General Assembly Q&A

[Jimifornia]

How do I get endorsements for a proposal

You will need to solicit regional delegates and ask for their support. There are many ways of doing this, from what I've gathered (I'm new here). One is via telegrams, the other way is posting your proposal in the GA forums so everyone can review and comment. From the forums, regional delegates or their advisers can provide input to the regional delegates to endorse or not. I'm also sure that some regional delegates browse the proposal section every few days looking for new stuff, too.

[Mousebumples]

How do I get endorsements for a proposal

You will need to solicit regional delegates and ask for their support. There are many ways of doing this, from what I've gathered (I'm new here). One is via telegrams, the other way is posting your proposal in the GA forums so everyone can review and comment. From the forums, regional delegates or their advisers can provide input to the regional delegates to endorse or not. I'm also sure that some regional delegates browse the proposal section every few days looking for new stuff, too.

Actually, I believe that TailsPower is asking about how to receive sufficient endorsements within their region so that they would be able to submit a proposal. They need to be from other individuals within your region, so I would recommend checking with the other WA members there to see if they would be willing to endorse you. 2 endorsements are required before a proposal can be submitted for delegate consideration.

[Darenjo]

Ok, I know that you can't refer to passed WA resolutions in proposals, but can you indirectly refer to passed law by saying something like the following:

"Including such (Blank) already banned under law"

[Mousebumples]

Ok, I know that you can't refer to passed WA resolutions in proposals, but can you indirectly refer to passed law by saying something like the following:

"Including such (Blank) already banned under law"

I don't believe so. Should the proposal which bans "(Blank)" ever be repealed, your new proposal/resolution would be inaccurate as that item/action would no longer be banned under WA law.

(I hope that makes sense - it does in my head. But late nights can lead to garbled posting.)

[Enn]

However, you can say something like 'within the bounds of WA resolutions on this matter' if you have an absolute need to.

[Unibot]

Although the Multilateral Prosecution Act got away with...

Applauding the work of previous and currently adopted legislation to establish perimeters for international territory, and the elimination of servitude, terrorism and international piracy on a coordinated multilateral platform,

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That's a preambulatory clause. Preambulatory clauses are nothing. It's when you try to make the operative or defining clauses dependent on provisions of past resolutions that you get in trouble.

[Ardchoille]

Furthermore, the quoted clause does not try to make the proposal dependent on "previous or current" legislation. It merely "applauds" said legislation.

[Unibot]

That's a preambulatory clause. Preambulatory clauses are nothing. It's when you try to make the operative or defining clauses dependent on provisions of past resolutions that you get in trouble.

Yep, I'll admit, I posted without fully reading what was being asked.

[Ishkaebibble]

Can we get a map of all the counties? we can get longitude and latitude going and show where each country lies. and use different colors for each. would be great to see what territories expand etc.

[Mousebumples]

Can we get a map of all the counties? we can get longitude and latitude going and show where each country lies. and use different colors for each. would be great to see what territories expand etc.

There is no official map of NS nations. Some regions (and/or nations) have generated maps of their area, but there is no official WA map of WA member nations.

Also: some WA member nations do not appear on Planet Earth, so they would not appear on a map with latitude and longitude.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Also, your question has nothing to do with the GA.

[Ardchoille]

<snip> NS map? <snip>

Check out the Multiverse. After reading the article, you'll see why there can't be a standard, all-encompassing NationStates map.

[Missourian Rebels]

Umm, the Repeal Category is no longer there, at least not for me, Exactly What would the proper Thing to Do Be?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Go to the resolution you want to repeal and click "Repeal this Resolution".

[Ardchoille]

QUERY that's come up in threads lately:

NO, it's not a Real World reference to say "internet". The WA translation service will deal with this and render it into each nation's culturally appropriate description of a computer network/fast information service/whatever you're really writing about.

YES, it is a Real World reference to say World Wide Web/WWW. It's like saying "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" in a proposal when you should say "the theory of relativity". Figure out some generalised description (hint: if it's got capital letters, it's probably too specific).

[Glen-Rhodes]

YES, it is a Real World reference to say World Wide Web/WWW. It's like saying "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" in a proposal when you should say "the theory of relativity". Figure out some generalised description (hint: if it's got capital letters, it's probably too specific).

I'm sorry, but this makes zero sense to somebody who understands what the Internet and WWW are. The World Wide Web is the family of websites that are linked to each other. It's not proprietary. It's not 'Tim Berners-Lee's Wide Web'. The World Wide Web is a component of the Internet; what we consider 'the Internet' -- like this game -- is actually the World Wide Web. I don't understand why one would be okay, but the other would be a Real World Violation.

P.S. The Internet is capitalized; not capitalizing it is actually incorrect.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

WWW may not be copyrighted, but it's still a brand name. That's what makes it illegal. The fact that "World Wide" is incorrect stylization for "worldwide," and that they only split the word to contrive the acronym "WWW," ought to have clued you in.

[Glen-Rhodes]

WWW may not be copyrighted, but it's still a brand name. That's what makes it illegal. The fact that "World Wide" is incorrect stylization for "worldwide," and that they only split the word to contrive the acronym "WWW," ought to have clued you in.

How is it any more a 'brand name' than the Internet? These distinctions make no sense when you actually consider what the World Wide Web and the Internet are and how they're related to each other.

It would make sense if the World Wide Web was a proprietary service provided by a company. But it's not. It's simply the collection of websites served over the Internet. If the 'WA translation service' can translate 'the Internet' to a network of connected computers, then it can just as easily translate 'World Wide Web'.

[Ardchoille]

"WWW" refers to the specific web on the specific planet known as Earth. It is therefore a Real World violation. Used with a lower-case i, "internet" is the generic name players have adopted to cover any such web on any planets, asteroids, Dyson shells, generation ships ... I'm running out of NS FT ideas here, but you should get the picture.

[Glen-Rhodes]

"WWW" refers to the specific web on the specific planet known as Earth. It is therefore a Real World violation. Used with a lower-case i, "internet" is the generic name players have adopted to cover any such web on any planets, asteroids, Dyson shells, generation ships ... I'm running out of NS FT ideas here, but you should get the picture.

I don't, though. The World in World Wide Web doesn't need to refer to Earth any more than the World in World Assembly does. WWW is simply all the websites delivered via the Internet (capital-I or otherwise). I'm just not seeing how 'internet' and 'World Wide Web' are different, especially with this reason. There's nothing about WWW that makes it Earth-specific, just like there's nothing about 'internet' that makes it Earth-specific. Is this really just because it's capitalized? What about the terms 'website' or 'webpage', 'webserver', etc. -- or even 'the web'? Those are all derived from (and contained within) the World Wide Web. Technologically speaking, if you have the 'internet', and you use it to deliver information over interlinked pages, you have a 'World Wide Web'. That's simply fact.

[Ardchoille]

I dunno, GR, most of the folk I know now talk about "site", "server" and even (usually it's clear from context) "page" without the "web" prefix.

But if you want to talk about an application that, running on the internet, creates a world-wide web of connections, and you want to do it in the NS Multiverse, in a proposal, you will have to talk about it in lower case. Just the way someone would have to talk about spilling a coca-flavoured cola drink over their keyboard, should anyone ever be nuts enough to write a WA proposal regulating food and drink intake near computers. World Wide Web/WWW, capitalised, is a RW reference.

If you outlast me on NS (which seems likely, as I will be driven to a relatively early grave by discussions such as this) you can take it up all over again with my replacement.

[Glen-Rhodes]

World Wide Web/WWW, capitalised, is a RW reference.

I just don't understand how 'world wide web' is different from 'World Wide Web'. Or 'internet' and 'Internet'. You're talking about the same structure, the same service. It's splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs, if you ask me.

What if somebody wants to create a 'World Wide Web Commission', modeled after the real W3C? Would that name be illegal, because it's capitalized? Is the phrase 'world wide web' itself illegal? If so, what made the lower-case 'internet' legal? (FWIW, the term 'internet' was created for the purpose of naming 'the internet', just like the term 'World Wide Web' was created for the purpose of naming .. well, the internet as you're using it, the collection of all webpages.)

If you outlast me on NS (which seems likely, as I will be driven to a relatively early grave by discussions such as this) you can take it up all over again with my replacement.

I hope you can bear with me for just a little longer. I'm genuinely not comprehending your reasoning.

[Ardchoille]

It's the difference between Thermos and a thermos, Hoover and the hoover, Esky and an esky, and why Disney hates it if you say something is mickey-mouse -- specific (usually brand) names and generic names. I know the folk from CERN said (in the real world) that the whole thing was free, but the capitalised term World Wide Web still describes the individual creation that was invented on (specific date, real-world time), was tried out on (specific date, real-world time), went truly world-wide on (specific date, real-world time) ... I'm too near bedtime right now to look 'em up.

The various internets on the various individual worlds of NS didn't begin then, didn't have that inventor or those popularisers; likewise the one that operates in the generalised concept "the world of NS" didn't, either. The invention, popularisation, adoption of the World Wide Web happened in the real world, not here.

If you still don't get it, I'm afraid you're just gonna have to live with Ah Haz Spokkin.

[Solaru]

Okay, this might seem a noob question, but how do you post a proposal? I really have no Idea.