[DISCARDED] Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"

[Marlanta]

I think this should be removed from floor because the submitter is confusing. On first glance I thought it was an admin group, but after seeing all the drama here it appears to be the puppet of someone who was already banned. I am sure many people thought it was an admin group and supported the resolution purely on such merit

[Mallorea and Riva]

Ard was actually very clear on this point. A normal illegal resolution can be dealt with via a simple repeal. Since this IS a repeal which the author is presumably going to attempt to replace with his own resolution for his own benefit it warranted a discard.

OOC: That presents a much simpler solution. Simply ban Auralia from submitting future proposals from the "Working Group" nation, and prohibit him from calling his replacement, if submitted, the "WA Charter" or anything similar. That way, he won't have gained any free advertising.

And I will repeat, repealing a resolution by arguing it is illegal is not allowed, so the argument that Discards should be treated differently for repeals and replacements makes no sense in the form Ardchoille presented.

Nonsense. The fact that it has an effect upon another resolution makes it distinct. Additionally while illegalities cannot be used as the basis for an argument within a repeal the existence of such illegalities is usually indicative of other major issues which can legally be addressed.

[Potted Plants United]

I think this should be removed from floor because the submitter is confusing. On first glance I thought it was an admin group, but after seeing all the drama here it appears to be the puppet of someone who was already banned. I am sure many people thought it was an admin group and supported the resolution purely on such merit

OOC: This is what I think/hope happened, too.

[Starkmoor]

I think this should be removed from floor because the submitter is confusing. On first glance I thought it was an admin group, but after seeing all the drama here it appears to be the puppet of someone who was already banned. I am sure many people thought it was an admin group and supported the resolution purely on such merit

OOC: This is what I think/hope happened, too.

/OOC I think you need to give more people on here the benefit of the doubt. I think people actually read it or at the least speed-read it. There were probably a small amount who didn't, but this is passing by such a large majority so I don't think they are in a position to shift the outcome here.

[Zercera]

Honestly, I could not even consider voting for any resolution that would repeal the pillars of the WA unless a replacement that is both good in my eyes and generally accepted by those deeply involved in the WA community is created, and your current replacement is neither. In particular, your I feel that your section 4, which states:

All member states shall not use the excuse of sovereignty to engage in acts of violence against their people. All member states have the duty to individually and collectively address violations of human rights and threats to international peace and security, including through the use of force if and when necessary, in accordance with World Assembly law.

both effectively bans the use of force by a nation against their own internal terrorists or violent secessionists, as well as gives the easily-swayed and gullible (see the recent St Abbaddon fiasco) WA too much power in deciding world security measures, effectively making the humanitarian and peacekeeping missions you seem to love so much more difficult to pull off, especially considering that The Rights and Duties of WA States section 5 gives WA member states the power to:

intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

while article 4 gives WA nations the right of:

individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

which together gives nations working with consenting nations the ability to create peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, a main point of your resolution to repeal the same resolution which gives nations this power. While I do agree that the WA should better dress humanitarian and peacekeeping missions in non-consenting nations, the complete destruction of one of the most important pillars of the WA, planned to be replaced by a structure that is both counterproductive to its own purposes and lacks the support of the overall community, and could throw the WA into chaos rarely seen before. With this in mind, Zercera votes NO on this resolution and STRONGLY URGES ALL OTHER NATIONS WHO SEEK A STABLE WORLD TO DO SO AS WELL

[Mallorea and Riva]

snip

I'm really not interested in debating non-compliance and "creative" compliance with you again. However, I will say that it is quite silly to suggest that this repeal is about promoting non-compliance.

Yes why would we have the debate again when it's gone so incredibly poorly for you in the past? You're attempting to repeal this because you believe it will open up the door to a WA Army debate on top of your attempt to "fix" the compliance issue which only exists within your own mind. I suppose it's worth asking what makes you think that you will comply with a future resolution which seeks to mandate compliance when you yourself claim to openly defy resolutions knowing full well that compliance is required? Seems to be rather insane.

[Milograd]

Wait, can someone catch me up on this?

Am I correct in reading that this was ruled illegal, then legal, and then illegal again?

[Ikania]

Wait, can someone catch me up on this?

Am I correct in reading that this was ruled illegal, then legal, and then illegal again?

Seems to be so.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Wait, can someone catch me up on this?

Am I correct in reading that this was ruled illegal, then legal, and then illegal again?

Seems to be so.

Well if it's illegal, then why is it still up for vote?

[The Republic of Lanos]

Seems to be so.

Well if it's illegal, then why is it still up for vote?

Impossible to do so since it would break the game.

[Ramaeus]

Impossible to do so since it would break the game.

It's not impossible to do, and has been done before, but it does cause more problems than it solves. Hence the discard feature.

[The Dark Star Republic]

And I will repeat, repealing a resolution by arguing it is illegal is not allowed, so the argument that Discards should be treated differently for repeals and replacements makes no sense in the form Ardchoille presented.

Nonsense. The fact that it has an effect upon another resolution makes it distinct.

OOC: A resolution that is illegaly repealed can simply be resubmitted. If someone repealed Ban on Slavery and Trafficking with an illegal repeal, I would simply resubmit the original version as is.

(Oh, except Ban on Slavery and Trafficking would now be deleted for referring to 'all nations'. Well, at least I don't have to worry about making it compliant with National Economic Freedoms, as I can apparently freely contradict that.)

So Ardchoille's argument about impact really does not square up: there is a chance a resubmission might not pass; there is a chance a repeal of an illegal substantive resolution might not pass. There is no difference between resolutions and repeals in this matter.

Additionally while illegalities cannot be used as the basis for an argument within a repeal the existence of such illegalities is usually indicative of other major issues which can legally be addressed.

How is that so? The mods have in this case ruled that Auralia's text is perfectly legal and that he can resubmit it with a different puppet. The existence of the branding illegality is in no way indicative of 'other major issues'. There is no correlation between proposal quality and proposal legality.

I'll note you failed to respond to my main point:

That presents a much simpler solution. Simply ban Auralia from submitting future proposals from the "Working Group" nation, and prohibit him from calling his replacement, if submitted, the "WA Charter" or anything similar. That way, he won't have gained any free advertising.

That solves everything without the need for a Discard, which Ardchoille herself said was something she felt should not be used where possible.

I guess all of this is no longer germane here, but I do hope the mods will be creating a thread to discuss the Discard feature, given they have gone from saying it would only be used for 'egregious' violations to using it for a minor technicality in less than two weeks.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: That presents a much simpler solution. Simply ban Auralia from submitting future proposals from the "Working Group" nation, and prohibit him from calling his replacement, if submitted, the "WA Charter" or anything similar. That way, he won't have gained any free advertising.

When have mods had any control whatsoever over what we call resolutions, let alone our nations? Might as well skip the middle step and have mods name all the resolutions themselves.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: That presents a much simpler solution. Simply ban Auralia from submitting future proposals from the "Working Group" nation, and prohibit him from calling his replacement, if submitted, the "WA Charter" or anything similar. That way, he won't have gained any free advertising.

When have mods had any control whatsoever over what we call resolutions, let alone our nations? Might as well skip the middle step and have mods name all the resolutions themselves.

OOC: I'm saying that is the least worst solution in this case. I would rather have that happen than have them Discard the repeal. I realize you are in favour of it being Discarded, but I am not, and hence trying to come up with alternatives to that.

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: That presents a much simpler solution. Simply ban Auralia from submitting future proposals from the "Working Group" nation, and prohibit him from calling his replacement, if submitted, the "WA Charter" or anything similar. That way, he won't have gained any free advertising.

When have mods had any control whatsoever over what we call resolutions, let alone our nations? Might as well skip the middle step and have mods name all the resolutions themselves.

OOC: Or our nation names? With this ruling, am I going to be permitted to submit resolutions in the future, as this character is not a nation per say? As I said, this is not being thought through, and has greater consequences that anyone is seeing, or is willing to admit to.

[Auralia]

When have mods had any control whatsoever over what we call resolutions, let alone our nations? Might as well skip the middle step and have mods name all the resolutions themselves.

OOC: I'm saying that is the least worst solution in this case. I would rather have that happen than have them Discard the repeal. I realize you are in favour of it being Discarded, but I am not, and hence trying to come up with alternatives to that.

When did GR say he supported the Discard?

[Alotopia]

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, we are arguing about if this proposal is illegal based on the name of the submitter?

Me and most people out in the NS community read things for content rather than just who wrote them. I think most people who voted for this repeal looked at the submitter at the end or not at all...

The idea that 6500 people were tricked into voting for this repeal by the name of the poster alone is simply not giving enough credit to the WA members.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I'm saying that is the least worst solution in this case. I would rather have that happen than have them Discard the repeal. I realize you are in favour of it being Discarded, but I am not, and hence trying to come up with alternatives to that.

When did GR say he supported the Discard?

OOC: Sorry, I was being snide. I was implying that he was more intent on proving that the mods are institutionally corrupt than on trying to achieve a solution. But, it was mean-spirited and unnecessary, so I'll retract it and move on.

I will say, though, that both Ardchoille and Sedgistan said they considered Discards absolute last resorts for extreme cases; Ardchoille even said that:

I dislike the Discard feature, regarding its use as something of a black mark on the active WA community. If we -- players and mods -- were all doing our jobs, there would be no need for it. So my reply reflected my holier-than-thou attitude that there wouldn't be much need for it anyway,

Given that, it's kind of surprising that the very first reaction has been to leap to a Discard, with no attempt to find an alternate solution.

[Riiser-Larsen]

The many groups within the Anocracy all support this bill wholeheartedly. However, there is something is something we would like to mention:

It seems that a major factor behind the establishment of this repeal is the fact that some view it necessary to allow a military to be created for the World Assembly. In that case, I feel the need to say this: that we should all be reminded of just how great the numbers are of the nations in and out of the WA. There are many regions which view the WA as a nuisance or even as an imperialistic menace towards all of NationStates. I feel the need to warn you of just how large a conflict there may be if there are no true guidelines established for military intervention by the World Assembly. For those of you who are older within the community, you have likely already seen what sort of things arise out of situations where there are two major factions within the world, both ready to attack the other but both fearing what might happen. We do not need a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis within the world of NationStates, and it is of absolute importance that not only are there new guidelines established for the use of the World Assembly's military ability, beyond just "Please use your military strength for good. Please." Given that the vote currently seems to indicate that this bill will be passed, I suggest that someone, besides Auralia, begin a draft of this "World Assembly Military Protocol".
-Steven Kovac (People's Front of Judea Riiser)

[The Republic of Lanos]

Even if we managed to repeal WA#2 "legally", I doubt the WA rules would change in the meantime.

Also, if the discard of this repeal is for that reason too but not publicly released, could it?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Nonsense. The fact that it has an effect upon another resolution makes it distinct.

OOC: A resolution that is illegaly repealed can simply be resubmitted. If someone repealed Ban on Slavery and Trafficking with an illegal repeal, I would simply resubmit the original version as is.

(Oh, except Ban on Slavery and Trafficking would now be deleted for referring to 'all nations'. Well, at least I don't have to worry about making it compliant with National Economic Freedoms, as I can apparently freely contradict that.)

So Ardchoille's argument about impact really does not square up: there is a chance a resubmission might not pass; there is a chance a repeal of an illegal substantive resolution might not pass. There is no difference between resolutions and repeals in this matter.

GAR #2 couldn't be resubmitted, it'd get dinged for bing illegal.

Additionally while illegalities cannot be used as the basis for an argument within a repeal the existence of such illegalities is usually indicative of other major issues which can legally be addressed.

How is that so? The mods have in this case ruled that Auralia's text is perfectly legal and that he can resubmit it with a different puppet. The existence of the branding illegality is in no way indicative of 'other major issues'. There is no correlation between proposal quality and proposal legality.

You're misconstruing what I'm saying. A normal proposal which has an illegality can be knocked down, Auralia's is a repeal and thus cannot be dealt with in that way.

I'll note you failed to respond to my main point:

That presents a much simpler solution. Simply ban Auralia from submitting future proposals from the "Working Group" nation, and prohibit him from calling his replacement, if submitted, the "WA Charter" or anything similar. That way, he won't have gained any free advertising.

That solves everything without the need for a Discard, which Ardchoille herself said was something she felt should not be used where possible.

Sure he would have, he'd be gaining from it as we speak if the Discard function hadn't been implemented. You don't give him a pass on his current violation on the terms that he doesn't do it in the future. Your solution doesn't address the actual problem.

[Glen-Rhodes]

When did GR say he supported the Discard?

OOC: Sorry, I was being snide. I was implying that he was more intent on proving that the mods are institutionally corrupt than on trying to achieve a solution. But, it was mean-spirited and unnecessary, so I'll retract it and move on.

Well, I mean, you're not wrong. Normally I wouldn't even care what strange ruling was the latest to come from the WA mods. But this is the last resolution project I ever helped author, so I was paying attention to it anyways.

[Auralia]

Sure he would have, he'd be gaining from it as we speak if the Discard function hadn't been implemented. You don't give him a pass on his current violation on the terms that he doesn't do it in the future. Your solution doesn't address the actual problem.

But it wasn't a violation at the time that the proposal went to vote. Ardchoille made an ex post facto change to mod precedent.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Sure he would have, he'd be gaining from it as we speak if the Discard function hadn't been implemented. You don't give him a pass on his current violation on the terms that he doesn't do it in the future. Your solution doesn't address the actual problem.

But it wasn't a violation at the time that the proposal went to vote. Ardchoille made an ex post facto change to mod precedent.

I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for you because it does, and I'm not saying that you should get dinged with a warning for it either. I'm simply acknowledging that, barring a reversal of the ruling, this is the situation we are in and that's the way it should be dealt with.

[Chester Pearson]

GAR #2 couldn't be resubmitted, it'd get dinged for bing illegal.

And you don't find it a tad bit strange that a technicality is being used to kill a successful repeal of it?