[DRAFT] Education for Mentally Disabled Children (bumped)

[Araraukar]

OOC: So who will address IC criticism of the proposal?

OOC: Me, OOCly, if needed. If you go through the thread, you'll notice I've been talking mostly in OOC, making only a couple of IC comments here and there, though if it bothers you, I can stay in OOC mode from here on entirely.

Who is the author?

Me, the person who plays the game called NationStates. Nations are marked as authors anyway, not RP characters.

Which nation is submitting this to the World Assembly?

This one, eventually, obviously. And already did once.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: So who will address IC criticism of the proposal?

OOC: Me, OOCly, if needed. If you go through the thread, you'll notice I've been talking mostly in OOC, making only a couple of IC comments here and there, though if it bothers you, I can stay in OOC mode from here on entirely.

Who is the author?

Me, the person who plays the game called NationStates. Nations are marked as authors anyway, not RP characters.

Which nation is submitting this to the World Assembly?

This one, eventually, obviously. And already did once.

OOC:
In that case, since there is no In Character nation responsible for it, should this pass Excidium Planetis will not acknowledge that it exists.

[Araraukar]

OOC: In that case, since there is no In Character nation responsible for it, should this pass Excidium Planetis will not acknowledge that it exists.

OOC: I don't even want to try to jump through the hoops needed for understanding that, but if you want an IC nation to "blame", you can blame TNEO, I guess. He's not around to answer, though, and you can surely use the obvious loophole in the language rather than go through weird mental contortions, if you don't want to be in compliance.

EDIT: Also, you can probably blame the actual text on Janis, if you want, but that won't stop me from replying OOCly or from viewing Araraukar a non-WA nation, regardless of whether it has the WA status on it.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: I don't even want to try to jump through the hoops needed for understanding that, but if you want an IC nation to "blame", you can blame TNEO, I guess. He's not around to answer, though, and you can surely use the obvious loophole in the language rather than go through weird mental contortions, if you don't want to be in compliance.

It's real simple. If it didn't happen In Character, it isn't part of the RP reality. This is true regardless of whether we are considering OOC discussions or OOC proposals. By necessity, any WA resolution Excidium Planetis would be aware of must have been submitted by a person or persons who exist In Character. OOC players don't exist in the RP reality, therefore, there was nobody in the RP reality to submit this proposal, and therefore it is impossible for this proposal to have been submitted in the universe Excidium Planetis exists in.

Contrast this with a proposal submitted by IA. The In Character nation of Imperium Anglorum submitted, through their delegation to the World Assembly, a proposal. It actually happened in the universe Excidium Planetis exists in.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm going to have to agree with this. If we are going to have an IC-OOC distinction (itself probably pretty pointless), OOC actions cannot exist within the in-character universe.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: So that one that just passed doesn't exist for you? As far as I can see, the author didn't use IC even once. (Based on the TG I received from them, the "voice" they used on the thread was not IC.)

*snip*

Or you, and yet you're repealing it, so I'm guessing you consider it as having passed and existing.

And, like I already said:

EDIT: Also, you can probably blame the actual text on Janis, if you want, but that won't stop me from replying OOCly or from viewing Araraukar a non-WA nation, regardless of whether it has the WA status on it.

EDIT: Also, are you both saying that if a proposal was submitted without drafting and passed, it wouldn't exist for the two of you?

2nd EDIT: I'm curious, what happens in the cases where the submitting nation is not the author, and the author doesn't come to the thread to talk about it?

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: So that one that just passed doesn't exist for you? As far as I can see, the author didn't use IC even once. (Based on the TG I received from them, the "voice" they used on the thread was not IC.)

Wasn't IC huh? How else do you interpret this:

To further note, the WA is an international organization built upon the premise of unifying nations against issues that afflict our respective nations and if we are truly the capable and able organization we make ourselves out to be, we are More than capable of assisting one another in this matter.

That's first person referencing of the World Assembly and member nations as an international organization and not as a game.

Or you, and yet you're repealing it, so I'm guessing you consider it as having passed and existing.

Because it exists In Character. Even Bitely exists In Character, to the detriment of all.

EDIT: Also, you can probably blame the actual text on Janis, if you want, but that won't stop me from replying OOCly or from viewing Araraukar a non-WA nation, regardless of whether it has the WA status on it.

Janis, representing a non-WA nation, cannot have submitted it. So either A) Araraukar is a WA nation B) Araraukar broke the rules, therefore Excidium Planetis does not recognize the resolution, it being invalid, C) Nobody submitted it, so it doesn't exist.

EDIT: Also, are you both saying that if a proposal was submitted without drafting and passed, it wouldn't exist for the two of you?

That's ridiculous. World Space Abomination was submitted without drafting and passed, but it was submitted by an IC ambassador from and IC WA member nation and therefore existed in the RP reality.

I'm curious, what happens in the cases where the submitting nation is not the author, and the author doesn't come to the thread to talk about it?

Did a nation ICly submit the resolution on behalf of another IC nation?
Did an IC author exist?

In this case, no nation is ICly submitting and no IC author exists as far as I am aware. There exists no IC explanation for why this would be a WA resolution.

[Araraukar]

Janis, representing a non-WA nation, cannot have submitted it. So either A) Araraukar is a WA nation B) Araraukar broke the rules, therefore Excidium Planetis does not recognize the resolution, it being invalid, C) Nobody submitted it, so it doesn't exist.

OOC: Since we're grasping straws, I'm adding D) Janis submitted it for a laugh, knowing it'd be rejected on account of Araraukar not being in the WA, and it getting through the bureaucracy for some unexplainable reason. That sounds much more like the usual WA shenanigans than your options.

That's ridiculous.

I'm glad we agree.

However, if you want to jump through the ridiculous hoops, that's your choice. You'll still be considered to be godmodding noncompliance, if this ever passes into a resolution. And if either you or IA then tries to repeal it, that's pretty much evidence you consider it to be a resolution in IC. Either way, I'll be very amused.

And now, perhaps we've wasted enough posts on this thread on this forum that is part of the game called NationStates that the both of us play, and can leave it out of any debate that might be had? Or do you have suggestions on this proposal your IC character doesn't believe to exist?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: This proposal doesn't exist. Against.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Since we're grasping straws, I'm adding D) Janis submitted it for a laugh, knowing it'd be rejected on account of Araraukar not being in the WA, and it getting through the bureaucracy for some unexplainable reason. That sounds much more like the usual WA shenanigans than your options.

Excidium Planetis would still refuse to recognize a resolution submitted in jest by a non-WA member, even if it did somehow make it into the books.

However, if you want to jump through the ridiculous hoops, that's your choice. You'll still be considered to be godmodding noncompliance, if this ever passes into a resolution.

It isn't godmodding, unless the meaning of that term has changed significantly. The International Incidents sticky defines the term as this:

God-mod(ding)/Godmod(ding)/Godmode: To describe what happens to another player's characters, forces, etc. without the player's consent; refusing to take losses; having absurdly powerful characters, military forces, or technology; having a state's geography (or other features) designed in such a way as to provide an undue advantage.

Examples include describing how a missile hits another player's ship, describing casualties or fatalities of another player's characters, or saying another player's character dies. Doing such is a violation of community standards, but not against the rules. Players should allow for the other player to describe the "effect" of any event (such as a military engagement) unless they have their permission to describe such. May also include any activity which otherwise violates community standards, broadly speaking.

What is Godmoding 3.0? uses a similar definition, with more examples.

And before you say "Oh, that's II, it isn't the same as the GA"... this definition is consistent across all NS roleplay. From the NS Sports FAQ:

...
5. What does "Godmod" mean?

...

5. 'Godmodding' is essentially saying what happens and how they happen. It can be from the normal to the absurd, for example, a goal coming from a turnover in the opposition's own half leading to an open goal, or an earthquake happening that causes to ball to change direction suddenly. (Most people choose not to venture into the absurd just because most tend to like realistic-ish RPs).

I can't find a stickied definition, but I know from experience that P2TM uses the same general definition.

It even goes outside of NS. The play-by-post blog Ongoing Worlds quotes an example:

God-modding, is forcing reactions upon other characters. In laymen’s terms, saying what another players are doing. God-modding can also include having the ‘perfect’ character meaning you have no flaws, no weaknesses, and can never get hit during a fight.

In this specific case, I'm not dictating other players' roleplay. Anyone else can roleplay whatever they want, recognize the proposal as valid or not, I don't care. And I not dictating your character's actions, you are the one who said that Araraukar is not a WA nation and the OOC you (not Janis) is the one submitting. I'm not saying what your character did, I'm just going along with your roleplay (which happens to be that none of your characters ICly can submit this).

As for the other half of Godmodding, using overpowered characters/armies... obviously this is not the case. I'm not resorting to techwank to avoid compliance, I'm simply acknowledging that ICly this proposal does not and cannot exist.

If anything, any attempt to force me to acknowledge that a proposal not submitted by any WA member exists In Character is godmodding.

And if either you or IA then tries to repeal it, that's pretty much evidence you consider it to be a resolution in IC. Either way, I'll be very amused.

If no one else steps up to the task, I'll repeal it with a puppet that has no relation to EP and no IC nation attached. Neither the target nor the repeal will exist in the eyes of Excidium Planetis.

Or do you have suggestions on this proposal your IC character doesn't believe to exist?

No use offering IC advice since this proposal does not exist for Blackbourne to comment on.

OOCly I don't see why this proposal is necessary. All inhabitants of member nations are entitled to a Basic Education, including those with learning disabilities,
and CoCR specifically prohibits discrimination based on mental disabilities. Given that nations must therefore provide the mentally disabled with a basic education, what does this proposal do in excess of that?

[Wrapper]

It's (E), Araraukar was a WA nation, submitted it, and resigned from the WA. Regardless of what Janis says IC. And whether EP recognizes it or not, tough noogies, if it passes, it's the law of the land. Now can we get away from this ridiculous tangent and get back to the proposal?

[Araraukar]

Now can we get away from this ridiculous tangent and get back to the proposal?

OOC: Thank you.

Though on that note, I'm putting this one on hold as well, pending my return from my vacation trip, which should be August 12th. I may be able to log on meanwhile, at least on the Giant Bats account, but it's best to not count on it.

If anyone wants to borrow the Proposal Scalpel^TM meanwhile, feel free, but be sure to disinfect it thoroughly after use. You can't borrow Janis's flamethrower, however.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Reviving this one again.

And since it seems so difficult for some people to deal with the idea of an OOCly submitted proposal, you can all pretend that the Chief Inshpekshuuner wrote the original, slipped it into Janis's paperwork marked as something she should work on, and will be the one to physically carry the final copy to the submissions office - making the gnomes believe that Araraukar has WA status on the time of the submission. So you can blame the OOC WA nation status faff on him.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Since this is being resurrected, I will take the time to restate my opposition. The C.D.S.P. has taken the official stance that it is the parent's responsibility to educate the mentally disabled beyond the first five years of primary education. My government has long adopted a policy that presumes that those so disabled as to qualify under this proposal aren't capable of education beyond what is colloquially known as "elementary" school, and the burden is shifted upon the parent to either prove otherwise or assume financial responsibility for specialized education. As this proposal is incompatible with this policy, I stand in opposition."

Bell steps away from the microphone and leans into Janis, "For Odin's sake, Janis, if you make us pretend they have a hope and a prayer of using this education, we can hardly convince parents to screen them out preemptively. Think of the children! Erm, the healthy children. Not the other ones."

[Neo Humanity]

"
We are happy to say that our glorious nation supported this proposal. There have been many instances where our people are annoyed by the fact that they had wasted excessive resources towards those who are destined to be lesser. With such a screening program, it will be easier for any nation to filter out those who are inferior and only spend the most necessity towards them.

Also, they'll be educated in the most basic form of education as well as their duty, usually manual labor, which they'll be doing for the rest of their lives. This allow us to help our more unfortunate citizens to maintain their living standards more easily, without any fear of getting discriminated.
"
- spokesperson of Holy Palace

[Texsuccesusa Federation]

A

[Serrus]

OOC: Reviving this one again.

And since it seems so difficult for some people to deal with the idea of an OOCly submitted proposal, you can all pretend that the Chief Inshpekshuuner wrote the original, slipped it into Janis's paperwork marked as something she should work on, and will be the one to physically carry the final copy to the submissions office - making the gnomes believe that Araraukar has WA status on the time of the submission. So you can blame the OOC WA nation status faff on him.

OOC: By the by, sorry for lifting him. But good on him for being as sneaky as Coco.
Anywho:
full support all the way.

[Uan aa Boa]

This new version shares the old version's difficulties with horrendously tangled definitions. As before, it is perfectly possible to be a student who has a "mental disability" (a term you don't define) without being a "mentally disabled student." On a logical level this is still nonsense. Just define disability and allow disabled students to be those students who have a disability as per common sense and normal language usage.

What does it mean to have "all the learning challenges"? I suspect you probably mean challenges in each of the three identified areas of attention, communication and understanding but it does read as if the student must be challenged in each and every specific way it's possible to be challenged.

And you still have that stubborn determination to stick to terminology chosen in order to annoy people who would otherwise be sympathetic towards what you're trying to do.

[Araraukar]

"Mister Bell," Johan started, "I am sorry that ambassador Leveret had to leave so suddenly, but she left me plenty of notes with which to address your concerns." He pulled out a paper that has a lot of writing in very small font. "In fact, she left me plenty of notes concerning you specifically... Let me find the right spot... Ah, here. If your basic education lasts only five years, which - considering the WA's low standards on the term - sounds reasonable enough to me, then you're entirely compliant with the clauses of this proposal."

As before, it is perfectly possible to be a student who has a "mental disability" (a term you don't define) without being a "mentally disabled student."

OOC: I don't define it, because it's pretty much impossible to define precisely. Especially with the existing ban on using dictionary definitions. Letting the medical specialists of each nation define what counts as such for their nation, their tech level, their species and so forth, cuts down on the length of definitions and makes more sense. Also, if you have a mental disability but the specialists deem you able to partake regular school, then either your nation's specialists suck and your government should pay more attention on their training, or you'll have a very high chance of actually being able to deal with normal school.

As an aside out of curiosity, what kind of mental disability did you have in mind? And remember this is about mental disabilities that cause learning difficulties.

Just define disability

I invite you to provide a short, precise definition that covers all possible cases and hasn't been stolen from a dictionary.

and allow disabled students to be those students who have a disability as per common sense and normal language usage.

But this isn't about disabled students. This is about students whose mental disabilities cause learning difficulties.

What does it mean to have "all the learning challenges"? I suspect you probably mean challenges in each of the three identified areas of attention, communication and understanding but it does read as if the student must be challenged in each and every specific way it's possible to be challenged.

I define "learning challenges" and then use the term for further definitions. Shouldn't be difficult to understand what it means.

And you still have that stubborn determination to stick to terminology chosen in order to annoy people who would otherwise be sympathetic towards what you're trying to do.

No, I stick to terminology that makes the most sense in this context.

OOC notice to all: Yes, Araraukar is temporarily a WA nation in IC. No, it's not intending to stay one for long. Consider this a temporary membership trial by the Powers That Be. PPU continues to be a WA nation in IC. If anyone has any complaints about possible non-compliance issues, they can be addressed in IC to Janis when she returns from Araraukar.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This has now been submitted.

[Mizhaiel]

We’re not very wealthy so our resources are limited with regard to this issue but we have always had very close-knit families and as such, parents and relatives play a big part in helping. Education within the home is very actively encouraged.

[Araraukar]

We’re not very wealthy so our resources are limited with regard to this issue but we have always had very close-knit families and as such, parents and relatives play a big part in helping. Education within the home is very actively encouraged.

"Homeschooling is definitely an option, just like it is for non-disabled children. Being educated at home will also reduce the stress of the strange environment and the strange adults for the child, especially if they have trouble expressing their thoughts and needs, whereas their own families usually can understand them fairly effortlessly. However, if the society has any resources at all at its use for education, the parents of a disabled child shouldn't be abandoned to their task by the society. Not everyone is good at teaching, even for their own children."

[Slavonia and Srijem]

"This proposal actually took months? It looks great now, i support it and i hope it passes".

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. We don't see any value to educating the mentally disabled. If they cannot keep up in a regular classroom, they cannot keep up in the real world. Let us stop pretending they can."

[Araraukar]

"Opposed. We don't see any value to educating the mentally disabled. If they cannot keep up in a regular classroom, they cannot keep up in the real world. Let us stop pretending they can."

"Noted and disagreed with."