NationStates

Can a resolution amend a previous resolution instead of just repealing it?

What happens if I purposely don’t comply with a law?

Cambrionia wrote:Can a resolution amend a previous resolution instead of just repealing it?

Due to game mechanics, no. See: viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

Federation of Anterica wrote:What happens if I purposely don’t comply with a law?

The Compliance Commission kicks in. See: viewtopic.php?p=34697384#p34697384
In-character, your nation is issued a fine "calculated proportionately to the violation but in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from member states" (I.e. fined until the price of paying the fine is higher than whatever cost your nation perceives compliance to be at). Out-of-character, you the player risk ostracisation and irrelevance. There's no out-of-character fine or punishment, but if you choose not to play the game by the rules, other players won't play the game with you either. Some players have tried to roleplay the consequences of non-compliance, which is more generally accepted.

I asked this question in another thread, and got told it fit here: What was the General Assembly resolution that passed with the largest percentage of votes?

Has there already been a committee formed by a previous GA resolution that combats misinformation?

The Orwell Society wrote:Has there already been a committee formed by a previous GA resolution that combats misinformation?

no

Tinhampton wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:Has there already been a committee formed by a previous GA resolution that combats misinformation?

no

Thank you

In the language of a repeal to active resolution #610, 'Safe Disposal Of Nuclear Waste', wherein concern is called to the self violation of language within this resolution, should a call to action be included, or should the issue itself be all that is stated in the repeal?

(Stipulation 2c uses vague terminology which implies the required movement of on-site nuclear waste disposal and containment units, which are buried at considerable depth, during the decommissioning of the reactor unit in question. This violates stipulation 2d, as the exhuming of on-site waste for transport presents a significant risk of leakage and "radioactive contamination". Furthermore, stipulation 3 fails to require member states report current disposal methods. Stipulation 2a only requires the NESC to investigate potential methods of waste disposal. If the NESC is to regulate nuclear waste management procedures of member states, comprehensive research must be preformed in regards to currently employed waste management procedures in order to properly identify and address ongoing nuclear related risk as well as future risk, and enforce stipulation 2 and 3 of the resolution. As a result of these concerns, Krenchofstan hereby strongly recommends a new proposal as an amendment to Resolution #610 be drafted, which addresses these concerns in satisfactory detail.)

How does the above sound? This is the first repeal I have ever drafted, so I would appreciate any and all assistance.

Krenchofstan wrote:snip

The World Assembly thinks and acts as The World Assembly, not as Krenchofstan. Otherwise, I have completely forgotten who won between IA and Jedinsto in last summer's "perfect committees" debate and what it means.

It is legal for a repeal to encourage the passage of replacement legislation, so long as it does not attempt to bring that legislation into force within the text itself.

Tinhampton wrote:The World Assembly thinks and acts as The World Assembly, not as Krenchofstan. Otherwise, I have completely forgotten who won between IA and Jedinsto in last summer's "perfect committees" debate and what it means.

It is legal for a repeal to encourage the passage of replacement legislation, so long as it does not attempt to bring that legislation into force within the text itself.

Sounds good, thank you for the advice.

Tinhampton wrote:

Krenchofstan wrote:snip

The World Assembly thinks and acts as The World Assembly, not as Krenchofstan. Otherwise, I have completely forgotten who won between IA and Jedinsto in last summer's "perfect committees" debate and what it means.

IA won; Repeal ruled illegal 4 - 0, ruling being that committees operate on Reasonable Nation Theory.

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:

IA won; Repeal ruled illegal 4 - 0, ruling being that committees operate on Reasonable Nation Theory.

So I do write "The world Assembly strongly encourages..." rather than "Krenchofstan strongly encourages..." correct? or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

Krenchofstan wrote:

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:

IA won; Repeal ruled illegal 4 - 0, ruling being that committees operate on Reasonable Nation Theory.

So I do write "The world Assembly strongly encourages..." rather than "Krenchofstan strongly encourages..." correct? or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

Yes, it's "The World Assembly" rather than Krenchosfstan... but "strongly encourages" is too much: Say "hopes for", instead.

Another Question:

What category would a proposal seeking to combat and restrict the spreading of misinformation be in? It will somewhat restrict free speech, so I'm thinking about something along the lines of political stability. However, it will also provide people with educational content and tie in with memberstate's education program, so it might be Education. What do you guys think?

The Orwell Society wrote:What category would a proposal seeking to combat and restrict the spreading of misinformation be in? It will somewhat restrict free speech, so I'm thinking about something along the lines of political stability. However, it will also provide people with educational content and tie in with memberstate's education program, so it might be Education. What do you guys think?

Category is loosely judged. You merely need to provide an argument (post hoc is acceptable) that a major effect of the proposal fits within that category.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:What category would a proposal seeking to combat and restrict the spreading of misinformation be in? It will somewhat restrict free speech, so I'm thinking about something along the lines of political stability. However, it will also provide people with educational content and tie in with memberstate's education program, so it might be Education. What do you guys think?

Category is loosely judged. You merely need to provide an argument (post hoc is acceptable) that a major effect of the proposal fits within that category.

Adding on, categories can also be very tricky, hence why GenSec is a bit lenient on it.
E.g. "Social Justice".

Fachumonn wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Category is loosely judged. You merely need to provide an argument (post hoc is acceptable) that a major effect of the proposal fits within that category.

Adding on, categories can also be very tricky, hence why GenSec is a bit lenient on it.
E.g. "Social Justice".

There used to be a "best fit" test where GenSec would remove your proposal for failing to fit into what was judged, post hoc, the "best" category. This has fortunately been removed.

Thank you. After some thought, I am going to put it in the political stability category.

The Orwell Society wrote:Thank you. After some thought, I am going to put it in the political stability category.

If the Misinformation that it's aimed against isn't primarily "political" then 'Moral Decency' might be a better fit... or if it's aimed primarily at false advertising then even 'Regulation: Consumer Safety'.

Bears Armed wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:Thank you. After some thought, I am going to put it in the political stability category.

If the Misinformation that it's aimed against isn't primarily "political" then 'Moral Decency' might be a better fit... or if it's aimed primarily at false advertising then even 'Regulation: Consumer Safety'.

It isn't really aimed at anything in particular, just any false information that is intentionally false and could cause problems. Everything from ASD to the history of a political candidate to what's in the soil food is growing in to the working conditions of your average fast food worker. Since it is technically infringing upon free speech and press, I put under political stability due to the fact that it would affect political freedoms more than civil rights.

The Orwell Society wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:If the Misinformation that it's aimed against isn't primarily "political" then 'Moral Decency' might be a better fit... or if it's aimed primarily at false advertising then even 'Regulation: Consumer Safety'.

It isn't really aimed at anything in particular, just any false information that is intentionally false and could cause problems. Everything from ASD to the history of a political candidate to what's in the soil food is growing in to the working conditions of your average fast food worker. Since it is technically infringing upon free speech and press, I put under political stability due to the fact that it would affect political freedoms more than civil rights.

Well, that's not good. Misinformation is a very broad topic, and you need to focus on something or else you're draft will fail.

Attempted Socialism wrote:Due to game mechanics, no. See: viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

Thanks!

Does this precedent on the committee rule still apply, seeing as the rule has since been altered?

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:Does this precedent on the committee rule still apply, seeing as the rule has since been altered?

No.

Hello. I'm getting a lot of these recruitment telegrams, but if I'm interested in participating in the General Assembly and maybe writing resolutions one day, what regions are best for me? What regions have a strong GA department?