NATION

PASSWORD

General Assembly Q&A

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Garyopolis
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jan 06, 2014
Corporate Bordello

I'm new to the WA

Postby Garyopolis » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:38 pm

And I believe that I am in violation of GA#438, because of a capital punishment decision I made long ago. Am I in trouble, until I get an issue where I can repeal it?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14679
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:41 pm

Garyopolis wrote:And I believe that I am in violation of GA#438, because of a capital punishment decision I made long ago. Am I in trouble, until I get an issue where I can repeal it?

You're fine. Issues and the GA are unrelated other than sharing the statistical effects of the game code. There is no out of character punishment for choosing issues that contradict WA law. There may be nations that are upset with you In Character, but you didnt break any rules.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
The World Capitalist Confederation
Senator
 
Posts: 4761
Founded: Dec 07, 2018
Right-wing Utopia

Postby The World Capitalist Confederation » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:00 pm

Is it legal to have a "series" of resolutions? Of course, each one would be standalone and make little reference to each other (and only make abstract references, rather than saying it as though it were approved), but each one would say something similar to

"International Convention on Examples Article 1"
"International Convention on Examples Article 2"

And so on..They would all be part of one coherent thing, but are standalone and can survive without each other, so the rest of the series would be fine if you got rid of, say, articles 1 and 3.

EDIT: The most illegal thing that might happen is the same organisation being used for more than one of them, but what will happen is this clause

"If the Example Committee of the International Convention on Examples does not exist by any prior act, then it shall be established by this act, with the following responsibilities..."

It would be put on every single one, as to ensure that the organisation would exist without the existence of all but one of the resolution series.
Last edited by The World Capitalist Confederation on Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Meelducan wrote:He probably wouldn't get an endorsement from Weight Watchers.

Society in a Song

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2467
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:06 pm

The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Is it legal to have a "series" of resolutions? Of course, each one would be standalone and make little reference to each other (and only make abstract references, rather than saying it as though it were approved), but each one would say something similar to

"International Convention on Examples Article 1"
"International Convention on Examples Article 2"

And so on..They would all be part of one coherent thing, but are standalone and can survive without each other, so the rest of the series would be fine if you got rid of, say, articles 1 and 3.

EDIT: The most illegal thing that might happen is the same organisation being used for more than one of them, but what will happen is this clause

"If the Example Committee of the International Convention on Examples does not exist by any prior act, then it shall be established by this act, with the following responsibilities..."

It would be put on every single one, as to ensure that the organisation would exist without the existence of all but one of the resolution series.


We can't rule on hypothetical questions but it wouldn't be too hard to word them legally and it has been done before. See for example GAR#217, 218 and 219/, or the "rules of war" resolutions that Separatist Peoples wrote. The key rule to watch out for is House of Cards. One resolution cannot rely on another but you seem to heading that way anyway.

Regarding your edit. It is common practice to reuse committees, and once set up in an existing unrepealed resolution, it doesn't need to be reestablished. So say your first resolution establishes the "Apartment Department". The next can just say that x, y & z additional tasks are assigned to it without the "if it doesn't exist, it's established now" bit.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
The World Capitalist Confederation
Senator
 
Posts: 4761
Founded: Dec 07, 2018
Right-wing Utopia

Postby The World Capitalist Confederation » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:11 pm

Bananaistan wrote:
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Is it legal to have a "series" of resolutions? Of course, each one would be standalone and make little reference to each other (and only make abstract references, rather than saying it as though it were approved), but each one would say something similar to

"International Convention on Examples Article 1"
"International Convention on Examples Article 2"

And so on..They would all be part of one coherent thing, but are standalone and can survive without each other, so the rest of the series would be fine if you got rid of, say, articles 1 and 3.

EDIT: The most illegal thing that might happen is the same organisation being used for more than one of them, but what will happen is this clause

"If the Example Committee of the International Convention on Examples does not exist by any prior act, then it shall be established by this act, with the following responsibilities..."

It would be put on every single one, as to ensure that the organisation would exist without the existence of all but one of the resolution series.


We can't rule on hypothetical questions but it wouldn't be too hard to word them legally and it has been done before. See for example GAR#217, 218 and 219/, or the "rules of war" resolutions that Separatist Peoples wrote. The key rule to watch out for is House of Cards. One resolution cannot rely on another but you seem to heading that way anyway.

Regarding your edit. It is common practice to reuse committees.

Oh, thank you. I was planning to draft 3-5 proposals on trade using the same committee. Some of them might be a bit controversial whilst others passed by a supermajority (tariffs vs fire standards, for example), so I decided to split them up to ensure that the less controversial ones get passed anyway.

Meelducan wrote:He probably wouldn't get an endorsement from Weight Watchers.

Society in a Song

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9144
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:58 pm

Post them here. We have an existing set of legislation on tariffs other trade related things. They might be duplicatory or contradictory.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
The World Capitalist Confederation
Senator
 
Posts: 4761
Founded: Dec 07, 2018
Right-wing Utopia

Postby The World Capitalist Confederation » Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:03 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Past them here. We have an existing set of legislation on tariffs other trade related things. They might be duplicatory or contradictory.

I haven't done the meat yet. The first one will mostly be setting maximum tariffs, depending on industry and then with a bunch of exemptions such as trade sanctions, embargoes, etc...

Meelducan wrote:He probably wouldn't get an endorsement from Weight Watchers.

Society in a Song

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9144
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:05 pm


Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14435
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:53 pm

The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Past them here. We have an existing set of legislation on tariffs other trade related things. They might be duplicatory or contradictory.

I haven't done the meat yet. The first one will mostly be setting maximum tariffs, depending on industry and then with a bunch of exemptions such as trade sanctions, embargoes, etc...

If and when you do write them up, post them in their own threads (one proposal per thread), not this Q&A one. Also, read through the passed resolutions, they're collected in a single searcheable thread on this forum.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Verdant Haven
Diplomat
 
Posts: 577
Founded: Feb 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdant Haven » Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:39 am

How stringent is the rule "Proposals must use understandable English" when it comes to determining legality? Just curious, as four out of the five presently submitted and "legal" proposals are such butcheries of the language that they lack all meaning. The words are real, and one can generally figure out what the author probably intended to say, but between dropped words, incorrect usages, homophones, and missing possessives, these really aren't meaningful English.

I realize it would take a miracle for any of them to achieve quorum, and an even greater miracle for any of them to receive a positive vote. As such, I don't want to waste anybody's time posting them to the illegal resolutions thread if this wouldn't actually be sufficient basis for flagging them as illegal.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14679
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:51 am

Verdant Haven wrote:How stringent is the rule "Proposals must use understandable English" when it comes to determining legality? Just curious, as four out of the five presently submitted and "legal" proposals are such butcheries of the language that they lack all meaning. The words are real, and one can generally figure out what the author probably intended to say, but between dropped words, incorrect usages, homophones, and missing possessives, these really aren't meaningful English.

I realize it would take a miracle for any of them to achieve quorum, and an even greater miracle for any of them to receive a positive vote. As such, I don't want to waste anybody's time posting them to the illegal resolutions thread if this wouldn't actually be sufficient basis for flagging them as illegal.

If we can parse a meaning, it's ok. If it's in another language, not ok. Bad grammar gets a pretty broad pass because we dont want the game to be de jure inaccessible to most non native speakers.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
The World Capitalist Confederation
Senator
 
Posts: 4761
Founded: Dec 07, 2018
Right-wing Utopia

Postby The World Capitalist Confederation » Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:21 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=10556924&hilit=Auralia+trade#p10556924

It mostly defines a % of maximum tariffs, so it works.

Meelducan wrote:He probably wouldn't get an endorsement from Weight Watchers.

Society in a Song

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Deacarsia, Excidium Planetis, Pilipinas and Malaya

Advertisement

Remove ads