NationStates

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I know the argument that's usually given -- there are stat changes, so compliance is automatic. But Glen-Rhodes already doesn't comply with a few resolutions, as part of the roleplaying layer of the WA. Shouldn't we be able to address that in resolutions, which are primarily based in roleplaying, not game mechanics?

It seems to me the mods do not have to respond to your claims of Godmode, anyway. They have to work within the current framework of the game, in which compliance is mandatory. "Roleplaying" noncompliance is somewhat outside their purview.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:It seems to me the mods do not have to respond to your claims of Godmode, anyway. They have to work within the current framework of the game, in which compliance is mandatory. "Roleplaying" noncompliance is somewhat outside their purview.

Well the effects of resolutions outside of category stat effects are by definition outside the framework of the game. Yet, we acknowledge that resolutions don't just have a one-time effect, especially if there are committees that have continuous interactions, regulation, etc. Outside of stat effects, everything else is just roleplaying. Why acknowledge that, but then go around and say noncompliance is impossible (and godmoding), and any resolution acknowledging the possibility of noncompliance is illegal? The reasoning seems to be hypocritical.

If I understand this correctly, the reason that non-compliance is not allowed to be hinted at in resolution isn't necessarily a code thing. I think that is just to help keep things simple because non-compliance would probably take hundreds, if not thousands of lines of code.

Also, I thought committees where manned by gnomes?

The Mago wrote:If I understand this correctly, the reason that non-compliance is not allowed to be hinted at in resolution isn't necessarily a code thing. I think that is just to help keep things simple because non-compliance would probably take hundreds, if not thousands of lines of code.

Also, I thought committees where manned by gnomes?

...and the gnomes are notoriously lethargic guttersnipes.

Compliance has to be mandatory, unless you can find "reasonable" loopholes in the wording, because otherwise the whole GA would become rather pointless. How many players do you really think would bother going through all the process of drafting, defending their ideas, TGing for approval, and then defending their ideas again (and possibly lobbying) during the voting phase for 'resolutions' if those laws could then simply be ignored by any WA member who didn't like them? There goes the whole 'IntFed v NatSov' dynamic, for a start...
My own interpretation of how "compliance is mandatory" works IC is that the resolutions get written into each member nation's code of laws (by the Gnomes if necessary, if national governments don't do so quickly enough), with any accompanying expansions that the nations' own governments add (which could include their loophole-based evasions), and that those nations are then legally required to enforce those resolutions -- or to try enforcing them, anyway -- just as well as they do their own 'national' legislation. Of course some governments might actually ignore their own 'national laws if & when they find those inconvenient, anyway, and in those cases I could see roleplaying outright non-compliance as possible... but I wouldn't consider those to be "reasonable nations", and as I see the requirement to incorporate all passed resolutions into national law as an implicit condition of membership (and probably an explicit one, too, according to a 'WA Charter' that I presume national governments sign IC when we-the-players click the OOC link to take our nations into the WA...) then even though the Mods OOC don't actually expel nations from the WA for such behaviour I would consider their expulsion by the WA Secretariat IC to be rather likely and might even RP on that basis...

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Yet, we acknowledge that resolutions don't just have a one-time effect, especially if there are committees that have continuous interactions, regulation, etc. Outside of stat effects, everything else is just roleplaying. Why acknowledge that, but then go around and say noncompliance is impossible (and godmoding), and any resolution acknowledging the possibility of noncompliance is illegal? The reasoning seems to be hypocritical.

Gnomes are not only all powerful in forcing compliance, they are also omniscient and able to see the effects of how various resolutions will affect you in the future till the end of time. The one time stat change is a number that represent the life time average of all those continuous effects on your nation.

I see stat changes as statistics, stuff that get reported in the nation's official reports and documents; budgets, annual reports etc. This also means the Government, Econ/Civil/Political/ categories and the description of the your nation are representing what your nation would be "eventually".

It's separate for what happening on the ground on your nation if I go to it "right now". Sure it just means the Gnomes are crappy accountants, but thats another issue

Warzone Codger wrote:Gnomes are not only all powerful in forcing compliance, they are also omniscient and able to see the effects of how various resolutions will affect you in the future till the end of time. The one time stat change is a number that represent the life time average of all those continuous effects on your nation.

That's definitely a new explanation. I mean, anybody can come up with whatever explanation they want and roleplay it. I personally don't roleplay the existence of infallible, all-powerful magical gnomes, even if that gets a few accusations of 'god-moding.' But, it's just that: a roleplay explanation of game mechanics, not really the game mechanic itself.

New topic: a quibble that occurred to me while reading this post, but I've put it here because it has general reference to all committees and also nods at the "definitions" point thoroughly answered by Kenny on Page 1 of this thread:

If you want a committee to continue carrying out the duties assigned to it by the original establishment resolution, presumably you won't want to specify them in detail, because that might get your proposal killed under "substantially duplicates" (and up your word count).

You might think some phrasing such as, "the committee, as well as its existing duties, shall [new duty] ..." would do the trick, but that risks another HoC, since, if the establishment resolution is repealed, the duties are no longer existing.

However, "the committee, as well as duties previously discussed, shall ..." might sneak under the wire, because a repeal takes away the resolution, but can't take away the fact that the resolution was once debated.

... Actually, I can now see a glaring imprecision in that, too, so I'll throw it over to you, fellow quibblers. Is there a way to preserve the wanted functions of a committee without HoCing, duplicating or exceeding your word limit?

Ardchoille wrote:New topic: a quibble that occurred to me while reading this post, but I've put it here because it has general reference to all committees and also nods at the "definitions" point thoroughly answered by Kenny on Page 1 of this thread:

If you want a committee to continue carrying out the duties assigned to it by the original establishment resolution, presumably you won't want to specify them in detail, because that might get your proposal killed under "substantially duplicates" (and up your word count).

You might think some phrasing such as, "the committee, as well as its existing duties, shall [new duty] ..." would do the trick, but that risks another HoC, since, if the establishment resolution is repealed, the duties are no longer existing.

However, "the committee, as well as duties previously discussed, shall ..." might sneak under the wire, because a repeal takes away the resolution, but can't take away the fact that the resolution was once debated.

... Actually, I can now see a glaring imprecision in that, too, so I'll throw it over to you, fellow quibblers. Is there a way to preserve the wanted functions of a committee without HoCing, duplicating or exceeding your word limit?

the committee, as well as duties previously discussed, shall

That sounds fine because it doesn't specifically state that the duties previously discussed need to be conducted by the committee, presumably they are just assigned to the secretariat or some unnamed committee if no formal committee exists?

I know there are many members with an irrational (IMO) hatred of committees and their proliferation, but I've never understood why the rules allow old committees to be allotted new duties. It seems a somewhat capricious exception from the rules regarding HoC and amendment.

After all its not as though the gnomes who staff these committees are paid, so proliferation of committees doesn't particularly burden the WA financially. Taking into account that resolutions can be repealed if their bureaucratic burden seems onerous I don't see why we allow old committees to be assigned new duties at all.

I guess my confusion (with regard to the example in question) is that the Universal Library Coalition is not - in my mind - a committee. It's the name for the over-arching library. I established DOCTUS as a branch of the ULC - which, in my mind, essentially created a "new" library with all of the previously stated actions and functions of the ULC intact without duplication or worries of HoC. After all, if the ULC were to be repealed, the whole of the main ULC would cease to exist. As it's not a committee, it wouldn't retain "other actions" or have any resolutions that were "grandfathered in."

I may be misreading the rules, and they seem to be a bit ... fungible, in that regard, in terms of what exactly is (or is not) illegal. (When GR posted a copy of it in the thread in question with his reading of it, I could see his argument as - perhaps - being fact ... Although, I was more partial to my own reading of it, of course.) However, as it doesn't take many extra characters to create a new branch of the ULC ... Or to create a subcommittee of Committee X, etc. It seems like the simplest way to avoid HoC and/or duplication or contradiction issues, depending on the content of the proposal text in question.

Ardchoille wrote:... Actually, I can now see a glaring imprecision in that, too, so I'll throw it over to you, fellow quibblers. Is there a way to preserve the wanted functions of a committee without HoCing, duplicating or exceeding your word limit?

We could just do what we usually do. In other words, "the committee shall [new duty]." I see the problems with the first phrasing you talked about, but I'm also sure that those terms have been used before.

As far as HoC or duplication: I can't see how either apply to committees. Committees in and of themselves are extensions of resolutions. As extensions, they can further be extended upon by other resolutions. The only problem that arises is when you try and change the original mandate of a committee, seeing as how that would contradict the resolutions that created it.

Duplication, I suppose, could make sense, but only if you're actually writing a proposal telling the committee to do what it already does. Duplication, however, is rare and the problem would be duplicating the resolution itself, not the committee. (An interesting question here would be if you have two committees doing practically identical things: is this duplication? But I think that would also be rare and likely a problem with duplicating a resolution, rather than a committee.)

House of Cards is not a problem, either. If Resolution A created Committee 1, and Resolution B assigns duties to Committee 1, but Resolution A is repealed, there is no problem, despite a natural inclination to think there is. The new duties do not depend upon the duties Resolution A established. The committee itself does not rely on the clauses establishing it within Resolution A, since Resolution B mandates the committee's existence anyways. The only problem I can foresee is if Resolution B's new duties actually depend on the duties assigned within Resolution A, but I have yet to see this happen.

I know that you're not supposed to start new threads for each re-draft or re-submit (and I'm okay since i did that before the ruling), bu what if the original thread is long and full of debate that doesn't really pertain to your current draft?

Darenjo wrote:I know that you're not supposed to start new threads for each re-draft or re-submit (and I'm okay since i did that before the ruling), bu what if the original thread is long and full of debate that doesn't really pertain to your current draft?

It's been done in the past, the example that immediately jumps to my mind is Nuclear Armaments where the original draft thread got bogged down in legality debates to the point where a mod ruling was needed. I'd provide links to the threads, but Jolt went and deleted them all.

I was wondering what is the WA's stance on fair trials currently?

viewtopic.php?p=416#p416

I think that's the most recent one. The linked thread is searchable, in case you have other queries about current WA law.

Quick Question but was in the charachter count of proposals?

Liberty987 wrote:Quick Question but was in the charachter count of issues?

It's supposed to be 3'500 characters, including blank spaces & line breaks, but NS seems to have a way of counting that differs slightly from those used by some other checkers ('Word', for example) so aiming at c.3'450 instead might be better in terms of saving you from having to make last-minute cuts...

Bears Armed wrote:

Liberty987 wrote:Quick Question but was in the charachter count of issues?

It's supposed to be 3'500 characters, including blank spaces & line breaks, but NS seems to have a way of counting that differs slightly from those used by some other checkers ('Word', for example) so aiming at c.3'450 instead might be better in terms of saving you from having to make last-minute cuts...

Pssh, Word. Silly Microsoft software. Has anyone tested it against unix/linux's `wc´ utility? Cos I've used that to count characters a few times :o

Glen-Rhodes wrote:We could just do what we usually do. In other words, "the committee shall [new duty]." <snip>

Not really, but I obviously haven't explained the problem well, and I don't want to (a) turn this into a thread about committees or (b) start yet another topic that requires me to write walls of text right now, so I'll shove it on the back-burner for that mythical day when I've got time.

Unibot wrote:

the committee, as well as duties previously discussed, shall

That sounds fine because it doesn't specifically state that the duties previously discussed need to be conducted by the committee, presumably they are just assigned to the secretariat or some unnamed committee if no formal committee exists?

Nah, my problem was with "previously discussed". Like, a function could have been "previously discussed" in any of the GA's long-winded chats without ever actually ending up in the proposal as one of the committee functions. Once again, to the back-burner with it (for now)!

Bears Armed wrote:

Liberty987 wrote:Quick Question but was in the charachter count of issues?

It's supposed to be 3'500 characters, including blank spaces & line breaks, but NS seems to have a way of counting that differs slightly from those used by some other checkers ('Word', for example) so aiming at c.3'450 instead might be better in terms of saving you from having to make last-minute cuts...

I read somewhere that Word doesn't count line breaks the same way as NS does.

Also, NS seems to count each character in the actual HTML of the proposal (so if someone uses " in the proposal, that gets rendered in HTML as &quot; or something like that, which is actually six characters).

I'm not 100% sure about any of that though.

Quelesh wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:It's supposed to be 3'500 characters, including blank spaces & line breaks, but NS seems to have a way of counting that differs slightly from those used by some other checkers ('Word', for example) so aiming at c.3'450 instead might be better in terms of saving you from having to make last-minute cuts...

I read somewhere that Word doesn't count line breaks the same way as NS does.

Also, NS seems to count each character in the actual HTML of the proposal (so if someone uses " in the proposal, that gets rendered in HTML as &quot; or something like that, which is actually six characters).

I'm not 100% sure about any of that though.

Bah! Damned NS coders and their proper use of HTML!

I have a question about proposals: does the WA have unlimited power to infringe on national sovereignty? It seems like an overwhelming number (pretty much all) of resolutions require members to radically adjust their government in a way that goes far, far beyond even the strongest UN resolutions.

Minotzia wrote:I have a question about proposals: does the WA have unlimited power to infringe on national sovereignty? It seems like an overwhelming number (pretty much all) of resolutions require members to radically adjust their government in a way that goes far, far beyond even the strongest UN resolutions.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Pretty much, yes.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Knootoss wrote:

Minotzia wrote:I have a question about proposals: does the WA have unlimited power to infringe on national sovereignty? It seems like an overwhelming number (pretty much all) of resolutions require members to radically adjust their government in a way that goes far, far beyond even the strongest UN resolutions.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Pretty much, yes.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

So then no resolution could be proposed/repealed based on the grounds that it will increase/decrease national sovereignty?