A Resolution to Promote and Indoctrinate Democracy

[The Permian Basin]

Fellow Nations,
Following much distaste my nation's citizens expresses concerning the overall lack of democracy expresses by some nation-states, we have proposed legislation in the World Assembly that strives to promote and indoctrinate democracy in the governments of our fellow nations. This is a time of crisis in which we need to be aware of how our actions effect our citizens. Please read the legislation under the proposals in the general assembly, and if you are a World Assembly Regional Delegate, please consider supporting my effort to promote individual liberties for all.

Additionally, I highly encourage debate, as a strong democracy focuses on debate so that it can be successful. Please don't hesitate in asking a question about how I see this legislation being implemented, and what the ramifications will be to nations that don't meet a standard of democracy.

EDIT:
Everyone,
it is my goal to essentially promote democracy in the WA through said resolution. However, because of the legality issues, I would like input so that I have a better chance of getting this to a vote. Here is what I have so far:

WHEREAS, The community of NationStates is corroded with multiple governments promoting anti-democratic policy.

WHEREAS, Many nations fail to meet the needs and desires of their citizens and instead promote government selfishness and demote citizen's individuality.

WHEREAS, The goal of all nation-states should be to promote and expand democracy, not remove it from governmental jurisdiction.

RESOLVED, The general assembly will form the Committee of Political Freedoms that reviews the political freedoms granted by each nation-state under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Nations not meeting a moderate political freedom standard will receive an auto-generated telegram with support that seeks to promote democracy.

I have removed anything about the SC in hopes of removing the meta-gaming and game mechanics illegalities. Please provide input and let's get this approved

[Jebslund]

[OC: Bit of advice: Remove it from the queue and paste a draft here in the OP. As it is, your proposal breaks at least one, possibly three rules on proposals (found here). In general, it is best to spend a few weeks drafting and getting advice before submitting a proposal, particularly if you're new to writing them, in order to not only get it as polished as possible before it hits the GA voting floor, but also to get a sense of if your proposal will even make it that far and possibly drum up some support for it. Any new drafts of this proposal also need to be put in the OP, with the newest one visible and the older ones under spoiler tags (

Code: Select all

[spoiler]Like this[/spoiler]

). As for now, though, couple pointers: The WA isn't actually an organization meant to indoctrinate anything, and, in fact, has rules *against* outright banning any ideology.]

[The Permian Basin]

[OC: Bit of advice: Remove it from the queue and paste a draft here in the OP. As it is, your proposal breaks at least one, possibly three rules on proposals (found here). In general, it is best to spend a few weeks drafting and getting advice before submitting a proposal, particularly if you're new to writing them, in order to not only get it as polished as possible before it hits the GA voting floor, but also to get a sense of if your proposal will even make it that far and possibly drum up some support for it. Any new drafts of this proposal also need to be put in the OP, with the newest one visible and the older ones under spoiler tags (

Code: Select all

[spoiler]Like this[/spoiler]

). As for now, though, couple pointers: The WA isn't actually an organization meant to indoctrinate anything, and, in fact, has rules *against* outright banning any ideology.]

Jebslund, the goal of the legislation is not to ban an ideology, but to instead promote democracy. Through the execution of the legislation, the WA Security Council would use its oversight powers to condemn or commend nations maintaining a moderate level of political freedoms. The hope is that this will influence the overall political stability of the nation and help or deteriorate their influence on the world stage. It is similar to what the UN Security Council does every day in real life. They can't ban a country from promoting communism, but they can use their powerful alliance with strong nations like the US to sanction nations that don't meet compliance standards. Additionally, although I am open to answering questions pertaining to the legislation, I am confident in its professionalism, and frankly do not think that it needs refining. If people dislike it, that's their decision. All Im here for is answering questions and promoting the legislation

[Gig em Aggies]

[OC: Bit of advice: Remove it from the queue and paste a draft here in the OP. As it is, your proposal breaks at least one, possibly three rules on proposals (found here). In general, it is best to spend a few weeks drafting and getting advice before submitting a proposal, particularly if you're new to writing them, in order to not only get it as polished as possible before it hits the GA voting floor, but also to get a sense of if your proposal will even make it that far and possibly drum up some support for it. Any new drafts of this proposal also need to be put in the OP, with the newest one visible and the older ones under spoiler tags (

Code: Select all

[spoiler]Like this[/spoiler]

). As for now, though, couple pointers: The WA isn't actually an organization meant to indoctrinate anything, and, in fact, has rules *against* outright banning any ideology.]

Jebslund, the goal of the legislation is not to ban an ideology, but to instead promote democracy. Through the execution of the legislation, the WA Security Council would use its oversight powers to condemn or commend nations maintaining a moderate level of political freedoms. The hope is that this will influence the overall political stability of the nation and help or deteriorate their influence on the world stage. It is similar to what the UN Security Council does every day in real life. They can't ban a country from promoting communism, but they can use their powerful alliance with strong nations like the US to sanction nations that don't meet compliance standards. Additionally, although I am open to answering questions pertaining to the legislation, I am confident in its professionalism, and frankly do not think that it needs refining. If people dislike it, that's their decision. All Im here for is answering questions and promoting the legislation

word of advice the WA cant force a nation to change its ways its really just a symbolic measure your plan wont work out as is because it is trying to ban an ideology that's not democracy. Nation States has thrived for so long because it allows players to run nations as they see fit whether it be a communist nation or a totalitarian or an anarchy you cant force players into a particular political spectrum. plus WA/SC resolution rarely pass muster if they include real life examples we are not an IRL site we are a fictious set of nations within our own universe apart from the real world.

[Likar]

"I have to say, it does look like banning a ideology. But rephrase some words and there and you can get my support!"

[The Permian Basin]

"I have to say, it does look like banning a ideology. But rephrase some words and there and you can get my support!"

Likar, what is controversial about the wording? I am willing to reword my proposal

[The Permian Basin]

Jebslund, the goal of the legislation is not to ban an ideology, but to instead promote democracy. Through the execution of the legislation, the WA Security Council would use its oversight powers to condemn or commend nations maintaining a moderate level of political freedoms. The hope is that this will influence the overall political stability of the nation and help or deteriorate their influence on the world stage. It is similar to what the UN Security Council does every day in real life. They can't ban a country from promoting communism, but they can use their powerful alliance with strong nations like the US to sanction nations that don't meet compliance standards. Additionally, although I am open to answering questions pertaining to the legislation, I am confident in its professionalism, and frankly do not think that it needs refining. If people dislike it, that's their decision. All Im here for is answering questions and promoting the legislation

word of advice the WA cant force a nation to change its ways its really just a symbolic measure your plan wont work out as is because it is trying to ban an ideology that's not democracy. Nation States has thrived for so long because it allows players to run nations as they see fit whether it be a communist nation or a totalitarian or an anarchy you cant force players into a particular political spectrum. plus WA/SC resolution rarely pass muster if they include real life examples we are not an IRL site we are a fictious set of nations within our own universe apart from the real world.

Gig em Aggies, first off great choice (Im an aggie at heart). But the intention is not to change anything related to the power of the WA or the SC. We are only using their current power of oversight to promote an ideology, not destroy another ideology. Anyone can believe whatever they want, I just want to make it more beneficial to those who support a democratic governing ideology in their country.

[Likar]

"I have to say, it does look like banning a ideology. But rephrase some words and there and you can get my support!"

Likar, what is controversial about the wording? I am willing to reword my proposal

RESOLVED, The general assembly will form a committee that reviews the political freedoms granted by each nation-state under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation that does not maintain a level of moderate political freedoms will be reviewed by the security council with the possibility of receiving a condemnation report and economic sanctions, and

Nationstates have thrived off of its super democracys, and dictatorships. This would be a huge blow to devolping nations and current dictatorships on nationstates.


And my puppet state, Pamat, would be at risk also.

[Jebslund]

Anyone can believe whatever they want, I just want to make it more beneficial to those who support a democratic governing ideology in their country.

[OC: Bit of advice: Remove it from the queue and paste a draft here in the OP. As it is, your proposal breaks at least one, possibly three rules on proposals (found here). In general, it is best to spend a few weeks drafting and getting advice before submitting a proposal, particularly if you're new to writing them, in order to not only get it as polished as possible before it hits the GA voting floor, but also to get a sense of if your proposal will even make it that far and possibly drum up some support for it. Any new drafts of this proposal also need to be put in the OP, with the newest one visible and the older ones under spoiler tags (

Code: Select all

[spoiler]Like this[/spoiler]

). As for now, though, couple pointers: The WA isn't actually an organization meant to indoctrinate anything, and, in fact, has rules *against* outright banning any ideology.]

Jebslund, the goal of the legislation is not to ban an ideology, but to instead promote democracy. Through the execution of the legislation, the WA Security Council would use its oversight powers to condemn or commend nations maintaining a moderate level of political freedoms. The hope is that this will influence the overall political stability of the nation and help or deteriorate their influence on the world stage. It is similar to what the UN Security Council does every day in real life. They can't ban a country from promoting communism, but they can use their powerful alliance with strong nations like the US to sanction nations that don't meet compliance standards. Additionally, although I am open to answering questions pertaining to the legislation, I am confident in its professionalism, and frankly do not think that it needs refining. If people dislike it, that's their decision. All Im here for is answering questions and promoting the legislation

[OOC: It does need refining, actually. You may wish to read the rules (in the link I posted). Furthermore, the WA and the UN are not the same thing, even though the former was based on the latter and originally named the UN. You may wish to familiarise yourself with the WA before submitting proposals. The GA has nothing to do with the SC, meaning your proposal violates the Metagaming rule. Furthermore, the goal is less relevant than you think with regards to the Ideology Ban rule, which is part of why drafting a resolution, regardless of your confidence in its professionalism. Drafting a resolution before submitting it is a great way to check if there's anything you missed writing it, and, to be frank, you're not God. There's *always* room for improvement, and your resolution does need it.

As for if people dislike it, many people won't even give it approval if it's not well written and campaigned properly. You will definitely want to get advice from people who have been here longer on what to do to make sure your resolution gets the support it will need to have even a ghost of a chance of passing. A thread on the GA forum won't cut it.]

[shnip]
...Anyone can believe whatever they want, I just want to make it more beneficial to those who support a democratic governing ideology in their country.

[OOC: Except that GA resolutions affect ALL member-nations. And by making it more beneficial to people who support democracy, you are making it detrimental to those who support, for example, Authoritarianism. Without an argument beyond, "Democracy good, authoritarianism bad!", you are, in effect, attempting to ban non-democratic ideologies, even if that wasn't your intent.]

[The Permian Basin]

Anyone can believe whatever they want, I just want to make it more beneficial to those who support a democratic governing ideology in their country.

Jebslund, the goal of the legislation is not to ban an ideology, but to instead promote democracy. Through the execution of the legislation, the WA Security Council would use its oversight powers to condemn or commend nations maintaining a moderate level of political freedoms. The hope is that this will influence the overall political stability of the nation and help or deteriorate their influence on the world stage. It is similar to what the UN Security Council does every day in real life. They can't ban a country from promoting communism, but they can use their powerful alliance with strong nations like the US to sanction nations that don't meet compliance standards. Additionally, although I am open to answering questions pertaining to the legislation, I am confident in its professionalism, and frankly do not think that it needs refining. If people dislike it, that's their decision. All Im here for is answering questions and promoting the legislation

[OOC: It does need refining, actually. You may wish to read the rules (in the link I posted). Furthermore, the WA and the UN are not the same thing, even though the former was based on the latter and originally named the UN. You may wish to familiarise yourself with the WA before submitting proposals. The GA has nothing to do with the SC, meaning your proposal violates the Metagaming rule. Furthermore, the goal is less relevant than you think with regards to the Ideology Ban rule, which is part of why drafting a resolution, regardless of your confidence in its professionalism. Drafting a resolution before submitting it is a great way to check if there's anything you missed writing it, and, to be frank, you're not God. There's *always* room for improvement, and your resolution does need it.

As for if people dislike it, many people won't even give it approval if it's not well written and campaigned properly. You will definitely want to get advice from people who have been here longer on what to do to make sure your resolution gets the support it will need to have even a ghost of a chance of passing. A thread on the GA forum won't cut it.]

[shnip]
...Anyone can believe whatever they want, I just want to make it more beneficial to those who support a democratic governing ideology in their country.

[OOC: Except that GA resolutions affect ALL member-nations. And by making it more beneficial to people who support democracy, you are making it detrimental to those who support, for example, Authoritarianism. Without an argument beyond, "Democracy good, authoritarianism bad!", you are, in effect, attempting to ban non-democratic ideologies, even if that wasn't your intent.]

I will remove any text punishing players. The reason the SC is included is because the new committee will work with the Furthering Democracy Board to award players meeting political freedom standards. The SC is not being influenced by the WA, but instead the proposal is just furthering the goals of the WA (To promote Democracy) by using all available resources to promote nations to support a democratic ideology

[The Permian Basin]

Likar, what is controversial about the wording? I am willing to reword my proposal

RESOLVED, The general assembly will form a committee that reviews the political freedoms granted by each nation-state under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation that does not maintain a level of moderate political freedoms will be reviewed by the security council with the possibility of receiving a condemnation report and economic sanctions, and

Nationstates have thrived off of its super democracys, and dictatorships. This would be a huge blow to devolping nations and current dictatorships on nationstates.


And my puppet state, Pamat, would be at risk also.

As i just said to Jebslund, I will remove any text punishing players

[Likar]

Nationstates have thrived off of its super democracys, and dictatorships. This would be a huge blow to devolping nations and current dictatorships on nationstates.


And my puppet state, Pamat, would be at risk also.

As i just said to Jebslund, I will remove any text punishing players

Then I'm for this. Can I help co-write this?

[The Permian Basin]

As i just said to Jebslund, I will remove any text punishing players

Then I'm for this. Can I help co-write this?

Yes, please proofread, and provide input:
WHEREAS, The community of NationStates is corroded with multiple governments promoting anti-democratic policy.

WHEREAS, Many nations fail to meet the needs and desires of their citizens and instead promote selfishness and demote individuality.

WHEREAS, The goal of all nation-states should be to promote and expand democracy, not remove it from governmental jurisdiction.

RESOLVED, The general assembly will form a committee that reviews the political freedoms granted by each nation-state under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation in compliance of political freedom standards will potentially receive commendation from the security council for their steadfast efforts in promoting and indoctrinating democracy in their nation's government, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any resolution in conflict with this legislation will be reviewed by the newly formed committee to determine whether it should be re-evaluated by the general assembly

[Likar]

Then I'm for this. Can I help co-write this?

Yes, please proofread, and provide input:
WHEREAS, The community of NationStates is corroded with multiple governments promoting anti-democratic policy.

WHEREAS, Many nations fail to meet the needs and desires of their citizens and instead promote selfishness and demote individuality.

WHEREAS, The goal of all nation-states should be to promote and expand democracy, not remove it from governmental jurisdiction.

RESOLVED, The general assembly will form a committee that reviews the political freedoms granted by each nation-state under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation in compliance of political freedom standards will potentially receive commendation from the security council for their steadfast efforts in promoting and indoctrinating democracy in their nation's government, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any resolution in conflict with this legislation will be reviewed by the newly formed committee to determine whether it should be re-evaluated by the general assembly

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation in compliance of political freedom standards will possibly receive commendation from the security council for their steadfast efforts in promoting and introducing democracy in their nation's government, and.


Thats all. Overall its okay and I could see myself voting for it.

[The Permian Basin]

Yes, please proofread, and provide input:
WHEREAS, The community of NationStates is corroded with multiple governments promoting anti-democratic policy.

WHEREAS, Many nations fail to meet the needs and desires of their citizens and instead promote selfishness and demote individuality.

WHEREAS, The goal of all nation-states should be to promote and expand democracy, not remove it from governmental jurisdiction.

RESOLVED, The general assembly will form a committee that reviews the political freedoms granted by each nation-state under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation in compliance of political freedom standards will potentially receive commendation from the security council for their steadfast efforts in promoting and indoctrinating democracy in their nation's government, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any resolution in conflict with this legislation will be reviewed by the newly formed committee to determine whether it should be re-evaluated by the general assembly

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation in compliance of political freedom standards will possibly receive commendation from the security council for their steadfast efforts in promoting and introducing democracy in their nation's government, and.


Thats all. Overall its okay and I could see myself voting for it.

Ok, will revise and post soon. Thank you for your input

[The Permian Basin]

The proposal had peen posted in the WA.

[Jebslund]

The proposal had peen posted in the WA.

[OOC: And is still in violation of the Metagaming rule.]

[shnip]
The reason the SC is included is because the new committee will work with the Furthering Democracy Board to award players meeting political freedom standards. The SC is not being influenced by the WA, but instead the proposal is just furthering the goals of the WA (To promote Democracy) by using all available resources to promote nations to support a democratic ideology

[OOC] The SC cannot be referenced at all by GA resolutions. The SC is primarily there for R/D gameplay purposes, not as the award-giving arm of the WA. Once again, the GA and the SC have nothing to do with one another, and the SC does not give commendations/condemnations based on the GA's resolutions.

Furthermore, Commendations require proposals to be approved and voted on by the SC. They aren't just handed out, and generally have to do with aspects of R/D gameplay, not WA roleplay. I can tell you right now that no such proposal based on compliance with yours (assuming yours gets the support it needs) would pass. As I'm now saying for the third or fourth time, you should *really* give the rules a look-see, because now you're flirting with a Committee-Only violation in addition to the unresolved Metagaming one.

One more thing: Drafting is not something that should be accomplished in an hour or two. Even veteran players who have had multiple resolutions pass will typically give it a few days at the very least.]

[The Permian Basin]

The proposal had peen posted in the WA.

[OOC: And is still in violation of the Metagaming rule.]

[shnip]
The reason the SC is included is because the new committee will work with the Furthering Democracy Board to award players meeting political freedom standards. The SC is not being influenced by the WA, but instead the proposal is just furthering the goals of the WA (To promote Democracy) by using all available resources to promote nations to support a democratic ideology

[OOC] The SC cannot be referenced at all by GA resolutions. The SC is primarily there for R/D gameplay purposes, not as the award-giving arm of the WA. Once again, the GA and the SC have nothing to do with one another, and the SC does not give commendations/condemnations based on the GA's resolutions.

Furthermore, Commendations require proposals to be approved and voted on by the SC. They aren't just handed out, and generally have to do with aspects of R/D gameplay, not WA roleplay. I can tell you right now that no such proposal based on compliance with yours (assuming yours gets the support it needs) would pass. As I'm now saying for the third or fourth time, you should *really* give the rules a look-see, because now you're flirting with a Committee-Only violation in addition to the unresolved Metagaming one.]

I understand how the SC works. I am not stupid, and am working within my perceived boundaries of the games rules. We are not handing out awards, but players who meet political freedom standards have the pissiblility of being commended based off of a SC resolution proposed by a member of the newly established committee. The legislation would be without purpose if there was no incentive to work towards pro-democratic governments, and the commendations would be voted on in the SC. The resolution would only bring more legislation to the SC.

[Frisbeeteria]

I understand how the SC works. I am not stupid, and am working within my perceived boundaries of the games rules.

Your perceived boundaries are wrong. The SC is entirely separate from the GA. You can't even hint at a link in legislation.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Put [DRAFT] in the title of the thread so this is easily known from the board menu.)

"We cannot support this, not only is it blatantly illegal, but we do not think it is fair for the World Assembly to so brazenly support an ideology. Kenmoria is, and has been for many years, a democracy, but we trade with and respect all systems of government as long as they do not act extremely cruelly to their citizens. Democratic does not automatically equal good and dictatorships do not instantly qualify as bad."

[Jebslund]

[OOC: And is still in violation of the Metagaming rule.]



[OOC] The SC cannot be referenced at all by GA resolutions. The SC is primarily there for R/D gameplay purposes, not as the award-giving arm of the WA. Once again, the GA and the SC have nothing to do with one another, and the SC does not give commendations/condemnations based on the GA's resolutions.

Furthermore, Commendations require proposals to be approved and voted on by the SC. They aren't just handed out, and generally have to do with aspects of R/D gameplay, not WA roleplay. I can tell you right now that no such proposal based on compliance with yours (assuming yours gets the support it needs) would pass. As I'm now saying for the third or fourth time, you should *really* give the rules a look-see, because now you're flirting with a Committee-Only violation in addition to the unresolved Metagaming one.]

I understand how the SC works. I am not stupid, and am working within my perceived boundaries of the games rules. We are not handing out awards, but players who meet political freedom standards have the pissiblility of being commended based off of a SC resolution proposed by a member of the newly established committee. The legislation would be without purpose if there was no incentive to work towards pro-democratic governments, and the commendations would be voted on in the SC. The resolution would only bring more legislation to the SC.

[OOC: I don't recall saying you were. I am saying your understanding of the boundaries of proposal rules is incorrect.

As to being without purpose, it's not the job of laws to provide rewards for good behaviour, only punishment for bad behaviour. If you cannot write this proposal without breaking the Metagaming rule, perhaps this proposal isn't a good idea. As it is, it is dangerously close to violating the Committee-Only rule, and even that's only because it's a bit shakey on whether or not it does anything beyond forming a committee (and, if it doesn't, it could also run afoul of the Optionality rule.). As is, the Strength is also wrong (it should be Mild, by my judgment. Please feel free to correct me, Fris.). This is why drafting is typically done over days/weeks, rather than hours.]

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Also, you can't mention regional delegates in a proposal.)

[Wallenburg]

Where is the proposal text?

EDIT: Found it. You should put your proposal in the OP, rather than halfway down the page. You can edit your first post by clicking the "EDIT" button. As it is, this prematurely submitted proposal has been held for multiple illegalities.

[The Permian Basin]

Everyone,
it is my goal to essentially promote democracy in the WA through said resolution. However, because of the legality issues, I would like input so that I have a better chance of getting this to a vote. Here is what I have so far:

WHEREAS, The community of NationStates is corroded with multiple governments promoting anti-democratic policy.

WHEREAS, Many nations fail to meet the needs and desires of their citizens and instead promote selfishness and demote individuality.

WHEREAS, The goal of all nation-states should be to promote and expand democracy, not remove it from governmental jurisdiction.

RESOLVED, The general assembly will form a committee that reviews the political freedoms granted by each nation-state under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any nation in compliance of political freedom standards will possibly receive commendation from the committee for their steadfast efforts in promoting and introducing democracy in their nation's government, and,

FURTHER RESOLVED, Any resolution in conflict with this legislation will be reviewed by the newly formed committee to determine whether it should be re-evaluated by the general assembly

I have removed anything about the SC in hopes of removing the meta-gaming and game mechanics illegalities. Please provide input and let's get this approved

[Wallenburg]

You should put your proposal in the OP, rather than halfway down the page. You can edit your first post by clicking the "EDIT" button.