NationStates

WHEREAS, GA #2 is repealed
WHEREAS, there is a major need for a replacement resolution in order to establish rules to the WA again
Hereby, the General Assembly ratifies and accepts this proposed WA Constitution
Article I. The Executive
1. An election will be held every year to name a WA President, which will oversee the enforcement of the resolutions passed by the GA, as well as condemnations, commendations, and liberations the SC will order.
2. Every WA President will be required to have a Vice-President to run with them in the case that they will have to fill that office in the case of a President's removal from office, removal from NS due to inactivity, or resignation
3. The WA President will be allowed to vote on, and propose bills just like any WA member.
4. The WA President can be impeached on the grounds of either a crime or interfering against the wishes of the entire WA by either not enforcing GA or SC action, or allowing for certain nations or regions not to follow GA or SC action.
Article II. The General Assembly
1. The General Assembly (GA) will maintain the same voting apparatus it has now, with every resolution being brought before the full GA in order to be voted on.
2. Members will be added to the process of determining which bills can be brought up to the floor of the GA. This will be due to the establishment of committees to have debate on these bills be extensive before bills hit the floor of the GA
3. The WA Secretariats will take applications and appoint members to the different committees in order to make sure that the best members are on the committee best suited to deal with the laws on that topic.
4. The Committees will be based on the Categories that members can make resolutions on now:
Advancement of Industry
Civil Rights
Education and Creativity
Environmental
Free Trade
Furtherment of Democracy
Global Disarmament
Health
International Security
Moral Decency
Political Stability
Regulation
Social Justice
5. The GA will have a recruitment arm in order to try to get new members to join the WA as part of a welcome telegram similar to what regions have when a nation is founded or refounded.
6. As with actions that SC takes, the resolutions being taken up will come into effect for the entirely of NS, not just WA nations, as WA actions will become the main body for international law.
Article III. Security Council
1. The Security Council (SC) will maintain the majority of the powers it has now, with voting on commendation, condemnation, and liberation resolutions.
2. The Security Council will now have four committees:
Condemnation
Commendation
Liberation
Armed Forces
3. As with the process for establishing committees for the GA, the WA Secretariat will take applications and appoint members to those committees
4. The SC will establish an army in order to both fulfill liberation resolutions and stop any raiders throughout of NS.
5. This army can work in conjunction with regional armies.

PLEASE SUGGEST AMENDMENTS TO THIS RESOLUTION IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT.

OOC: Illegal for game mechanics and metagaming. This proposal is irretrievably illegal!

OOC: Metagaming. It tries to change game mechanics, so in its current form it'd likely be highly illegal.

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Metagaming. It tries to change game mechanics, so in its current form it'd likely be highly illegal.

OOC: I was told that with an repeal of GA #2 all bets were basically off.

Republicanana wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Metagaming. It tries to change game mechanics, so in its current form it'd likely be highly illegal.

OOC: I was told that with an repeal of GA #2 all bets were basically off.

(OOC: That is not correct. Repealing GA #2 would open up some avenues that were previously closed, such as a WA military, but wouldn’t remove the game mechanics or metagaming rules. This would still be illegal if GA #2 were repealed.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Republicanana wrote:OOC: I was told that with an repeal of GA #2 all bets were basically off.

(OOC: That is not correct. Repealing GA #2 would open up some avenues that were previously closed, such as a WA military, but wouldn’t remove the game mechanics or metagaming rules. This would still be illegal if GA #2 were repealed.)

OOC: What resolution says that changing game mechanics or metagaming is illegal?

Republicanana wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That is not correct. Repealing GA #2 would open up some avenues that were previously closed, such as a WA military, but wouldn’t remove the game mechanics or metagaming rules. This would still be illegal if GA #2 were repealed.)

OOC: What resolution says that changing game mechanics or metagaming is illegal?

(OOC: No resolution enforces those rules; they are independent of any piece of legislation.)

Republicanana wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That is not correct. Repealing GA #2 would open up some avenues that were previously closed, such as a WA military, but wouldn’t remove the game mechanics or metagaming rules. This would still be illegal if GA #2 were repealed.)

OOC: What resolution says that changing game mechanics or metagaming is illegal?

Ooc: none. The rules say those are illegal.

Republicanana wrote:OOC: What resolution says that changing game mechanics or metagaming is illegal?

OOC: The rules of the game called NationStates. You know, this website we're all on? If you want to change how the game works, you need to go to Technical forum, but you'll just be told "no" there too. You can't do what you want to do, via a GA resolution.

Can someone lock this? This thread has served it's purpose for comic relief and is now useless.

I agree with the sentiments shared here.
Also, what's to say if you had a WA "President", it wouldn't basically be a vehicle for the ones with the most power to execute more power, or where the Gen Sec folks wouldn't use it to basically "Hot Potato" the Presidency between themselves?
Bad idea. Plus, if you were going to write a Constitution (with which I agree in principle), what Nations would go to the Convention, if they had one? What's to say that all Regions would have to adopt their model once it was written, as what happens during Student Government?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Republicanana wrote:OOC: What resolution says that changing game mechanics or metagaming is illegal?

Ooc: none. The rules say those are illegal.

OOC: Since there is no official WA resolutions, could there be a separate resolution to ban those requirements from WA resolution

The Democratic Nation of Unovia wrote:I agree with the sentiments shared here.
Also, what's to say if you had a WA "President", it wouldn't basically be a vehicle for the ones with the most power to execute more power, or where the Gen Sec folks wouldn't use it to basically "Hot Potato" the Presidency between themselves?
Bad idea. Plus, if you were going to write a Constitution (with which I agree in principle), what Nations would go to the Convention, if they had one? What's to say that all Regions would have to adopt their model once it was written, as what happens during Student Government?

1. No, any WA member could run for President
2. Their will be a Convention for all WA members
3. All regions would not have adopt the WA Constitution

Republicanana wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: none. The rules say those are illegal.

OOC: Since there is no official WA resolutions, could there be a separate resolution to ban those requirements from WA resolution

(OOC: No, there is no way to affect the rules via a resolution.)

I think there's some sort of temporal anomaly here. That's the only possible reason for why I seem to have time traveled forward into NS Summer.

Well, if this is wrong or possibly illegal, they suggest some ideas for some WA reform.

Republicanana wrote:Well, if this is wrong or possibly illegal, they suggest some ideas for some WA reform.

OOC: The kind of reform you seek is not one that the players, GenSec, Mods, or Admins want to enact. Nobody wants a WA executive. Nobody wants to be able to change the game's code by legislative fiat.

Wa secretariat shouldn't have the extra role of appointment people they fine with enforcement rules and impart experience and the sc should be neutral and not establish army. That belongs to defenders. WA president will impact mechanics of game

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Republicanana wrote:Well, if this is wrong or possibly illegal, they suggest some ideas for some WA reform.

OOC: The kind of reform you seek is not one that the players, GenSec, Mods, or Admins want to enact. Nobody wants a WA executive. Nobody wants to be able to change the game's code by legislative fiat.

Why is that?

Republicanana wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The kind of reform you seek is not one that the players, GenSec, Mods, or Admins want to enact. Nobody wants a WA executive. Nobody wants to be able to change the game's code by legislative fiat.

Why is that?

Because that would either make the game unplayable by concentrating power in a single individual or make the game unplayable by ensuring the admins can't keep up with coding changes.

And Max Barry has been pretty clear that he isn't interested in changing the WA again.

Borovan3 wrote:Wa secretariat shouldn't have the extra role of appointment people they fine with enforcement rules and impart experience and the sc should be neutral and not establish army. That belongs to defenders. WA president will impact mechanics of game

1. The WA Secretariats would appoint members to committees to help improve legislation.
2. The army would help fulfill liberation requests.
3. A WA President is needed to help establish order in the WA.

Republicanana wrote:

Borovan3 wrote:Wa secretariat shouldn't have the extra role of appointment people they fine with enforcement rules and impart experience and the sc should be neutral and not establish army. That belongs to defenders. WA president will impact mechanics of game

1. The WA Secretariats would appoint members to committees to help improve legislation.
2. The army would help fulfill liberation requests.
3. A WA President is needed to help establish order in the WA.

OOC: That isn't how committees work, the GA has nothing to do with Gameplay raiding and defense, and a WA president is a good way to give one player too much control over a game designed to be a direct democracy.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Republicanana wrote:Why is that?

Because that would either make the game unplayable by concentrating power in a single individual or make the game unplayable by ensuring the admins can't keep up with coding changes.

And Max Barry has been pretty clear that he isn't interested in changing the WA again.

What if we have an amount of time in the resolution where the WA could not be changed massively again?

Republicanana wrote:3. A WA President is needed to help establish order in the WA.

OOC: The WA is very ordered as is.

Republicanana wrote:What if we have an amount of time in the resolution where the WA could not be changed massively again?

No resolution can change the WA massively.

Republicanana wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Because that would either make the game unplayable by concentrating power in a single individual or make the game unplayable by ensuring the admins can't keep up with coding changes.

And Max Barry has been pretty clear that he isn't interested in changing the WA again.

What if we have an amount of time in the resolution where the WA could not be changed massively again?

OOC: Your suggestion is itself a massive change that the Admins have been clear they don't want.