GA Proposal Compendium: Rules & General Advice

[Haymarket Riot]

*** General Assembly: Rules and General Advice ***

Nb as a courtesy, we ask that players refrain from submitting proposals generated by ChatGPT or other AI. While this is not a rule violation, such proposals are widely panned by the community and a practice we would generally like to discourage.

Welcome to the General Assembly!! This subgame is a simulator of international law, home to a storied community where players can submit proposals for consideration to mould international law. A proposal can be submitted by any WA nation with at least two endorsements.

Authors are encouraged to draft proposals in this forum before submitting. This allows experienced players to catch issues in terms of both policy and writing so your proposal has the best chances it can of succeeding at vote. A good rule of thumb is to keep your proposal on the forum for at least a month before submitting; patience is key! After submitting a proposal, you should send a campaign telegram to all WA Delegates encouraging them to approve it; see here for a guide to the process. Proposals not campaigned for are unlikely to garner enough approvals to reach vote.

If you wish to submit a legality challenge for a proposal, please see Submitting a Legality Challenge later on in this topic.

---

The following are the rules for all General Assembly proposals. A proposal which breaks these rules may be marked illegal in the queue, or discarded at vote.

• Proposal Basics: Proposals must be written as laws from the perspective of the World Assembly. Non-repeal proposals must also comply with the following standards:
  
  
  • Originality: Proposals cannot contradict or duplicate active resolutions. Ideally, proposals will present unique ideas.
    
    
    • Duplication: If the majority of a proposal's legislative effect has already been enacted, it is illegal duplication. A proposal may elaborate in specific areas or otherwise take duplicatory actions below this threshold.
      
      
    • Contradiction: A proposal cannot enact any policy which would conflict with an active resolution.
    
    
  • Committees: Every proposal must affect member states in some fashion. A committee may be the primary agent of that effect, but forming it may not be the proposal's only action. Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.
    
    
    • No committee may be staffed by a player / nation, or a role (Founder, Governor, Delegate, etc...) performed by a player / nation.
      
      
    • A committee continues to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
      
      
    • A single-use committee that died when its resolution was repealed may be revived for a relevant new proposal
    
    
  • House of Cards: No operative proposal clause may depend on a previous resolution in a way that would make the clause nonsensical or inoperative if that previous resolution were repealed.
    
    
  • Operative Clause: Every proposal must have at least one clause which encourages or requires a member state or entity therein to make an act or omission. For repeals the automatically included line is sufficient, so no separate operative clause is needed.
  
  
• Repeal Basics: Resolutions are not written in stone. Repeals can be submitted by clicking the repeal link at the bottom of the target resolution. Repeals submitted using anything but the repeal function will be removed. Other grounds upon which a repeal can be removed:
  
  
  • Relevance: A repeal must give at least one reason for repealing the target resolution which engages with its specific contents. The following arguments do not meet this standard:
    
    
    • Claims of vagueness without elaboration. Examples or other explanations of how the said vagueness allows a resolution to be exploited are sufficient elaboration.
      
      
    • Broad claims of national, cultural or religious sovereignty which are not tailored to the specific policy in question.
    
    
  • New Legislation: A repeal cannot introduce new legislation and can only seek to repeal the target resolution. A new proposal on the same topic may be submitted after passage of the repeal.
    
    
  • Veracity (formerly Honest Mistake): Any interpretation of a passed resolution a repeal clause makes must be plausible under a plain reading of the resolution. If multiple potential readings of a passed resolution exist, a repeal clause cannot rely on one so self-detrimental that no entity would apply it.
  
  
• Mechanics: There are aspects of gameplay and the game itself that cannot be legislated on, either because it requires a code change or because it breaks the "fourth wall". The following rules apply to both repeals and new legislation:
  
  
  • Metagaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing compliance on non-member nations. Proposals may not reference the Security Council, NationStates regions, or specific roleplayed canon.
    
    
  • Game Mechanics: A proposal clause cannot affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of member nations for non-compliance. Clauses apparently contradicting Issues-based Policies do not violate this rule. Another example: it is not allowed to specify nation budget expenditures (such as percentages) in a proposal since that contradicts how the game works. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum.
    
    
  • Amendment: A proposal clause cannot modify the text of a passed resolution.
  
  
• Category: A proposal's category determines the effect on member nations.
  
  
  • Category: Proposals must be submitted under a category. The proposal's content must align with the chosen category. The category determines the proposal's statistical affect on member nations. Categories have either a Strength or Area of Effect. A breakdown of the Categories and their applicable Strength or Area of Effect can be found in the post below.
    
    
  • Strength: This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant. Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specify the area of policy affected from a pre-populated list of options. These options do have a statistical effect and strength.
    
    
  • Optionality: Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all member nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed. However, for 'Mild' strength proposals, terminology such as "URGES", "RECOMMENDS" is acceptable.
  
  
• Format: Other universal standards for all General Assembly proposals.
  
  
  • Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein. A proposal may not contain any proper nouns which reference the real world. This includes, but is not limited to, world leaders, persons, places, religions, languages, political parties, organizations, and events. Proper nouns are permissible if they are necessary to refer to a generic political or scientific concept.
    
    
  • Language: Proposals must be written in understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals which use incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.
    
    
  • Branding: A proposal cannot reference any nation or player, including the author, using their name or first-person pronouns. Acronyms or acrostics may not be used to circumvent this. A co-author may be credited in the proposal text if their nation has ceased to exist. Otherwise, co-authors should be credited using the inbuilt co-author feature.
    
    
  • Blockers: No proposal may block off an entire category or area of effect. Nor may any proposal be "repeal-proof" or attempt to block repeal of another resolution. A proposal may not solely block legislation (a "pure blocker"); but blocking, in general, is permitted if there is additional action (e.g. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).
    
    
  • Joke/Silly Proposals: Proposals intended solely to be 'humorous' or a 'joke' are removed, however, authors may post these in the [SILLY] GA Joke Proposals Only thread.
  
  REMINDER: Proposals must comply with the site's general One Stop Rules Shop
  
  
  • Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the theft of another person's work. If a player wishes to submit another's proposal, explicit permission must be obtained and submitted either through the Getting Help page or Moderation so we have a paper trail. If not, the offender is ejected and the proposal is deleted.

[Goobergunchia]

General Assembly Proposal Categories

There seems to be some confusion as to what the existing WA proposal categories do, so I'll try to describe them in more detail here. Note that any reference to "government" refers to the governments of WA member nations, not the WA itself. References to "Personal" and "Civil" Freedoms are identical and completely interchangeable.

---

Environmental - A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. Environmental resolutions can take two forms, either they can affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automotive, Mining, Logging, Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing,; or they can impact all business All Businesses. All businesses has two strengths mild, which might be good for pleasing those protesting hippies that keep showing up at your office; and strong, which might be good for pleasing those eco-terrorists that keep sneaking into your office. More seriously from a statistical impact perspective, mild is less impactful (although more broadly spread) in terms of decreasing industry and increasing environmental statistics than a resolution targeting a specific industry, where as strong is the most impacful of any environmental resolution.

Examples - All Business - Strong: GA#66 – Endangered Species Protection
All Business - mild: GA#435 – Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection
Automotive: GA#301 – Ban on Leaded Fuel
Mining: GA#263 – Uranium Mining Standards Act
Logging: GA#291 – Sustainable Forest Management
Manufacturing: GA#349 – To Prevent Dangerous Debris
Agriculture: GA#376 – Pesticide Regulations

---

Civil Rights - A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Examples - Mild: GA#6 - Humanitarian Transport
Significant: GA#15 – Freedom of Marriage Act
Strong: GA#4 – Restrictions on Child Labor

Moral Decency - A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Examples - Mild: GA#136 - Convention on Wartime Deceased
Examples - Significant: GA#300 - Child Pornography Ban

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

---

Free Trade - A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Examples - Mild: GA#34 – International Transport Safety
Significant: GA#70 – International Competition Law
Strong: GA#68 – National Economic Freedoms

Social Justice - A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare. Healthcare and healthcare spending are not covered by Social Justice. Use the "Health" category.
Examples - Mild: GA#44 – Reduction of Abortion Act
Significant: GA#21 – Living Wage Act
Strong: GA#52 – Food Welfare Act

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. "Social Justice" increases government spending on welfare and targets living standards. Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all WA member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all WA member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

With regard to the Social Justice category and the three strengths, when determining whether or not your policy is mild, strong or significant ask yourself, are you covering general welfare, or are you including healthcare:

You're better positioned to know if Social Justice actually increases healthcare. If it doesn't, then I withdraw my complaint. But if it does, then I think this discussion is only talking about one side of the solution.

It does, but only if the strength of the resolution is "significant" or "strong", not "mild."

---

The Furtherment of Democracy - A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Examples - Mild: GA#17 – WA General Fund
Significant: GA#22 – Diplomat Protection Act
Strong: GA#27 – Freedom of Assembly

Political Stability - A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Examples: - Mild: GA#2 – Rights and Duties of WA States

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Political Freedoms. "The Furtherment of Democracy" increases these freedoms while "Political Stability" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue. Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever. Imposing regulation on campaign finances is a mild form of reducing Political Freedoms.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

---

International Security - A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Examples - Mild: GA#10 – Nuclear Arms Possession Act
Significant: GA#20 – Suppress International Piracy
Strong: GA#53 – Epidemic Response Act

Global Disarmament - A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Examples - Mild: GA#121 – Medical Facilities Protection
Significant: GA#40 – The Landmine Convention

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by a nation's police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

---

Advancement of Industry - A resolution to develop industry around the world.

This is a wide-ranging pro-business Category that more accurately reflects the power of corporations in Jennifer Government. Don't know why Max didn't give us more like this when he created the game. Guess he's an old softy.

Area of Effect

First choice is Environmental Deregulation. Rather than devoting the whole proposal category to reverse the effects of "Environment', we've chosen a middle ground of 'all business'.
Examples to come

Second, Labor Deregulation. This one is going to benefit corporations at the expense of the worker. Surprise!
Example - GA#302 – Individual Worker Freedoms

Third, Protective Tariffs. This opposes international 'Free Trade' by adding protectionism for national industry.
Example - GA#118 – Ethics in International Trade

Fourth, Tort Reform. Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business. Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?
Example - GA#106 – Assitance Givers Protection

Fifth, Commercial Enterprise. The freer the market, the freer the people, right? By people, we mean corporations. This covers all the rights associated with commercial entities and the free market.
Examples to come

---

Education and Creativity - A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Area of Effect

Artistic is just what you'd expect - government funding for the Arts. No more trying to sneak it in under human rights.
Example - GA#61 – WA Copyright Charter

Educational - finally something for all you "Free Education" lovers. Of course, nothing is truly free, as you'll quickly discover.
Example - GA#48 – Access to Science in Schools

Cultural Heritage is another of those lovely amorphous categories that lets you do those wonderful meaningless things the RL UN loves so much. For a small fee, of course.
Example - GA#72 – Cultural Heritage Protection

Free Press allows the ultimate expression of your new-found educational and creative rights. Be careful what you wish for, though ...
Example - GA#89 – Internet Net Neutrality Act

---

Health -- A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Most of these will improve nations' health at government expense, though no doubt industry will be eager to help. Bioethics sets limits on how far you can go.

Area of Effect

Healthcare: If universal health care has always been your Great White Whale, you may be able to persuade others to join the hunt. But for those with simpler ambitions, it's about governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people. Now you don't have to try disguising government funding for health as social justice (or recreational drug use, either).
Example - GA#320 – Infectious Disease Control

International Aid: Well, of course we want all the wealthier member governments to spend their money on poor sick foreigners ... and their citizens will gladly support that, naturally.
Example - GA#340 – Access to Humanitarian Aid

Research: Makes everyone cleverer, doesn't it? Industry profits from the side-effects, governments just have to give it a little bit of seed money, and it practically runs itself. Public and private research and the study of health and medicine benefit. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Example - GA#333 – Preserving Antimicrobials

Bioethics: Just because escaped superbugs might cause one or two silly little epidemics somewhere unimportant, people are being scared into putting the brakes on Science! You say it's setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research. I say it's the free individual's civil rights freedoms being chipped away by the nanny state!
Examples to come

---

Regulation -- A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

As of September, 2018 this is our newest category. many previous resolutions that previously had awkward preambles justifying why they fit into this category or that actually probably belong here now. The categories are:

Consumer Protection: Increasing consumer rights, product standards, accurate labeling, and legal recourse for consumer David against the corporate Goliath.
Examples to come

Safety: Enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm.
Examples to come

Transportation: Planes, trains, and automobiles! Create regulations to increase hull thickness, standardize trade route traffic, or protect shipping.
Examples to come

Labor Rights: Protecting the workers from exploitation and dangerous conditions at the expense of corporate bottom lines.
Examples to come

Energy: Bright ideas about power generation, transmission, and consumption belong here.
Examples to come

Legal Reform: Regulate the legal industry, public and private, for access to justice for all.
Examples to come

---

Note the previously existent categories of gun control, recreational drug use, and gambling have been eliminated. Passed resolutions under these categories can be repealed, but no further resolutions can be passed under these categories.

Getting Additional Help

As extensive as these explanations are, sometimes there are things that still aren't clear and you need additional help. Ask your fellow players for advice. When drafting a WA proposal, do it on a word processor on your own computer. Then, post the draft as a new topic here in the "World Assembly" forum and ask for advice. Hopefully, experienced players will come along and point out anything in your draft proposal that violates proposal rules and needs to be changed. GenSec members are not always available to answer questions on draft proposals, so experienced players are the next best thing. This is essentially a peer review process.

Do not underestimate the value of informal peer reviews. When you submit a proposal to the WA, you certify that you understand the proposal rules and that the proposal will be removed if it is deemed to be in violation. "I didn't know" or "I didn't understand" is not an acceptable excuse.

Written by Cogitation; September 24, 2004 and February 23, 2005, reworked by The Most Glorious Hack, and polished by the NationStates moderation team. Health category added and Environmental areas of effect readjusted 17/02/2014. Health areas of effect updated 29/05/2014 ... and again, 23/08/2014 (Ard). Gun Control category effects extended to regulated ban, 16/10/2014 (Ard).

[Separatist Peoples]

Why Amendments Are Illegal

A frequently asked player question:

(ooc: I consider this a dodge by both players and the mods. I have heard second and third hand that players when expressing concern about these matters have been ever so politely told to buzz off, I bring it into the open so it may be addressed in the open rather than ignored individually...so I may judge for myself without a filter just what the actual mechanical difficulty is and why it IS a mechanical difficulty)

Players and mods have diddly to do with amendments. The only way to get new game code is to have one of the admins write it. On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Max Barry, [violet], and SalusaSecondus upgraded the game to include code for repealing previously passed resolutions. Up 'til that point, the standing rule was 'you passed it, you have to live with it'.

Amendments / repeals had been a sore point for players since the beginning of the game, and UN Mod Enodia had to formulate a rule making both illegal, since the only way to implement them was for the admins to make adjustments to the code with the passage of each game-altering amendment. Their response? "No way, Jose."

The admins worked long and hard on finding a way to address the problem of permanent UN resolutions. They decided that the amendment process was simply too difficult to code effectively, so they went with the repeal code and the strikeout of the prior resolution. Frankly, none of our current admins have the time or inclination to revisit that code, and the problem with amendments is just as difficult now as it was then. That door probably won't ever be reopened.

Let's have a look at the mechanical problem, using Historical Resolution #4 as an example.

UN taxation ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Let's amend this proposal by taking out the word "not". How would you code an Amendment to reflect this minor change? Would it be different than adding the words "or treasury" between 'citizens' and 'of'? How about changing "for any purpose" to "for any military purpose?

Now, multiply those effects times all the passed resolutions, and correctly anticipate the possible phrasing choices that will be used in all the unwritten proposals yet to hit the floor. Write some code to address all those potential changes. Incorporate it into a simple game where the actual mechanical effects are hidden from the players, so they can't know what the effects really are. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

That's the true, non-evasive answer. Now you see why we don't like writing it out every week when the question gets raised for the umpteenth time.

Originally posted by Frisbeeteria

[Goobergunchia]

Submitting a Legality Challenge

Note: This process does not apply to plagarism or other violations of the OSRS rules. To report those types of violations, please submit a Getting Help Request.

Any player may issue a challenge on the legality of a proposal that has been finished or submitted. GenSec will not review proposals still in their drafting stages, as player critique should be the first defense against an illegal proposal. If GenSec believes a submitted proposal violates the Proposal Rules, but a challenge has not been submitted, it will still review the proposal and deliver a public ruling.

To file a challenge against a proposal:

1. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.
   
   
2. The filing player must create a new thread with the [CHALLENGE] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged.
   
   GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses.
   
   These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.
   
   
3. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. After reaching a majority, GenSec will post a ruling and take action in the control panel or otherwise notify the moderators for appropriate action. Rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.
   
   
4. A full opinion will be released after the ruling. The controlling opinion will be released promptly after a majority of members exists and a reasonable effort to secure members' participation has been made. Concurring or dissenting opinions will be released and added to the official record as they are completed.
   
   
5. A challenge is untimely if it is against a resolution at vote or if it is brought within one day of a proposal becoming a resolution at vote. However, a challenge is never untimely if it is brought within two days of the proposal's submission. An untimely challenge cannot trigger a discard of a resolution at vote unless GenSec finds the proposal illegal unanimously. A decision is still unanimous even if the underlying rationale differs. This restriction does not affect the precedential value of opinions arising from untimely challenges.