NationStates

Danubian Peoples wrote:Are you allowed to write a proposal and have another nation submit it on your behalf? I'm asking because I don't wanna join the WA for security reasons (it requires my email y'know), but at the same time I want to write proposals.

Danubian Peoples wrote:I don't wanna join the WA for security reasons (it requires my email y'know)

Wrapper wrote:

Danubian Peoples wrote:Are you allowed to write a proposal and have another nation submit it on your behalf? I'm asking because I don't wanna join the WA for security reasons (it requires my email y'know), but at the same time I want to write proposals.

Yes. Credit should be given though; e.g. “Authored by Danubian Peoples” at the end of the proposal.

Wallenburg wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Yes. Credit should be given though; e.g. “Authored by Danubian Peoples” at the end of the proposal.

That is, of course, if you are referring to having a different player submitting it. If you use a puppet, such an authorship tag would be branding.

Danubian Peoples wrote:Thanks! I'll get to writing a proposal (and hopefully finding someone to submit and credit me for it).

Wallenburg wrote:That is, of course, if you are referring to having a different player submitting it. If you use a puppet, such an authorship tag would be branding.

Bears Armed wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That is, of course, if you are referring to having a different player submitting it. If you use a puppet, such an authorship tag would be branding.

That's not necessarily correct. If a proposal was originally drafted [and maybe even submitted, without success] using one nation, but either the original version or a modified one is later submitted using another nation belonging to the same player, then citing the first nation as author or co-author could be legal.
Precedent.

I think that, ideally, there would have to have been significant involvement by both nations separately [rather than just in a single & fairly short drafting thread] — and maybe also, as was the case for St Edmund and Bears Armed Mission, a lack of direct political connection between them, but still an explanation given for why they were cooperating on this — for it to be okay, and GenSec would have to discuss exactly where to draw the line if such a case does occur, but going by that precedent it seems potentially allowable.

Huffingshire wrote:Are there any world assembly bills dealing with historic preservation? I'm considering co-authoring a bill on this subject. Thanks!

Sperio wrote:A new comer in my region wants to right a resolution criminalizing abortion (I will not support it)

Is there a existing resolution against what he is trying to do

SC Ambassador of Sargon Reman wrote:Is it easier getting the quorum for a proposal in GA than SC?

SC Ambassador of Sargon Reman wrote:Is it easier getting the quorum for a proposal in GA than SC?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

SC Ambassador of Sargon Reman wrote:Is it easier getting the quorum for a proposal in GA than SC?

The most important variables are "Did you send a campaign telegram to delegates" and "How well written is the resolution?" Crappy proposals are less likely to reach quorum in either branch, and proposals with a TG campaign backing them are more likely in both. If getting to quorum is the reason you're picking one branch over the other, rather than because you have an idea that the WA could benefit from passing, you're most likely wasting your time.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

SC Ambassador of Sargon Reman wrote:Is it easier getting the quorum for a proposal in GA than SC?

The most important variables are "Did you send a campaign telegram to delegates" and "How well written is the resolution?" Crappy proposals are less likely to reach quorum in either branch, and proposals with a TG campaign backing them are more likely in both. If getting to quorum is the reason you're picking one branch over the other, rather than because you have an idea that the WA could benefit from passing, you're most likely wasting your time.

SC Ambassador of Sargon Reman wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
The most important variables are "Did you send a campaign telegram to delegates" and "How well written is the resolution?" Crappy proposals are less likely to reach quorum in either branch, and proposals with a TG campaign backing them are more likely in both. If getting to quorum is the reason you're picking one branch over the other, rather than because you have an idea that the WA could benefit from passing, you're most likely wasting your time.

That's not the reason why. I just heard a rumor that it was and wanted to know for myself.
Thank you

Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:

SC Ambassador of Sargon Reman wrote:That's not the reason why. I just heard a rumor that it was and wanted to know for myself.
Thank you

They should still be the same but varies on author and proposal. It may seem easier because more proposals in ga have to undergo experience but sc still have bad proposal possible in quorom like self commend and condemn random nations.

Forensatha wrote:I understand that the GA Secretariat is very busy but when one of you get a moment could you please review my draft on the Repealing Preventing Desertification? Its either at the bottom of first page or top of the second.

Thank you

Saranidia wrote:Can I have a list of resolutions about Islamaphobia?