NationStates Jolt Archive

hello, im the esteemed (dont call me that ever) nation of NX401, and upon familirizeing myself with the many policies that i am reading and with the resolutions at hand, it has come to my attention that the policies may be to vauge to pass any true or real lesgislation within the WA.

These policies range from just about anything and that makes me question the WA's Morals with the nations within the WA themselves. it may cover everything but they seem to be so lose that basically if i asked a yes or no question, you can say yes to anything as it is a "passed Resolution" or i cant pass anything specific cause "every policy covers everything". This is BULL****

im a little bit scared on why everything so borad. we are so lose with it that i can basically be drinking a poision drink as it WA approved because of some resolution that said "everything the citizens of the nation that is within the WA can drink everything within that nation as we declare it clean". in this scarnio your basically getting everyone sick and may have to pass some big medical resolution in order to stop the pandemic of "radition poision within the water of the nations within the WA." see where im going with this?

So, if any body can tell me why no one ever reads anything of what they type, please answer my question. Also, just a thought, instead of being a WA delegate of the nations everywhere, just think what your own nation needs first cause if you cant control your nation then how do you think you can control all the other nations?

thoughts will be most appricated.

no i don't agree i think it's good

im confused with what you said? please clearify

So you're problem is that being a member of the WA requires you to follow the ruling of the WA?

My dear sir, I feel you do not fully appreciate, or understand the great fun that comes from having vague laws. Personally I love the vague little buggers. From a RP standpoint they allow me to more easily pervert the spirit of the law while fulfilling the letter. This vagueness, and the ability to circumvent or pervert the intent of the laws makes being here in the festering snakepit bearable. Hearing the lamentations of those frustated my creative interpretations of said laws are an additional benefit. It just warms the cockels of my blackened heart.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

So you're problem is that being a member of the WA requires you to follow the ruling of the WA?

That is the fact of the World Assembly. It is clearly stated that all member nations must abide by WA rules. But membership is voluntary.

What is the honoured Ambassador referring to when they use the term "policies" ? Do they mean resolutions ?

If the honoured Ambassador thinks the resolutions passed by this organisation are too "vague" then we suggest they re-read them and this time take care in doing so. The greater majority of the resolutions passed by this organisation are in fact extremely detailed and highly focused on the issue they deal with, this is necessitated by the rules regarding the writing of resolutions and the maximum character count imposed upon them.


yours,

no, being part of teh WA is totally fine. BUT the policys within the WA are to vague and real legislation cant get passed because of a few resolutions that cove...idk..EVERYTHING and ANYTHING..

the thing above was just an examplke of how Vague a policy can be. another example, i guess to clearify would be this scanirio:

RESOLUTION: everything is safe to eat with the nations within the WA
(debate, debate, debate...Passed)
Passed resolution: everything is safe to eas as long you are in teh WA

wait..dose that also refere to radiated fruit (fruit next to a nuclear power plant)

as far as teh WA is concered it dose as it is edible and has no defromities (meaning you CAN eat it)

That is the fact of the World Assembly. It is clearly stated that all member nations must abide by WA rules. But membership is voluntary.

Points at the esteemed delegate from NX401. Don't look at me... he asked.

urgench,...i did quite a few times that interfered with your policy..is so crazily vague that even you cant enforce it

I fear the old boy is a little dissillusioned with the WA. He needs to hang out in the festering snakepit awhile, in order to fully appriciate the ambviance. This place kinda grows on you....like a bad case of fungus.:D
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

and yes resolutions

urgench,...i did quite a few times that interfered with your policy..is so crazily vague that even you cant enforce it
Those old boy, are the best kind of laws.:tongue:

wow...your a yes man. i cant believe im dealing with a instatutionalized men.

no, being part of teh WA is totally fine. BUT the policys within the WA are to vague and real legislation cant get passed because of a few resolutions that cove...idk..EVERYTHING and ANYTHING..

the thing above was just an examplke of how Vague a policy can be. another example, i guess to clearify would be this scanirio:

RESOLUTION: everything is safe to eat with the nations within the WA
(debate, debate, debate...Passed)
Passed resolution: everything is safe to eas as long you are in teh WA

wait..dose that also refere to radiated fruit (fruit next to a nuclear power plant)

as far as teh WA is concered it dose as it is edible and has no defromities (meaning you CAN eat it)

You are assuming that such a proposal (not in specifics but in abstract) would be passed. It would be near impossible to push through a blanket proposal such as that, and if it did (Max Barry Day) it would be repealed post haste.

all im saying is that, if you dont think you actually pass something specific then why even bother with the WA at all? all your saying is yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes..without given any second thought to anything you actually passed. im happy the economics repeal passed. you gave to much power to someone that supposed to be "extra help"

I don't always say yes yes yes and yes to resolutions. At the last resolution at vote I went Against because the argument was flawed.

all im saying is that, if you dont think you actually pass something specific then why even bother with the WA at all? all your saying is yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes..without given any second thought to anything you actually passed. im happy the economics repeal passed. you gave to much power to someone that supposed to be "extra help"

Did you check your nations categories to see if it truly was a good thing? I'd suggest that you didn't. Also if you look at the NsTracker (http://nstracker.jfsoftware.com/index.php?nation=NX401) you'd realize that some nations lost a considerable about off their GDP and had spikes in unemployment.

Was this across the board, I don't know I only know how it affected my nation... but that's why I was saying no no no no no no no no no no no no no to it.

all im saying is that, if you dont think you actually pass something specific then why even bother with the WA at all? all your saying is yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes..without given any second thought to anything you actually passed. im happy the economics repeal passed. you gave to much power to someone that supposed to be "extra help"

:mad:
Ye f***ing gods! I'd suggest you read transcripts of the past debates that came up for votes, here in the festering snakepit noob!
Most of us have pointed out our feelings about the proposals, and stated why or why not they would be a good idea. After said proposal passed the game changes your nation's setings. We are free to RP, or not RP the effects. You are familiar with RP aren't you noob. If you don't like it, then hit the damned resign button and don't let the door hit you on the ass as you leave!:mad:

I'm assuming we're OOC here? Since people can, apparently, be called 'noobs'? This 'noob' in particular is a Magistrate in my region, and should be shown some respect, especially considering that in real life he is studying politics.

It's a stupid suggestion that one who doesn't like the WA should leave it.

Our trouble with the WA is that, in order to do anything, you need to repeal something else. Which is almost impossible for resolutions of the past, since everybody is so sure that they do everything perfectly, and since their authors are held in high regard.

Or I'll submit a proposal and be told that it over-steps the jurisdiction of the WA even though past resolutions do so to a far greater extent. Or that the term 'amendment,' is defined by the WA to mean that a case if completely closed once a resolution having to do with it passes.

These are problems that shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. These are also problems (read the later pages of the Private Forces thingy) that I've supplied legitimate ways around, in as far as Resolutions are indeed vague and allow for interpretation. So, without repealing Resolution 2, I say we re-interpret it to allow amendments to some extent.

This is game, furthermore it is an RP game, but even still we're all here because somewhere in our minds we fancy the idea of running a nation. So lets take this seriously, huh? Amendments are like the greatest thing in the history of politics. If you don't agree that it's at least really high on the list... then... you might be an idiot.

Ironic how in the other thread you indicate you are some one who knows nothing of game design or programming yet you have come up with a way "around" the game design and programming.

what do you mean philimbesi? ( i deleted the other comments due to true harshness)

what do you mean philimbesi? ( i deleted the other comments due to true harshness)

You asked Why would you resign from the WA?

My question is why to you say if you feel as though the resolutions are too vague? Why subject yourself to our vagueness?

I still don't think the programming of the game has anything to do with it. And you haven't given me any reason to think otherwise, unless I'm supposed to look at your credentials and bow down to irrefuteable testimony.

Lets say, for instance, that the game makes use of algorythems or whatever to determine the nature of a resolution and impose it upon WA members. I suspect there might be a little more human involvement than this (otherwise there would be a far stricter format for submitting proposals,) but whatever. Lets also say, for instance, that it can detect duplications of policy and will deny them.

Even this does not make 'amendments' an impossibility. It just means that they must be gone about very thoughtfully, so as to make no contradictions, and ADD to existing legislation rather than subtract from it. And by 'add' I mean work in cooperation with, since again I realize we can't add text to existing documents.

If contradictions are made, the programming will deny it from passing. In which case, your ardent opposition serves no exclusive purpose. If the program doesn't deny it from passing, then I suspect I have been correct all along even though I know nothing about computers. In which case moderators will deny it. In which case, things can change.

If contradictions are NOT made, then the resolution is sound, and nations will be pulled into compliance with the Act like everything else.

Read this: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7)

Perhaps it will clear it. (though I really doubt it)

i will subject myself to your vagueness to help spcifiy things that the 'WA' cant seem to understand in my opinion. like i said if the WA passed something of a food and drug act, and it said in one clause "every nation in the WA will have to submit for testing of all food items" what kind of test will you be running besides saying yes to everything that is a perishable food or legal drug without checking it for anything. good thing the real FDA dose that.

i will subject myself to your vagueness to help spcifiy things that the 'WA' cant seem to understand in my opinion. like i said if the WA passed something of a food and drug act, and it said in one clause "every nation in the WA will have to submit for testing of all food items" what kind of test will you be running besides saying yes to everything that is a perishable food or legal drug without checking it for anything. good thing the real FDA dose that.

So your suggestion would be that the WA resolution determine the exact type of test? To alleviate that vagueness?

yes or any other policy that has type of vagueness. i doubt that when people are talking about some type of discrimination, they go well dscrimintation is this this this this this this this this and "EVERYTHING ELSE' what kind of phrase is anything else? i know that it dose mean everything else but its an empty promise, emety words. its like me saying to you 'well i got me, this guy, this girl, and everyone else'. and sometimes lesgislation need to be passed to clear up things. for example, the freedom of speech law in america has many amendments such as the Clear and Present Danger clause, and some other amendments about how god should not be in school. and it is CLEARIFIED until the need arises for further legislation amongst the Supreme Court, in which they can Clarify it even more.

I went to the link, Philimbesi, and I'm afraid it only reaffirmed my own position. Amendments can't be made to resolutions in that text can't be added, which I've admitted. But if somebody finds something that was excluded... or if a recent event makes it necessary for other examples to be considered... then game mechanics seems to allow a non-contradictory addition.

And then we wouldn't have to repeal something when somebody has a single good idea not yet expressed but can't get it passed because "better" legislation already exists.

Well I disagree on the discrimination argument as many Zero Tolerance policies are open ended in that regard.

The problem with your example above is that ok Test A is what the WA states in LAW is the test thats supposed to be used... now my nation is pretty well off we can afford to test 3 billion's people with Test A not so much for other nations.

Also Test A in 5 years in obsolete... Test B is better, but international law now states we have to use the obsolete test... or we can use both and now the price of food skyrockets because it's going through double testing.

You're comparing apples and oranges the words "God in schools" don't appear in the constitution... they are laws passed by the people using the constitution as a base, but expounding on it. I'm not familar with the exact wording on the WA freedom of speech law but I'm fairly certain it doesn't prohibit you from passing legislation in your nation further clarifying it. If it does and you don't like it then the best way for you to fix that is to leave.

I went to the link, Philimbesi, and I'm afraid it only reaffirmed my own position. Amendments can't be made to resolutions in that text can't be added, which I've admitted. But if somebody finds something that was excluded... or if a recent event makes it necessary for other examples to be considered... then game mechanics seems to allow a non-contradictory addition.

And then we wouldn't have to repeal something when somebody has a single good idea not yet expressed but can't get it passed because "better" legislation already exists.

As long as that addition is separate you can't say Resolution banded A, B, or C and now this Resolution 2 bans everything in Resolution 1 and in addition D... you can however say in the light of recent events we now ban D.... knowing that if resolution 1 get's overturned A, B and C are all back on the table.

You started arguing amendments and now are adding separate resolutions that add to others.... apples oranges. :)

O SHIT man your outta context. im talking real law not some WA vauge law , im talking about real law. REAL LAW! Get that threw your head you RP person. i dont care about the 3 billion tests subject you have or how the mice on food is horrible in a fake little nation. of course let me try this again.

THE REAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAW HAS BEEN VAUGE FOR CENTRIES! it has until someone challenges it within the system and therefore gets changed in to CLARIFYING what this law actually is now someone understands when a sound and valid argument is introduced for teh need to change it.

Im guess this game is missing someone to actually intrepte the laws of passing. Debate is good but no one cares about anyone else, its all about how there own nation is.

Well, you and I have been talking for a little while on the Private Security Forces thread before we came here. I already said, to you if to nobody else, that I was using the term 'amendment' loosely. I think I also explained what I meant by it.

Basically, I agree with your first paragraph entirely, and basically, that is what I've been saying ALL ALONG. And is how I've been saying Resolution 2 should be interpretted.

In light of what we've decided/discovered here, I expect to have a lot less people telling me that my proposals are illegal.

As a blind man once said, "I don't know what kind of fruit this is... but it sure ain't a banana!"

Probably <.<

O SHIT man your outta context. im talking real law not some WA vauge law , im talking about real law. REAL LAW! Get that threw your head you RP person. i dont care about the 3 billion tests subject you have or how the mice on food is horrible in a fake little nation. of course let me try this again.

THE REAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAW HAS BEEN VAUGE FOR CENTRIES! it has until someone challenges it within the system and therefore gets changed in to CLARIFYING what this law actually is now someone understands when a sound and valid argument is introduced for teh need to change it.

Im guess this game is missing someone to actually intrepte the laws of passing. Debate is good but no one cares about anyone else, its all about how there own nation is.

I'm responding to you, you asked why the WA laws are vague.. I'm telling you why. At the risk of being insulted or screamed at again (when quite frankly i'm the only one answering your questions with a modicum of respect) they are as vague as the base laws of any nation are.

Yes freedom of speech in the constitution is vague... it was meant to be interpreted by the people, adjusted and tweaked as time went on. It's there because the framers found it important but were smart enough to realize that speech in 1776 will differ from that of 2009. Guess what, same thing with the laws in the game. In the game your nation is the people... you interpret the law, you adjust it, you just can't rule against it. Much like the people of New Jersey can't say... you no longer have the freedom of speech.

Absolvability, you may want to read this. It nicely explains why amendments are illegal.

Why Amendments Are Illegal

Quoted from this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12048208&postcount=173) in the Comments thread

[OOC, unless you consider my modly persona to be IC]

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 (http://www.nationstates.net/news/2004/09/23/index.html#repeals), 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 forumulate 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 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.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7

glad we agree on the same thing. try to tell your colleges that and then i think we will all be on the same page.problem is, howver, they wont listen and the people of today dont just change it for any reason. they check the papers on how this constaution was ratifed.There are quite some number of papers and they mean what we think they meant. Of course they knew it was going to be different but i doubt not that different. since we cant ask them, we only have the papers to check and modern debate.

your not the one who yelled at me, it was your colleguages. this is why im not screaming at you.

May I reiterate that my best practice is making simple and completely standalone resolutions that focus one aspect at a time so they are not at risk of the amendment or argument debates. For example my current proposal on emigration is completely independent of mentioning immigration at all because the consensus differs between the two types of resettlement. As a result, should a debate rage over immigration then the resolution on emigration would not have to be lost.

Absolvability, you may want to read this. It nicely explains why amendments are illegal.

I've been sent there already, actually. I'm sure you'll find that Philimbesi has represented your cause very well. He's also reached an agreement with me, in the end, basically saying you can expand upon an existing resolution's idea, as long as nothing contradicts. Which really went without saying. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one suffering from a misinterpretation of the rules. I'm pretty sure some of my efforts are unorthodox and run along the fringe of being illegal... which is why I get told so often that what I propose is illegal.

I'm simply, with help, trying to decide what is and isn't legal.

For example: Lets say I anticipated being told my proposal was illegal, and wanted to supply proof that it was not IN the proposal itself. Could I provide quotes/exerpts from another Resolution? I think not, because the 'game mechanics' would try and re-effect WA nations with these clauses. What I want to know is, can I say "... operating in accordance with ..." and things like that?

Again, I don't know much about computer programming. But it seems to me that any clause that starts with the word 'ENCOURAGES,' for example, will not be mandated into effect in WA nations. So there must be some middle-ground between what is taken for granted by 'the game' and what isn't.

Is this making sense so far?

<<OOC: My response to this ENTIRE thread is this:


http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p292/Tazuren/1232550426_worffacepalm.gif >>

I've been sent there already, actually. I'm sure you'll find that Philimbesi has represented your cause very well. He's also reached an agreement with me ...

Philimbesi hasn't been "representing our cause", if by that you mean "the mods' cause'. We don't have a cause. We have rules. Philimbesi, like everyone else, told you about those rules. So I'm guessing you haven't "reached an agreement with him", or, if you have, that agreement won't mean a thing to the rest of us. However, you may have agreed about what the rules say. That's good.

I'm simply, with help, trying to decide what is and isn't legal.

This is good, too. The people who reply to you are trying to provide that help. Please listen to them. The WA rules are a complex tangle of ropes, string, yarn and barbed wire. Mods do not check every post in the WA forum every day. The tradition of players helping newcomers has been working well since the cobwebby days when the WA was the UN. If no-one can unravel a tangle, then you call for mods with scissors.

What I want to know is, can I say "... operating in accordance with ..." and things like that?

In the sense I think you're using it, mostly no. Or probably not. Or, "It's generally not a good idea." Note the qualifiers. There is no end to the linguistic versatility of WA players, so I won't say a flat "No". What you have to avoid is a House of Cards violation. That is, one where your proposal will fall over if the resolution you refer to is repealed.

Read through the Passed Resolutions thread to see how others have got around the problem. Post your draft proposal here BEFORE YOU SUBMIT IT and ask others if you've got around it successfully. Don't just say, "Is this proposal OK?" Ask specifically about what you're uncertain of.

Again, I don't know much about computer programming.

Nor do I.

But it seems to me that any clause that starts with the word 'ENCOURAGES,' for example, will not be mandated into effect in WA nations.

MWAAAAHAA HAAAAAAAA!

Look, take it from me, our Admins are sneaky people. You may not think "encourages" does anything. I may not think "encourages" does anything. But what we think isn't important; it's what the game program thinks. If "encourages" has had a value assigned to it, mild or significant or somewhere in between, that's the value the program will give it.

I'm not saying it has, mind. But consider: if "encourages" was semantically null, you wouldn't need it. Yet people keep putting it in. They want the WA to do something; they want it to "encourage" nations in a particular direction. They want it known that the WA looks favourably on a certain course of action. The word has not been arbitrarily inserted.

In other words, what is said in a proposal (possibly) has value to the program. Your words (may) count. Your phrasing is (maybe) important.

BTW, since we're all swimming in the same soup of uncertainty, WA players frequently make jokes about "important" topics. Bear with us.* It's the humour of the trenches.

*Bears Armed, don't you dare!

EDIT: Absolvability, Emmerian Unions, cut it out.

Well. Is there a list somewhere of what words have what values? Or are we all in the dark? I'd certainly like to know just what my legislation does, and on what scale.

It's a pity more intricate game-coding couldn't be figured out to allow amendments. Repealing everything is counter-productive. But, I started this game to 'play politics,' so I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find a little bit of B.S.

At any rate, thanks for clearing that up.

I'm assuming we're OOC here? Since people can, apparently, be called 'noobs'? This 'noob' in particular is a Magistrate in my region, and should be shown some respect, especially considering that in real life he is studying politics.

It's a stupid suggestion that one who doesn't like the WA should leave it.

Our trouble with the WA is that, in order to do anything, you need to repeal something else. Which is almost impossible for resolutions of the past, since everybody is so sure that they do everything perfectly, and since their authors are held in high regard.

Or I'll submit a proposal and be told that it over-steps the jurisdiction of the WA even though past resolutions do so to a far greater extent. Or that the term 'amendment,' is defined by the WA to mean that a case if completely closed once a resolution having to do with it passes.

These are problems that shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. These are also problems (read the later pages of the Private Forces thingy) that I've supplied legitimate ways around, in as far as Resolutions are indeed vague and allow for interpretation. So, without repealing Resolution 2, I say we re-interpret it to allow amendments to some extent.

This is game, furthermore it is an RP game, but even still we're all here because somewhere in our minds we fancy the idea of running a nation. So lets take this seriously, huh? Amendments are like the greatest thing in the history of politics. If you don't agree that it's at least really high on the list... then... you might be an idiot.



O.O.C. Exactly what respect is the original poster ( apparently some pet of yours ) and you ( calling people idiots ) in this case showing any one else here ?

Their garbled and insulting posts betray not a hint of this vaunted scholarly activity you mention and frankly their posts reek of foolishness and noobery.

get over yourself.

Ciao XX

No,there is no list of what words have what values. I used "encourages" as an example; I doubt very much that any individual word, qua word, has any individual effect on anything. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING I HAVE SAID THAT LOOKS LIKE INFO ON CODING. I don't have any info on coding. I wouldn't understand it if I did have it.

What I'm trying to get at is that WA resolutions tell the WA what to do (the clauses) and how enthusiastically to do it (the strength) in what area (the category). The genius techies then work out how that will affect every single nation's statistics. The ways they use to work that out are shrouded in the secrecy of their craft (for me, anyway). They're not likely to be handing those secrets out with the milk any time soon.

This is, after all, a free game. Its Admins and mods work for free too. The techies get the reward of answering a professional challenge, but that's all they get. The game itself was started up as advertising for a book. It's sort of held together now with string and baling wire, with bits welded on later and bits people have forgotten about.

If somebody decides as an individual project that they will devote their spare time for the next couple of aeons to figuring out how to give the WA amendments, it will happen. If they don't, it won't. Fris's post that Kryozerkia quoted shows why, most likely, it won't.

Since I think this topic has now been beaten into submission, iLock.