General Assembly Q&A

[TheOpressedOnes]

10. CLARIFIES that no part of this resolution be construed as placing restrictions on the following:
[...]
d) Future resolutions mandating the allowance of specific procedures

from the Bodily Integrity Act
I think it is illegal, because it allows resolutions to change the effect of the resolution, which means that that clause effectively states: "This resolution can be amended by future resolutions to do not have an affect in a certain area", which is, in my opinion, a violation of the amendment prohibition and the mechanics prohibition. Others disagree, so I have to ask here.

[Normlpeople]

10. CLARIFIES that no part of this resolution be construed as placing restrictions on the following:
[...]
d) Future resolutions mandating the allowance of specific procedures

from the Bodily Integrity Act
I think it is illegal, because it allows resolutions to change the effect of the resolution, which means that that clause effectively states: "This resolution can be amended by future resolutions to do not have an affect in a certain area", which is, in my opinion, a violation of the amendment prohibition and the mechanics prohibition. Others disagree, so I have to ask here.

As it mearly Clarifies, it states that it wont have to be repealed should legislation regarding specific procedures that may touch on this act be passed in the future. Thats my take at least.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Several resolutions (e.g., On Abortion, Freedom to Contract) already have provisions making allowances for future resolutions to alter their scope. Says nothing about the legality in this case, of course, but at least there's precedent.

[Elke and Elba]

I think it's pretty clear the WA cannot have a military or police force.

However, is it possible that WA accredits an organisation as a peacekeeping corps, and in return the peacekeeping corps are allowed to use the WA branding to seek protected status?

This should not flout the rule as the WA does not own or have the military or police force, but an organisation unrelated to the WA are given the ability to represent on behalf.

Or is it still not allowed?

[Ardchoille]

No. Repeat in ascending volume.

The concept of a proposal creating rules to govern WA nations if they individually decide to take part in peacekeeping ventures is OK (this is a generalisation, not a ruling on the legality of the draft just begun, which may change in drafting).

But no, no army = no backdoor rent-an-army.

[Rotwood]

No. Repeat in ascending volume.

The concept of a proposal creating rules to govern WA nations if they individually decide to take part in peacekeeping ventures is OK (this is a generalisation, not a ruling on the legality of the draft just begun, which may change in drafting).

But no, no army = no backdoor rent-an-army.

Thank you for this confirmation. This is what I thought the scenario would be when I added the two WA bits to the draft.

[Elke and Elba]

Let's rephrase this.

Even when the WA is not paying for it?
Even if these organisations/participating countries do in on their own accord and do not ask for anything in return?

Ah, I just got an idea. Let the peacekeeping organizations use an international recognized symbol! There's no need to use WA to legitimize it.

[Bears Armed]

Ah, I just got an idea. Let the peacekeeping organizations use an international recognized symbol!

OOC: such as, maybeso, the fylfot?
^_^

[Defwa]

Let's rephrase this.

Even when the WA is not paying for it?
Even if these organisations/participating countries do in on their own accord and do not ask for anything in return?

Ah, I just got an idea. Let the peacekeeping organizations use an international recognized symbol! There's no need to use WA to legitimize it.

Its my understanding the WA cant even ask nations to war.

So any party flying under a WA flag is under a false one.

[Rotwood]

This is a straight up one:

Are the rules of "No WA police/army" and "No optionality" built into the WA, or is their sole basis rooted in GAR #2?

[Mousebumples]

This is a straight up one:

Are the rules of "No WA police/army" and "No optionality" built into the WA, or is their sole basis rooted in GAR #2?

They are built into the WA. They existed before GA#2 did.

EDIT: I'd also think that if they were solely rooted in GA#2, they wouldn't be in the rules document. It would just be the matter that you couldn't contradict existing legislation and authors should familiarize themselves with precedent before drafting. (or at least, before submitting)

[Normlpeople]

I respectfully disagree with Mousebumples on this one. While the "no optionality" rule still exists, the requirements for following them "in good faith". While one requres an actual level of compliance (or some work creating a work-around), the other simply allows you to ignore it completely.

[Rotwood]

I respectfully disagree with Mousebumples on this one. While the "no optionality" rule still exists, the requirements for following them "in good faith". While one requres an actual level of compliance (or some work creating a work-around), the other simply allows you to ignore it completely.

I am talking about the ones that require compliance, or those with specific compliance clauses in them

[Inventio]

Your link's wonky, but I think I know the proposal you mean, and I've just removed it. I left it up too long, owing to overthinking. I made the mistake of asking myself, "Is it actually branding?" The nation name isn't used in the text, the rest of it is standard repeal-flavoured exaggeration, and the action of repealing is attributed to the Assembly, not the author. Mods are enjoined not to delete proposals automatically just because they differ from the standard "The WA, THINKING this, BELIEVING that and DEFINING thusly, MANDATES that you all do this" format.

However, on re-reading I realised that the way it was written ("I move ...") meant that the speech had to come from someone. But different players have different concepts of who the "someone" may be. There are players who don't RP at all, there are others who regard their nation name simply as a screen name, and there are those who post as a nation "persona", not an individual character. The "I" restricts their understanding of the text. Therefore it was forcing a single way of RP on the whole, ie, metagaming.

Of course, I could have just followed my instinct ("He said 'I'! KILL!"), but if I had I'd have missed the chance to enjoy a bit of really, really nitpicky ruleslawyering, and what good GA-er would miss that?

I know it has been about two weeks, but it occurred to me today to wonder if referencing yourself in a proposal as a nation was acceptable. The proposal is listed as being from a nation (proposed by: {nation}). For example, if a proposal said something to the effect of "the WA accepts the reasons proposed by {nation} and hereby condemns {nation2}", would that be illegal? It restricts understanding of the text, but the game itself also does that by listing the nation as who is proposing the resolution.

[Normlpeople]

I speak from a purely RP sense here. With GAR #2 on the books, there is written law that states we must, in good faith, comply with passed resolutions. Now, I am well aware that the WA gnome committees would continue to "implement" the resolution in the game code, however, in an RP sense, there is no law forcing the compliance, essentially the WA has no teeth.

Forcing compliance in individual situations would be pointless, as there wouldn't be anything requiring compliance of the resolution as a whole. Currently we have that (along with a guideline regarding what constitutes compliance), if we are forced to put it in individual proposals, thats pretty much all the proposal would be.

[Normlpeople]

Your link's wonky, but I think I know the proposal you mean, and I've just removed it. I left it up too long, owing to overthinking. I made the mistake of asking myself, "Is it actually branding?" The nation name isn't used in the text, the rest of it is standard repeal-flavoured exaggeration, and the action of repealing is attributed to the Assembly, not the author. Mods are enjoined not to delete proposals automatically just because they differ from the standard "The WA, THINKING this, BELIEVING that and DEFINING thusly, MANDATES that you all do this" format.

However, on re-reading I realised that the way it was written ("I move ...") meant that the speech had to come from someone. But different players have different concepts of who the "someone" may be. There are players who don't RP at all, there are others who regard their nation name simply as a screen name, and there are those who post as a nation "persona", not an individual character. The "I" restricts their understanding of the text. Therefore it was forcing a single way of RP on the whole, ie, metagaming.

Of course, I could have just followed my instinct ("He said 'I'! KILL!"), but if I had I'd have missed the chance to enjoy a bit of really, really nitpicky ruleslawyering, and what good GA-er would miss that?

I know it has been about two weeks, but it occurred to me today to wonder if referencing yourself in a proposal as a nation was acceptable. The proposal is listed as being from a nation (proposed by: {nation}). For example, if a proposal said something to the effect of "the WA accepts the reasons proposed by {nation} and hereby condemns {nation2}", would that be illegal? It restricts understanding of the text, but the game itself also does that by listing the nation as who is proposing the resolution.

I believe that would fall under "branding".

[Inventio]

I know it has been about two weeks, but it occurred to me today to wonder if referencing yourself in a proposal as a nation was acceptable. The proposal is listed as being from a nation (proposed by: {nation}). For example, if a proposal said something to the effect of "the WA accepts the reasons proposed by {nation} and hereby condemns {nation2}", would that be illegal? It restricts understanding of the text, but the game itself also does that by listing the nation as who is proposing the resolution.

I believe that would fall under "branding".

I was trying to think of a way to word it without being branding, such as the removed proposal almost was; if a general "we" was referenced, I think a more skilled author could avoid branding. I'm more asking about the legality with regards to restricting the reader's understanding.

[Rotwood]

I speak from a purely RP sense here. With GAR #2 on the books, there is written law that states we must, in good faith, comply with passed resolutions. Now, I am well aware that the WA gnome committees would continue to "implement" the resolution in the game code, however, in an RP sense, there is no law forcing the compliance, essentially the WA has no teeth.

Forcing compliance in individual situations would be pointless, as there wouldn't be anything requiring compliance of the resolution as a whole. Currently we have that (along with a guideline regarding what constitutes compliance), if we are forced to put it in individual proposals, thats pretty much all the proposal would be.

All the same, we are waiting on a mod ruling on this issue

[Ardchoille]

Defwa is right. Mousebumples is right. Bears Armed is pulling everyone's leg (sometimes I think I should make him an honorary Australian).

It's worth noting that the Historical Resolutions predecessor of Rights and Duties of WA States didn't come into existence until February 24, 2004, by which time the NSUN had passed 48 other Resolutions. Compliance was operating before NS UN #49, and long before GA#2. "No army" was around before NS UN #49, and long before GA#2. They are part of the way the game operates. A proposal that tries to force the WA to do something it cannot do -- to change the game -- is illegal (game mechanics/metagaming, depending on how it's done).

Whether GA#2 exists or not, mods will continue to reject proposals that try to create a WA army and we will continue to reject optional proposals.

As to war between nations ... was there a question on that? Ah, yes, Elke and Elba's -- whether GA#2 exists or not, players will still have to ask other players if they will join an RPd war. Players will continue to be able to refuse to take part in an RPd war. Thus, war in NS will continue to be a consensual act between nations, regardless of whether the definition in GA#2 exists. You don't have to RP it that way, but if you flat-out contradict it in a proposal, you're sunk. (You can just not talk about it, though. Discretion is the better part of valour.)

Similarly, the WA will continue to be neutral, and all member states will continue to be equal under its law, because the WA doesn't have the mechanisms to be anything but neutral, and no member nation can escape the statistical changes each Resolution causes. Contradict that in a proposal, and you're sunk.

What the WA can do is change its instructions to member nations on how to conduct themselves internationally, including in war. Its predecessor started it with NS UN #40, Banning the Use of Landmines, and it's still doing it, as Ambassador Pearson will no doubt enthusiastically attest. Nor does it have to stick to limiting weapons, as shown by GA#18, The Prisoners of War Accord, GA #121, Medical Facilities Protection Act, and ... here, you go through the Past Resolutions.

You know that RP on NationStates is free-form, so how you RP compliance, or whether you do, is up to you. There's an interesting discussion of compliance in the guide Kellsek wrote in 2011.

I'm not getting into the question of how each of you RPs. If you want to RP that the WA is toothless if GA#2 is removed, fine. If you want to RP that its enforcement is done via black ops, fine. If you "know" that the WA kidnapped all the IT experts available and didn't release them till they came up with an unblockable law-changing computer virus, fine.

The thing is, the text of every GA Resolution is written in stone until it's repealed. The statistical effects on your nation are written in the code, and reduced when it's repealed. But the RPd effects on your people are up to you. How, or if, the WA enforces its laws on them is part of your roleplay. If you choose a version that makes people point and laugh, or scream "Not canon!", that's up to you, too.

The people of Ardchoille will be among the pointers and laughers at anyone who says they are a WA military or police force. The mod Ardchoille won't give a damn.

(If this doesn't answer your questions I can go into it at much greater length ... . But perhaps in another thread.)

[Ardchoille]

I know it has been about two weeks, but it occurred to me today to wonder if referencing yourself in a proposal as a nation was acceptable. The proposal is listed as being from a nation (proposed by: {nation}). For example, if a proposal said something to the effect of "the WA accepts the reasons proposed by {nation} and hereby condemns {nation2}", would that be illegal? It restricts understanding of the text, but the game itself also does that by listing the nation as who is proposing the resolution.

Yes, the underlined part would be illegal. A GA proposal has to be phrased so that it can be applied to all nations. If you name a nation, you're making it unequal (the centre of attention) -- but all nations have to be equal under international law, so all proposals have to be readable as applying to all nations equally. (Remember, a proposal is a Resolution in the making; the proposal's text must be written as a law.)

In the SC it'd be legal because the SC is given the machinery to act on individual nations, whether WA members or not, and on regions. The GA acts on all member nations.

As to "I" and "We": Some players play their nation as a persona (cf, in the real world, Uncle Sam, Brittannia, Marianne, Kathleen Ni Houlihan, Bharat Mata). Some play it as similar to an RL nation, to the extent of having people of some sort in it and one of them being an ambassador. Some use it as a screen name only. By simply putting "Submitted by (nation)", the game allows all these interpretations. Once you start pinning it down with "I", you're forcing an intepretation on players. Early NS UN Resolutions did use "I", but different styles of playing developed and, rather than waste time arguing about it, players let the "I" form drop. I don't know if there was ever a mod fiat on it, but today when I see it my first thought is "branding" and my next thought is "blog".

"We" in a GA proposal is "We, the nations of the WA acting in the General Assembly"-- ie, "the WA". It can't be one nation only because one nation alone can't bring about the changes its new law requires. Only a vote of the WA can do that.

[Normlpeople]

I yield to the mods, and to my (more experienced) peers. I learned something today.. thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Elke and Elba]

Ard, is it legal to have a "Charter Working Group" submitting to the World Assembly?

Last I remembered the ruling was that countries submit WA proposals, not groups or regions (in the Osiran WA Office or whatever it's called) - shouldn't this apply for Repeal GAR#2?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ard, is it legal to have a "Charter Working Group" submitting to the World Assembly?

Last I remembered the ruling was that countries submit WA proposals, not groups or regions (in the Osiran WA Office or whatever it's called) - shouldn't this apply for Repeal GAR#2?

I tried submitting a GHR on that point. This is the telegram I received:

Nice try, but no cigar. The WA itself mentions the WA in proposals. We've had authors called "@@nation@@ WA Mission". As to the "Working Group", doesn't matter what the name represents offsite, on NS it represents the nation and, OOCly, the single player who founded it. .

[The Dark Star Republic]

Honestly don't see why this branding was allowed. It was perfectly well established with DEFCON and ACCEL that such group-based branding was allowed no more than for a region. Yet another bit of woeful inconsistency.

[Elke and Elba]

Ard, is it legal to have a "Charter Working Group" submitting to the World Assembly?

Last I remembered the ruling was that countries submit WA proposals, not groups or regions (in the Osiran WA Office or whatever it's called) - shouldn't this apply for Repeal GAR#2?

I tried submitting a GHR on that point. This is the telegram I received:

Nice try, but no cigar. The WA itself mentions the WA in proposals. We've had authors called "@@nation@@ WA Mission". As to the "Working Group", doesn't matter what the name represents offsite, on NS it represents the nation and, OOCly, the single player who founded it. .

That's probably you made the wrong point? My focus would not be on WA, but Charter Working Group.

As a Charter Working Group is not a country per se - as admitted by Auralia himself, I don't see why this should be forced to say "it's a country!!11!!".

It is a group. That is the fact. So factual even Auralia admits it.

--

Anyway, to mods: I'm challenging that ruling SP was given. By the same extent, the Osiran(?) WA Office is a nation per se. You cannot, and should have never removed its proposal from the floor just because "there was Osiris". I could jolly well have my name as Testlandia, and some great power outside my control founds a region "Testlandia". Am I, therefore, in violation of "promoting for Testlandia (which isn't mine)"?

That's probably the (no offence) - worst and most inconsistent ruling I've ever seen.