NATION

PASSWORD

General Assembly Q&A

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:54 am

Someone should write a polite blocker proposal on missing/abducted children. Something that does something constructive yet leaves it the responsibility of member states and (importantly) costs nothing or virtually nothing.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjo » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:14 pm

For a repeal, is it legal to mention what nations have RP'd? I know it's legal in the SC but I wasn't sure for the GA.
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:16 pm

Not if you're saying "caused the revolution in Badtasteistan" or any specific nation reference.

Do you mean a "recognising that XXX has seriously affected (some) member nations' economies/civil order/spiritual welfare, by ..." sort of thing?

It'd get by legally, if sufficiently generalised. But it'd be more open to debate than "can/could/will seriously affect". One is saying "It's had bad effects", which can be met with "Well, it might at first, but in the long run everything's better." Whereas "can have" means it will continue to do so into the indefinite future; you're giving a reason it should not stand.

You are certainly allowed to point out negative effects of the original wording. If this is a resolution-specific query, could you please link to the thread?
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjo » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:06 pm

Oh I mean how Yohannes gave its air force permission to attack the WA Space Station.
and I would give you a link but I'm on my iPod
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:55 pm

If you mention the nation by name, no go.

If you say the resolution contains a loophole in (Clause A) that allows member nations to (do X) -- especially if (doing X) is contrary to the evident intent of the resolution -- you're on safer ground.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjo » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:50 pm

Totally unrelated, can I make a thread that tells the n00bs what certain things, like "for the purposes of this resolution", mean? I know I'll probably be wasting my time, but I'm really tired of the noobies strutting around like idiots.
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:51 pm

Co-author credit tagging question:

I know that [.nation] tags are a no-go (in theory) as they are too long and would likely result in a deletion per the branding "rule."

However, the Rules for GA Proposals are unclear as to what tags are or are not allowed. (Further, they don't specifically mention that the [nation] tag isn't allowed, for whatever that's worth.)

I'd personally tend to prefer to [nation=short] versus the [nation=short+noflag], but I can understand that the inclusion of a flag for co-author credit could be construed as unnecessary and branding. (Still ... I like flags.)

Would it be possible to have an "official" Secretariat ruling on the matter of what nation tags (if any) are allowed in GA resolutions? Looking though the archives, I can located some straight [nation] tags, the [nation=short+noflag], and some that are without nation-tagging at all.

Many thanks!
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:16 pm

Mousebumples wrote:Co-author credit tagging question:

I know that [.nation] tags are a no-go (in theory) as they are too long and would likely result in a deletion per the branding "rule."

However, the Rules for GA Proposals are unclear as to what tags are or are not allowed. (Further, they don't specifically mention that the [nation] tag isn't allowed, for whatever that's worth.)
That's because when that rule was written the [nation] tag didn't exist.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5615
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:19 pm

viewtopic.php?p=3195130#p3195130 <- nothing in there about whether the flags are OK, but absent a formal ruling against it, I doubt it's something the mods would actually delete something over.
Last edited by Omigodtheykilledkenny on Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:52 pm

There's a flag next to the name of the nation that proposed the resolution, so I don't think there'd be a problem with allowing it when listing a co-author.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5615
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:32 pm

Sedgistan wrote:There's a flag next to the name of the nation that proposed the resolution, so I don't think there'd be a problem with allowing it when listing a co-author.

Neither do I, but the game is allowed to do a lot of things we as common players aren't. I think that's what mousey was after. ;)
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:11 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Sedgistan wrote:There's a flag next to the name of the nation that proposed the resolution, so I don't think there'd be a problem with allowing it when listing a co-author.

Neither do I, but the game is allowed to do a lot of things we as common players aren't. I think that's what mousey was after. ;)

Pretty much, yes. If a theoretical someone ( *whistles innocently* ) was considering submission of a proposal on a theoretically controversial subject, said theoretical someone would like to have all of her ducks in a row and now have to worry about a filed GHR resulting in the removal of said proposal from the queue.

No rush. I'm nowhere near submission at this point, but I figured while I'm sorting out details with my super-seekrit co-author, it wouldn't hurt to have a definitive answer on the subject - if you all would be so kind.

Cheers! :)
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Spiele II
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Feb 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Spiele II » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:16 pm

What are some websites I can use to host my images so I can post images on the forum?
I need a fix 'cause I'm going down
Down to the bits that I left uptown
I need a fix cause I'm
going down

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:46 pm

Spiele II wrote:What are some websites I can use to host my images so I can post images on the forum?

This question belongs more in the Tech forum, and your question is answered in the Technical FAQ. :)
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:42 am

Mousebumples wrote:No rush. I'm nowhere near submission at this point, but I figured while I'm sorting out details with my super-seekrit co-author, it wouldn't hurt to have a definitive answer on the subject - if you all would be so kind.

The definitive answer is yes, it is OK to display the flag ([nation=short]), but not to have the pre-title.

[nation] = Illegal (it displays the pre-title)
[nation=noflag] = Illegal (as above)
[nation=short] = OK
[nation=short+noflag] = OK

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:45 am

Sedgistan wrote:The definitive answer is yes, it is OK to display the flag ([nation=short]), but not to have the pre-title.

[nation] = Illegal (it displays the pre-title)
[nation=noflag] = Illegal (as above)
[nation=short] = OK
[nation=short+noflag] = OK

Excellent. That's about what I thought, but - as stated before - I enjoy having the confirmation.

Thanks so much, Sedge! :D
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:01 pm

Sedgistan wrote:[I]t is OK to display the flag ([nation=short]), but not to have the pre-title.

[nation] = Illegal (it displays the pre-title)
[nation=noflag] = Illegal (as above)
[nation=short] = OK
[nation=short+noflag] = OK

Can this be posted in the Rules for GA Proposals thread because this has been confusing in the past?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5615
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:55 am

It's already in the FAQ.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:57 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:It's already in the FAQ.

The FAQ tells you about tags but doesn't tell you which ones are acceptable for WA proposals.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5615
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:30 pm

Sedge only said they were OK, not that their use should be encouraged in an official moderation resource.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Beldonia
Senator
 
Posts: 3827
Founded: Jan 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Beldonia » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:10 pm

Evening, all. Quick question:
Copying and pasting repealed WA resolutions is plagerism and illegal. What if we take an old UN resolution and submit that. Still illegal?

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:12 pm

Beldonia wrote:Evening, all. Quick question:
Copying and pasting repealed WA resolutions is plagerism and illegal. What if we take an old UN resolution and submit that. Still illegal?

Yes.

User avatar
Beldonia
Senator
 
Posts: 3827
Founded: Jan 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Beldonia » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:13 pm

Sedgistan wrote:
Beldonia wrote:Evening, all. Quick question:
Copying and pasting repealed WA resolutions is plagerism and illegal. What if we take an old UN resolution and submit that. Still illegal?

Yes.

Thanks.

User avatar
Soviet Socialist Texas
Envoy
 
Posts: 343
Founded: Jan 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Soviet Socialist Texas » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:39 pm

Just out of curiosity, why exactly can old resolutions not be amended? Is it something to do with the game mechanics?

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:18 pm

Soviet Socialist Texas wrote:Just out of curiosity, why exactly can old resolutions not be amended? Is it something to do with the game mechanics?

Read this.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads