The GA/WA For and By the Common Man

[US of-A]

Recently I have gotten some criticism for the proposals that I have rapidly been putting out in the GA. However, as far as I can tell they are not illegal, and should not be illegal. Some critics said that they were "undrafted". Apparently, when putting stuff in the GA, it is the unofficial rule that you are supposed to have a group of elite, established WA bureaucrats review your proposals, and make them fit with their preordained worldview. The WA and its resolutions are headed in one direction and one direction only, and that is the way that they want it too. Well let us fight back. I am not content to let the WA be increasingly radicalized and increasingly distant from a large community of NS players. I already know many people are anti-WA, because the policies of the WA are blatantly at war with their values. They say thay the system is too hard to change, so just opt out. Well, I say no to that. We will fight back, and change the norms expected with the WA. Don't do anything illegal, of course, but make your voice heard. You do not have to go through their proper "forum drafting" where your proposal is subjected to policy changes based on their opinions. The WA shall be an organization for and by the people, where no opinions are deemed "phobic" and suppressed. Let this now be a golden age for the WA!

[Untecna]

Its not a rule so much as it is an expectation based on the past. Undrafted proposals are often illegal or poorly written, and drafting periods provide you useful and constructive (albeit sometimes blunt) feedback on what you can do to improve and get it to vote.

[WayNeacTia]

Either conform to the guidelines that have been established, or don't take part. Whine somewhere else please.

[Tinhampton]

Of the five proposals you have put up in recent days:

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" hasn't been marked legal or illegal yet (and I support it in principle, provided it and GA#499 are replaced by a resolution which forbids forced abortion while allowing all other forms of abortion - which I'm not seeing here).
Repeal "Access To Euthanasia Services" is legal (and I support it).
Banning Prostitution is likely legal (my fault!) but I wouldn't support the WA banning or legalising it everywhere.
Super Straight Month isn't legal or illegal but Article 3 could/would bankrupt member states. (ANY amount of funding?)
Commend Confederation of Corrupt Dictators is legal but I don't support it.

Your proposals may be poorly argued, but they are mostly - if not entirely - legal anyway.

[Wallenburg]

it is the unofficial rule that you are supposed to have a group of elite, established WA bureaucrats review your proposals, and make them fit with their preordained worldview.

Yes. Your review is scheduled for Wednesdat at 3:00. Please remember to wear hard sole shoes and eye protection.

[Attempted Socialism]

I'm guessing that you have had a few of your resolutions marked as "illegal", based on your withdrawn resolutions and your post here. Legality is determined by the rules as written. Apart from contradiction (Which requires substantial knowledge of previously passed resolutions) and honest mistake (Which is unfortunately named) they're easy to follow. I don't think it is a good sign that you're already failing to clear the lowest bar, that of mere legality.
Your garbage resolutions are terrible on their own, though, so I am sure you'll have a grand time railing against some WA elite for all your resolutions failing when in reality, it's because you think for 5 second, write a shitty, bad-policy, unpopular, resolution, submit it, and then edit it or not based on whether it is marked illegal by the GenSec, and then your resolution never garners support from anyone except a few dead-end reactionaries without even the slightest sense of quality. If you want to avoid this fate, draft your resolutions here for at least 2-4 weeks and listen to feedback meanwhile. If you want to embrace this fate, all the best of luck.

[Hulldom]

To wit: I know and am friends with quite a few anti-GAers. Their reasons for opposition have nothing to do with holding certain (distasteful, in this openly aromantic and asexual player’s opinion) views on the LGBTQ+ community or on reproductive freedoms. (I would be genuinely gobsmacked if any of them were social conservatives at all to be quite honest.)

The main reason I know people to oppose the GA is because of a view that the GA should butt out of, well, most everything and certainly derogate policy prerogatives back to member states. And their reasoning for doing so ranges from personal preference to a genuine desire to have minimal effects on their stats while still retaining the security benefits their receiving endorsements provides to their home region.

I disagree with their views (quite vehemently actually), but it has nothing to with desiring a GA “where no opinions are deemed ‘phobic’ and suppressed.”

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Recently I have gotten some criticism for the proposals that I have rapidly been putting out in the GA. However, as far as I can tell they are not illegal, and should not be illegal. Some critics said that they were "undrafted". Apparently, when putting stuff in the GA, it is the unofficial rule that you are supposed to have a group of elite, established WA bureaucrats review your proposals, and make them fit with their preordained worldview. The WA and its resolutions are headed in one direction and one direction only, and that is the way that they want it too. Well let us fight back. I am not content to let the WA be increasingly radicalized and increasingly distant from a large community of NS players. I already know many people are anti-WA, because the policies of the WA are blatantly at war with their values. They say thay the system is too hard to change, so just opt out. Well, I say no to that. We will fight back, and change the norms expected with the WA. Don't do anything illegal, of course, but make your voice heard. You do not have to go through their proper "forum drafting" where your proposal is subjected to policy changes based on their opinions. The WA shall be an organization for and by the people, where no opinions are deemed "phobic" and suppressed. Let this now be a golden age for the WA!

First, there’s no rule or requirement that a proposal be drafted in the GA forum. It’s just good and sound practice.

Second, posting here makes the proposal more democratic, not less. It gives other people the chance to comment, debate finer points, and request changes. Making laws without an open invitation for input from others is more like what a tyrant would want than what “the people” would want.

Finally, posting here might help you draft something people would actually support. There are generally only two kinds of authors who can successfully pass GA resolutions without drafting help: the rare brilliant writer and the extremely experienced WA writer.

[US of-A]

Well okay, I guess I did go on a bit of a rant, and didn't expect so many people to reply. But I guess my main problem, if I have to simplify it down, is that people say my proposals are terrible because they are too simplistic (they haven't used that word, but I assume that is what they are trying to say). Why not be simplistic? That is what I mean when I say "for and by the comman man". It does not have to be overly complex, bureaucratic language.

[US of-A]

it is the unofficial rule that you are supposed to have a group of elite, established WA bureaucrats review your proposals, and make them fit with their preordained worldview.

Yes. Your review is scheduled for Wednesdat at 3:00. Please remember to wear hard sole shoes and eye protection.

Very funny.

[US of-A]

I'm guessing that you have had a few of your resolutions marked as "illegal", based on your withdrawn resolutions and your post here. Legality is determined by the rules as written. Apart from contradiction (Which requires substantial knowledge of previously passed resolutions) and honest mistake (Which is unfortunately named) they're easy to follow. I don't think it is a good sign that you're already failing to clear the lowest bar, that of mere legality.
Your garbage resolutions are terrible on their own, though, so I am sure you'll have a grand time railing against some WA elite for all your resolutions failing when in reality, it's because you think for 5 second, write a shitty, bad-policy, unpopular, resolution, submit it, and then edit it or not based on whether it is marked illegal by the GenSec, and then your resolution never garners support from anyone except a few dead-end reactionaries without even the slightest sense of quality. If you want to avoid this fate, draft your resolutions here for at least 2-4 weeks and listen to feedback meanwhile. If you want to embrace this fate, all the best of luck.

Please don't cuss.

[Untecna]

Well okay, I guess I did go on a bit of a rant, and didn't expect so many people to reply. But I guess my main problem, if I have to simplify it down, is that people say my proposals are terrible because they are too simplistic (they haven't used that word, but I assume that is what they are trying to say). Why not be simplistic? That is what I mean when I say "for and by the comman man". It does not have to be overly complex, bureaucratic language.

Let's use one of yours as an example:

Noting the controversial nature of such a subject as euthanasia/assisted suicide,
Appreciative of the reasoning of why people should be able to end their life,
Aware of the honest mistakes and undesirable circumstances and events that may occur due to such a resolution,
Condemning the notion that people have the right to kill themselves and misuse the body and life that have been given to them,

This provides nothing more than personal opinion to repeal a proposal. It would be better made if you used faults of the target instead of your own feelings about what the target is doing. Taking its failures and using that to repeal it is stronger and less simplistic, while not being overly bureaucratic.

Thats why its good to draft here, so you can get that information easier.

[US of-A]

Alright well I'm going to do my best I guess.

[US of-A]

Of the five proposals you have put up in recent days:

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" hasn't been marked legal or illegal yet (and I support it in principle, provided it and GA#499 are replaced by a resolution which forbids forced abortion while allowing all other forms of abortion - which I'm not seeing here).
Repeal "Access To Euthanasia Services" is legal (and I support it).
Banning Prostitution is likely legal (my fault!) but I wouldn't support the WA banning or legalising it everywhere.
Super Straight Month isn't legal or illegal but Article 3 could/would bankrupt member states. (ANY amount of funding?)
Commend Confederation of Corrupt Dictators is legal but I don't support it.

Your proposals may be poorly argued, but they are mostly - if not entirely - legal anyway.

And I guess that is part of my problem too. Most of mine are (probably) legal, but nobody seems to support them.

[Comfed]

Of the five proposals you have put up in recent days:

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" hasn't been marked legal or illegal yet (and I support it in principle, provided it and GA#499 are replaced by a resolution which forbids forced abortion while allowing all other forms of abortion - which I'm not seeing here).
Repeal "Access To Euthanasia Services" is legal (and I support it).
Banning Prostitution is likely legal (my fault!) but I wouldn't support the WA banning or legalising it everywhere.
Super Straight Month isn't legal or illegal but Article 3 could/would bankrupt member states. (ANY amount of funding?)
Commend Confederation of Corrupt Dictators is legal but I don't support it.

Your proposals may be poorly argued, but they are mostly - if not entirely - legal anyway.

And I guess that is part of my problem too. Most of mine are (probably) legal, but nobody seems to support them.

Just because your proposal is legal doesn't mean that people will support it. There are a variety of reasons, including the quality of writing and individual opinions on the topic.

[WayNeacTia]

Of the five proposals you have put up in recent days:

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" hasn't been marked legal or illegal yet (and I support it in principle, provided it and GA#499 are replaced by a resolution which forbids forced abortion while allowing all other forms of abortion - which I'm not seeing here).
Repeal "Access To Euthanasia Services" is legal (and I support it).
Banning Prostitution is likely legal (my fault!) but I wouldn't support the WA banning or legalising it everywhere.
Super Straight Month isn't legal or illegal but Article 3 could/would bankrupt member states. (ANY amount of funding?)
Commend Confederation of Corrupt Dictators is legal but I don't support it.

Your proposals may be poorly argued, but they are mostly - if not entirely - legal anyway.

And I guess that is part of my problem too. Most of mine are (probably) legal, but nobody seems to support them.

Legal =/= Good

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll lay it out briefly. The World Assembly is really two games in one.

The first part is a policy game: you have to write legislation which solves problems, makes policy choices, and implements those policies well. This is very difficult to do if you don't have a background in law, public policy, or other things that provide relevant experience. In general it is also a difficult skill to develop. This makes the first part of the World Assembly difficult. Implementation of policies is also further complicated by the GA's ruleset, which is long, complicated, and – frankly – needs revision (mostly in the simplification department). Learning that ruleset is also difficult; it is also why forum feedback can be helpful (certain players with straight-up wrong views about the ruleset trying to mislead new players notwithstanding). I think the word "Illegal" is a misnomer (same with delegate quorum); but it is used to describe ruleset illegalities. The ruleset is apolitical (at least since 10pm EDT on Friday) and the GA Secretariat's legality filter is not meant to be overly strenuous, once the rules are learnt.

The second part of the game is a political one. Once you have a draft, you need to sell it to the voters. Selling stuff to the voters can be difficult if you are an authoritarian reactionary who has policy preferences at odds with those voters. This is just classical median voter theorem. The best players are convincing and can effect preference shifts from the inside. This also means there are two hurdles: you first need to write a policy (and with sufficient political support, it need not be altogether "good",) and then you need to get people to vote for it.

But as to this pretence of the "common man". One should not presume that one possesses the gifts of the people and that they can speak for the people merely by one's presence here. Resolutions and other honours should be conceived of in such a way; they are not won or wrested from NationStates players; they are gifts that are given by those players in recognition of qualities, be they indirect (like voting for a resolution) or direct (like voting for a commendation in the other chamber). Cf Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.1–5. The players, voting in their usual manner, decide whose proposals speak for them, not self-appointed players who merely assume their rhetorical mantle.

[Makko Oko]

OOC: Now here's a question, do you HAVE to campaign for resolutions to have a chance at going to the voting chambers? I've personally never campaigned, and unless I have to, probably never will

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Now here's a question, do you HAVE to campaign for resolutions to have a chance at going to the voting chambers? I've personally never campaigned, and unless I have to, probably never will

Yes. Unless someone else runs your campaign for you, you will have to campaign to get enough of the requisite approvals. (I'm sure someone is going to claim that in 2002 you didn't have to do it but twenty years later, this is a de facto requirement.)

[Attempted Socialism]

I'm guessing that you have had a few of your resolutions marked as "illegal", based on your withdrawn resolutions and your post here. Legality is determined by the rules as written. Apart from contradiction (Which requires substantial knowledge of previously passed resolutions) and honest mistake (Which is unfortunately named) they're easy to follow. I don't think it is a good sign that you're already failing to clear the lowest bar, that of mere legality.
Your garbage resolutions are terrible on their own, though, so I am sure you'll have a grand time railing against some WA elite for all your resolutions failing when in reality, it's because you think for 5 second, write a shitty, bad-policy, unpopular, resolution, submit it, and then edit it or not based on whether it is marked illegal by the GenSec, and then your resolution never garners support from anyone except a few dead-end reactionaries without even the slightest sense of quality. If you want to avoid this fate, draft your resolutions here for at least 2-4 weeks and listen to feedback meanwhile. If you want to embrace this fate, all the best of luck.

Please don't cuss.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you wanted some PC, regulated feedback where people aren't allowed to call shitty proposals shitty. I'm 95% sure the common man uses worse cursewords than "shitty", so I genuinely thought I was in the clear. But I shall make sure to adapt my language to your more PC sensibilities, and describe your proposals as "like fecal matter" instead, where it applies.

[The Orwell Society]

Question: why don't you want to draft on the forums? Yes the WA elite can be very blunt and rude with their "constructive" criticism, but 9/10 times it leads to either a great proposal or a scrapped one that was doomed anyway. Yes, I agree that the WA elite should be less, well, elite, and be more welcoming to new players, but that doesn't mean you just avoid drafting altogether, resulting in a simpled and uncriticized proposal that will never be close to reaching quorum.

Honestly, to me at least, the term "WA Elite" is just a rough stereotype for any fairly experienced author who isn't afraid to give criticism in a blunt but fairly effective way to any proposal, by a new player or not. If you want to rid yourselve of them, then become one. Intigrate yourself into the WA drafting community and give criticism, draft proposals (legal ones and on the appropriate forum, of course), and earn the respect of your fellow authors so that maybe they won't be so harsh. Now, I'm not one to talk as I'm not even halfway there, but look at a few players who have been playing far shorter than me and they're already there.

Best advice I can give you. Follow it if you want, or do the complete opposite for all I care.

[The Orwell Society]

Please don't cuss.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you wanted some PC, regulated feedback where people aren't allowed to call shitty proposals shitty. I'm 95% sure the common man uses worse cursewords than "shitty", so I genuinely thought I was in the clear. But I shall make sure to adapt my language to your more PC sensibilities, and describe your proposals as "like fecal matter" instead, where it applies.

Don't be so fucking harsh

This is the bluntness I was talking about
(for reference, this is playful sarcasm, not an attempt at flaming or baiting)

[WayNeacTia]

Please don't cuss.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you wanted some PC, regulated feedback where people aren't allowed to call shitty proposals shitty. I'm 95% sure the common man uses worse cursewords than "shitty", so I genuinely thought I was in the clear. But I shall make sure to adapt my language to your more PC sensibilities, and describe your proposals as "like fecal matter" instead, where it applies.

I sure fucking do. All of their proposals, legal or not were shit.

[US of-A]

Well uh thanks for the feedback everybody, even if some of it was curse words. I generally don't use them when trying to make a well-thought-out, coherent response, but you do what you want I suppose.

[The Orwell Society]

Well uh thanks for the feedback everybody, even if some of it was curse words. I generally don't use them when trying to make a well-thought-out, coherent response, but you do what you want I suppose.

You're conservative, right? If you are, than the WA will only make you more mad. It is very liberal, so there's that, too.