Why the World Assembly needs better regulations on proposals

[Kiani]

Shocked by the pedantic, authoritarian buffoonery that is invading all forms of life IRL, and
Dismayed that that same pedantic, authoritarian buffoonery seems to be permeating at least one in 3 WA proposals.


It should be noted that by definition:

- Human rights should be internationally recognised and freely available to all individuals (The right to be human, and freely live and survive as such)

- Individual rights (Civil, Political, & Economic) should be internationally recognised with a baseline minimum requirement of Human Rights, BUT convoluted legislation (Like the right to public nudity) Is solely to be enacted under the discretion of individual nations in the Daily Newspaper Issues and not enforced by the dictation of WA proposals.

-World Standards (WA proposals that do not infringe on human or individual rights) should be solely proposed with the intent of bettering World Security, Prosperity, and Advancement.

I.E. you shouldn’t be trying to force your individual beliefs and practises onto other individual nations (like forcing public nudity onto individual nations) but you can and should be acting with the intent of creating baseline Standards of Human rights and International Cohabitation.

For instance, banning the use of microplastics in commercial products; Implementing a Bill of Refugee Rights with an open travel corridor of volunteer countries happy to open their homes to refugees, so say for instance someone wanted to flee a country that persecuted women for having skin, rather than trying to force that country to accept your view which is only going to create more problems and human rights violations, Just include in the Refugee Bill that people have the right to flee their country for fear of persecution and personal violation.


NationStates is a wonderful platform full of incredibly insightful, intelligent, and amicable people where we can freely express and experiment with our view of a better world. Please don’t ruin that by turning the WA into a clown court of personal opinions, that’s what the Newspaper issues are for, just write your Opinion Proposals as Issues instead of trying to force it as international legislation.

Thank you, and hope you have a lovely day ❤️

[Blazenation]

i totally support u

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Full support. While we do believe that basic human rights, and especially the right to freely leave the nation should be maintained by the WA, enforcing public nudity and things like respecting pronouns and paying for gender transition surgeries on member states goes way too far.

[Daarwyrth]

Remember that the real world and NationStates are two separate entities with their own multiverse rules and customs. We literally have nations where magic is real, where there are galaxy-spanning civilizations member of the WA. You don't have that irl, and so the nature of the World Assembly and its resolutions will have to be vastly different from the real world. The very fact that the WA is tolerant of dictatorships and has vastly more power and authority than The Organisation That Shall Not Be Named in real life has, shows that you cannot translate both 1 on 1.

Yet the funny thing in your argument is that you are advocating for censorship. If you truly are concerned about the rise of authoritarianism, then you shouldn't be the one trying to dictate what proposals should be submitted to the WA and which shouldn't. A proposal has to first pass the Delegate approval phase, which is the first barrier for rooting out bad proposals. The second barrier is the vote itself: if member nations find the resolution to be bad or flawed, it will be voted 'against'. On top of that, we have the Secretariat which monitors for illegal proposals and removes them from the queue when needed. That's 3 control mechanisms to ensure that bad proposals don't clog up the voting floor. Will they ensure that no bad proposals will ever come to a vote? No, no system is perfect. But the system is well-protected from objectively bad proposals.

Lastly, you say that the WA is not for personal opinions, yet what you're doing now is exactly what you advocate against. In your opinion, some of the proposals that have passed through the WA are bad. Okay, then repeal the ones that you think are bad. Don't advocate for a censorship system that is purely and entirely based on your personal opinion. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Molopovia]

Remember that the real world and NationStates are two separate entities with their own multiverse rules and customs. We literally have nations where magic is real, where there are galaxy-spanning civilizations member of the WA. You don't have that irl, and so the nature of the World Assembly and its resolutions will have to be vastly different from the real world. The very fact that the WA is tolerant of dictatorships and has vastly more power and authority than The Organisation That Shall Not Be Named in real life has, shows that you cannot translate both 1 on 1.

Yet the funny thing in your argument is that you are advocating for censorship. If you truly are concerned about the rise of authoritarianism, then you shouldn't be the one trying to dictate what proposals should be submitted to the WA and which shouldn't. A proposal has to first pass the Delegate approval phase, which is the first barrier for rooting out bad proposals. The second barrier is the vote itself: if member nations find the resolution to be bad or flawed, it will be voted 'against'. On top of that, we have the Secretariat which monitors for illegal proposals and removes them from the queue when needed. That's 3 control mechanisms to ensure that bad proposals don't clog up the voting floor. Will they ensure that no bad proposals will ever come to a vote? No, no system is perfect. But the system is well-protected from objectively bad proposals.

Lastly, you say that the WA is not for personal opinions, yet what you're doing now is exactly what you advocate against. In your opinion, some of the proposals that have passed through the WA are bad. Okay, then repeal the ones that you think are bad. Don't advocate for a censorship system that is purely and entirely based on your personal opinion. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I concur. While I was going to say something of a similar caliber, I couldn't find the right words.

[Kiani]

Remember that the real world and NationStates are two separate entities with their own multiverse rules and customs. We literally have nations where magic is real, where there are galaxy-spanning civilizations member of the WA. You don't have that irl, and so the nature of the World Assembly and its resolutions will have to be vastly different from the real world. The very fact that the WA is tolerant of dictatorships and has vastly more power and authority than The Organisation That Shall Not Be Named in real life has, shows that you cannot translate both 1 on 1.

Yet the funny thing in your argument is that you are advocating for censorship. If you truly are concerned about the rise of authoritarianism, then you shouldn't be the one trying to dictate what proposals should be submitted to the WA and which shouldn't. A proposal has to first pass the Delegate approval phase, which is the first barrier for rooting out bad proposals. The second barrier is the vote itself: if member nations find the resolution to be bad or flawed, it will be voted 'against'. On top of that, we have the Secretariat which monitors for illegal proposals and removes them from the queue when needed. That's 3 control mechanisms to ensure that bad proposals don't clog up the voting floor. Will they ensure that no bad proposals will ever come to a vote? No, no system is perfect. But the system is well-protected from objectively bad proposals.

Lastly, you say that the WA is not for personal opinions, yet what you're doing now is exactly what you advocate against. In your opinion, some of the proposals that have passed through the WA are bad. Okay, then repeal the ones that you think are bad. Don't advocate for a censorship system that is purely and entirely based on your personal opinion. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Hello! Thank you for your response! I think there’s been a misunderstanding, I’m not advocating censorship as I strongly believe that free and open discussion is paramount to constructive development. To me, everything is technically opinion as fact cannot be duly proven with the psychological science of perspective. Also I really enjoy the fantasy aspects of this game, and rather than proposing more similarity with the IRL world, I am advocating the prevention of further conflation with the IRL world and the issue of pervasive authoritarianism as a concept rather than it’s IRL entity. Simply; stating that I believe there need to be clearer boundaries on what qualifies as a World Assembly proposal VS an Issue, to ensure that there is no conflation or confusion between the two, and to ensure that World assembly proposals do not infringe on individual nation’s right to autonomy.

Essentially: Free speech and freedom to express opinion with respect and consciousness of other’s rights to autonomy; as the offending Proposal in question was essentially advocating the Burkha Ban in vague terms, and such a proposal should be down to the nation, not the world.

Thank you for your time and candor in this discussion! Eagerly awaiting further dialogue!

[Daarwyrth]

Simply; stating that I believe there need to be clearer boundaries on what qualifies as a World Assembly proposal VS an Issue, to ensure that there is no conflation or confusion between the two, and to ensure that World assembly proposals do not infringe on individual nation’s right to autonomy.

Someone is going to have to define those boundaries. Who? You? Me? The Secretariat? Whoever would define those boundaries would be setting up a system of censorship by definition. It's a very flawed way of thinking that you'll get better proposals by allowing someone/something to censor what constitutes as a proposal and what not.

The merit and quality of proposals should be decided by vote, just like we do now. If there is a proposal that's bad, it will be voted down and defeated in the vote. There's a number of proposals that I disagree with, yet the majority of the WA voted for it. That's simply how democracy works, the majority wins.

Also, you're basically arguing from a national sovereignty standpoint. You're part of an international community, which means you are bound by international rules. If you want to be a part of such a community, then you'll have to accept the fact that your national autonomy will be restricted at times. If you don't want your national autonomy to be restricted, then the WA may not be for you. No one is forced to stay a member of the World Assembly if they don't like the rules and legislation they are bound by.

EDIT: Besides, we already have rules in place for proposal writing, look over the thread GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice, if you haven't done so already.

[Island Girl Herby]

NationStates is a wonderful platform full of incredibly insightful, intelligent, and amicable people where we can freely express and experiment with our view of a better world. Please don’t ruin that by turning the WA into a clown court of personal opinions

So......... you want to take the politics out of a political simulation? I mean have you ever watched the UN or the US Congress in action?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: first, issues and GA are seperate aspects of the game that can't and don't influence each other.

Second, the example you gave of "improving" human rights (despite that phrase being incorrect in the context of the WA) is actually useless since countries who would volunteer are already helping those refugees. Moreover, you're relying on countries simply letting those people flee and those people fleeing through god knows what conditions.

Third, what constitutes "baseline minimum human rights" is itself a matter of opinion. There's no strict definition for such a thing.

So you're basically proposing a WA where a nation can do whatever it claims is "working towards baseline minimum human rights" and any change brought about by the WA is optional; in other words, a WA that only exists in name, and even more useless than the League of Nations.

[Kiani]

Simply; stating that I believe there need to be clearer boundaries on what qualifies as a World Assembly proposal VS an Issue, to ensure that there is no conflation or confusion between the two, and to ensure that World assembly proposals do not infringe on individual nation’s right to autonomy.

Someone is going to have to define those boundaries. Who? You? Me? The Secretariat? Whoever would define those boundaries would be setting up a system of censorship by definition. It's a very flawed way of thinking that you'll get better proposals by allowing someone/something to censor what constitutes as a proposal and what not.

The merit and quality of proposals should be decided by vote, just like we do now. If there is a proposal that's bad, it will be voted down and defeated in the vote. There's a number of proposals that I disagree with, yet the majority of the WA voted for it. That's simply how democracy works, the majority wins.

Also, you're basically arguing from a national sovereignty standpoint. You're part of an international community, which means you are bound by international rules. If you want to be a part of such a community, then you'll have to accept the fact that your national autonomy will be restricted at times. If you don't want your national autonomy to be restricted, then the WA may not be for you. No one is forced to stay a member of the World Assembly if they don't like the rules and legislation they are bound by.

EDIT: Besides, we already have rules in place for proposal writing, look over the thread GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice, if you haven't done so already.

Oh! Yikes I’m sorry, that’s not what I want at all. I understand your point. Living in the U.K. with family living in the EU during Brexit and the panini has created a whole new framework of perspective for the case of International vs National democracy. Thank you for unintentionally explaining how it fits in with that perspective, I’m going to check my biases, rethink things and possibly come back with a more intelligent idea but more likely just accept I was wrong and move on. Thank you for your time and merit in this conversation, I learnt a lot.

[Kiani]

NationStates is a wonderful platform full of incredibly insightful, intelligent, and amicable people where we can freely express and experiment with our view of a better world. Please don’t ruin that by turning the WA into a clown court of personal opinions

So......... you want to take the politics out of a political simulation? I mean have you ever watched the UN or the US Congress in action?

Politics is defined as the academic study of government and the state, and the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: and is meant to be civilised, intelligent, pragmatic sociological debate between leaders/parties in power; but have you seen the U.K. PMQ’s? Or brexshit? It’s embarrassing for politics and the cause of numerous issues including but not restricted to: political apathy, public disgust, media shaming, and international embarrassment. The dodgy Dave incident was both hilarious and disappointing, because he should have had the right to free speech but somehow the room reacted like a primary school classroom.

[Daarwyrth]

Someone is going to have to define those boundaries. Who? You? Me? The Secretariat? Whoever would define those boundaries would be setting up a system of censorship by definition. It's a very flawed way of thinking that you'll get better proposals by allowing someone/something to censor what constitutes as a proposal and what not.

The merit and quality of proposals should be decided by vote, just like we do now. If there is a proposal that's bad, it will be voted down and defeated in the vote. There's a number of proposals that I disagree with, yet the majority of the WA voted for it. That's simply how democracy works, the majority wins.

Also, you're basically arguing from a national sovereignty standpoint. You're part of an international community, which means you are bound by international rules. If you want to be a part of such a community, then you'll have to accept the fact that your national autonomy will be restricted at times. If you don't want your national autonomy to be restricted, then the WA may not be for you. No one is forced to stay a member of the World Assembly if they don't like the rules and legislation they are bound by.

EDIT: Besides, we already have rules in place for proposal writing, look over the thread GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice, if you haven't done so already.

Oh! Yikes I’m sorry, that’s not what I want at all. I understand your point. Living in the U.K. with family living in the EU during Brexit and the panini has created a whole new framework of perspective for the case of International vs National democracy. Thank you for unintentionally explaining how it fits in with that perspective, I’m going to check my biases, rethink things and possibly come back with a more intelligent idea but more likely just accept I was wrong and move on. Thank you for your time and merit in this conversation, I learnt a lot.

I definitely do get your point of view, especially when I look over the proposal queue with illegal proposals at times. Nonetheless, I appreciate the stance and attitude you have expressed here. It's not often that posters are willing to admit they might have been wrong, or that they learned from a debate/discussion

[Kiani]

OOC: first, issues and GA are seperate aspects of the game that can't and don't influence each other.

Second, the example you gave of "improving" human rights (despite that phrase being incorrect in the context of the WA) is actually useless since countries who would volunteer are already helping those refugees. Moreover, you're relying on countries simply letting those people flee and those people fleeing through god knows what conditions.

Third, what constitutes "baseline minimum human rights" is itself a matter of opinion. There's no strict definition for such a thing.

So you're basically proposing a WA where a nation can do whatever it claims is "working towards baseline minimum human rights" and any change brought about by the WA is optional; in other words, a WA that only exists in name, and even more useless than the League of Nations.

Hello!

1. Yes.

2. Part 1: The human rights I was referring to are Humans intrinsic rights as living beings to move, act, and survive of their own volition unless physically prevented from doing so. Anecdotal example:
A: Touch your nose
B: *Touches nose*
A: Why’d you do that?
B: Because you told me to
A: But I didn’t make you do it

Humans cannot be controlled like unless physically or neurologically forced to; and that is the branch of humans rights I was referring to but I could have probably made that clearer the first time so sorry! My bad!

2. Part 2: Foreign Aid and Volunteering for an Open Border are two separate but related things in regards to assisting refugees; the foreign aid part being either improving conditions in the area or helping refugees leave, and the open border part being the assisting them to return to normal life in their new country after leaving the danger zone. But I do recognise and understand your point that the nations usually engaged in these efforts would likely do both.

3. View 2 part 1.

Finally; no, I was simply proposing a more conscientious approach to national autonomy in regard to individual autonomy and human rights, but I was also wrong and that has been explained in very helpful terms in regards to my further education in this matter.

Thank you for your time and sharing your thoughts, it is invaluable to helping further the dialogue in clear and engaging terms.

[Island Girl Herby]

So......... you want to take the politics out of a political simulation? I mean have you ever watched the UN or the US Congress in action?

Politics is defined as the academic study of government and the state, and the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: and is meant to be civilised, intelligent, pragmatic sociological debate between leaders/parties in power; but have you seen the U.K. PMQ’s? Or brexshit? It’s embarrassing for politics and the cause of numerous issues including but not restricted to: political apathy, public disgust, media shaming, and international embarrassment. The dodgy Dave incident was both hilarious and disappointing, because he should have had the right to free speech but somehow the room reacted like a primary school classroom.

In practice (not in theory) politics is all about giving people a platform to shout out their opinions and belittle their opponents, all so they can score points with the portion of the populace that happens to agree with them. The more they can energize their followers the louder they become, drowning out all other voices. It has nothing to do with advancing human rights, bring civilized, etc.

[Kiani]

Politics is defined as the academic study of government and the state, and the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: and is meant to be civilised, intelligent, pragmatic sociological debate between leaders/parties in power; but have you seen the U.K. PMQ’s? Or brexshit? It’s embarrassing for politics and the cause of numerous issues including but not restricted to: political apathy, public disgust, media shaming, and international embarrassment. The dodgy Dave incident was both hilarious and disappointing, because he should have had the right to free speech but somehow the room reacted like a primary school classroom.

In practice (not in theory) politics is all about giving people a platform to shout out their opinions and belittle their opponents, all so they can score points with the portion of the populace that happens to agree with them. The more they can energize their followers the louder they become, drowning out all other voices. It has nothing to do with advancing human rights, bring civilized, etc.

What you’re referring to is Populism, not Politics.