NationStates

The ethno-state of Trashys wrote:How many endorsements do you need to make a proposal?

You need two endorsements to be able to submit a proposal to the WA. However, you can start drafting regardless of how many endorsements you have.

Question:
In regions with only one WA member, how is the WA delegate elected?

Meretica wrote:Question:
In regions with only one WA member, how is the WA delegate elected?

Such regions can't have a Delegate. A second player needs to join.

Please don't make the mistake of having two WA nations yourself, or both will be ejected and banned for a year.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Meretica wrote:Question:
In regions with only one WA member, how is the WA delegate elected?

Such regions can't have a Delegate. A second player needs to join.

Please don't make the mistake of having two WA nations yourself, or both will be ejected and banned for a year.

Thanks for answering my question!

Trust me, I won't. I'm enjoying this game.

I have a question, is the WA voting system based on the electoral college? Because it seems that delegates of powerful regions have absurdly high voting power, such as having (1000-2000+) votes.

Mornicoder wrote:I have a question, is the WA voting system based on the electoral college? Because it seems that delegates of powerful regions have absurdly high voting power, such as having (1000-2000+) votes.

It is not. Each member state has one (1) vote, and in addition to this World Assembly delegates receive an additional vote for each endorsement they have received.

Is co-authoring an official thing in the code, or just something people put at the bottom of resolutions if someone else made significant contributions?

People put it at the bottom of resolutions; they can exercise rights like withdrawing a proposal by GHR; it's not in the code.

Would a resolution that restricts how police in member states must behave conflict with GAR#2 Rights and Duties of WA States? Basically, I'm trying to write a resolution about police accountability and holding law enforcement officers to the same standard as civilians for assault and homicide.

Isaris wrote:Would a resolution that restricts how police in member states must behave conflict with GAR#2 Rights and Duties of WA States? Basically, I'm trying to write a resolution about police accountability and holding law enforcement officers to the same standard as civilians for assault and homicide.

The WA itself cannot have either a military or police force as per GA #2, but it definitely can give mandates to member nations as per their police and military activities - see for example pretty much every single "rules of war" type of resolution.

But think very carefully when writing, about how your proposal should not be a kneejerk reaction to RL events (as it kinda sounds like it would be), and how the police are supposed to be able to do their job, like arrest anyone if they can't actually take someone into custody (also be aware that in criminal law, attacking someone and pummeling them with your fists is not "assault" but "battery" - while merely threatening to do so, is assault), or stop someone who's currently shooting kids in a school or something seriously deadly like that.

Araraukar wrote:

Isaris wrote:Would a resolution that restricts how police in member states must behave conflict with GAR#2 Rights and Duties of WA States? Basically, I'm trying to write a resolution about police accountability and holding law enforcement officers to the same standard as civilians for assault and homicide.

The WA itself cannot have either a military or police force as per GA #2, but it definitely can give mandates to member nations as per their police and military activities - see for example pretty much every single "rules of war" type of resolution.

But think very carefully when writing, about how your proposal should not be a kneejerk reaction to RL events (as it kinda sounds like it would be), and how the police are supposed to be able to do their job, like arrest anyone if they can't actually take someone into custody (also be aware that in criminal law, attacking someone and pummeling them with your fists is not "assault" but "battery" - while merely threatening to do so, is assault), or stop someone who's currently shooting kids in a school or something seriously deadly like that.

All right. Thank you very much for your advice and for answering my question.

If two proposals are held up by one at vote, the one submitted later gets quorum first but the one submitted earlier gets quorum right before the vote end, which one goes to vote?

Honeydewistania wrote:If two proposals are held up by one at vote, the one submitted later gets quorum first but the one submitted earlier gets quorum right before the vote end, which one goes to vote?

At every update where a proposal is not currently at-vote in the council, it will order all of the quorate proposals in order of submission time and put the first one in that order up to vote.

So whichever one is submitted first will go to vote first.

Can resolutions include diagrams?

Australian rePublic wrote:Can resolutions include diagrams?

You mean picture files? No. Technically might include URL (as text), but that would likely be called Metagaming, as it'd be a link to the RL Internet.

If you're drafting something so complex you think it needs a diagram, you probably should re-think whether that's something that should be attempted in the first place.

Is there a word/character limit on resultions?

Araraukar wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Can resolutions include diagrams?

You mean picture files? No. Technically might include URL (as text), but that would likely be called Metagaming, as it'd be a link to the RL Internet.

If you're drafting something so complex you think it needs a diagram, you probably should re-think whether that's something that should be attempted in the first place.

Thanks.

Australian rePublic wrote:Is there a word/character limit on resultions?

Araraukar wrote:You mean picture files? No. Technically might include URL (as text), but that would likely be called Metagaming, as it'd be a link to the RL Internet.

If you're drafting something so complex you think it needs a diagram, you probably should re-think whether that's something that should be attempted in the first place.

Thanks.

5000 characters, including BBCode and line breaks.

Morover wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Is there a word/character limit on resultions?


Thanks.

5000 characters, including BBCode and line breaks.

5000 characters? Holy Crap! I'd be lucky if my draft doesn't exceed 5000 words

Oh well, I'll post it anyway and hope for the best

Thanks for the info!

Australian rePublic wrote:

Morover wrote:5000 characters, including BBCode and line breaks.

5000 characters? Holy Crap! I'd be lucky if my draft doesn't exceed 5000 words

Oh well, I'll post it anyway and hope for the best

Thanks for the info!

It used to be just 3000 characters - we're lucky, nowadays.

Australian rePublic wrote:5000 characters? Holy Crap! I'd be lucky if my draft doesn't exceed 5000 words

To be honest, if your draft is that long, you should break up the proposal by themes into multiple proposals.

Does GAR#43 “WA Labor Relations Act” prohibit yellow-dog contracts (agreements that forbid joining a union, often as a condition of employment)? Specifically clauses 2(c): “Employers are prohibited from engaging in actions which interfere with the right of workers to engage in strikes, or actions which interfere with the ability to maintain a strike” and 9: “FORBIDS discrimination based on union membership where employment is concerned. Union members and non-members must be afforded equal treatment in hiring, work assignment, compensation, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions.”

I’m asking because, while these agreements do interfere with union membership and the ability to strike, I don’t know if they can be considered “actions” or discrimination on the part of the employer. I am also uncertain if the resolution protects against retaliation for engaging in strikes.

Cretox State wrote:Does GAR#43 “WA Labor Relations Act” prohibit yellow-dog contracts (agreements that forbid joining a union, often as a condition of employment)? Specifically clauses 2(c): “Employers are prohibited from engaging in actions which interfere with the right of workers to engage in strikes, or actions which interfere with the ability to maintain a strike” and 9: “FORBIDS discrimination based on union membership where employment is concerned. Union members and non-members must be afforded equal treatment in hiring, work assignment, compensation, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions.”

I’m asking because, while these agreements do interfere with union membership and the ability to strike, I don’t know if they can be considered “actions” or discrimination on the part of the employer. I am also uncertain if the resolution protects against retaliation for engaging in strikes.

Underlined bits. Basically the way I read it is that if non-union members didn't get punished for joining a strike (you don't have to be a union member to do so), then neither could union members. The rest of the equal treatment requirements in italics, would make it very difficult to enact any kind of punishments for partaking a strike, if even a single non-union member (or union member for that matter - people can disagree with union orders of going on a strike, and not strike, though they'll likely get yelled at by their union rep because of it) didn't go on strike.

In my reading only, if the entire workforce goes on strike, then the employer can do something about it, as long as they don't single out union members (or non-union members, for that matter) because of it. So basically, no revenge allowed simply for being in a union, strike or no strike.

This will not lead to anything, but I would like to make a small mumble of protest.

It seems at some point the "Human Rights" category has been changed into "Civil Rights". OK, whatever. Not here to argue that. But it also seems all resolutions passed as Human Rights have been retroactively changed to Civil Rights. That is not what happened with the introduction of repeals, Education and Creativity, Healthcare, and basically every other change in UN/WA history. Resolutions have never been retroactively edited. They were passed as Human Rights resolutions and should have remained as such, even if going forward only Civil Rights resolutions can be passed.

It is even worse that you have done it to Historical Resolutions, when this category never even existed.

Me making this murmur of disquiet will not lead to any change but I just want to say how incredibly annoying it is to find hard work has been retroactively edited without the consent of those writing it. A loud wet pffffft to those involved.

Hannasea wrote:This will not lead to anything, but I would like to make a small mumble of protest.

It seems at some point the "Human Rights" category has been changed into "Civil Rights". OK, whatever. Not here to argue that. But it also seems all resolutions passed as Human Rights have been retroactively changed to Civil Rights. That is not what happened with the introduction of repeals, Education and Creativity, Healthcare, and basically every other change in UN/WA history. Resolutions have never been retroactively edited. They were passed as Human Rights resolutions and should have remained as such, even if going forward only Civil Rights resolutions can be passed.

It is even worse that you have done it to Historical Resolutions, when this category never even existed.

Me making this murmur of disquiet will not lead to any change but I just want to say how incredibly annoying it is to find hard work has been retroactively edited without the consent of those writing it. A loud wet pffffft to those involved.

Civil Rights was a rename of an existing category and not a new creation. Idk if the admins could have avoided retroactive change.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Civil Rights was a rename of an existing category and not a new creation. That's why.

The resolutions were still voted on as Human Rights. The Furry region voted against every single Human Rights resolution after the failure of Rights of Intelligent Beings, based on the name. You can't Yezhov that away, because the word human was exactly what they were voting on!

...though my naturally argumentative streak now has me in the unfortunate position of defending furries, so I guess I'll bow out. Just - annoying. Grrr.