General Assembly Q&A

[Erythrina]

If a legality query isn't noticed in the thread, then post it in Moderation (just a brief"Is this legal under (area of concern)? -- link" and we'll get back to you in the thread.
Eventually.
(You don't need to for this one now.)

Thanks!

But...

Space Research Station Program

Voting ends in 19 hours.

Time's running out... has a final decision been taken?

(takes a Valium potion)

[Bears Armed]

What's the usual amount of illegal proposals that will get you kicked out of the WA?

Per Rules for GA Proposals, the number is 3.

Schedule of Offences
In general, you get two "freebies" before you're chucked. Usually, after your second deleted Proposal, you'll get a little note letting you know you're on your last chance (but if you don't, don't come crying to the Mods, ignorance of the law and all...). After the third deleted Proposal, you're out.

Exceptions to the Above
Exceptionally minor infractions will not receive a warning. Also, if you've accidentally posted your Proposal three times you probably won't be warned. Same if you realise your error and ask for it to be deleted before a Mod sweeps the list. The definition of "minor" is up to the Mod doing the sweep, of course.

Exceptionally severe infractions will earn you an instant kick. Usually these are Proposals that fall under the 'Grossly Offensive' group. Also, you may be ejected for a second infraction if you submit the exact same Proposal after having it be deleted by the Mods. Unless we expressly told you it was okay to repost, don't.

I also don't want to speak for the mods, but I would think that an individual with 3 illegal proposals over, say, 3 years might have some leniency, especially when compared with a nation with 3 illegal proposals over 3 weeks. Absolutely not a mod, but that's a level of understanding that I think might be appropriate.

I seem to recall a Mod saying in the past that there have also been some cases where new-ish players who posted two or more illegal proposals on the same day had those counted as just one for this purpose...

Space Research Station Program

Voting ends in 19 hours.

Time's running out... has a final decision been taken?

As soon as a proposal comes to vote it's too late for the Mods to do anything about it.

[Erythrina]

As soon as a proposal comes to vote it's too late for the Mods to do anything about it.

That's why I am asking, for the next proposal scheduled for a vote is potentially illegal! See viewtopic.php?p=3461816#p3461816

[Ardchoille]

Replied in thread. Not illegal on those grounds.

[Strategion]

Will GA resolutions affect things like my tax rate, or does it just affect the WA benchmark rankings?

[Mousebumples]

Will GA resolutions affect things like my tax rate, or does it just affect the WA benchmark rankings?

Passed resolutions can (and often do) affect your tax rate, what emphasis your government places on spending in certain areas, etc.

(In other words: they affect both of the things you mentioned.)

[Strategion]

Thanks!

[Nykibo]

At the risk of submitting a series of stupid questions: is an organization allowed to levy fines against non-compliant nations? What are the options available to penalize non-compliant nations or do the compliance gnomes just take care of everything?

[Mousebumples]

At the risk of submitting a series of stupid questions: is an organization allowed to levy fines against non-compliant nations? What are the options available to penalize non-compliant nations or do the compliance gnomes just take care of everything?

While member nations are allowed to RP non-compliance, compliance is presumed to be mandatory (and automatic) due to the aforementioned gnomes.

There is no need to specify punishments for an unwillingness and/or inability to follow the letter of the law as laid out in a given proposal.

[Urgench]

At the risk of submitting a series of stupid questions: is an organization allowed to levy fines against non-compliant nations? What are the options available to penalize non-compliant nations or do the compliance gnomes just take care of everything?

While member nations are allowed to RP non-compliance, compliance is presumed to be mandatory (and automatic) due to the aforementioned gnomes.

There is no need to specify punishments for an unwillingness and/or inability to follow the letter of the law as laid out in a given proposal.

He doesn't mean fines levied on member states, he means the penalties imposed by member states on their citizens for breaking the law as mandated by the WA.

[Nykibo]

While member nations are allowed to RP non-compliance, compliance is presumed to be mandatory (and automatic) due to the aforementioned gnomes.

There is no need to specify punishments for an unwillingness and/or inability to follow the letter of the law as laid out in a given proposal.

He doesn't mean fines levied on member states, he means the penalties imposed by member states on their citizens for breaking the law as mandated by the WA.

Actually, I meant both and just did a terrible job of articulating. Thank you, Urgench.

[Mousebumples]

He doesn't mean fines levied on member states, he means the penalties imposed by member states on their citizens for breaking the law as mandated by the WA.

Hey, now - I'm just going off of his actual question. Which involved fining non-compliant nations.

And I believe that the General Fund outlaws the taxation of citizens in member nations. Probably not, definitively fines. But, again, I would presume that the gnomes also ensure that national governments pursue WA law breaking within the appropriate legal channels.

[Nykibo]

So is there a ruling on this? Is fining citizens illegal?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Nations can fine their citizens all they want, but to be on the safe side the WA should probably avoid it.

[NERVUN]

Kinda, sorta, yes, maybe, no.

In general, it coud be written in for indivdual fines by the member nation to a member nation's citizen. The WA couldn't leve the fine directly due to the Thou Shall Not Tax provision (Though I think it would be an enjoyable argument about if a tax is a fine or not).

However, one should take the greatest of care because fines against nations themselves or fines that are expected to have an effect upon the nations in question would require a change in the game code which would be a no-no. So, there's a very narrow window that would allow a kind of hook for an enterprising member to RP a situation about it, but anything that looks as if it would change the way the game is played (I.e. "the committee would be funded by fines collected from member states in non-compliance with the Modernation Of Dead Emus' X-mas Awards, Merits, Pies, Lollypops, and Excellents act") would be considered a game mechanic changer.

[Nykibo]

Kinda, sorta, yes, maybe, no.

In general, it coud be written in for indivdual fines by the member nation to a member nation's citizen. The WA couldn't leve the fine directly due to the Thou Shall Not Tax provision (Though I think it would be an enjoyable argument about if a tax is a fine or not).

Thank you for your answer, however do you mean by "the WA can't leve the fine directly" that a WA committee can?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

However, one should take the greatest of care because fines against nations themselves or fines that are expected to have an effect upon the nations in question would require a change in the game code which would be a no-no. So, there's a very narrow window that would allow a kind of hook for an enterprising member to RP a situation about it, but anything that looks as if it would change the way the game is played (I.e. "the committee would be funded by fines collected from member states in non-compliance with the Modernation Of Dead Emus' X-mas Awards, Merits, Pies, Lollypops, and Excellents act") would be considered a game mechanic changer.

Then how was WA General Fund legal? It collected money from nations just as easily as it could have fined them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... but anything that looks as if it would change the way the game is played (I.e. "the committee would be funded by fines collected from member states in non-compliance with the Modernation Of Dead Emus' X-mas Awards, Merits, Pies, Lollypops, and Excellents act") would be considered a game mechanic changer.

How would that change the way the game is played-- or rather, since you said 'game mechanics,' require any kind of change to the game's code?

[NERVUN]

Kinda, sorta, yes, maybe, no.

In general, it coud be written in for indivdual fines by the member nation to a member nation's citizen. The WA couldn't leve the fine directly due to the Thou Shall Not Tax provision (Though I think it would be an enjoyable argument about if a tax is a fine or not).

Thank you for your answer, however do you mean by "the WA can't leve the fine directly" that a WA committee can?

No, meaning that the WA cannot leve a fine directly, either through committee or other.

Then how was WA General Fund legal? It collected money from nations just as easily as it could have fined them.

How would that change the way the game is played-- or rather, since you said 'game mechanics,' require any kind of change to the game's code?

As to the first, because nothing was actually done gamewise. The General Fund after all is a donation from the member states, not something they have to pay. Gamewise, it would be assumed that if Upsidedownistan wants to donate, they have done whatever budget process the Grand Duke for The Afternoon wants for it. Nothing is changed within the code. If Mr. El. Presidente of Sidewaysland doesn't want to donate, nothing happens there either, kinda the same as the money being traded around in GE&T. As to the second, the issue is that if you were leve a fine against a nation, SOMETHING has to happen, right? Some kind of effect that was not budgeted as it were. That requires a change in the gamecode for non-compliance (Which right now is silly given that the gnomes make damn sure you are compliant) and then the fine changing a stat or two. Thus it would require monkying around.

Now, note, I didn't say it was impossible, it would just have to be written in such a way as to not bump into the gamewalls as it were.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The General Fund after all is a donation from the member states, not something they have to pay.

If you read the resolution, the "donations" are actually mandatory, but WAGF actually followed two other funding resolutions, both of which were also mandatory, both of which failed at vote, both apparently legal, and one was even requested by a moderator. History here: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_General_Fund

No, WAGF does not outline penalties for refusing to pay, but only because the game assumes compliance to be automatic. Assuming noncompliance would be illegal, and admittedly, fines to that effect would probably also be out. But other sorts of levies, such as those imposed by Ethics in International Trade -- which if I remember correctly was mod-reviewed prior to vote -- would, I am assuming, be allowed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As to the second, the issue is that if you were leve a fine against a nation, SOMETHING has to happen, right? Some kind of effect that was not budgeted as it were. That requires a change in the gamecode for non-compliance (Which right now is silly given that the gnomes make damn sure you are compliant) and then the fine changing a stat or two. Thus it would require monkying around.

I think you guys are way too eager to throw around 'game mechanics.' Maybe it's just that there's this idea that anybody in the WA really legislates with game mechanics in mind. Maybe that was the general consensus a long time ago. But I don't know anybody who thinks of the WA primarily in terms of what resolutions mean to the game. Most of us -- at least, I'm sure most of us -- think of the WA in purely roleplayed terms. After all, Ethics in International Trade only affected our nation once, according to the game. But, in roleplay, the ITA could and will affect nations multiple times over, which is something not covered by the game code.

I'm becoming increasingly skeptical over this whole game mechanics thing, every time there's a debate about it. The rule itself just seems to be applied way too broadly, without any really convincing reason. For instance, your explanation seems less in-tune with how the WA is roleplayed, and more in-tune with how the WA is part of the game. I'm not sure if that's the right way to think about it.

To me, the rule reads simply as, "Don't make resolutions that try and add to or change the game code itself." That means, don't submit a proposal actually mandating direct changes to the game. (I.e. "Let's add war to the game!") I wish I knew what guideline the mod team uses, if there is one -- sometimes, rules are applied differently in similar situations. It would certainly make debating about it easier...

P.s. If this is going to turn into a broader discussion on rules, maybe these posts should be split into a new topic? And maybe that WA rule debate thread recently closed in Moderation should be merged? I understand that doing that used be a problem, but with the hardware upgrade, it really shouldn't be stressful to the server now, should it? Unless, of course, this thread is actually for these types of discussions.

[NERVUN]

The General Fund after all is a donation from the member states, not something they have to pay.

If you read the resolution, the "donations" are actually mandatory, but WAGF actually followed two other funding resolutions, both of which were also mandatory, both of which failed at vote, both apparently legal, and one was even requested by a moderator. History here: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_General_Fund

No, WAGF does not outline penalties for refusing to pay, but only because the game assumes compliance to be automatic. Assuming noncompliance would be illegal, and admittedly, fines to that effect would probably also be out. But other sorts of levies, such as those imposed by Ethics in International Trade -- which if I remember correctly was mod-reviewed prior to vote -- would, I am assuming, be allowed.

Let me back up here a second because I think we're going down the wrong rabbit hole: You have to understand that when the WA passes something, it does effect the game mechanics for the member nations. It moves the stats up and down for various categories. The funding resolution didn't effect the game as currently coded because it applied to everyone who is a WA member (And thank you for correcting me on that, I missed that clause).

What the game cannot do is affect SOME members, but not other members. This is why compliance is assured automatically. A penalty fee for non-compliance for a nation runs into that problem because, how does the game know to assess this? It doesn't. For an individual person, you have a bit more wiggle room given that the game does not care about individuals (Beyond the leader if you happen to have the population and got the issue). That's where we run into game mechanics violations to say that the WA would be funded by fees levied for non-compliance.

[NERVUN]

As to the second, the issue is that if you were leve a fine against a nation, SOMETHING has to happen, right? Some kind of effect that was not budgeted as it were. That requires a change in the gamecode for non-compliance (Which right now is silly given that the gnomes make damn sure you are compliant) and then the fine changing a stat or two. Thus it would require monkying around.

I think you guys are way too eager to throw around 'game mechanics.' Maybe it's just that there's this idea that anybody in the WA really legislates with game mechanics in mind. Maybe that was the general consensus a long time ago. But I don't know anybody who thinks of the WA primarily in terms of what resolutions mean to the game. Most of us -- at least, I'm sure most of us -- think of the WA in purely roleplayed terms. After all, Ethics in International Trade only affected our nation once, according to the game. But, in roleplay, the ITA could and will affect nations multiple times over, which is something not covered by the game code.

The difference is that you are approaching it as a WA player, so it's all roleplay. WE have to go at it through both roleplay AND game design because if we break something via the code, we're the ones called on the carpet by [violet] for it.

I'm becoming increasingly skeptical over this whole game mechanics thing, every time there's a debate about it. The rule itself just seems to be applied way too broadly, without any really convincing reason. For instance, your explanation seems less in-tune with how the WA is roleplayed, and more in-tune with how the WA is part of the game. I'm not sure if that's the right way to think about it.

Well, it's kind of like this, for an analogy, the audience sees the play. The actors see a bit more behind the scenes, but it's the stage manager who knows the whole shebang. That's why sometimes we have to look at something and ask ourselves, ok, would this be workable within the game code? Are we going to run into unexpected problems?

Of course, sometimes our answers aren't the best because you're dealing with Mods who don't write the code, so sometimes our whole conversation is to ask one of the Admins "Would this be possible?" and getting told "Nope, not without extra coding." Not exactly satisfying, but thems the breaks for both Mods and players.

To me, the rule reads simply as, "Don't make resolutions that try and add to or change the game code itself." That means, don't submit a proposal actually mandating direct changes to the game. (I.e. "Let's add war to the game!") I wish I knew what guideline the mod team uses, if there is one -- sometimes, rules are applied differently in similar situations. It would certainly make debating about it easier...

We use the same rules you do, we're just more aware of the game code than you are. And given that some of it cannot be released for various reasons I'm still not sure I understand...

P.s. If this is going to turn into a broader discussion on rules, maybe these posts should be split into a new topic? And maybe that WA rule debate thread recently closed in Moderation should be merged? I understand that doing that used be a problem, but with the hardware upgrade, it really shouldn't be stressful to the server now, should it? Unless, of course, this thread is actually for these types of discussions.

This is a Q&A thread, so for right now, it seems to be ok. As for the why we can't have peacekeepers, we WILL get back to you. Sadly, the involved Mods are all busy right now and on various sides of the planet so it's going to take a bit to get us in the same room for a chat.

[Ardchoille]

Explaining why "you can't have peacekeepers" means "you can't have peacekeepers" will probably end up in Unibot's "but we want peacekeepers" thread. Or possibly in the Rules for Proposals, directly under Fris's exasperated explanation of why "you can't have amendments" means "you can't have amendments". As we've promised, so it will be. Eventually.

In the meantime, let's not threadjack Nykibo's original question about fines. I think we've got to these points:

If you write a WA proposal with fines for non-compliance on any entity (eg, nation, citizen, resident), the proposal's illegal because it accepts non-compliance as possible. So: NO to such WA fines.

The WA can tax nations -- particularly if they call it a donation.

The WA can't tax citizens or residents of WA nations directly.

Member nations have authority over domestic taxation policies. So, if a nation chose to meet its WA-imposed obligations by taxing or levying its citizens or residents, it could do so legally.

If in the process it made a law saying "you must pay your taxes" and a citizen or resident refused to do so, the citizen or resident would be in breach of the nation's law and the nation could impose an appropriate penalty, such as a fine.

But that's still up to the nation. Its government might, instead, raise the money by selling off some natural resource, sneaking an (ethical) tariff onto something or creating a brilliant internationally-serialised television show from its Parliamentary broadcasts. In which case, it wouldn't need to fine anyone (or at least, not for non-payment of taxes).

for what it's worth, I think of WA laws as acting on populations only through the many layers between them and the WA. The WA makes a law guaranteeing a right to privacy. The WA nation's government looks at what that means and maybe finds it's mostly compliant already, it just has to tweak a few laws about what personal details may be broadcast, what questions may be asked in job interviews, etcetera. By the time it gets down to local government it's about specifying whether two-storey houses can overlook a neighbour's swimming pool or whether a person can keep a goat or chooks in the backyard.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If you write a WA proposal with fines for non-compliance on any entity (eg, nation, citizen, resident), the proposal's illegal because it accepts non-compliance as possible. So: NO to such WA fines.

FWIW, I think this whole idea that non-compliance is impossible is also an outdated thing. It treats the WA as primarily a game mechanic itself, rather than a roleplay community. We already acknowledge that resolutions have affects outside of stat changes, which are the only auto-compliance part of resolutions. Why can't we also acknowledge that, in a similar vein, nations can and do choose to not comply with resolutions?

I know the argument that's usually given -- there are stat changes, so compliance is automatic. But Glen-Rhodes already doesn't comply with a few resolutions, as part of the roleplaying layer of the WA. Shouldn't we be able to address that in resolutions, which are primarily based in roleplaying, not game mechanics?