not enforce them as they are now. Also, I do believe in extensive public comment for rule changes. Heck, if we could I would like see the entire WA have a vote on it, if possible.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I am not staying do not enforce them as they are now. Also, I do believe in extensive public comment for rule changes. Heck, if we could I would like see the entire WA have a vote on it, if possible.

Wait then. Because the change you want is currently being considered. If we want to enforce the rules as written and allow for time to change them, it is going to take that time needed to change them.

[Separatist Peoples]

I am not staying do not enforce them as they are now. Also, I do believe in extensive public comment for rule changes. Heck, if we could I would like see the entire WA have a vote on it, if possible.

That would break all the Metagaming rules.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

It is not that they should not be enforced, they should relaxed such as the branding rule this current topic about
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403450

And the political ideologies rule, which is absurd because which nation anywhere would not try push their ideology to the entire world.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=403524

OOC: That's an utterly terrible reason to remove the Ideological Ban rule.

So the rule as shown here
Ideological Ban: Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery.

Is totally vague. Any resolution that has been passed, or will be proposed, can be said by anybody that the proposal resolution targets their religious, political, or economic ideology. This would make every resolution, and future proposed resolutions illegal in that sense.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That's an utterly terrible reason to remove the Ideological Ban rule.

So the rule as shown here
Ideological Ban: Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery.

Is totally vague. Any resolution that has been passed, or will be proposed, can be said by anybody that the proposal resolution targets their religious, political, or economic ideology. This would make every resolution, and future proposed resolutions illegal in that sense.

If we ever enforced it that strictly, yes. That is not how the rule has been enforced. Ever.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

I am not staying do not enforce them as they are now. Also, I do believe in extensive public comment for rule changes. Heck, if we could I would like see the entire WA have a vote on it, if possible.

That would break all the Metagaming rules.

Well, their has to be some way that reform can be passed legally, so that resolutions are not constantly struck down and forced through very long legality challenges.
You are a WA Secretariat, is that possible, in any way?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, their has to be some way that reform can be passed legally, so that resolutions are not constantly struck down and forced through very long legality challenges.
You are a WA Secretariat, is that possible, in any way?

Understand that we are currently in that process right now. The discussions on the branding and ideological ban rules are that process.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

Well, their has to be some way that reform can be passed legally, so that resolutions are not constantly struck down and forced through very long legality challenges.
You are a WA Secretariat, is that possible, in any way?

Understand that we are currently in that process right now. The discussions on the branding and ideological ban rules are that process.

I would what the WA to vote on the rule changes- popular sovereignty is the term I would use.

[Christian Democrats]

When players submit GA proposals, they have to check a box that says:

This proposal complies with General Assembly proposal standards.

Unfortunately, most players apparently aren't even reading the proposal standards because most proposals submitted violate the most basic GA rules.

The same, sadly, can be said for issues submissions. The issues editors often complain that 90% of the issues submitted are incomprehensible.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

When players submit GA proposals, they have to check a box that says:

This proposal complies with General Assembly proposal standards.

Unfortunately, most players apparently aren't even reading the proposal standards because most proposals submitted violate the most basic GA rules.

The same, sadly, can be said for issues submissions. The issues editors often complain that 90% of the issues submitted are incomprehensible.

Then make a more effort to share rules about WA proposals and issuemaking.

[Christian Democrats]

When players submit GA proposals, they have to check a box that says:

This proposal complies with General Assembly proposal standards.

Unfortunately, most players apparently aren't even reading the proposal standards because most proposals submitted violate the most basic GA rules.

The same, sadly, can be said for issues submissions. The issues editors often complain that 90% of the issues submitted are incomprehensible.

Then make a more effort to share rules about WA proposals and issuemaking.

The GA rules are linked on the GA submissions page, and players have to check a box affirming that they believe their proposals are legal. Likewise, the issues submissions page requires players to check boxes (also with links!) that affirm the following:

• Yes! I have read “How To Write An Issue.”
• Yes! I have read “The Got Issues? FAQ.”
• Yes! I agree to the Terms & Conditions.

The game, its admins, mods, issues editors, and GenSec members are not at fault. Most players are too lazy to read, or they're lying.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

Then make a more effort to share rules about WA proposals and issuemaking.

The GA rules are linked on the GA submissions page, and players have to check a box affirming that they believe their proposals are legal. Likewise, the issues submissions page requires players to check boxes (also with links!) that affirm the following:

• Yes! I have read “How To Write An Issue.”
• Yes! I have read “The Got Issues? FAQ.”
• Yes! I agree to the Terms & Conditions.

The game, its admins, mods, issues editors, and GenSec members are not at fault. Most players are too lazy to read, or they're lying.

It is nice that a WA Secretariat calls players he is supposed to help correct their WA resolutions lazy and/or liars.

[Separatist Peoples]

The GA rules are linked on the GA submissions page, and players have to check a box affirming that they believe their proposals are legal. Likewise, the issues submissions page requires players to check boxes (also with links!) that affirm the following:

• Yes! I have read “How To Write An Issue.”
• Yes! I have read “The Got Issues? FAQ.”
• Yes! I agree to the Terms & Conditions.

The game, its admins, mods, issues editors, and GenSec members are not at fault. Most players are too lazy to read, or they're lying.

It is nice that a WA Secretariat calls players he is supposed to help correct their WA resolutions lazy and/or liars.

If players can't be bothered to read the publicly promulgated rules and check the box anyway, what else would you call them?