General Assembly Q&A

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Ahem.

[Mousebumples]

Ahem.

I understand that you're working on the proposal draft right now, so you'd like a prompt response. However, is a bump really necessary after only about 24 hours?

More than likely, the mods are discussing your question as a group to reach a consensus answer. This answer took 8 days to reach; these answers (note the timing of the edit when the response links were edited in) took 10 and 8 days to reach; etc.

Yes, some answers are offered more quickly, but those tend to be more straightforward answers, often to commonly asked questions. Ones that are - in essence - proposal legality checks where you're checking for contradiction/duplication/amendment/etc., with existing legislation - understandably take a bit longer. After all, you wouldn't want one mod to say that it's fine as is and then have a different mod yank it from the proposal list later due to an illegality, right?

Easier said that done, I know, but ... patience.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Ahem.

I understand that you're working on the proposal draft right now, so you'd like a prompt response. However, is a bump really necessary after only about 24 hours?

More than likely, the mods are discussing your question as a group to reach a consensus answer. This answer took 8 days to reach; these answers (note the timing of the edit when the response links were edited in) took 10 and 8 days to reach; etc.

Yes, some answers are offered more quickly, but those tend to be more straightforward answers, often to commonly asked questions. Ones that are - in essence - proposal legality checks where you're checking for contradiction/duplication/amendment/etc., with existing legislation - understandably take a bit longer. After all, you wouldn't want one mod to say that it's fine as is and then have a different mod yank it from the proposal list later due to an illegality, right?

Easier said that done, I know, but ... patience.

I see...

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

How do you submit a proposal to the World Assembly? (after you have written a draft).

[Flibbleites]

How do you submit a proposal to the World Assembly? (after you have written a draft).

You'll see the "Submit a Proposal" link after you're a member of the WA.

[Ardchoille]

Ahem.

Cut it out! This nagging is getting very annoying. If you want a hasty decision, you can go with the one I came to after simply reading your title, which was, "Sounds like an amendment. Kill." Somehow, though, I sense this is not your desired outcome. Mods' discussions are constrained by real-life commitments. Possess yourself in patience.

[Beldonia]

Ahem.

Cut it out! This nagging is getting very annoying. If you want a hasty decision, you can go with the one I came to after simply reading your title, which was, "Sounds like an amendment. Kill." Somehow, though, I sense this is not your desired outcome. Mods' discussions are constrained by real-life commitments. Possess yourself in patience.

Rolled up newspaper was already applied. He said he understood. That wasn't necessary.

[Sedgistan]

Rolled up newspaper was already applied. He said he understood. That wasn't necessary.

An explanation was given by Mousebumples, but no "rolled up newspaper", as Mousebumples isn't a mod, and can't do that. Sometimes it's good to have a mod re-affirm an explanation given by a player. This was one of those occasions, given that Eternal Yerushalayim's reply of "I see..." was hardly an unequivocal acceptance of Mouse's explanation.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Ahem.

Cut it out! This nagging is getting very annoying. If you want a hasty decision, you can go with the one I came to after simply reading your title, which was, "Sounds like an amendment. Kill." Somehow, though, I sense this is not your desired outcome. Mods' discussions are constrained by real-life commitments. Possess yourself in patience.

The thread title or the proposal title?

[Darenjo]

Also about my firearms proposal:

One nation asked if the term "firearm" would apply to Future Tech weaponry (I believe the examples (s)he gave were laser guns and handheld rail guns). I told him/her that "firearm" was intended to cover FT weapons but that I couldn't be sure. Some nations have commented offering suggestions (potential definitions), but I really want to avoid attaching a definition to a word like "firearm" because I feel it will only create loopholes.

So my question is: Does the term "firearm", without an attached definition, used in a Gun Control category proposal, cover guns/similar weapons from all tech levels, or just up to Modern Tech?

Thanks again for answering my questions for my proposal.

[Ardchoille]

Since it's in the category name, "gun" covers whatever each WA nation understands by the term "gun". So, given that WA members are supposed to interpret WA resolutions in good faith, you're probably going to cover more with "gun" than with any more detailed definition. "Firearm" seems general enough to convey that you mean weapons that aren't primarily intended to slice or stab.

There will always be nations that will have their legislatures "define the terms 'gun' and 'firearm', as used in WA#Whatever, to mean 'strawberry' ". There are also always going to be nations that vote against a given proposal because in their opinion it doesn't define a term adequately. At some stage, you just have to cut your losses and go with what will make sense to a reasonable reader/nation.

[Darenjo]

Since it's in the category name, "gun" covers whatever each WA nation understands by the term "gun". So, given that WA members are supposed to interpret WA resolutions in good faith, you're probably going to cover more with "gun" than with any more detailed definition. "Firearm" seems general enough to convey that you mean weapons that aren't primarily intended to slice or stab.

There will always be nations that will have their legislatures "define the terms 'gun' and 'firearm', as used in WA#Whatever, to mean 'strawberry' ". There are also always going to be nations that vote against a given proposal because in their opinion it doesn't define a term adequately. At some stage, you just have to cut your losses and go with what will make sense to a reasonable reader/nation.

Thank you!

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I have yet another query

REQUIRES that all requests for abortions are confirmed by the pregnant person through written consent after being fully informed of the process and effects of abortion, and the available alternatives to an abortion,

Would this illegally duplicate #29-PRA and #128-OA if it were to be included in a proposal? Also, if not, how would it apply during emergencies, and to the next-of-kin? And would #128 be either duplicating #29 or contradicting it by making an exception for the legal next-of-kin? How did it get around this?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Apologies, but I have yet another question.

1) What would be the effect of using "mild" language such as "urges" and "discourages"? In what way is it binding?

2) Would the following clause contradict or duplicate the Reduction of Abortion Act?

REQUIRES that all requests for elective abortions are confirmed by the pregnant person through written consent after being fully informed of the process and effects of abortion, and the available alternatives to an abortion,

1. DEFINES "abortion reduction services" as including all of the following: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;

2. AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services;

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Would a binding discouragement of sex-selective abortions using mild language contradict the last clause of GA#128?

[Christian Democrats]

Is there a rule against making false accusations? I recently was sending telegrams to delegates concerning my most recent General Assembly proposal. I sent a telegram to Luke Empire. The World Factbook Entry of that nation's region stated:

Under no circumstances should the delegate be telegrammed about WA Security Council proposals. Failure to comply with this request will result in my voting against your proposal. you have been warned.

Luke Empire then changed the World Factbook Entry of League Of Monarchies adding General Assembly proposals and then accused me of illegally telegramming him.

[Kryozerkia]

EY, your questions would be best done as a legality check in Moderation.

Is there a rule against making false accusations? I recently was sending telegrams to delegates concerning my most recent General Assembly proposal. I sent a telegram to Luke Empire. The World Factbook Entry of that nation's region stated:

Under no circumstances should the delegate be telegrammed about WA Security Council proposals. Failure to comply with this request will result in my voting against your proposal. you have been warned.

Luke Empire then changed the World Factbook Entry of League Of Monarchies adding General Assembly proposals and then accused me of illegally telegramming him.

There is no written rule as far as I remember, though it is quite unscrupulous of him. However, it's his decision as to whether or not he wants to allow such telegrams.

Given that the time stamp of your TG is before the change you are in the clear despite the change. His accusation, if submitted to Moderation, would likely be dismissed.

[Flibbleites]

Is there a rule against making false accusations? I recently was sending telegrams to delegates concerning my most recent General Assembly proposal. I sent a telegram to Luke Empire. The World Factbook Entry of that nation's region stated:

Under no circumstances should the delegate be telegrammed about WA Security Council proposals. Failure to comply with this request will result in my voting against your proposal. you have been warned.

Can I accuse him of Plagiarization?

[Christian Democrats]

Given that the time stamp of your TG is before the change you are in the clear despite the change. His accusation, if submitted to Moderation, would likely be dismissed.

Thank you. I would have guessed that there are timestamps on telegrams but just wanted to make sure.

Can I accuse him of Plagiarization?

Before I sent that telegram, I thought that exact thing. I thought that looked a lot like your World Factbook Entry.

[Ardchoille]

Apologies, but I have yet another question.

1) What would be the effect of using "mild" language such as "urges" and "discourages"? In what way is it binding?

I'm answering this one here because it's general enough to apply to all proposals.

In terms of its effect in the application of its original proposal, "Urges"and "Discourages"are a way of setting out where you want nations to go; for example, if they're making supplementary laws needed to bring the WA legislation into effect in their nations. It's pretty much RP advice -- "The writer would like you to play it this way" -- and it's "binding" only to the extent that nations are expected to implement WA legislation "in good faith".

In terms of subsequent proposals, it's making a claim on the territory. If somebody puts up a proposal that would make WA nations do something you've "urged" them not to do, or stop doing something you said they "should" be doing, then you may, possibly have grounds for a "contradiction" or "duplication" legality challenge. It depends on how the new proposal's written.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Regarding this draft of mine: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=63503

Would I be allowed to rename the current "Social Welfare" (SW) to "Social Protection" (SP)?

Thanks in advance for any answer

[Ardchoille]

Uh ... okay, I'm dying of the annual winter lergy here, which may explain why I don't get the question. Until they're submitted, you can name your proposals whatever you like, within the rules. You can put whatever content you choose in the body of the text, within the rules.

If your concern is this ...

Branding: ... It also includes using the name of a nation, region or group as an acronym in a proposal ...

... and you fear that calling it "SP" will be interpreted as an attempt to brand the proposal for Sionis Prioratus, I think you're fairly safe. You're not spelling out your nation's full name and you're not torturing the language to get the name into the proposal. It's never easy to work out intent on the internet, but I really can't see that someone who's put so much work into a proposal for so long would risk it being nuked for a "vanity violation".

If your concern is that the renaming would haul it out of the category, can't see that, either. I'd think the choice between "social welfare" and "social protection" would be a purely tactical one -- whichever phrase is easier to sell.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Apologies, but I have yet another question.

1) What would be the effect of using "mild" language such as "urges" and "discourages"? In what way is it binding?

I'm answering this one here because it's general enough to apply to all proposals.

In terms of its effect in the application of its original proposal, "Urges"and "Discourages"are a way of setting out where you want nations to go; for example, if they're making supplementary laws needed to bring the WA legislation into effect in their nations. It's pretty much RP advice -- "The writer would like you to play it this way" -- and it's "binding" only to the extent that nations are expected to implement WA legislation "in good faith".

In terms of subsequent proposals, it's making a claim on the territory. If somebody puts up a proposal that would make WA nations do something you've "urged" them not to do, or stop doing something you said they "should" be doing, then you may, possibly have grounds for a "contradiction" or "duplication" legality challenge. It depends on how the new proposal's written.

Thanks

[Darenjo]

I just read one of Ard's comments in EY's Abortion Ethics thread, and got really confused when Ard said that OA banned the restriction of abortion on the WA level.

I didn't think so, but I went over to Kenny's thread to check. After reading OA, paying very close attention to that last clause. I still don't see it.

We were (I assume) allowed to restrict abortion through the WA before On Abortion was passed. On Abortion never mentions restricting abortions - yes, it preserves the right for nations to expand upon the abortion rights, but that was because OA was expanding abortion rights; it's the same clause that appears in a lot of WA resolutions ("PRESERVES the right of the WA to legislate on this in the future"). Since OA didn't restrict the rights to abortions, there was no need to mention or preserve that right.

Therefore (at least the way I see it), unless the author of RaD managed to hide a pro-choice clause in GA#2, we should still be able to restrict abortions.

[Warzone Codger]

I know you can put on your WFE whether or not you like to receive WA TGs and/or whether you only want to receive WA or SC TGs.

Is it also possible to introduce further conditions such as only receiving TGs from certain WA categories? Or that if you are going to TG you should adapt it to follow the region's roleplaying theme?