NationStates Jolt Archive

After the recent approval of the WA General Fund I have toke thought about some issues that were brought up with concerning this resolution. Since this resolution passed I have wrote up a proposal that is aimed to expand and better the WA General Fund and improve the WA all together. I asked tonight to have some input on the proposal and let me know what you think about the proposal. Information regarding the proposal is listed below:

"Collection of Funds

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Shadow-Bonzi

Description: New resolutions that have been recently pass call for a General Fund to be in the World Assembly. Granted this resolution does not allow the World Assembly to collect taxes and states that funding only can be collected by donations there is no resolution that states how the World Assembly is allowed to collect funds from member nations.

THEREFORE this resolution calls for two things.
1) The rights of the World Assembly when it comes to taxation/collection of funds.
2) Expansion of the WA General Accounting Office, "GAO".

DEFINITIONS used in this resolution include "taxation". Taxation is to be defined as any method used by the World Assembly to collect any funds forcefully from any member nation.

DEFINITIONS also used in this resolution include "GAO" for WA General Accounting Office.

MANDATES that the WA GAO duties to be expanded in the way that this office will continue its duties as describe in the World Assembly General Fund resolution but also includes a division that will monitor and maintain that all nations are given same and fair treatment whether they donate to the World Assembly in large amounts, donations in small amounts, or by not donating at all.

MANDATES that the WA GAO has the right to inquire into the treatment of nations if they feel that they are being treated unfairly by the World Assembly based on the amount of money they donate to the WA General Fund.

MANDATES that the WA GAO hereby has the right to define and create other specific rules, regulations and procedures that will make sure that its duties of protecting nations from being discriminated against based on their monetary donation.

MANDATES that all rules, regulations and procedures created by the WA GAO must be accepted by the World Assembly prior to passing to assure that the WA GAO is conducting it's job in a fair and impartial way.

PROHIBITS that the World Assembly hereby does not have the legal right to levy any taxes for any reason.

MANDATES that any money that is collect from the World Assembly for any reason must be done so by donation and must be done so through the WA GAO.

RESOLVED is that every nation will be treated fairly and not be discriminated against based on the amount of money that they donate.

RESOLVED is that nations will no feel they are required to donate to the World Assembly in order to have their voices heard, or seek assistance of the World Assembly in any form.

UNDERSTANDS that each nation has different financial situations and different economies which may or may not allow them to donate to the World Assembly General Fund.

CREDITS credits regarding the name of GAO are given to the writer of the WA General Fund, "Omigodtheykilledkenny". Thank you to Omigodtheykilledkenny for writing a resolution that allows the World Assembly to better itself.

THEREFORE this bill will continue to better further the World Assembly and allow the World Assembly to continue to be a fair, and impartial society that accepts everyone whether they are rich or poor nations."

Thank you for your input and I am here to answer any questions.

After the recent approval of the WA General Fund I have toke thought about some issues that were brought up with concerning this resolution. Since this resolution passed I have wrote up a proposal that is aimed to expand and better the WA General Fund and improve the WA all together. I asked tonight to have some input on the proposal and let me know what you think about the proposal. Information regarding the proposal is listed below:

No problem. Just please do not take our comments too harshly.

"Collection of Funds

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Shadow-Bonzi



Description: New resolutions that have been recently pass call for a General Fund to be in the World Assembly. Granted this resolution does not allow the World Assembly to collect taxes and states that funding only can be collected by donations there is no resolution that states how the World Assembly is allowed to collect funds from member nations.

We would suggest a clearer wording of the second sentence. Try separating the ideas within it into two sentences?

THEREFORE this resolution calls for two things.
1) The rights of the World Assembly when it comes to taxation/collection of funds.
2) Expansion of the WA General Accounting Office, "GAO".

DEFINITIONS used in this resolution include "taxation". Taxation is to be defined as any method used by the World Assembly to collect any funds forcefully from any member nation.

DEFINITIONS also used in this resolution include "GAO" for WA General Accounting Office.

MANDATES that the WA GAO duties to be expanded in the way that this office will continue its duties as describe in the World Assembly General Fund resolution but also includes a division that will monitor and maintain that all nations are given same and fair treatment whether they donate to the World Assembly in large amounts, donations in small amounts, or by not donating at all.

MANDATES that the WA GAO has the right to inquire into the treatment of nations if they feel that they are being treated unfairly by the World Assembly based on the amount of money they donate to the WA General Fund.

MANDATES that the WA GAO hereby has the right to define and create other specific rules, regulations and procedures that will make sure that its duties of protecting nations from being discriminated against based on their monetary donation.

MANDATES that all rules, regulations and procedures created by the WA GAO must be accepted by the World Assembly prior to passing to assure that the WA GAO is conducting it's job in a fair and impartial way.

PROHIBITS that the World Assembly hereby does not have the legal right to levy any taxes for any reason.

MANDATES that any money that is collect from the World Assembly for any reason must be done so by donation and must be done so through the WA GAO.

RESOLVED is that every nation will be treated fairly and not be discriminated against based on the amount of money that they donate.

RESOLVED is that nations will no feel they are required to donate to the World Assembly in order to have their voices heard, or seek assistance of the World Assembly in any form.

UNDERSTANDS that each nation has different financial situations and different economies which may or may not allow them to donate to the World Assembly General Fund.

CREDITS credits regarding the name of GAO are given to the writer of the WA General Fund, "Omigodtheykilledkenny". Thank you to Omigodtheykilledkenny for writing a resolution that allows the World Assembly to better itself.

THEREFORE this bill will continue to better further the World Assembly and allow the World Assembly to continue to be a fair, and impartial society that accepts everyone whether they are rich or poor nations."

Yeah, we're pretty sure this is illegal. We note that the original resolution this references outright bans the WA from collecting taxes. We also note that the specific rules, as established by the WA staff, for proposals advise against proposals that are dependent upon other proposals in a way that really suggests this will not be allowed. And, we also note that this proposal is, quite possibly, simply too long to fit within the length limits.

We also note that the "PROHIBITS" clause is unclear, in that the wording of it suggests it is prohibiting the ban on tax collection.

Anyway, it's a good start. Maybe try a different topic?

Diplomat Xen Felgras

I think your idea is excellent. I have no idea if it's illegal or not, it will be the mod who will decide. But making sure that GAO operates with transparency and without corruption is important.

Also making sure that WA operates on donation without any member state thinking that it has to 'donate' to have their voice heard is important step in the right direction. Every nations should be treated equally whether they can donate a lot of fund, little, or not at all.

We actually do think this is probably illegal ( not to say poorly written ) and more importantly we cannot see the point of this resolution, proper funding with good oversight is allready secured, why seek to tinker with the system?

yours e.t.c. ,

Part contradiction, part duplication, part amendment, with a little branding on the side for dipping. Wholly illegal and wholly unnecessary, I would say. We don't need any more empty calories in our WA diet (which is ironic, I know, coming from me, the supposed "sovereigntist" who has created more WA bureaucracy to date than any other nation).

The 'General Fund' resolution only created GAO and said it could collect 'donation' and sumitted it to 'outside audit'. I can hardly see how this resolution could be illegal when it just add to the function of GAO. It doesn't seek any amendment, it just clalify the role of GAO and give it more oversight.

I agree that this draft is far from perfect and need improvement but I think it's still a good start.

MapleLeafss;14051415']The 'General Fund' resolution only created GAO and said it could collect 'donation' and sumitted it to 'outside audit'.Maybe if you read the resolution you would understand why it does more than that.

I can hardly see how this resolution could be illegal when it just add to the function of GAO. It doesn't seek any amendment, it just clalify the role of GAO and give it more oversight.Which is sort of what an amendment is. If you want to write a resolution on a completely different topic and task the GAO with handling the details, that would probably past muster with the mods, but if you think an existing resolution is "incomplete," you can't just tack on another - you have to completely repeal and replace.

Better to repeal WA General Fund, then try this one. WA General Fund is flawed, no question, and this resolution would help, but the way both are written they cannot coexist.

He already submitted this proposal..

MANDATES that the WA GAO duties to be expanded in the way that this office will continue its duties as describe in the World Assembly General Fund resolution but also includes a division that will monitor and maintain that all nations are given same and fair treatment whether they donate to the World Assembly in large amounts, donations in small amounts, or by not donating at all.

I can't really see why it would be illegal. It's not amendment. It's some clalification of the role of GAO with expansion of the role of GAO. But it will be a mod who has to decide of course..

MapleLeafss;14051474']I can't really see why it would be illegal.Really? Not even after I explained it to you?

MapleLeafss;14051474']He already submitted this proposal..



I can't really see why it would be illegal. It's not amendment. It's some clalification of the role of GAO with expansion of the role of GAO. But it will be a mod who has to decide of course..



As usual the honoured Ambassador has made up their mind that something is the case even though it patently isn't. How predictable.


yours e.t.c. ,

As usual the honoured Ambassador has made up their mind that something is the case even though it patently isn't. How predictable.


yours e.t.c. ,

I haven't decide anything. I said I will defer my judgement to a mod

MapleLeafss;14051474']I can't really see why it would be illegal. It's not amendment. It's some clalification of the role of GAO with expansion of the role of GAO. But it will be a mod who has to decide of course..

We can quibble over whether or not this is an "amendment" but to me it clearly looks like a HOC (House of Cards) voilation. It is not clear that this resolution can "stand on its own" should the resolution that created the GAO be repealed.

We can quibble over whether or not this is an "amendment" but to me it clearly looks like a HOC (House of Cards) voilation. It is not clear that this resolution can "stand on its own" should the resolution that created the GAO be repealed.

If it's HOC, then it will be easy to modify this resolution to make this resolution comply.

If it is a simple HOC violation then I will re-write it and make the resolution comply that isn't a problem. The problem is that the World Assembly has resolutions that were passed that do not secure fairness. Each and every resolution should be fair and impartial and that what this proposal is looking to do, put in what the original resolution failed to have.

If it is a simple HOC violation then I will re-write it and make the resolution comply that isn't a problem.
I should ask for it to be removed from the proposal list first (OOC: use the "Getting Help" page) or it'll earn you a warning.

The problem is that the World Assembly has resolutions that were passed that do not secure fairness. Each and every resolution should be fair and impartial and that what this proposal is looking to do, put in what the original resolution failed to have.
The problem with the problem is that I don't understand how you think the General Fund resolution is unfair. Your proposal certainly doesn't explain that.

The general fund resolution is unfair because there is not any protections from discrimination. Example, Country A donates $500 million to the general fund. County B donates $100 to the general fund. If County B has somethign they want passed but Country A is against Country B. Country A can pull the claim that since they donate more to the General Fund and the World Assembly they are doing more for the World Assebly versus Country B who donated a little. This has the potential to create a sense of "You donate more, you get more". This proposal calls for this not to happen. The General Fund does not in any shape or form does not protect nations from discrimination based on how much you donate.

As far as it being an HOC violation, thats up to the moderator's to decide.

It's a House of Cards. It's Branding. It's got elements of Metagaming. It's an Amendment. It doesn't really fit the Category. It's got major Format problems. It doesn't do anything that I can see. I'm sorry, I just don't see anything here that can be salvaged.

I've taken down the current draft without penalty. Shadow-Bonzi, if you and [NS]MapleLeafss want to knock it around in this thread for a while and try to make something of it, feel free. Please DO NOT repost your drafts in the proposal queue without taking feedback and getting a legality review.

Don't be disappointed if it takes more than a week. Don't be surprised if it takes over a month. Most of the best ones did.

The general fund resolution is unfair because there is not any protections from discrimination. Example, Country A donates $500 million to the general fund. County B donates $100 to the general fund. If County B has somethign they want passed but Country A is against Country B. Country A can pull the claim that since they donate more to the General Fund and the World Assembly they are doing more for the World Assebly versus Country B who donated a little. This has the potential to create a sense of "You donate more, you get more". This proposal calls for this not to happen. The General Fund does not in any shape or form does not protect nations from discrimination based on how much you donate.

As far as it being an HOC violation, thats up to the moderator's to decide.




Any member nation which claimed that having contributed more in monies to the w.a. would give them greater call on its services or greater say in its doings would be laughed out of these halls, respected Ambassador.

No nation could actually make good on such claims. What real leverage would they have? There are thousands of member states the loss even of tens of these would be no great loss and in any event the resulting available funds though diminished would have have to serve concurrently fewer nations.

If this is the cause of this resolution then it is proposed on a faulty presumption.

Our stated view that this resolution is totally needless remains unchanged.

yours e.t.c. ,

It's a House of Cards. It's Branding. It's got elements of Metagaming. It's an Amendment. It doesn't really fit the Category. It's got major Format problems. It doesn't do anything that I can see. I'm sorry, I just don't see anything here that can be salvaged.

I've taken down the current draft without penalty. Shadow-Bonzi, if you and [NS]MapleLeafss want to knock it around in this thread for a while and try to make something of it, feel free. Please DO NOT repost your drafts in the proposal queue without taking feedback and getting a legality review.

Don't be disappointed if it takes more than a week. Don't be surprised if it takes over a month. Most of the best ones did.

Thank you for the timely review of this proposal. I doubted that this resolution, as currently written, was illegal. However I think the original idea of reviewing how WA is funded is good. Of course I shall submit a modified version in a few week, when I'm less busy.

Thanks for all the input. I have some different ideas that I am going to work on....I will be posting here first. Thanks!