Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Add Reply
So, 'You say you want a Resolution'; A beginners' guide to writing GA proposals
Topic Started: Dec 19 2014, 10:46 AM (448 Views)
Bears Armed
Member Avatar

(This is only a “quick” guide, but I’m willing to give people more advice later on as well. My credentials for this work centre on the fact that I’ve already created seven successful resolutions as Bears Armed Mission, plus one that was authored under a different name instead and that was actually submitted by somebody else who wanted to try their paw at that side of things.)

__________________________________________________________________________



Maybeso feeling that a resolution on some particular subject is “needed” (perhaps a subject that matters to you in RL, one that should matter to your nation’s people IC, one that you’ve seen feature in RP, one from current RL news headlines, or even one from a daily issue) is why you’ve decided to write a proposal on the first paw, or maybeso you’ve actually made this decision because you want to change the WA member nations’ stats (which passing a GA resolution will do, with the precise effects depending on that resolution’s Category and its Strength [or, in some categories, its ‘Area of Effect’], or maybeso you’ve actually made this decision because you want to experience another aspect of Nationstates — or even just for the associated trophy, and any prestige that you might gain — instead. In any case, choosing a subject is obviously the first thing to do.
You simply turning up in the GA forum and asking for suggested topics is unlikely to be received well unless you’ve already put significant effort into building up your credibility there.

Remember that the WA is a voluntary association of sovereign states, and not the federal government of one single nation. In this context, are you sure that your chosen subject is one that really qualifies to be the topic of international legislation? If you decide that it is, then be prepared to have to justify that opinion. “All other nations need to be forced to do things in the same way that my own nation does” tends not to receive wide acceptance, and nor does “All nations should follow [RELIGION]’s morality” neither…
If your argument isn’t convincing enough then you are very likely to face opposition by some nations on general principles even if (as might well be the case for some of them) they already have similar laws in place as a matter of national policy themselves.
This is a major reason why the ‘Gambling’, ‘Gun Control’, and ‘Recreational Drugs’ categories contain so few passed resolutions. Trying to create a successful proposal for any of that trio would probably be a waste of time until you've got more experience under your belt.

Read the rules to check that you legally can write proposals on that subject and so that you know what makes a proposal ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’. If you’re not sure now whether the idea is ‘legally’ viable, but think that it might be, you can try asking for opinions in the GA Q&A thread. Also, the GA forum includes a thread collecting together relevant rulings.
Submitting too many ‘illegal’ proposals can get your nation expelled from the WA, with the usual rule being “Three strikes and you’re out” although the Secretariat (OOC: i.e. the Mods) have occasionally been more generous (for example if a newcomer posts several illegal proposals straight after each other in a burst of misplaced enthusiasm then they might choose to count this as only one single offence…), and I think that getting two or three nations of your nations sequentially kicked out in this way might result in you losing proposal-submitting rights altogether although admittedly I can’t remember having seen a player invite that fate for quite a few years now…
One very important rule is that new proposals aren’t allowed to amend, contradict or duplicate any existing resolution that hasn’t already been repealed. The official list of passed GA resolutions isn’t searchable, but there’s also a searchable list that Omigodtheykilledkenny maintains in the GA forum. Check for potential problems in this respect through Kenny’s list first, using as many relevant keywords as you can think of, and then scroll through the end of the official list as well in case there are any new resolutions there that the searchable list doesn’t yet include.
Another very important rule is the one against Plagiarism, which is actually a One strike and you’re out!” offence… and the WA’s definition of ‘plagiarism’ is even stricter than the usual RL definition. Citing your sources doesn’t legitimise direct quotes, you actually need to be able to show the Secretariat verifiable proof that you have permission to use the other writer’s work… and that even applies to passed WA Resolutions, except for (1) quotes necessary in attempts to repeal the resolutions concerned, or (2) using the names of existing committees and agencies in order to give those additional duties (which doesn’t count as illegal under the “No amendments” rule, neither).

Using the GA Forum isn’t legally required, but it’s highly recommended. Admittedly some of the regulars there can be a bit sharp with newcomers, which is at least partly due to their having already seen so many newbies making so many of the same mistakes, but if you make sure that you’ve got a basic understanding of the rules (and maybeso “lurk” for a while, to see how things are done there, too: The ‘Silly and/or Illegal Proposals’ thread can be particularly useful reading, to help you avoid at least the more common mistakes) before you start to post then some of them can be quite friendly… and if you show that you know what you’re doing, by commenting sensibly in other peoples’ drafting threads, then that will gain you some credibility for when you post your own drafts. This might delay your own project for a little while, but will probably be a worthwhile investment of time.

Every proposal has to fit into one or another of the legal ‘Categories’. You might be able to stretch the official definitions a bit (for example, witness the Bears’ own ‘Meteorological Cooperation’ resolution, which managed to define improving weather forecasts as a matter of ‘Free Trade’… ^_^ ) but if your choice isn’t obviously appropriate then you’ll need to have a good justification ready… and on this aspect, as on everything else, the collective voice of the Secretariat is final.
‘Human Rights’ proposals tend to be more popular than ‘Moral Decency’ ones with the voters, ‘Furtherment of Democracy’ more popular than ‘Political Stability’… and ‘International Security’ more popular than ‘Global Disarmament’.

So, hokay, now create a first draft for your proposal working, either alone or in your region (or in a suitable think-tank’s forum, if you can find one that’s still active…), bearing in mind the points that I’ve made above.
Using the same general format that pretty well all of the recent resolutions do isn’t “legally required” but is highly recommended: That format is used so much because it works… and some of the GA forum regulars, and some regional delegates, might actually be a little bit be prejudiced against proposals that don’t use it.
The system for submitting proposals automatically limits them in length: It simply doesn’t allow you to submit a ‘Description’ (or, in the case of ‘Repeal’ proposals, an ‘Argument’ instead) that exceeds 3’500 characters in total, including punctuation and spaces… and if you’re using the counter that comes with Microsoft Office then the effective maximum according to that is usually closer to 3’450 instead. Oh, and for titles there’s an upper limit of only 30 characters, all-in, as well.
A passed resolution automatically becomes law in all member nations, whose governments & legal systems are then responsible for enforcement, so you don’t need to include enforcement mechanisms in your text although in some cases giving a WA committee or agency the right & duty to judge disputed cases might be appropriate. However there is an established convention, generally supported by the Secretariat, that “The law does what the law says”: Nations are supposed to follow a ‘good faith’ interpretation of resolutions, but they only have to consider the actual wording and not whatever the authors’ intentions might have been, so try to make absolutely sure that your wording accurately expresses your intentions.
WA committees & agencies are all automatically presumed to be honest, impartial, and efficient, so that proposals including them don’t need to use up part of the limited length available setting up ways to make them work properly. (This also means that Repeal attempts can’t legally suggest potential problems with a WA committee or agency’s actions as an argument for getting rid of the resolution which introduced that committee or agency…) You can assign new duties to an existing WA committee or agency, which would then remain in existence to carry out those new duties (despite losing its original role) if the resolution that established it gets repealed. They can interpret policy but can’t really be assigned to make it, because (apart from anything else) as no players are actually involved in running those bodies no players would have any genuine way of knowing what their decisions actually were…
You aren’t actually “required” to take the existence of nations with non-human populations or with non-[‘Modern-tech’] settings into account, and in fact the ‘No Meta-gaming’ rule means that a proposal can’t explicitly say that they exist anyhows, but wording the text to take account of the fact that they’re RPed as existing — for example, by using the species-neutral term “people” rather than “humans” — is appreciated by those of us whose nations do fall into those categories… some of whom might happen to be delegates who have LOTS of votes.

Re-check that your proposal, as currently drafted, fits within the rules. Spell-check your text (bearing in mind that the spellchecker from Microsoft Office ignores words in ALL-CAPS), proof-read it carefully, and maybeso get a friend to do so as well. Then it might be ready for submission, but I honestly recommend posting it in the GA forum — or somewhere else that has a reasonable number of people present who understand how these things work, anyhows — for feedback first. Rare indeed is the proposal (even from among my own work ^_^ ) that can’t be improved from its first draft: This stage might take longer than you’d hoped would be the case, but as folks say in those parts “Writing a successful proposal is a marathon, not a sprint.” Repeals of recently-passed resolutions, pointing out obvious flaws in those that were somehow overlooked until it was too late, are probably the easiest type of proposal to get right first time around.
If one person tells you that your proposal would be illegal then they might be right or they might be wrong (or maybeso, occasionally, they might deliberately be lying in order to deter a proposal that they dislike…) but if several established "GA regulars" agree about this then they’re probably right. Remember the Q&A and 'Rulings Repository' threads that I mentioned earlier, and if discussion in the GA forum can’t reach a consensus that you are willing to accept then you can request a ruling by posting in the Moderation forum. The Mods prefer to see things sorted out in the GA forum instead, and don’t respond to blanket “Is this proposal legal?” questions, but if you explain the specified points under dispute and give your [coherent] arguments for why you think your work as it currently stands is legal in those particular respects then they’ll normally give a ruling on the matter sooner-or-later.


Actually getting a drafted proposal to quorum, and passed?
Discussing that is a topic for some other time…
Edited by Bears Armed, Dec 19 2014, 10:47 AM.
OFF Profile Quote
 
Bears Armed
Member Avatar

An ursine figure wearing a smart suit walks up to the podium. It is Artorrios o SouthWoods, who is ChairBear of the Bears' WA mission. He looks around the hall.
OFF Profile Quote
 
Bears Armed
Member Avatar

Open for suggestions about changes to make before posting this essay as a Dispatch...
OFF Profile Quote
 
Unibot
Member Avatar
Administrator
A transcript of the IRC session....

Code:
 
<BA> Heyyah! Sorry about the delay. Urrs bears aren't as up-to-date as some of you with this sort of technology. So, first question?
<@Unibot> Haha, no worries, Bears.
* +CGJ has left #auditorium_one
<@Unibot> I'm a fairly experienced author so I won't ask a question, unless others would like me to go first.
<@Unibot> I don't mind starting us off though.
<@Unibot> Thanks for coming, Bears. I really enjoyed your tutorial on how to write GA resolution. I noticed you had said that the GA forum was particularly important for drafting.
<@Unibot> And that drafters can often become frustrated with critics on the GA forum.
<@Unibot> I'm wondering how you think us, senior players, should handle newer players?
<@Unibot> To alleviate, you know, players feeling discouraged from criticism.
<@Unibot> Take your time. :)
<BA> Well, a bit more tolerance for newcomers would obviously be helpful, but I do smell how some of the other regulars can get a bit frustrated by seeing the same mistakes repeated. I actually hope that my guide for new players from here, which I'll post as a Dispatch too after the Fair ends, will serve as a useful resource towards newcomers can be steered.
<+Henn|Away> If I may ask when you're done with the last, do you feel there are too many GA resolutions? IF not, what do you believe is the max?
* @Unibot nods.
<@Unibot> Awesome thanks, Bears.
<BA> Well, there are some resolutions on the books that I personally (and maybeso my government as well0 would rather not see there, but I wouldn't say that there's any absolute maximum number.
<@Unibot> At some point though do you think we start to overregulate?
<@Unibot> I think Gruen has said something similar - that we start to run out of legitimate topics for issues.
<@Unibot> (not trying to put words in your mouth, Gruen. Feel free to clarify).
<+Gruen> (I don't think I've ever said that)
<@Unibot> (I'm also an idiot, did I mention that?)
<@Unibot> (My apologies)
<BA> At some point, yes. I admit to thinking yesterday that we might be running close to the limit for topics that really NEED binding legislation... although my mission still has two or three topics on our 'To Do' list.
* Novincia_ has joined #auditorium_one
<@Unibot> How would you recommend players come up with a topic? Given the difficulties these days of finding a fresh one in light of the full, rather extensive books already present...
<+Henn|Away> What do you believe is the most important unspoken rule about GA resolutions?
<Novincia_> hey!
<@Unibot> Hey Novincia!
<@Unibot> We're just overloading Bears with questions. ;)
<BA> Look at the list of 'historical' resolutions to see if any haven't yet been repeated, look at RL headlines, look at NS issues, consider whether any existing resolutions could do with a repeal-&-replace.. but yes, the books ARE getting a bit full..
* @Unibot nods.
<+Jeck> What's the most important thing to bear in mind while writing a resolution?
<+Jeck> Haha, bear
<BA> The most important unspoken rule? Well, in my opinion it's the one about "Limit binding WA legislation to genuinely 'international' matters.
<+Jeck> I'm so funny
<@Unibot> Bear in mind. Haha.
<Novincia_> poor bear lol
<+Jeck> I didn't even do that on purpose
<@Unibot> I guess I'll ask the obvious question: What counts as a genuinely international matter? ;)
<+Ratateague> When they do get full, do you think we'll be due for a slew of repeals?
<BA> We've been using THAT joke for years. The most important thing? Legality. It's no good being eloquent and thorough if your work's just going to get deleted by the Mods.
<+Jeck> Mhm
* +Gruen bounces up and down on his heels
<@Unibot> Either Gruen has to go to the washroom, or he has a pressing question.
<+Gruen> I don't I just disagree with all the answers =P
<+Gruen> But I will defer to the lecturer.
* +Gruen pisses quietly in the corner
<+Henn|Away> Will GA proposals eventualy reach a limit on how well written they are and cannot be repealed in favor of a better? If so, when do you think it will happen?
<BA> More repeals? maybeso, although some of the more obviously flawed resolutions have already been replaced and some people tend to frown on repealing just for the sake of repealing. Theoretically there's limit, yes, although that probably won't keep people from trying.
<BA> Gruen? Care to TG me about this?
<+Gruen> mkay
<+SNT-FFR> Given the apparent lack of topics remaining for legislation, would it be desirable for the WA to eventually go the way of the old UN and be replaced?
<@Unibot> Wow.
<@Unibot> That'd be a shock.
<@Unibot> Then again, it was then.
<+Henn|Away> It would also be a godsend.
<+Gruen> Especially given Max Barry explicitly said that wouldn't happen, yes it would be a shock.
<+Henn|Away> New prosopals!
<+Henn|Away> YAY!
<BA> Do you know how much fuss some of urrs made about that previous replacement? I suppose it might have to happen eventually in order to keep the options open, but in that case I could see a lot of the former regulars leaving...
<@Unibot> Bears, by the way, I had asked how would we define what is an international matter. That's always a challenge I think. Because we all seem to disagree over what counts. ;)
<+Henn|Away> Before you know it, GA proposal saying "IRC Law"
<@Unibot> Baha.
<BA> Yes, that's a tricky one. Some things are fairly obviously international of course, warfare and international trade and diplomatic relations and so on, but where one draws the line in other respects -- such as 'fundamental rights', for example -- will probably remain disputed.
<@Unibot> It's so funny because I'd say it's often the other way around, which shows why this is such an odd topic. There's no agreement.
<BA> Hr'rmm...
<@Unibot> Often people discuss fundamental rights as a given internationally, but refute war as an international topic for policy in the GA.
<@Unibot> How would try to draw the line? Mouse often has this rule that if it involves different nations - it's an international topic, I believe.
<+Gruen> How does abortion involve different nations?
<BA> Even though war is most often BETWEEN nations, whereas rights are most often WITHIN them. Yes... I don't expect ever hrreally to understand humans properly...
<@Unibot> She carves out an exception for individual rights, Gruen, always has - but I'm not sure how she can make that exception given her initial theory of "international issues".
<BA> Abortion doesn't affect different nations, and our mission has always voted any attempt at enforcing a WA policy on that subject.
<BA> Oops! "voted against"
* +Gruen rolls his eyes so hard they get stuck
* @Unibot sprays WD40 in Gruen's eyes. :P
<BA> *offers Gruen a drink of hrrum. It might help.
<@Unibot> I'm curious what you think was the best resolution of this year in the GA?
<@Unibot> It's usually a contest soon for GAers.
<BA> 'Prevention of Wildfires'... ^_^
<@Unibot> ^_^
<@Unibot> Certainly will save lives.
<BA> More seriously, I wasn't expecting that question and don't have a quick answer ready.
<+Henn|Away> Do you believe a GA resolution about Music and their creators is worthy of the GA's attention?
<@Unibot> That's a good one.
<BA> Not a BINDING resolution, no... but as things are pretty quiet in the GA at present, why not an 'advisory' one?
<BA> Dance, dance, wherever you may be...
<@Unibot> Things do seem quiet. Do you think this is a chronic issue with the WA?
<+Henn|Away> And, on a similar topic, do you know The KLF? (Not a GA one, but I want to ask it anyways.)
* +Jeck throws fish at BA
* Novincia_ Quit (Quit: Web client closed)
<@Unibot> Jeck is feeding our speaker. ;)
<+Gruen> http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=1821851#p1821851
<+Gruen> re: music
<+Jeck> Of course
* +Jeck throws fish at everyone
<+Ratateague> I've noticed there is one issue which seems to be hands-off for a lot of regulars, despite it clearly being an international matter. And that is, the matter of privacy over telecommunications and the handling of private data spanning multinational companies. Basic privacy has been noted, as well as security concerning networks, but not this. Multiple drafts have hit dead ends, with the occasional comment that it's a ho
* @Unibot slaps Jeck around a bit with a large trout
<+Henn|Away> It's a ho
<+Henn|Away> . . .
<+Henn|Away> Lol.
<BA> I think that part of the reason for the quiet might be that, as already mentioned, we're running out of obvious good topics for proposals. I won't comment about the data privacy issue, that goes back into the sort of high-tech matters with which we're not very familiar.
<BA> 'KLF'?
<+Gruen> Do you think the WA is better than the NSUN was?
<+Henn|Away> Also known as the Justified Ancients of Mu Mu, the JAMs, and the Timelords.
<+Ratateague> Great band
* +SJG gives honey to BA
<BA> OOC; people seemed to have more fun in the NSUN,,, or am I remembering it too nostalgically?
* +QuietDad notes the generational differences in what "great bands" means
<@Unibot> I wasn't around for the NSUN - what do you think, Gruen?
<+Ratateague> Technology aside, would you agree that matters that can't be handled nationally, due to organizations that operate outside and across borders, should be handled internationally?
<BA> *thanks SJG, sets honey aside for afterwards
* +Sarah_ Quit (Ping timeout: 186 seconds)
<+Gruen> The NSUN was orders of magnitude better.
<@Unibot> In terms of what?
<@Unibot> By the way, BA, Ratateague asked a question. ;)
<BA> Cross-border matters probably so, yes, although I'd like more information about what matters those were before deciding in each case. Some are still minor enough for agreements between the governments concerned to be more suitable than WA law.
<+Gruen> It was a much more active, fun environment. But, I'll leave it there, this is BA's forum.
* Macabees has joined #auditorium_one
<@Unibot> Hey Macabees!
<+SJG> Hey
<Macabees> Hey
<+Ratateague> Makes sense
<@Unibot> We're just chatting with Bears.
<Macabees> Has the lecture already started?
<@Unibot> There's an essay available for you!
<@Unibot> http://s15.zetaboards.com/NSWF3/topic/7841989/1/#new
<@Unibot> Bears, I'm curious what you think the "No WA Army" rule and GA#2. There was a lot of controversary (errm no so) recently about it.
<+Jeck> Unibot, I'll try to get the sports OP up within the next hour
* +Jeck slaps Llama for being a useless Llama
<@Unibot> That's awesome, thanks Jeck.
<Macabees> Due to holiday stuff, I won't have mine available until Sunday.
<+Ratateague> I'm fuzzy on the whole GA #2 thing
<Macabees> Maybe Saturday, although that's my gf's bday.
<@Unibot> While Bears is typing, I'll explain the GA#2 thing - essentially it's like the WA's constitution (Gruen can help explain).
* +Ainin Quit (Quit: Hail Hydra)
<@Unibot> But some have argued it's a flawed constitution.
<BA> I think that the 'No Army' rule makes sense for the reasons that the Mods gave in the past, and that GA#2 didn't really need to mention it. I've always presumed that those parts of the rules that can be understood IC are probably include in whatever charter our nations are ratifying when we click the 'Join' button.
<@Unibot> Parts of it are plagerised from RL law.
* @Unibot nods.
<@Unibot> Would you be interested in a WA that didn't have a No Army rule? Or would you rather the rule stay in place?
<BA> I don't really participate much in those parts of the forums where it would really be relevant, so it doesn't matter too much to me.
<BA> Not unless the replacement rule would involve GA votes on each deployment, anyhows... Urrgh!
* Exantos has joined #auditorium_one
* Exantos Quit (Client Quit)
* @Unibot nods
<BA> Wrong room?
<@Unibot> Maybe.
<@Unibot> :P
<@Unibot> Well, we're officially an hour in. If there's no more questions, I'd love to thank you for joining us Bears. It was an honour and a pleasure. Feel free absolutely to stick around here and chat. :)
<BA> I can take more questions for maybeso another quarter-hour, if people want...
<+Gruen> What, if anything, do you think of the current WA mods? Do you think they explain their rulings sufficiently and engage with the players? What do you think of leading questions?
* @Unibot nods.
<@Unibot> Gruen, has a question.
<@Unibot> By the way, Bears - we usually leave these chats open as the discussion dies off. So feel free to stick around and answer questions all you like. ;)
<+Gruen> Oh, and final question from me: not asking for a favourite resolution this year, but in general is there a resolution, not written by you, that you particularly like?
<BA> i'm not even sure how many current "WA mods" we have. Ardchoille has become so inactive that even her main nation CTEd briefly not long ago, Kryo doesn't seem to post anymore... The last definite ruling on one of my legality queries My last legality questions was posted by Nervun, whom I wouldn't usually think of in that context.
<BA> Saw the question, slow typist: Sorry.
<@Unibot> Paws and keyboards don't mix. ;)
* Unibot sets mode: +o BA
* Unibot sets mode: +v Macabees
<@BA> Gruen: Thinking about this. Several that I definitely like, but I wouldn't try to pick out a real "favourite" at such short notice.
* Sem|Away has joined #auditorium_one
<+Gruen> Ok, fair enough.
* Sem|Away is now known as Sem
<@BA> *takes a drink
<+Gruen> Well, thanks for the Q&A.
<+Gruen> I am going to save a log, let me know if you would like it to append to your lecture.
<+Ratateague> Yes, thank you!
<+Jeck> ty
<@BA> Yes, please.
<+Ananke> Thanks for the talk. :)
<@BA> Anything that people would suggest changing in the essay before it gets posted as a Dispatch?
<@BA> If so, then please comment in the essay's thread.
* @Unibot nods :)
<+Ratateague> I still assert that KLF is a great band, generational differences aside. Along with 808 State,
* +ruzonia Quit (Ping timeout: 186 seconds)
<@BA> OOC: my own taste in bands runs more to Duke Ellington's, Benny Goodman's, Artie Shaw's...
<+Gruen> Sent the log, so if anyone asks any last minute questions someone else will have to log them
<+Gruen> Thanks Bears, pleasure as always
* +Gruen Quit (Quit: Web client closed)
<@BA> Thanks yourself, Gruen. Anyhows, I need to spend a few minutes now checking here-&-there before going offline so...
OFF Profile Quote
 
Bears Armed
Member Avatar

This lecture has now been posted as an NS 'dispatch' too: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=346295
OFF Profile Quote
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Auditorium One - Lecture Hall · Next Topic »
Add Reply