NationStates

Are "party" organizations a thing in WA? I was reading about some but the links are broken and wanted to know if this is historical only or still extant?

Liberimery wrote:Are "party" organizations a thing in WA? I was reading about some but the links are broken and wanted to know if this is historical only or still extant?

Not really, but you can form them if you'd like.

Liberimery wrote:Are "party" organizations a thing in WA? I was reading about some but the links are broken and wanted to know if this is historical only or still extant?

You mean like a political party? Even amongst WA regulars, bonds of necessity, which are the main thing which pulls parties together, are too weak to enforce any discipline. And at that point, a party just becomes a general ideological label. Which is basically what happened to every party in the past. I guess you could have some kind of 'party' which is more a social club than anything, but that's not really something that can scale. It's just a social club.

Liberimery wrote:Are "party" organizations a thing in WA? I was reading about some but the links are broken and wanted to know if this is historical only or still extant?

No. In the past we had what could have amounted to "coalitions."



These would form for specific reasons and common agendas. Some of them had their own external forums to help develop resolutions but they were never organized in the same way as "party" would be with a solid structure and command structure. It's been so long I've forgotten the names of most of these groups. I used to belong to one or two of them. Warm, friendly and helpful people. Sort of the opposite of what you get around these parts.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Liberimery wrote:Are "party" organizations a thing in WA? I was reading about some but the links are broken and wanted to know if this is historical only or still extant?

Not really, but you can form them if you'd like.

What would be a good board to do interest checks and formations?

Liberimery wrote:What would be a good board to do interest checks and formations?

Off-site, I guess. Or make a region and use its RMB.

Liberimery wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Not really, but you can form them if you'd like.

What would be a good board to do interest checks and formations?

GA forum. Nationstates forum. Gameplay maybe.

How is the General Secretariat chosen?

Grater Tovakia wrote:How is the General Secretariat chosen?

Players with great experience, familiarity with the rules, and upstanding community reputations are selected by the other members of GenSec when there is a vacancy.

Araraukar wrote:What should the discussion thread be named to be recognizable? BA? Fris? Suggestions?

If it's the discussion thread whose possibility I suggested before then something like '[DISCUSSION] Should only provable rulings count as precedent?' should do.
Note, though, that if GenSec does ever decide to say that rulings we can remember but not find no longer count as precedent, or is required by the management to adopt such a policy, that would not make everything we've been labeling as illegal due to those precedents suddenly become legal... any more than it would make everything we've been labeling as legal due to those precedents suddenly become illegal: Abolishing the precedentary role of those remembered rulings would just mean that GenSec would have to make new rulings to establish new precedents, which might or might not match the old ones, instead.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Grater Tovakia wrote:How is the General Secretariat chosen?

Players with great experience, familiarity with the rules, and upstanding community reputations are selected by the other members of GenSec when there is a vacancy.

and the first batch of members were elected by the Mods, after a period during which anybody could make nominations, using the same criteria.

Is there a rule on Double Jeopardy in a legal system, I.E. the state may or may not appeal a legal case in a criminal trial?

Otherwise known as the defendant may not twice be tried for the same crime in the same jurisdiction.

Yup. viewtopic.php?p=9653011#p9653011

I know I'm being a pain, but suppose that, through honest mistake, there exists a resolution Resolution A such that A prevents nations from taking Action 1 and a new proposal is passed as Resolution B such that B requires nations to take action 2.

If through a legitimate read action 2 in part or in whole conflicts with a ban on performing action 1, so that following Resolution A requires me to violate in part or whole Resolution B, and following Resolution B requires me to violate Resolution 1, which Resolution is recommended that I follow? Or does this Resolution create a loophole that allows me to choose which of the two laws I will comply with until such time as the WA sees fit to repeal one of the two offending Resolutions so that the loophole has been closed.

Also, how should one go about alerting the Assembly of this possible problem as I support the general spirit of the law, but believe that the letter is poor.

Liberimery wrote:I know I'm being a pain, but suppose that, through honest mistake, there exists a resolution Resolution A such that A prevents nations from taking Action 1 and a new proposal is passed as Resolution B such that B requires nations to take action 2.

Repeals cannot legislate? Or do you mean an actual honest mistake and not the rule "Honest Mistake"?

Liberimery wrote:If through a legitimate read action 2 in part or in whole conflicts with a ban on performing action 1, so that following Resolution A requires me to violate in part or whole Resolution B, and following Resolution B requires me to violate Resolution 1, which Resolution is recommended that I follow? Or does this Resolution create a loophole that allows me to choose which of the two laws I will comply with until such time as the WA sees fit to repeal one of the two offending Resolutions so that the loophole has been closed.

Also, how should one go about alerting the Assembly of this possible problem as I support the general spirit of the law, but believe that the letter is poor.

If you mean a contradiction in law, then I would refer you to the Contradiction rule. If the Contradiction rule is not sufficient, then to interpretive canons.

If an interpretation of two standing resolutions creates a contradiction, it is generally an invalid interpretation, and you must adopt an interpretation that does not result in a contradiction.

It seems that this is not a thought experiment of yours, and that you believe there exists a genuine contradiction. If so, I suggest you speak plainly, and discuss the concrete matter of this supposed contradiction.

*Presses the invisible Like button for Wally and IA's posts*

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Liberimery wrote:I know I'm being a pain, but suppose that, through honest mistake, there exists a resolution Resolution A such that A prevents nations from taking Action 1 and a new proposal is passed as Resolution B such that B requires nations to take action 2.

Repeals cannot legislate? Or do you mean an actual honest mistake and not the rule "Honest Mistake"?

Liberimery wrote:If through a legitimate read action 2 in part or in whole conflicts with a ban on performing action 1, so that following Resolution A requires me to violate in part or whole Resolution B, and following Resolution B requires me to violate Resolution 1, which Resolution is recommended that I follow? Or does this Resolution create a loophole that allows me to choose which of the two laws I will comply with until such time as the WA sees fit to repeal one of the two offending Resolutions so that the loophole has been closed.

Also, how should one go about alerting the Assembly of this possible problem as I support the general spirit of the law, but believe that the letter is poor.

If you mean a contradiction in law, then I would refer you to the Contradiction rule. If the Contradiction rule is not sufficient, then to interpretive canons.

Honest mistake meant that both resolutions would be passed without the realization that the later had been passed with a contradiction that makes compliance with both resolutions impossible. If I comply with one, I am in violation of the other and vice versa.

My meaning was to make my scenario narrow in scope to only those Resolutions where contradictions exist by no intention to end run around the older resolution. Trying to cut deliberate writing and judgement calls as the reason for the Contradiction. I am assuming good faith on all hypothetical parties.

Liberimery wrote:Honest mistake meant that both resolutions would be passed without the realization that the later had been passed with a contradiction that makes compliance with both resolutions impossible. If I comply with one, I am in violation of the other and vice versa.

My meaning was to make my scenario narrow in scope to only those Resolutions where contradictions exist by no intention to end run around the older resolution. Trying to cut deliberate writing and judgement calls as the reason for the Contradiction. I am assuming good faith on all hypothetical parties.

I still don't see the relevance. No standing resolution contradicts another. If there were an issue of contradiction, it would have been addressed by the mods or, more recently, GenSec.

Wallenburg wrote:

Liberimery wrote:Honest mistake meant that both resolutions would be passed without the realization that the later had been passed with a contradiction that makes compliance with both resolutions impossible. If I comply with one, I am in violation of the other and vice versa.

My meaning was to make my scenario narrow in scope to only those Resolutions where contradictions exist by no intention to end run around the older resolution. Trying to cut deliberate writing and judgement calls as the reason for the Contradiction. I am assuming good faith on all hypothetical parties.

I still don't see the relevance. No standing resolution contradicts another. If there were an issue of contradiction, it would have been addressed by the mods or, more recently, GenSec.

If this clash was missed before the second resolution passed, until too late for the mods to 'discard' it, then all that either GenSec or the Mods could do would be point out the problem and ask whether anybody wants to try repealing one of those resolutions. Although repeals can't claim outright that the targeted resolutions were 'illegal', there is precedent for pointing out that they make it extremely difficult to comply with certain earlier resolutions.

Bears Armed wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I still don't see the relevance. No standing resolution contradicts another. If there were an issue of contradiction, it would have been addressed by the mods or, more recently, GenSec.

If this clash was missed before the second resolution passed, until too late for the mods to 'discard' it, then all that either GenSec or the Mods could do would be point out the problem and ask whether anybody wants to try repealing one of those resolutions.

Which is pretty much what I said, even if not in so many words.

Although repeals can't claim outright that the targeted resolutions were 'illegal', there is precedent for pointing out that they make it extremely difficult to comply with certain earlier resolutions.

Is there? I've been around since before GenSec, and I can't recall GenSec pointing out an issue of contradiction (lowercase C) between standing resolutions.

Are there any laws against wars of conquest and aggression?

Saranidia wrote:Are there any laws against wars of conquest and aggression?

Nah, we struggle with that part. Ostensibly, war is consensual per GAR#2, but there is a lot of grey area there. Check out GAR#2 before you draft anything.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Saranidia wrote:Are there any laws against wars of conquest and aggression?

Nah, we struggle with that part. Ostensibly, war is consensual per GAR#2, but there is a lot of grey area there. Check out GAR#2 before you draft anything.

Consensual only means OOC consensual though right?

Saranidia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Nah, we struggle with that part. Ostensibly, war is consensual per GAR#2, but there is a lot of grey area there. Check out GAR#2 before you draft anything.

Consensual only means OOC consensual though right?

Yes. Nations agree in an OOC manner on whether or not to war each other IC - it isn't really different if within or outside the WA.

Saranidia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Nah, we struggle with that part. Ostensibly, war is consensual per GAR#2, but there is a lot of grey area there. Check out GAR#2 before you draft anything.

Consensual only means OOC consensual though right?

No. WA resolutions are IC. So the requirement is IC.

The Rhenish League wrote:

Saranidia wrote:Consensual only means OOC consensual though right?

Yes. Nations agree in an OOC manner on whether or not to war each other IC - it isn't really different if within or outside the WA.

That was the intent, but it doesn't square with the IC nature of WA resolutions.