General Assembly Q&A

by **Araraukar** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:49 pm

Tzorsland wrote:If someone makes a proposal that defines the meaning of a word, no one can ever write a proposal based on that word? Because to not define the word because a previous resolution defined it would be a HOC violation and defining it again, apparently is plagiarism. Thus every definition is by its nature a topic blocker?

This is why the vast majority of resolutions use "defines, for the purposes of this resolution" and why we (at least I) suggest that others do the same. I would instead argue that if a previous resolution defines a word without the underlined part, you don't need to define it again as it's already been defined.

by **Wallenburg** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:07 pm

Tzorsland wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:That is, indeed, plagiarism. I'm surprised no one caught it back then. It can't be removed by Moderation for that, and no one can argue it is illegal (since it has passed into law), but we can see already its use as a repeal hook.

So let me get this straight. If someone makes a proposal that defines the meaning of a word, no one can ever write a proposal based on that word? Because to not define the word because a previous resolution defined it would be a HOC violation and defining it again, apparently is plagiarism. Thus every definition is by its nature a topic blocker?

That's...not even remotely what I said.

by **Tzorsland** » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:27 pm

Wallenburg wrote:That's...not even remotely what I said.

This is going to be a bit too complex to simply put into a quote system. Araraukar states the following:

This is why the vast majority of resolutions use "defines, for the purposes of this resolution" and why we (at least I) suggest that others do the same.

The two lines in question, adjusting for pretty printing are ...
"DEFINES a "child" for the purposes of this Act ..."
"DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:"

Which was precisely the criteria Araraukar mentioned as proper for duplication, because it is for the purpose of the act only.
Your response was "That is, indeed, plagiarism."

The duplication of definitions "for the purposes of this Act/Resolution" is a key to avoid house of cards violation. Indeed if a resolution doesn't mention it, and the definition of the previous resolution is key to the current resolution, then a good HOC violation can be made since if the definition is struck out, then the definition goes with it and even worse, the mention of the previous resolution may be in and of itself a HOC violation and without it there is a difficulty for new people who would have to scan the historical records in order to understand the full context of resolutions.

by **Wallenburg** » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:41 pm

Tzorsland wrote:The two lines in question, adjusting for pretty printing are ...
"DEFINES a "child" for the purposes of this Act ..."
"DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:"

Which was precisely the criteria Araraukar mentioned as proper for duplication, because it is for the purpose of the act only.
Your response was "That is, indeed, plagiarism."

I corrected myself when I learned that the author had gained consent to copy the original definition. I'm surprised you did not see that post, but did see the one before it. Let me repost it for you:

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Has it been established that the original author did not give permission to use that wording?

That's not really how it works. Evidence must be rendered that the original author did give permission.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Regarding the allegations of plagiarism, viewtopic.php?p=11787384#p11787384

Evidence such as this. I did not catch this in my trawl through through the thread. I retract my original statement. This is not plagiarism.

The duplication of definitions "for the purposes of this Act/Resolution" is a key to avoid house of cards violation. Indeed if a resolution doesn't mention it, and the definition of the previous resolution is key to the current resolution, then a good HOC violation can be made since if the definition is struck out, then the definition goes with it and even worse, the mention of the previous resolution may be in and of itself a HOC violation and without it there is a difficulty for new people who would have to scan the historical records in order to understand the full context of resolutions.

I would assume that, without a WA definition in place, the standard definition(s) would step in. There is no HOC violation in using the same word that another resolution defines.

by **Galapos** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:19 pm

Hey, I was wondering if there's some kind of constitution for the World Assembly.

If so, could someone point me in the direction of it or link me to it please?

by **Christian Democrats** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:28 pm

Galapos wrote:Hey, I was wondering if there's some kind of constitution for the World Assembly.

If so, could someone point me in the direction of it or link me to it please?

See Resolution 1:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=1/council=1

by **Galapos** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:50 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:See Resolution 1:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=1/council=1

Thanks

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:57 pm

2 GA also serves something of a 'constitution' or 'ground-rules' function.

by **Bananaistan** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:36 pm

Perhaps I've gone senile but I could have sworn the new rules were previously numbered and 'lettered'. That was the case? I thought it was handy for referencing.

by **Wallenburg** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:55 pm

Bananaistan wrote:Perhaps I've gone senile but I could have sworn the new rules were previously numbered and 'lettered'. That was the case? I thought it was handy for referencing.

You may have mixed the GA and SC rules formats up. SC uses numbers and letters to enumerate their rules.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:19 pm

Bananaistan wrote:Perhaps I've gone senile but I could have sworn the new rules were previously numbered and 'lettered'. That was the case? I thought it was handy for referencing.

No, they just have prefixes. I enumerated my draft proposal rules, however, which did become the formatting basis for the current ruleset.

by **Bananaistan** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:05 am

https://web.archive.org/web/20160905180 ... 9&t=159348

Not mad, thankfully!

by **Thyerata** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:39 am

Frisbee said (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=32026767#p32026767) that moderation are no longer enforcing the "three strikes" rule in the GA. However, that rule still stands in the Rules...

A player who has repeated submission of illegal proposals will result in removal from the WA

In light of Frisbee's statement, does the quoted extract from the rules continue to apply, or are the mods formally overturning it now?

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:37 am

Thyerata wrote:Frisbee said (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=32026767#p32026767) that moderation are no longer enforcing the "three strikes" rule in the GA. However, that rule still stands in the Rules...
A player who has repeated submission of illegal proposals will result in removal from the WA

In light of Frisbee's statement, does the quoted extract from the rules continue to apply, or are the mods formally overturning it now?

Fris's quote is accurate in that there's no "three strikes" rule for ejection anymore; but we will continue to ask Moderation to eject inveterate spammers.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:01 am

Bananaistan wrote:https://web.archive.org/web/20160905180010/http://forum.nationstates.net:80/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Not mad, thankfully!

Huh. Well, looks like it did have numbers. I'm surprised I never saw anyone reference them.

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:40 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:https://web.archive.org/web/20160905180010/http://forum.nationstates.net:80/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Not mad, thankfully!

Huh. Well, looks like it did have numbers. I'm surprised I never saw anyone reference them.

To be fair, 'Metagaming' and 'No Operative Clause' are far more convenient and easy to remember than numbered references. Heck, between you and me, the SC could use with such reforms.

by **Covenstone** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:51 am

I have two open threads about proposals, one to repeal The Charter of Civil Rights, and one to replace it with new rights on Sex, Sexuality and Gender. Since apparently no one shares my unique and individual vision for the future, I was going to rewrite part of the PRIDE ACT proposal, and withdraw the planned repeal of CofCR.

Do I need to start a new thread for the new version of the Pride Act (since it is arguably a new proposal, kind of) and how would I set about getting the repeal thread locked, or should I try?

Or do I just leave the CofCR thread open, and continue the PRIDE ACT in the same thread?

(I really have no clue. I am new to this, and just want to do things right, or in the least confusing way!)

Thank you in advance!

by **Wrapper** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:13 am

If you're rewriting from scratch, you can go with either a new thread or the existing thread. Up to you. If, on the other hand, you're making major revisions and keeping some semblance of the existing draft, do it in the old PRIDE thread.

If you're withdrawing your proposed CoCR repeal, in the OP title change "DRAFT" to "WITHDRAWN" or something similar. No need to lock.

by **Covenstone** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:18 am

Wrapper wrote:If you're rewriting from scratch, you can go with either a new thread or the existing thread. Up to you. If, on the other hand, you're making major revisions and keeping some semblance of the existing draft, do it in the old PRIDE thread.

If you're withdrawing your proposed CoCR repeal, in the OP title change "DRAFT" to "WITHDRAWN" or something similar. No need to lock.

Thank you. I will see to it forth, fifth and sixthwith.

by **Raporia** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:08 am

So I have Draft done but I don't know where to post it to see people's criticisms and suggestions. Should I just post a new topic or just wait fore the Voting of the latest Proposal to be done?

Thanks :hug:

by **Tinfect** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:36 am

Raporia wrote:So I have Draft done but I don't know where to post it to see people's criticisms and suggestions. Should I just post a new topic or just wait fore the Voting of the latest Proposal to be done?

Thanks

Posting a new topic is the correct way to go about this, you don't have to wait for the At-Vote proposal to resolve to start drafting.

by **Raporia** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:01 am

Tinfect wrote:
Raporia wrote:So I have Draft done but I don't know where to post it to see people's criticisms and suggestions. Should I just post a new topic or just wait fore the Voting of the latest Proposal to be done?

Thanks

Posting a new topic is the correct way to go about this, you don't have to wait for the At-Vote proposal to resolve to start drafting.

Thank you so much

by **Raporia** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:04 pm

Btw, how do you get 90 approvals for the Proposals while in queue?

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:09 pm

Raporia wrote:Btw, how do you get 90 approvals for the Proposals while in queue?

Some people send campaign telegrams; others pick a fluffy bunny sounding title and hope for the best. Both methods have some level.of effectiveness, though campaign TGs tend to be more reliable - if you have stamps or a script to send a buttload of them.

by **Raporia** » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:42 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Raporia wrote:Btw, how do you get 90 approvals for the Proposals while in queue?

Some people send campaign telegrams; others pick a fluffy bunny sounding title and hope for the best. Both methods have some level.of effectiveness, though campaign TGs tend to be more reliable - if you have stamps or a script to send a buttload of them.

Can you send me an example and is it only delegates that can approve or all member nations?

General Assembly Q&A

Who is online