NationStates

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:21 am**

Since questions or comments cannot be posted in the GA Proposal Compedium: Rules & General Advice, this thread has been created so players have a place where they can freely ask questions, or make comments.

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:56 pm**

Urgench wrote:Either that or can legality issues be dealt with the old way, in drafting threads ?

This thread is primarily for clarifying the actual rules themselves. Legality issues are ideally dealt with through the draft thread itself.

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:47 pm**

When you propose a resolution in the world assembly, do you just propose your idea, or do they expect a polished form?

For example: the cooperation in science act: Did the person who proposed it give them this? (see spoiler)

Or did they just give them a general "I would like to see somthing done about...?"
I am thinking about proposing a resolution, and I just wanted to know if I had to propse it the way it is when people vote on it, or if i could just give them my ideas.

Thanks!

The dragon's last meal

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:53 pm**

This topic is supposed to be for Q&A but it seems a couple of our veteran posters who ought to know better have gone off on a tangent. This is why we have telegrams folks. Use them.

The Dragons Last Meal wrote:When you propose a resolution in the world assembly, do you just propose your idea, or do they expect a polished form?

For example: the cooperation in science act: Did the person who proposed it give them this? (see spoiler)
Cooperation in Science Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Gotham Network

Description: BE IT RESOLVED THAT THESE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED

CONSIDERING scientific research and advancement to be vital to the well-being, progress and development of sapientkind,

ASTONISHED that no provisions have been made for the international sharing and coordination of scientific research,

I. HEREBY task the WA Scientific Programme with the following responsibilities:

1) To collect, disseminate, and review such research as the governments and scientists of its member nations choose to release to public scrutiny, in compliance with all appropriate national and international laws regarding intellectual property and national security;

2) To coordinate scientific studies and research projects of international scope, which scientists from many WA nations may choose to participate in under the auspices of the WASP and in concert with their nations of origin or residence, such projects to be funded directly by grants from the governments, public research institutions, privately owned foundations, corporations, or other concerned entities, and donations from concerned individuals, at the discretion of these individuals and organizations;

3) To provide a public forum for free and unhindered debate on scientific research and issues which scientists from all member nations may participate in.

II. STRONGLY URGE all member states to contribute to scientific research and advancement, to the best of their ability, and to release any and all scientific research conducted under the auspices of their governments and public bodies for consideration by the WASP, save only for studies deemed directly related to national security and similar considerations.

Or did they just give them a general "I would like to see somthing done about...?"
I am thinking about proposing a resolution, and I just wanted to know if I had to propse it the way it is when people vote on it, or if i could just give them my ideas.

Thanks!

The dragon's last meal

The best approach for a proposal is to first create a thread in which you post your proposal's first draft. Ideally you'd want to polish it before submitting it to queue, as it will avoid being deleted by the Moderators for any potential rule violations.

There have been posters who come to the General Assembly forum and start threads proposing an idea to get feedback on it and to test the waters to determine what support exists for the idea. Once they have received that input, the next step is typically to draw up the first draft of the proposal and post it in the same thread for others to review and provide feedback on.

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:06 pm**

OK! I'll keep that in mind. Thank you! :hug:

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2010 6:06 am**

Question:

So how does a delegate from a traditionally "Lets-Ignore-the-WA" feeder region, who is trying to get her little minions to participate in WA affairs, help calm a newbie who charged in blind and got his WA status stripped for illegal legislation?

Is there a procedure for him to follow to have his status restored? Can he re-apply?

The learning curve over here in forum land is enormous. Most of us shy away from this place. So, I am unsure of how to help this player.

Incidentally, the player is Friendly Dolphins.

Note: Please refrain from abusive comments about new people or inferring that because they are new, they are stupid. "Y'all" really do make it hard for new people to get involved.

So, what does he or I need to do to get this fixed? Can it be fixed?

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2010 6:35 am**

Ah, that name seems vaguely familiar. I believe I know what you're referring to. Unfortunately, once a nation has been removed by moderator force, that nation itself cannot rejoin.

We do have a solution for that. However, some people don't like it but it is the best we can offer after we've removed a nation for severe rule breaking. The solution we typically refer players to is: you can create a new nation to put into the World Assembly or you can use an existing puppet of yours for the same reason. There is still only one nation allowed at a time.

Your friend/region mate is free to use a puppet to re-join the WA. They should keep in mind what cause them to be ejected in the first place and avoid those actions in the future.

Posted: **Mon May 03, 2010 1:25 pm**

Darkesia wrote:Note: Please refrain from abusive comments about new people or inferring that because they are new, they are stupid. "Y'all" really do make it hard for new people to get involved.

I want to comment on this one. I believe this is an unfair statement.

As someone who is still a newbie I think if these "new members" would put out some effort they would find it is easy to join in and quite easy to become involved in a positive way. I joined this site and forum a little over 2 months ago. In the first month I read the rules and other informational sticky threads. I read the existing resolutions (I do not claim to remember them all of course). I lurked the forum for enough time to see how many times new members just charge in and post proposals with no regard for the rules nor what has come before them.

Any new member who spends even a little effort to read the rules and read the existing resolutions would find they avoid 95% of the traps a lot of new members fall into. It is not hard at all. It just requires some self control and effort on the part of the new member. It should not be the responsibility of the older members to somehow make changes so a new member can fit in. Rather it should be the responsibility of the new member to learn, read, and put out some effort to fit in.

I am not trying to offend, but rather point out the fallacy of the statement “"Y'all" really do make it hard for new people to get involved.”

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2010 8:35 am**

Poree wrote:
Darkesia wrote:I am not trying to offend, but rather point out the fallacy of the statement “"Y'all" really do make it hard for new people to get involved.”

It's not a fallacy. This is a game.

It doesn't seem like it would be too much to ask that starting to play should not involve poring through pages and pages of rules.

I would submit that nations that are new to proposal writing and bring forth proposals with errors in them should be treated with respect. I don't know about the details of the Friendly Dolphins case, they might have gone beyond the pale in some way. As a general observation though, stuff like this post does not seem to be either constructive or respectful.

A Question: How can Punk Reloaded figure out what he would need to change for his proposal to be acceptable to Moderation?

Edit: The poster of the linked post has retracted their post and apologized, on the following page.

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2010 8:37 am**

This is a question that has popped up only a few times since I've been here, but has never really been answered:

Are definitions automatically limited to single resolutions, or do they apply to all World Assembly resolutions if not otherwise stated?

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2010 8:52 am**

I would venture not, since if resolutions started relying on previous definitions, that would be House of Cards. Applying one resolution's definition to all future resolutions w/o definition would be HOC in reverse.

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2010 9:06 am**

Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:It doesn't seem like it would be too much to ask that starting to play should not involve poring through pages and pages of rules.

This is quite a statement to make, from someone from the world of gameplay, which also has dozens of rules and conventions that aren't always easy for outsiders to get right on the first try. Can you attest with any credibility that n00bs in a GP region are never treated a bit roughly when they run afoul of either game or region rules? If I was new to the game, and I was garnering a lot of endorsements because I wanted to be delegate and didn't understand that the region elected its delegates and had an endorsement cap, how likely would it be that I'd be booted from the region?

Well, it's the same in the GA. Posting proposals that have no chance of getting anywhere because they are blatantly illegal is a waste of everyone's time, and regulars here can be understandably cranky about it, especially when it happens at least two or three times a week. Just as understanding the rules of a GP region is not so much to ask before you start riling up the natives, gaining at least a rudimentary understanding of WA rules is not so much to ask before you start drafting international law.

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2010 7:50 pm**

Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:It doesn't seem like it would be too much to ask that starting to play should not involve poring through pages and pages of rules.

And, non-NS-specific, would you honestly buy a new board game (or card game), open the box, and start playing without reading the rules?

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2010 9:11 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:This is a question that has popped up only a few times since I've been here, but has never really been answered:

Are definitions automatically limited to single resolutions, or do they apply to all World Assembly resolutions if not otherwise stated?

I think Kenny's got it: HoC is the stumbling-block for any attempt to make a definition universally applicable, in the sense of "no need to write this out again, we already know it from GA #666". If you have "child" defined one way in a resolution about child labour, and another way in a resolution about child welfare, then each would apply in its appropriate setting.

If you have a definition in an existing resolution, and a proposal is submitted with a completely opposed, contradictory definition, then that would be grounds for deleting the new proposal for contradiction.

(I've just wiped out the minor philosophical treatise about definitions I'd written here, but what it boiled down to was: keep an eye on the little beggars, they're dead sneaky.)

@Zemnaya Svoboda: A discussion about why there are rules at all is a bit off-topic here. This thread is for how the rules that exist are applied.

As to this question -- How can Punk Reloaded figure out what he would need to change for his proposal to be acceptable to Moderation? -- he can read the rules, he can read the passed resolutions, he can post his proposal as a draft before he submits it and he can make such alterations as seem to be genuinely helpful, ignoring the rest unless he can make them a hook to hang a favourable argument on.

On your implied question -- why do people bother making comments like the one you've linked to? -- not all delegations are as universally full of sweetness and light as my noble Ardchoillean team.

The GA delegations play politics as well as their other activities. Snarking about a proposal that you think would disadvantage your nation is one way of exerting psychological pressure on the writer to back away from submitting it: if it's never submitted, you won't have to go to the effort of lobbying against it.

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2010 5:00 am**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I would venture not, since if resolutions started relying on previous definitions, that would be House of Cards. Applying one resolution's definition to all future resolutions w/o definition would be HOC in reverse.

But then, if the WA has defined a term in one resolution without saying that it only applies to that specific resolution, wouldn't giving a different definition in another proposal (while the former resolution was still in force) be a case of 'contradiction'? I can remember this point being raised in more than one drfating discussion before now, but (unfortunately) not what the Mods' rulings were in those cases...
Maybe it depends on whether the definition was in a preambulatory clause ("Defining X as Y,"), which it seems could reasonably be taken as applying only to the proposal concerned, or in an operative one ("Defines X as Y;") -- thus establishing that definition as WA law -- instead?

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2010 10:55 pm**

Bears Armed wrote:But then, if the WA has defined a term in one resolution without saying that it only applies to that specific resolution, wouldn't giving a different definition in another proposal (while the former resolution was still in force) be a case of 'contradiction'?

I think that's one for "mod discretion" to be hauled out. If the different definition expands on, or is compatible with, or just doesn't come anywhere near the same field of application as, the original, it'd probably stay. But if the new one undermined the old, it'd probably be a contradiction, or an attempted amendment, and it'd go.

Bears Armed wrote:Maybe it depends on whether the definition was in a preambulatory clause ("Defining X as Y,"), which it seems could reasonably be taken as applying only to the proposal concerned, or in an operative one ("Defines X as Y;") -- thus establishing that definition as WA law -- instead?

I see what you mean, but I think this one is just too hypothetical to even make a hypothetical reply to. I'm not going to say preambles have no bearing on the "action" clauses, I'm not going to say that they are of equal weight to the "action" clauses, I'm not even going to go for the nebulous middle ground. Seems to me it depends on how each individual proposal is written.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:23 am**

Is suggesting an international parliament (for example) the same as suggesting the world police?

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:54 am**

Er ... wouldn't you say the WA is, at least in broad terms, already an international parliament?

I don't think I'm really understanding your question, because I can't see the connection between "parliament" and "world police". The WA can't be the sort of parliament that decides to go to war or set up a world police, because it's been told it can't have armies, military or police.

It did, in a previous incarnation, set up something like an international police information exchange, a bit like INTERPOL, but with strictly limited powers. It's set up other international bodies, too -- that's why old stagers moan about "another committee". Is it the "international body" angle you're asking about?

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:09 am**

I thought that the World Assembly was an international parliament...

Posted: **Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:59 am**

Ardchoille wrote:
Glen-Rhodes wrote:This is a question that has popped up only a few times since I've been here, but has never really been answered:

Are definitions automatically limited to single resolutions, or do they apply to all World Assembly resolutions if not otherwise stated?

I think Kenny's got it: HoC is the stumbling-block for any attempt to make a definition universally applicable, in the sense of "no need to write this out again, we already know it from GA #666". If you have "child" defined one way in a resolution about child labour, and another way in a resolution about child welfare, then each would apply in its appropriate setting.

If you have a definition in an existing resolution, and a proposal is submitted with a completely opposed, contradictory definition, then that would be grounds for deleting the new proposal for contradiction.

(I've just wiped out the minor philosophical treatise about definitions I'd written here, but what it boiled down to was: keep an eye on the little beggars, they're dead sneaky.)

My only problem with viewing definitions from the perspective of HoC is that many of these definitions will notionally end up being part of national legislation or forming the basis of national legislation as a requirement of compliance, meaning that any given GA resolution is not the only repository of a given definition. Meaning that even if a resolution is repealed the definition it created may continue to have a life after the death of the resolution which created it. There's no obvious reason why a definition contained in a repealed resolution which is not replaced with another resolution containing a new definition should stop forming the basis of legislation within member states, since a repealed resolution without a replacement has no direct effect on national legislation. This means that multiple and competing definitions could go on having lives after the death of their parent law, conflicting with more recent definitions created for other regulatory and legislative purposes.

Posted: **Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:39 am**

And if the definition itself is the problem with a resolution meriting repeal? We'd have to repeal multiple resolutions if succeeding resolutions relied on a faulty definition.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:55 am**

Sorry if this is posted somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

What is the character limit on proposals?

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:59 am**

Nullarni wrote:What is the character limit on proposals?

About 3500 characters.

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:00 am**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Nullarni wrote:What is the character limit on proposals?

About 3500 characters.

Thanks.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:52 pm**

How do I get endorsements for a proposal

NationStates

General Assembly Q&A

General Assembly Q&A

I have a question!

Endorsing for proposals