WA 101 - Lesson Three

All GA proposals must comply with a set of rules created and enforced by the GA Secretariat/Gensec, a five-man body comprised of some of the most respected and successful participants in the General Assembly. These rules have changed a lot since first being created in the UN era, but this guide should cover all of the rules listed in this thread. I will also cite examples of violations of rules, including from the Silly/Illegal Proposals threads: [1], [2]; as well as Gensec rulings on more subtle scenarios which have arisen.

This forum thread lists all GA proposal rules, as well as the various categories and other relevant information. However, they are not actually that simple -- This guide is not comprehensive -- there are too many nuances to all cover here. If you want to see more information on the rules, this spreadsheet, maintained by Imperium Anglorum, lists all formal rulings made by the GA Secretariat/Gensec, the body responsible for enforcing the GA proposal rules. The rules are certainly all complex, but that makes them even more important to familiarise oneself with.

This rule is perhaps the most important rule, which is why it is the very first rule listed. Plagiarism is subject to the most severe forms of GA rule enforcement, including the penalty of ejection from the World Asesembly. You cannot copy ANY content from past UN or WA resolutions, or real-world text, into your own proposal, without the full, informed, and demonstrated consent of the original author of said content. Text generated by Chatgpt or other AI tools is in a grey area due to it being difficult to determine whether proposals are AI-generated; however, it is very strongly advised not to use such tools to write proposals for you.

The Game Mechanics rules prohibits any mandate which alters game mechanics, or how the game works. In the NS FAQ, the creator of the site himself gives an example of this:

Can I make a resolution to add war to the game?​

No. Well, you can, but I'm still not going to add war. The WA is not there to request new game features. I admit this would be nice: proposea change, vote it through, and BAM! The game gets better. But then, Iwould have to make the BAM! part happen. It wouldrequire me to spend so much time rewriting game code that I wouldn'tbe able to pursue my real passion, which is earning enough money tobuy food, and staying sane.


WA resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on aparticular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, orwhatever. Don't suggest game improvements there. They just clutterup the place. And they make people think, "Hey, yeah, that wouldbe cool! Why doesn't Max Barry get off his ass and do that?"

Click to expand...

Many Game Mechanics violations are obvious and "bloody stupid"; for example a proposal explicitly trying to "end the General Assembly". [3]. However, some are more subtle. Member nations cannot be ejected from the World Assembly, even eg in response to non-compliance. Likewise, a resolution cannot enforce the mandates of other resolutions which have been repealed. [4]. A good rule of thumb is if a mandate would alter or break something which occurs in game mechanics, such as WA membership, region membership, and so on, it is probably illegal.

A common misconception is that the World Assembly cannot legislate on topics for which there are in-game policies, or otherwise effectively make it illegal for a certain policy to be established. However, this is not the case; the World Assembly has legislated on topics such as abortion, euthanasia, or the death penalty for which in-game policies exist. Likewise, the existence of an issue (as in what you receive on page=dilemmas) on a topic does not make a proposal on that topic illegal under the Game Mechanics rule. However, policies, stats, issues responses and so on cannot be explicitly referenced in resolutions. You cannot say "Every member nation must select Option 3 when responding to Issue #1024."

A related rule is the one about "Metagaming". This means you cannot break the fourth wall, such as referencing regions or the Security Council. Here is an example of a proposal illegal for (inter alia) metagaming, due to naming The North Pacific and explicitly imposing requirements on it. Nor can you mention that a resolution which was passed is in fact illegal, as the Secretariat missed a rule violation (something which has happened before) -- although a proposal can allege eg contradiction with a past resolution in general, non-rule-related terms. The Metagaming rule also used to prohibit references to particular canons; this precedent was recently overturned, although doing so remains discouraged and no resolution doing so has passed.

The Metagaming rule also prohibits forcing compliance on non-member nations. For example, a resolution cannot state "Every nation must do X regardless of whether the nation is a World Assembly member". Gensec member Imperium Anglorum has laid out a three-prong test specifying whether a proposal forces compliance on non-member nations, to clear out more nuanced cases.

I'll outline a three step evaluation for this sort of metagaming. (I'll call it extrajurisdictional metagaming.)

1. If there is no distinction between member nations and non-member nations raised in the proposal, beyond blind invocation of "member nations", the proposal is read as if it said "member nations".
   
   
2. If there is a distinction between member nations and non-member nations, then does there exist an explicit effect on non-members? If there is no such effect, it's fine.
   
   
3. If there is an explicit effect on non-members, does it assert WA jurisdiction over them or does it take action through WA nations and institutions only? If the latter, it is fine.

Click to expand...

To give some examples of this, lots of resolutions may state "No person may X". Eg my resolution GA #660 "Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Services" states that "[N]o person may be penalised for expressing, holding, or failing to void, [conscientious] objection [to active military service]." Besides the fact that the proposal does not distinguish between member nations and non-member nations besides using "member nations", thus meeting Part 1 of the test, the proposal does not explicitly affect non-member nations -- even if it would if "No person" were read completely literally -- so it would also pass Part 2. In other words, the sentence there is read as saying "[N]o person under World Assembly jurisdiction may be penalised for expressing, holding, or failing to voide, [conscientious] objection [to active military service]."

An example of a proposal which failed this test is ISDS Ban by Tinhampton. The proposal did distinguish between WA members and non-members; it applied to free trade agreements which "includ[e] at least one member state". In addition, there was an explicit effect on non-members which could not be resolved by merely reading it as "under World Assembly jurisdiction", due to it applying to any free trade agreement containing a member nation, even if the other parties are non-member nation. Finally, the third prong was failed as the proposal mandated that "all ISDS mechanisms currently in operation be disbanded" (NB: ISDS mechanisms are a type of provision included in a free trade agreement), thus requiring even those ISDS mechanisms including non-member nations to be disbanded. This asserted jurisdiction over non-member nations, so the proposal was illegal.


This rule applies only to repeals. You cannot misrepresent a resolution in a repeal, or make arguments which violate reasonable nation theory. This is perhaps the most complex of the GA rules, but it is important to note that it does not apply to real-world facts, which are outside of the scope of rule enforcement for Honest Mistakes. Despite the name of the rule, Gensec does not take into account whether a repeal author genuinely believes their claims when determining whether a repeal contains an Honest Mistake!

The first prong is actually rather strict; just one statement which misrepresents any resolution (even if not the target) is enough to make your repeal illegal! [5]. That said, even in the GA we are not so pedantic as to require every statement to be 100% specific and precise; limited exaggeration is permitted, as is using weaselly or embellished wording.

The second prong is far more nuanced, but also harder to run into. RNT cannot override actual text of a resolution; so if a resolution can only be interpreted one way, even one which is extremely self-detrimental, it is absolutely legal to point this out in a repeal.[6]. However, if a resolution can be interpreted as requiring member nations to do something patently self-detrimental, but it can also be interpreted as not doing so, it is an Honest Mistake to claim the former interpretation. For example, asserting that a member nation heavily involved in the arms trade will interpret a resolution as prohibiting the sale of arms for humanitarian intervention, is illegal in the presence of a possible interpretation of the opposite effect.[7]

One way of avoiding illegalities based on the Honest Mistake rule is to use airtight wording which does not go overly into specific details which might be Honest Mistakes, where one is unsure about these details. For example, one can state that some mandate of a resolution harms small businesses without going into the argument that it does so as it forces small businesses to pay very expensive fees. Weaselly wording can even be used to avoid specifying a particular mechanism, eg "Concerned that Section 3c of GA #999 could pose a significant financial burden upon smaller or developing businesses, thereby promoting monopolisation and harming economies of member nations". However, this kind of wording may, in the voting stage, be misunderstood, or even derided as insufficiently argued, so be careful in this regard!


This rule, in and of itself, is simple; proposals may not enact mandates which, in ordinary circumstances (ie those which could feasibly happen taking into account RNT), would violate some past resolution. This rule is arguably the hardest to ensure compliance with, as there are literally hundreds of active resolutions. However, when there is substantive contradiction, other players should hopefully point this out on the forums.

To avoid contradiction based on some de minimis conflict with some obscure resolution from ten years ago, it is good to add a clause to the effect of "Should this resolution conflict with some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence". This kind of wording is sufficient to prevent a proposal from being illegal because "a small part" of the proposal conflicts with a past resolution.[8]. However, this kind of clause should not be used as a metaphorical ticking-time bomb to detonate when the past resolution is repealed. Not only is this frowned upon, but substantive contradiction is still illegal regardless of such a mandate; for example, if a resolution tried to ban all nuke possession subject to past resolutions, this would be struck down due to GA #418, which authorises member nations to stockpile nuclear weapons.


This rule prohibits adding a name or reference of either yourself or some other nation/player, with the sole exception of citing co-authors (although the in-game co-author mechanic should be used where possible). This includes signing your resolution, either as yourself or as a character of your nation, as well as using personal pronouns such as "I" (NB: "we" is understood as referring to the WA member-base, where this is a reasonable interpretation in context). Similarly, proposals must be from the perspective of the World Assembly.

While this rule has been covertly violated in the past (I have even passed a resolution, GA #630, which names my main nation using an acrostic!) this does not change the fact that doing so is illegal. Announcing proudly in the text of your proposal that it is "PRESENTED BY THE KINGDOM OF OSAAACRIA" is, unfortunately, illegal.[9].


A proposal cannot have its active mandates be dependent on a past resolution. The reason for this is that if that resolution is repealed, it is either still in force (see Game Mechanics) or the new proposal becomes meaningless. An example of this is trying to use definitions in past resolutions, for example defining the word "maturity" in a proposal "as defined in Resolution 552".[10]. A common misconception is that this means that preambles cannot cite past resolutions in their arguments. This is false; you can cite past resolutions in repeals without making your proposal illegal under the House of Cards rule.


Every proposal which is not a repeal must be put in a category, and either a strength or area of effect thereof (with the exception of the Environmental area of effect, which has Mild and Strong strengths); each category, strength, and area of effect has a different effect on national statistics, which is determined based on the category and area of effect, and how large the effect is is determined by the Strength.

A list of data regarding the statistical effects of resolutions can be found here. Previously, a Category/Strength/Area of Effect must be the best fit a resolution can be in. However, this was overturned for Category only by the Sciongrad-authored ruling on "Standards of Police Accountability".[11]. Now, a proposal must have some recognisable effect in its category.

The strength of a proposal is determined by how strong its effect on member nations is. A proposal with a dramatic effect in its Category/Area of Effect, such as a proposal in the Environmental Area of Effect requiring all fossil fuels to be banned, would be rightfully marked as Strong. A proposal with a small effect should be marked as Mild -- for example, if an Environmental proposal only encouraged every member nation to ban all fossil fuels, that would be Mild. In between a proposal is Significant. A list of categories, areas of effect, and strengths can be found here, and goes into far more detail than I can go into here.

A proposal whose only mandates directly addressing member nations are hortatory must go in a Mild strength, and may not go in an Area of Effect without a Mild strength. However, this is not under the Strength rule, and rather the Optionality rule, explored below...


A proposal must be binding on every member nation; in other words there may not be language explicitly permitting a member nation to opt-out of all of its mandates. You cannot say that "participation [in compliance] is optional"! While hortatory language (e.g. "Urges member states to...") is acceptable, if there are no mandatory commands or requirements in the resolution it must be submitted under Mild strength. This may seem slightly contradictory; but the logic is that nations may not avoid being harangued or their diplomats shouted at, so even "Encourages..." clauses are not strictly optional -- if they are accompanied by true commands or submitted under Mild strength.

There are a number of other, more simple rules, described below; but they are equally important, so please also read through them carefully!

The Real World Reference rule prohibits directly referencing entities, places, or events in the real world in resolutions. However, you can mention phenomena, political philosophies, languages, and so on. You can mention global warming, imperialism, animal sacrifice, English, or September; however, you cannot mention Greta Thunberg, Alexander III of Macedon, Chrysomallus, England, or Boedromia.

The Committees rule restricts what resolutions may do regarding committees; while resolutions may create them (and have, in countless instances), creating them may not be the only effect of that resolution, nor may the proposal affect committee staffing. Per the GA rules thread, "[r]equiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork."

The Operative Clause rule requires every proposal to have some effect on member nations, even if hortatory rather than mandatory (see also Optionality).

The Joke/Silly Proposals prohibits proposals which are solely jokes; however proposals may contain jokes, as long as humour is not the sole intent of the resolution. [12]. There is a dedicated thread for posting joke proposals.

The National Sovereignty rule (see Lesson 2) prohibits repeals from using national sovereignty (including religious sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and other such arguments) as their sole argument. Arguing that a mandate is eg too financially burdensome on member nations, for example, is legal. Arguing that a term in a resolution is vague is (somehow) considered a national sovereignty argument, unless you provide explicit examples for problematic scenarios which may arise as a result of this vagueness.

The Blockers rule makes it illegal for resolutions to "block off an entire category or area of effect", or prohibit either itself or another resolution from being repealed. It also prohibits a resolution from doing nothing but block, although that aspect is already covered by the Operative Clause rule.

The Duplication rule requires every resolution to introduce at least something new. As long as there is something a proposal does which is novel, it is not illegal for Duplication.

The New Legislation rule forbids legislating in a repeal. A repeal cannot do anything other than repeal its target. This also means that a repeal cannot also repeal some other resolution.

The Proposal Basics rule requires that proposals be actually written as laws, not as commentaries, blogs, etc. This rule is pretty much impossible to run into when you write a coherent proposal with actual effort.

The Amendments rule, as indicated by its name, makes it illegal to directly attempt to alter a past resolution. A common misconception is that trying to impose mandates which go beyond a past resolution counts as Amending that past resolution. This is false. [13]. Nor is alleged contradiction a violation of the Amendments rule, although there is the Contradiction rule.

The Language requires proposal to be written in Understandable English. Legalese, within reason, and -- regrettably -- American English are permitted. However, proposals cannot be gibberish, in indecipherable English, or in a foreign language.


When a proposal is submitted, the GA Secretariat (members listed here) must review the proposal, and if the Secretariat finds that the proposal violates the rules, they can hold the proposal, preventing it from going to vote regardless of whether it achieves quorum. If the Secretariat fails to notice an illegality, a legality challenge may be submitted by a player, arguing for the illegality. If the Secretariat votes through a simple majority that the proposal indeed violates the rules, the Secretariat may hold the proposal, or -- if it has already reached vote -- discard it, preventing the proposal from passing regardless of whether it achieves a majority in favour. Only rulings made in response to a legality challenge are binding upon future legality decisions, although they may still be overturned by majority vote of the Secretariat. Resolutions which have already passed cannot have their legality challenged.

The legality challenge process can be very litigous; and there have been instances where a player deliberately withholds legality concerns (where sincere or mala fide) so as to be able to challenge the proposal at vote and prevent it from passing without the author being able to correct the illegality. However, this is usually considered to be very bad form. If you want to know more about the processes of Secretariat rule enforcement, this forum post gives (nearly) all the detail you could ever ask for!


In most cases, it will simply be held or discarded, and not allowed to pass. However, in severe cases, such as plagarism, a nation can be ejected from the World Assembly from breaking the rules. Technically a player can be ejected by the World Assembly for repeatedly submitting illegal proposals to the point that it becomes spam, but as of recent times this has been rare.


The length of this guide probably makes GA participation seem incredibly daunting -- it's not that bad once you've been in the forum for a while! The best way to learn these rules is not to try to memorize this guide, but to lurk for a while and participate in drafting discussions. That way you'll be able to pick up the rules organically, and in a way that probably makes more logical sense than trying to reason yourself through a mere list of rules! And you can always create a drafting thread in the forum -- other players will help you figure out how to improve it.

Proposal drafting is a marathon, not a sprint. You should not rush proposals in drafting, as this gives regulars on the forum less time to review your proposal and notice any potential legality issues before you submit.

For the original version of this guide, Mousebumples selected 20 illegal World Assembly proposals which have been submitted, and posted them in this dispatch. For this new guide, I have picked seven other proposals and spoilered them below. The assignment here is to look through the proposals and see what illegalities you notice. There are meant to be at least 11 "things wrong" with the proposals (in total), but unless you've really familiarized yourself with the GA rules, it's unlikely you'll find ALL of them.

However, challenge yourself to find as many as you can and maybe jot down a note (or at least a mental note) about why it's illegal - i.e. "Game Mechanics because of this line" or "MetaGaming because it tries to affect non-WA nations" or ... whatever.

Also note: That "11+" count doesn't even touch on duplication/contradiction here. We're looking at the other rules since checking for duplication/contradiction is more complicated than this lesson is intended to cover.

After you find as many illegalities as you can, pick 3 (or more!) of the illegalities you found and fix them. It's not uncommon for illegalities to abound in first proposals, and knowing how to fix your issues is a good skill to learn. However, as a friendly reminder, it's illegal to submit a proposal which contains the text of someone else's WA or UN proposal, without receiving the explicit permission of the original author of that proposal, as that is considered plagiarism.