Post Archive

I've skimmed over some of the finer details due to a lack of information I possess on this person, but I'll still analyze it at face value, at least. I usually don't read into these much, but here we go.

This argument is eh. I agree that the target is generally too vague for my liking, but the expanded response here fails to convince me. Being a great leader of a region can be exclusively commendable, and the mere fact that their successor "reversed" their policies does not mean those policies weren't beneficial to the region. However, the repeal is correct in that, if Halo's reforms were not long-lasting, the target resolution is misleading.

Probably a good argument. Target should've included any relevant work.

This clause doesn't convince me. A region with fewer than 25 nations can still be significant or unique in its own way and possibly derivative of Halo's efforts in this case. If there is a tangible, non-puppet-storage community with something substantial to offer, then the region can be commendable, and I don't believe in this supposed 25 nation minimum the repeal professes.

Seems like a good argument. Assuming these claims are true, there's no good reason for the target to have added this part.

Not convinced in the slightest. As a frequent participant in the judicial proceedings of the New West Indies, I can say that the relative "activity" of a judicial system is not inherently due the efficacy of the system itself. I can assume that, as a priest, it was not their job to bring the cases forward, so I'm not sure how the number of cases is relevant at all. I would need more evidence that the system was a primary cause for the lack of cases, such as if proceedings were inefficient or inequitable. The repeal hints at this when it says "incompatible with the system of government in Osiris," but there's no elaboration there.

Even though I was (relatively recently) a writer for NS Today, I can't say I'm familiar with the News Partnership Framework. Regardless, I'm not particularly convinced by this rhetoric. While the repeal is probably correct that the target is poorly written (a theme?), I can see the value of Halo laying foundations for better frameworks for the future, even if the original framework was later found to be inadequate.

After reading the target, I fully agree with this notion. The target really needed more work at the time before submission.

Conclusion:

Honestly, I don't really like this repeal that much. It’s well-written, but I don't agree with many of its notions prima facie and what they mean for commendations in general. However, seeing as I find the target somewhat poorly written, unspecific, and requiring further development, I support this repeal at the end of the day.

I agree with you that most regions with fewer that 25 nations probably aren't worth a commend, and I also agree that it should depend on whether there is a stable and active community. That was really my entire point; I'm not sure why the repeal is mentioning that the region "has never exceeded 25 nations in population" if that's not at all relevant to its main argument that there was nothing there worthwhile – regardless of population.

I guess another aspect behind my thinking is that, while founding an active-yet-small community might not deserve a commend in its own right, running that community could still contribute to a larger commendation, as the target attempts.

I should note that I do not know how long The Sasquatch Republic has lasted or how stable/unique it’s really been; these are just hypothetical considerations.

So you're against repealing their commendation? As in, taking away their award?

Welcome Cash Money Coins, Hello Bye, and Basia to Refugia! If you have any questions about how Refugia or Nationstates in general works, don't be afraid to ask us either here on the RMB or in our regional discord server (linked at the top of the page). Everyone here is knowledgeable and friendly.

If you haven't already, please consider signing up for the World Assembly (on the left sidebar) and becoming a Member State! Member States in Refugia are able to get a spot on our map, vote in our regional referenda and elections, and even run for office. But if all you're looking for is a chill community where you can talk to people while you answer some issues, that's totally cool as well. We're hoping you find this to be a place where you're encouraged to do the things that make you happy, and pursue them in a stress-free way.

Also welcome to Free Las Pinas Ii <3 I'm really happy you decided to come hang out with us.

H e l l o ,

The Endotarting competition for December has come to a close.

These scores measure the number of endorsements a nation in this region has given out. The maximum score is 63.

63 - Sylh Alanor

63 - Junitaki-Cho

60 - Melenavenia

55 - Flohovistan

54 - Narwhal

53 - Cadenzana

51 - Elenaraghaenaris

50 - Michelland

50 - Tre Bia Land

48 - Feu De Glace

45 - Chacapoya

38 - New Filippe

34 - Lower French Gregballs

33 - Tovenia

32 - Uwusberg

31 - Ongmonnif

29 - Laisou

28 - Dia Hedera

28 - Lambflakitobia

24 - Coalition Of Aspa

23 - Duolian

21 - Floofybit

21 - Pedesko

18 - Nova Nova Hibernia

13 - Lura Enim Omnia

12 - The Isle of Raftel

10 - Inversa

9 - Wankdeed

8 - Nekhuser-Ra

8 - Baha u allah

8 - Nottinghaven

8 - Charcuterie

6 - Ergenstien

5 - Guliford

5 - Threnodie

4 - Dumbasser

4 - The High Commission for Foreign Affairs

4 - Skanatavria

3 - Kallictora

3 - The Sul Hom Laks

3 - Neue Wale

2 - Golialdwith

1 - Kadrinar

1 - Fulleristan

1 - Wimerstan

1 - Imzhou

1 - Northern Argyle

1 - Indimu

The nations in bold are the top 20 endorsers. All of them will be winning a free Ral Ixshida for helping to keep Refugia's influence growing.

Congratulations!

Really?! I've been with everyone in Refugia for only slightly over a week. And I win a free Ral Ixshida card?!

Thank you!

Update: game night will definitely be Among Us this week. The join code will be up 45 minutes from now and anyone will be allowed to join us

Five minutes to go! Join code is KUJGCF

I kinda cheat and go to this site which lists out the expected results: http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/

I'll second this motion.

Does anyone have any idea how I can get more civil rights? My civil rights are really low right now, and we need some.

Michelland, okay thanks!

For the past couple of weeks, I've been planning to draft an RRS amendment to the citizenship process. I'd like to get my thoughts out before I publish my draft, though (that'll happen after the current vote ends). Essentially, I want Refugia to have a dual citizenship program. This means that if a nation resides here and is not in the WA, but their WA nation is in a region we have an embassy with, they can apply for voting rights here too. We already have a couple of members who got citizenship on the basis of "admission to the World Assembly being declined, rejected, or impossible", which is the current law. My goal is to update this to explicitly include those who are members of embassy regions.

Initially, I wanted a system like The Leftist Assembly has, in which nations who meet the criteria can immediately apply for member status. However, some of the Refugians I've asked thought the current system was better, in which declined/rejected/impossible nations must wait 14 days (double the wait time for WA nations) and get unanimous approval from the regional council. In my opinion, this is a good system for declined/rejected/impossible nations, whose trustworthiness we don't know. On the other hand, if a nation can prove they are a member of an embassy region, that means our allies already trust that nation.

Because of this, I'm planning to keep the current policy on declined/rejected/impossible nations, while creating a less restrictive process for Dual Citizens. Their required wait time will be seven days, and they will only require majority approval from the council.

I wanted to get some opinions on these ideas, because I know they would add complexity to the citizenship process that some might consider unnecessary. I'd personally like to make dual citizenship as easy as possible, but it's more important to me that we get a dual citizenship program at all, so I'm willing to change it based on what feedback I get.

I agree with this. The process as it stands now works perfectly well, in my opinion. If someone spends time in the community and wants to be part of it, they can ask to be given member state status. The last request took less than 30 minutes to be seen and responded to by every Councillor.

The current system under RRS 2 allows for a variety of people to get member state status. If they're WA banned but still an active member of this region, if they're in a military org and can't keep their WA here all the time, or if their WA is in another region and can't reasonably be moved, they can just request the status and most likely get it. And I think that's as easy as it should be.

There is no benefit exactly besides working your way up the championship ladder but there is no added gameplay benefit to making it to the top besides clout.

I'm open to the idea of expanding citizenship to embassy region program. However, if implemented, I do not agree it should be majority approval from the Regional Council. I would be much more comfortable with still requiring unanimous approval.

Then, though, how different is it from the current system? Not much. I would like to see more justification for the benefit of this proposal before supporting it.

I agree with everything here. To date, we've only ever had three WA exemption votes in Floor 16, one for an allied delegate, and two for players who are in r/d. In those cases, it's certainly inconvenient for them to move their WA here, but not impossible. Those votes were largely viewed as dual citizenship votes. Consequently, it would make more sense to me to refine RRS 4 so that the implication is that it *should* also be used for dual-citizenship purposes and not imply that it can only be used in dire circumstances.

It has been discussed in private a possible RRS referendum which will expand the powers of the Councillor of the Interior. As I would both be the author of the said referendum as well as the Councillor of Interior I recognized how that may look to some. I thought it would be great to, similar to what UwUsberg did, discuss it before it even is proposed to see what support or critique it may be afforded.

The main goal of the referendum would be to expand the responsibilities of the Interior which at this moment has only very situational powers. If you remember in mid-November I hosted my own event to make the position a tad bit more engaging and active but even then I was just trotting in the Councillor of Culture's responsibilities. Two ideas we as the regional officers came up with was to hand the responsibility of the creation of votes on vote.calref (with the exceptions being that of regional officer elections and embassy referendums) to the Interior and to give the responsibility of welcoming new members to the region on the RMB.

Currently, votes are held by whichever regional officer decides to do it (Sylh Alanor and Refuge Isle have both made votes so far under vote.calref) and there is no clear person responsible for making people feel welcome though Sylh Alanor has been doing it as of lately.

Out of those two I feel less strongly about the latter as it may come off as only the Interior is allowed to say hello to new members, which of course wouldn't be the case, but it would be the responsibility of the Interior to make sure new members are actually welcomed at least once.

I said this upstairs, but I highly support passing off welcome messages to Interior. I started doing it as Councillor of Culture, and just kind of kept doing it after, since we didn't have another Culture once I moved to FA. Having that responsibility be under Interior seems like a good one.

Small correction, votes aren't currently held by whichever regional officer decides to do it. Currently, I'm responsible for FA-based referenda (creating/withdrawing embassies) and the Arch-Admin has been handling elections and amendment referenda. Previously, this separation of responsibilities was written into the RRS, but it seems to have been dropped somewhere along the way. I think moving legislative referenda to Interior is a great idea, and should be done. That way the Arch-Admin oversees elections, Interior would oversee amendments, and FA would oversee embassies. It all sort of works together nicely.

I don't think RMB welcome messages need to be written into the RRS. I think we can just agree that Interior does them and that doesn't need to be written down. It kind of goes under the idea of creating a welcoming and happy space, imo. I think it'd be a great idea for you and Bellerre to work together on the Interior section of his draft (in case you're worried about authoring something that affects the office you also hold) and you can be marked as a co-author. That being said, you can also develop these ideas separately and whichever one gets completed and goes up for vote first, goes up for vote first. Up to you two.

Apologies for disrupting the conversation, but I wanted to get this up with time to spare in case the vote updates at major tonight.

[cues uptempo piano]

It's that time again! It might not be up tonight, but the next GA proposal comes courtesy of Cretox so it's guaranteed to reach vote. It's Fairness in Collective Bargaining!

Proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=cretox_state_1608399232

Forum thread: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=489616&start=25

This proposal seeks to protect reasonable standards in collective bargaining - negotiations between employers and labour unions, in other words. Most of the text here seeks to do just that: clause 3 prevents employers from preventing employees from organizing to protect their rights, and protects those employees from discrimination. Clause 4 places some basic checks on the unions themselves to keep things honest. The tail end of the proposal is pretty straightforward about mandating good-faith negotiations, member state labour law, and nonbinding recommendations. It's fairly reasonable.

What's more questionable are clauses 1 and 2. The first clause makes the grave error of defining at length a term that's only used one time in the very next line. This drives me crazy and makes the text significantly harder to read, and that's a slight problem when it leads to the word salad that is clause 2:

Now this looks fine at a glance, and ordinarily it would be a solid, if clunky, prevention of misconduct. In light of the definition in clause 1, however, we're forced to interpret clause 2 as only preventing attempts to place the union under the employer's control, and not protecting said union from any other forms of obstruction, hindrance, etc., which really undermines the stated objective of the resolution. Clause 3 protects workers' ability to "act in concert to protect their rights," but I don't think that quite covers the hole either as that ability doesn't necessarily require unions. It's unfortunate that this oversight in writing weakens the impact so, and while that's not a dealbreaker and the overall goal is positive, this isn't tightly written to the extent it needs to be to secure these protections.

I know I say it every time, but I really really appreciate that you're here to help with Cretox's economic/workplace-related proposals. Since this is the only thing he ever writes proposals about, and it's outside my area of interest (aside from thinking unions/collective bargaining are good things) or expertise, it's easy for me to get lost. And since he just spams them out nonstop, it makes it difficult to keep up with the GA lately.

I see the issue you're pointing out, and I agree with your points. I also wish that Cretox had understood what you were pointing out in the thread was a problem; I got the feeling he thinks that having such a toothless clause is totally fine.

Since you said it's not really enough to be a dealbreaker, do you think this is the type of resolution where you'd want to support it as it's better than nothing, then maybe work on writing a repeal/replace in the future?

I mean, the rest of the proposal is pretty much fine, if not quite as polished as I'd like. The issue is that if my observation is accurate, a lot of this union empowerment is undercut by the employer's freedom to stifle union formation and organization. The reason I said it's not a dealbreaker is because I'm not confident about how much the rest of the text neutralizes this concern - economic policy really isn't a field of interest for me - so it's hard for me to say whether this severely damages its power or only convolutes it. The fact that it's so close to being fine but makes such a sloppy mistake bothers me to the point of wanting to vote against it, personally, but I recognize my interpretation may be off base, and that there could still be a measure of positive change in the remaining clauses. Make of that what you will.

My official position on this (and many similar proposals) is "Abstain" (and since there is no such option, I just don't vote).

Having reread the proposal, I found in it too many things I didn't like. I'm voting against.

I outlawed cars, what is everyone's opinion on that?

I think that it is good, so long that you don't have a weak economy. It is environmentally great and fits the environmental focus of Refugia.

I did it myself and I am very happy about that decision. I can see that you have good public transport so it is OK for you to ban cars.

Best wishes,

A stranger on the Internet

I believe that in the context of that issue, there is a group lobbying for the death penalty, and the option is to outlaw that group and others like it. Thus the malus.

It's great provided you focus [when such issues arrive] on boosting your public transportation, bike lanes etc.

I think most of it should be left for each sovereign nation to decide for itself.

Yup! You're able to vote on things at vote.calref.network and also are allowed to apply for a place on the regional map ^-^

The Tovenian Citizens are rejoicing today.

Good afternoon

I have resigned from the WA.

I felt like most votes result in a resolute which does not satisfy me, nor do I have any interest in it.

World Assembly proposals take votes from all of its 22,000 members and delegates. So yes, they often do not come down to a handful of votes by the end, if that's what you mean. A resolution's passage or failure is determined by its construction and how people in WA discussions argue it. People coming to conclusions about a topic and working to determine what they want to happen, as a group, will always be more effective than any individual.

That is not a pre-determined system, that is life.

I find it amusing that I'm somehow simultaneously in the top 1% for Compassion, 2% for Cheerfulness and 4% for Rudeness

I understand, however, my own approach to the game in general is as a challenge. Most issues (not the WA propsals, but the game issues) purpolsfully present us with a choice between the least-worse among several bad decisions. Of course I have an option tol dismiss the issue (and of course, it is a totally legitimate policy to do so on a regular basis, addressing only issues that interest you).

However, I didn't join NS in order to dismiss issues. And while the RMB of the regions I chose to reside in are all extremely great communities and fun to hang around in, the main reason I play NS is for the Challenge of the game. I only resort to Dismissing issues as a very last resort, and try to avoid it as much as I can.

The WA, in my opinion and experience, is a major part of this game's Challenges. I do find myself often abstaining from voting on its resolutions, but I enjoy it much more when ever I am able to form an actual Opinion and decidce how to vote.

Not being in the WA, in my opinion and experience, is like only playing half of the game. I mean, you can play NS just for addressing issues and using the RMB, or even avoid the issues altogether by setting them to Vacation Mode. Where's the fun in that? No Challenge, No Fun.

You too, and all others who celebrate it.

Yep, Merry Christmas for whoever celebrates it.

Merry early Christmas to some and Merry Christmas to others!

Okay, I've spent more time than I'd care to admit parsing this one. I don't expect much discussion here, but I do want to at least mention the upcoming GA proposal Tariffs and Trade Convention.

Proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1608498120

Forum thread: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=492588

There's a lot to unpack here because this is written incredibly densely, almost unreasonably so. I'll be honest, I don't expect the average user to sit down and read this end to end, so rather than making a conventional argument, I'm going to annotate and comment on each section to try and make it a little friendlier for voters. Hopefully this is a good use of time.

This resolution is particularly confusing if you start out trying to keep track of the terminology; so don't. "Resolution" and "member" are self-explanatory; "trade area" and "general customs area" are only used once outside section 1. Just focus on customs areas as areas which share trade policies and exist within WA jurisdiction.

Despite the overly formal language, this establishes somewhat clearly that customs areas must trade cooperatively. 2(a) is somewhat mystifying but there's little to say otherwise.

Probably the clearest piece of writing in the proposal, despite the construction. This aims to ensure accurate market values are used in trade and seems agreeable.

This is a list of circumstances in which import/export quota restrictions are allowed. It seems exhausting- er, exhaustive.

Section 6 responds to the practice of exporting goods below market value to try and gain an advantage in the importing territory. Note that this does not provide a mechanism to prevent dumping, only to respond to it. IA's rationale for this implementation was "I think it would be overly damaging to trade for members to be hastily paranoid of possible dumping without proof that it is happening. It is very difficult to prove the counterfactual in such cases (ie that the lack of the barriers ostensibly to stop possible dumping would have led to dumping; ie that the barriers prevented the dumping)."

This section prohibits discriminatory practices based on the point of origin of an imported good.

These are the circumstances in which trade restrictions are allowed. I believe a balance of payments crisis is an abrupt halt of money into a nation which causes them to lack the funds to pay current debts, but I'm not an expert. The rest - wartime, national security, and WA mandates and allowances - are fairly straightforward.

This reads like the fine print at the end of a TV commercial. A hodgepodge of notes about proper procedure relating to the rest of the legislation.

Welcome Upper Zaraersopia, Reburanitaderision, Norvilia, Enaforgiani, Alpernei, Modern Baseball, & Dermsie Area to Refugia! If you have any questions about the region or how NationStates works feel free to leave it here on the RMB! You can also join our Discord server found at the top of the page within our region description. We're all friendly and don't bite!

If you haven't already, consider joining the World Assembly (located on the left sidebar) which will allow you to become a Member State! Member States are able to get a spot on our map (link in the region's description), vote in regional polls, and even run for office when elections come up! If you're not interested in that, that's completely fine! We're a chill laid back community and we aim to make everyone's experience here as wonderful as possible.

Also welcome to Refugia Rainbow Repository! I assume you've been here before given your wonderful name!

I outlawed sacrificing people's first child to some random cultist group, and my civil rights went down.

Is that because I didn't let that cultist group do what they wanted to do?

They also wanted to broadcast them brutally murdering the sacrifices... 😖

Yeah, sometimes this game is odd lol.

Welcome Araine and New Antinios to Refugia! If you have any questions about the region or how NationStates works feel free to leave it here on the RMB! You can also join our Discord server found at the top of the page within our region description. We're all friendly and don't bite!

If you haven't already, consider joining the World Assembly (located on the left sidebar) which will allow you to become a Member State! Member States are able to get a spot on our map (link in the region's description), vote in regional polls, and even run for office when elections come up! If you're not interested in that, that's completely fine! We're a chill laid back community and we aim to make everyone's experience here as wonderful as possible.

Well, speaking devil's advocate here let's say that the hierarchy of the cult argues that in order to practice their religion (I'm assuming this is what it is about) that they should be allowed to practice their sacrifices to ensure the freedom of religion.

Melenavenia thank you! I don't think I have any questions atm-- I've been on the game for a while-- but if I do, I'll be sure to ask! Merry Christmas, to those of you who celebrate!

Actually-- I do have a question. On the map application, 'culture group' is a requested field of entry. Could someone please specify as to what exactly this means?

Essentially just how your people refer to themselves. Mine were Elvhen, while the people of Refuge Isle are Refugi, etc. Laisou is pretty much exactly correct. Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic would all be culture groups in irl scenarios.

You can do fun things through societal interaction though, like how more Alanori now identify as Refugi due to their time working within the wider Refugia community.

My vote for the GA proposal (Imperium Anglorum's 'Tariffs and Trade Convention') has been sitting wrong with me, so I decided to change it.

To be entirely honest, I don't like IA's penchant for writing things in the densest, most unappealing way possible. I'm sure he's extremely well educated on the subject matter and the proposal is probably fine, but I really don't like his style of making things that are nearly unreadable for the majority of people who are going to look at them.

The World Assembly isn't made up of career lawyers and politicians, it's made up of people who are playing a browser-based political simulator. I'm not going to say that everything has to be written at a grade-two level or anything, but I prefer NS-based legal text not resembling irl legalese.

Beyond that, I think that IA isn't a very nice person and I don't want to support someone who's an ass (though I could be convinced if the proposal itself was better).

I uh am going to wholeheartedly agree with ya’ll because I have now read through this proposal 3 times? And I don’t understand it, it’s just an overwhelmingly large amount of stuff and like I cannot make it through this resolution without getting wildly confused somewhere in the middle ;-;