General Assembly Q&A

[Knootoss]

"That can be a motive for wanting a resolution repealed. That's certainly why I endorse most repeals. However, you are usually better off saying that the resolution really sucks."

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

[Mousebumples]

"That can be a motive for wanting a resolution repealed. That's certainly why I endorse most repeals. However, you are usually better off saying that the resolution really sucks."

Also, it is illegal to use Nat Sov arguments in a repeal. You need to make your case based on the text of the resolution that you want to repeal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

NatSov arguments aren't necessarily illegal; just making NatSov the entirety of your argument. A single throwaway clause saying "eh, it might be nice for nations to handle this on their own anyway" would probably not be grounds for removal.

[Mousebumples]

NatSov arguments aren't necessarily illegal; just making NatSov the entirety of your argument. A single throwaway clause saying "eh, it might be nice for nations to handle this on their own anyway" would probably not be grounds for removal.

True enough.

However, that's not usually how NatSov arguments are included in repeals. More often than not, it goes, "Nations have different religions. Some religions outlaw gay marriage. I want to outlaw gay marriage in my country. This WA law says I can't. That's not fair! Repeal this WA resolution so I can outlaw gay marriage."

Or something like that.

[Minotzia]

NatSov arguments aren't necessarily illegal; just making NatSov the entirety of your argument. A single throwaway clause saying "eh, it might be nice for nations to handle this on their own anyway" would probably not be grounds for removal.

Is national sovereignty even a consideration for the WA? It doesn't seem like anyone ever considers the actual burden that all of these resolutions create on members, much less their total violation of popular rule. After all, the WA isn't a giant democracy, it's a giant oligarchy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is national sovereignty even a consideration for the WA? It doesn't seem like anyone ever considers the actual burden that all of these resolutions create on members, much less their total violation of popular rule. After all, the WA isn't a giant democracy, it's a giant oligarchy.

There's been different camps since before I started playing. NatSovs vs. IntFeds (international federalists). While the IntFed camp pretty much ruled the World Assembly for the past few months, the NatSovs are, in my opinion, rising from their graves. Unfortunately.

[Knootoss]

"Dead?! Haha! Yes. That is what we wanted you to think."

<Aram breaks from his tomb>

"Must... crush... IntFederalism...."

EDIT: Reference

[TailsPrower]

Is their a thread on the WA charter? Like for what makes an illegal proposal illegal?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18

[The Associated Peoples]

I was wondering what to do when you have an idea for a proposal that does not fit any of the categories provided.It would be a joint WA venture of a scientific nature.It is also somewhat ecological but as far as I can tell would not harm industry in any way.As a matter of fact it would create jobs not hurt them.I do not want to say too much about it here for obvious reasons.Just curious as to what I should do about it.I mentioned something on the tech board about possibly adding some type of science category that went completely ignored while they debated the tele- this tele- that B.S.So,what should I do?Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[Bears Armed]

I was wondering what to do when you have an idea for a proposal that does not fit any of the categories provided.It would be a joint WA venture of a scientific nature.It is also somewhat ecological but as far as I can tell would not harm industry in any way.As a matter of fact it would create jobs not hurt them.I do not want to say too much about it here for obvious reasons.Just curious as to what I should do about it.I mentioned something on the tech board about possibly adding some type of science category that went completely ignored while they debated the tele- this tele- that B.S.So,what should I do?Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

If you send me a copy of your draft, by TG, I'll take a look at it and advise you (confidentially) on the matter.

[The Associated Peoples]

If you send me a copy of your draft, by TG, I'll take a look at it and advise you (confidentially) on the matter.

Thank you for your offer of assistance once I get it drafted I will send you a copy.

[Retired WerePenguins]

I was wondering what to do when you have an idea for a proposal that does not fit any of the categories provided.

You write the proposal to fit the category. You do not try to shoehorn the category to try to fit your proposal. If you design the proposal according to the category you will always do well. If you try to to the opposite you will almost always fail.

[Christian Democrats]

If a proposal restricts late-term abortions by recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses, then should such a proposal be classified as "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency"?

"Human Rights" - a right to life is being recognized.

"Moral Decency" - a woman's "right to choose" simultaneously is being restricted because of the recognition of a fetal right to life.

MODEDIT: I've hived off the rest of this discussion to the drafting thread. CD, when you want a second opinion on a mod ruling, please put a note in the Moderation forum linking to the ruling and one of us will reply in the GA thread. -- Ardchoille.

[Darenjo]

How is a repeal argument deemed to be NatSov if it doesn't use typical NatSov language?

[Ardchoille]

Generally, we try to figure out whether the arguments boil down to, "I/we don't like this." If you can point to unexpected effects, unworkable clauses (not based on RPd problems), incomprehensible or contradictory language or other difficulties in the actual text, you're more likely to have a legal repeal. Repeals directed at the concept behind the resolution seem to be more likely to wander into NatSov.

[West Zamunda]

Okay, here's my problem: I created a region, Greater Zamunda, which is supposed to be only for nations created by me that are supposed to exist on the continent of Zamundonia. I'm probably going to end up with about 12 or so, some more well-maintained than others.

The other part of the problem is, only one nation of mine may be in the WA.

So, if only one nation in my region is in the WA, how do I get the necessary endorsements?

[Flibbleites]

Okay, here's my problem: I created a region, Greater Zamunda, which is supposed to be only for nations created by me that are supposed to exist on the continent of Zamundonia. I'm probably going to end up with about 12 or so, some more well-maintained than others.

The other part of the problem is, only one nation of mine may be in the WA.

So, if only one nation in my region is in the WA, how do I get the necessary endorsements?

Get more WA members in your region.

[West Zamunda]

It's supposed to be a region for nations created by me only.

[Flibbleites]

:palm:

It's supposed to be a region for nations created by me only.

Well, what do you need the endorsements for? If it's to become a Delegate you're SOL, if you're wanting to submit a proposal move to another region, get the endorsements, submit the proposal and move back.

[Darenjo]

Why do some proposals get more time to gather approvals than others? Is it discipline (which I can believe because when I first started out I did not read the rules and got at least 2 illegal proposals that I can remember), type of proposal, etc?

[Ardchoille]

All legal proposals get the same time to gather approvals. Some reach quorum -- the required number of delegate approvals -- within that time. Then they hang around for however long it takes for them to come to vote. That depends on how long the queue of legal proposals is. Some perfectly legal proposals still spend their full time sitting in the list and don't gather enough approvals; they die naturally when their time's up.

Illegal proposals are the ones that have differing life-spans. Occasionally there's one so bad that letting it draw breath would warp the space-time continuum. Those barely touch the ground before they die. Mostly, though, the Silly and Illegal Proposals crowd scream if we kill a bad proposal before they've had a chance to feast on it. So even an illegal proposal usually gets to last through one update.

After that, it depends on how often a Game Mod is around to sweep the list. If nobody's picked up an illegality in a proposal -- or if we're discussing it -- it could make quorum before it's killed. Then it stays until we notice, or finish arguing. Sometimes an author will spot a flaw themselves and ask to have it withdrawn. Sometimes an astute player will pick up an illegality we've missed and submit a last-minute GHR.

tl;dr: Legal proposals all get the same time to gather approvals. With illegal proposals, it depends on circumstances.

[Darenjo]

Okay, I'm taking another stab at the non-human issue, and my proposal has a clause that would make nations interpret resolutions as applying to all species? Is this illegal? Most resolutions already have the word "sapient" in them. Or would it fall under duplication?

[Rastynhaven]

Do you have to be a delegate to approve of a proposal?

[Darenjo]

Yes. You do.