NationStates

Considering there are a little more then 400 its hard to do something original.

And what do you expect us to do about it?

Well, it takes a really long time for the process to be done and the amount of effort put in is really beyond measure. So appreciate the issues now, since they have gotten the yes from most veterans.

Higher Japan wrote:Well, it takes a really long time for the process to be done and the amount of effort put in is really beyond measure. So appreciate the issues now, since they have gotten the yes from most veterans.

Issues are the things you answer on your gameside nation. Proposals and resolutions are part of the WA legislative process. There's a whole separate system and forum for issues.

And it is indeed a good idea to post proposal drafts here, as you can draw from the experience, knowledge and understanding of many other people, some of whom have played this aspect of NationStates for a decade or more (not me, mind you, but a few of the regulars here started when WA was still UN).

Sorry, misread it.

Having to weed illegal proposals out of the submissions list because their authors didn't bother to learn the rules before posting those submissions is so annoying...

It really is a good idea to draft your proposals in this forum, so that more experienced players can help.

Araraukar wrote:...some of whom have played this aspect of NationStates for a decade or more (not me, mind you, but a few of the regulars here started when WA was still UN).

Well, you have been using this nation for a decade...so happy 10th anniversary!

Phydios wrote:Well, you have been using this nation for a decade...so happy 10th anniversary!

OOC: Heh, totally missed that until a friend pointed it out in TG...

New cla wrote:Considering there are a little more then 400 its hard to do something original.

Approximately a quarter of those are repeals, so approximately a quarter have been repealed, leaving closer to only 200 actually in effect and needing to be considered.

<obviously ooc>

The other major problem is cross cultural differences. There are some topics that would never get looked at because some players are never going to take them seriously. The UK has strict laws about what papers can publish during on-going trials, yet if a WA resolution was suggested on that, I suspect most of the American players would go "huh?" and suggest it is an attack on democracy itself.

And there are also major problems because of the wide ranging governments. I was thinking about a privacy law : "Nations shall be required to pass laws that prevent the privacy of their citizens from being invaded, except where required the security of the state or (some other bollocks like that)" (I didn't say I had been thinking about it a lot!) but then you get to the psychotic dictatorships who would probably say "our citizens have no privacy from our great leader" (etc.) The law would be in and around things like email hacking, spying on people (not in a sexual way, just spying) and so forth (mostly to do with controlling out of control journalists) and preventing people from posting videos taken of people without their permission (where the person is the main subject of the video) and allowing people to sue or have them taken down etc. But, as I said, for countries where the laws don't apply this would be problematic and probably cause issues.

And, as I think I pointed out, The Charter of Civil Rights, while a wonderful resolution, has kind of screwed most future resolution writers because it is so wide ranging, and the "you shall not discriminate" clause is unbelievably powerful

Covenstone wrote:The Charter of Civil Rights, while a wonderful resolution, has kind of screwed most future resolution writers because it is so wide ranging, and the "you shall not discriminate" clause is unbelievably powerful

Possibly. However, it is my belief that having a single CoCR is more beneficial than having 200+ individual "You can't discriminate against [cause dejour]" proposals, most of which would end up being virtual carbon copies of previous ones with just the pet cause named in it changed.

Covenstone wrote:I was thinking about a privacy law : "Nations shall be required to pass laws that prevent the privacy of their citizens from being invaded, except where required the security of the state or (some other bollocks like that)"

Let me introduce you to GA #213, Privacy Protection Act.

but then you get to the psychotic dictatorships who would probably say "our citizens have no privacy from our great leader" (etc.)

Yes. And? That clearly didn't stop the WA from passing such a law (twice, actually, since the original was repealed). People will make objections as part of their roleplay. That doesn't mean it was impossible to pass the things they object to. But that doesn't mean they weren't allowed to object as part of their roleplay.

The law would be in and around things like email hacking, spying on people (not in a sexual way, just spying) and so forth

Off the top of my head I can't point out resolutions that would ban either, so unless the email hacking and spying are connected to terrorism or industrial/military spying, you could have an idea for a proposal there. However, nations are still allowed to do that online, to keep the networks cafe from possible cyberattacks.

(mostly to do with controlling out of control journalists)

I think that GA #30, Freedom of Expression and GA #155, Freedom of the Press together would cover the collective ass of those journalists. (Of course, if they were feeding people lies knowingly, then they could get in trouble over it.)

and preventing people from posting videos taken of people without their permission (where the person is the main subject of the video) and allowing people to sue or have them taken down etc.

Again, if such a thing does not break any additional international laws, there might be an idea there.

But, as I said, for countries where the laws don't apply this would be problematic and probably cause issues.

If you mean "don't apply" in the sense of "not relevant at their tech level", for example with the videos posted online, then I don't see an issue, as anything to do with that subject would not affect such a nation. If you mean in the sense of noncompliance, well, even if you made a resolution that forbids noncompliance, how are you going to make the nations comply with that resolution? Noncompliance can sort of be left untouched, as there's no real way to affect people's roleplaying.

And, as I think I pointed out, The Charter of Civil Rights, while a wonderful resolution, has kind of screwed most future resolution writers because it is so wide ranging, and the "you shall not discriminate" clause is unbelievably powerful

Not as powerful as you seem to think. CoCR is GA #35. At a quick glance at just the list of resolutions, I can see at least 20 (most likely more) that could conceivably include (or which I remember to actually include) antidiscriminatory clauses. Just ask any of the GenSec, they'll tell you that my crusade against any further antidiscriminatory resolutions being necessary, is an opinion held by a tiny and insignificant minority.

Covenstone wrote:<obviously ooc>

The other major problem is cross cultural differences. There are some topics that would never get looked at because some players are never going to take them seriously. The UK has strict laws about what papers can publish during on-going trials, yet if a WA resolution was suggested on that, I suspect most of the American players would go "huh?" and suggest it is an attack on democracy itself.

And there are also major problems because of the wide ranging governments. I was thinking about a privacy law : "Nations shall be required to pass laws that prevent the privacy of their citizens from being invaded, except where required the security of the state or (some other bollocks like that)" (I didn't say I had been thinking about it a lot!) but then you get to the psychotic dictatorships who would probably say "our citizens have no privacy from our great leader" (etc.) The law would be in and around things like email hacking, spying on people (not in a sexual way, just spying) and so forth (mostly to do with controlling out of control journalists) and preventing people from posting videos taken of people without their permission (where the person is the main subject of the video) and allowing people to sue or have them taken down etc. But, as I said, for countries where the laws don't apply this would be problematic and probably cause issues.

And, as I think I pointed out, The Charter of Civil Rights, while a wonderful resolution, has kind of screwed most future resolution writers because it is so wide ranging, and the "you shall not discriminate" clause is unbelievably powerful

Don't forget RP differences. As you probably already know, many nations are of a different tech level and some have different species from humans. This can cause some very fun interactions when things work out, but can also cause headaches for people who assume the World Assembly is Realistic MT only (not going to name anyone, they know who they are and no one else needs to).