[DEFEATED][#] Ban of Perfidy in Warfare

[Normlpeople]

OOC: I would also agree with "moral decency", as it does nothing to slash military budgets, but does, in fact, restrict soldiers certain rights during combat situations.

IC: "While I do see what you are attempting to achieve, I find the enforcement of this extremely difficult. Propaganda against the enemy is thrown around consistently in warfare, and alleged atrocities against civilians is one of the most common and effective ones. There are obvious issues in separating the propaganda from truth, as well as any direct accusations would be made by the opposing side, hardly an unbiased source. This would be very difficult to prove."

[Sanctaria]

Moral Decency?

Automatically against.

[Defwa]

Moral Decency?

Automatically against.

[Dendodgia]

Moral Decency?

Automatically against.

MD has a few good uses, like GA#136. It has a bad rep mostly due to neglect; anything that defines acceptable and unacceptable behaviour not directed against living individuals ought really to go there, although those things often end up being shoehorned into other categories instead (this proposal being put in Global Disarmament is a prime example).

It does, of course, have the potential to dramatically curtail civil liberties, which is a reason for caution, but actions like perfidy and the defiling of the dead are pretty clear-cut moral violations despite not actually infringing on anyone else's civil rights.

[Sanctaria]

OOC: MD hits a nation's economy stats. I'm a stat player.

I don't like Moral Decency categorised resolutions and so I vote against automatically. It's an OOC thing rather an IC, anti-feel-good thing.

[Elke and Elba]

[OOC Post]

Snefaldia: Don't worry about your arguments, I'll look about them in due time. They are all valid, after all. Alethea's just a bit annoyed people hasn't been replying, that is all.

Sanctaria: I'm averse to MD too. I'm not sure how now though, given that I've tried to framed this as GD as what C. Eraser/Codger did for uhhh (what was it? was it GA#121?)

Dendodgia: Noted.

Normlpeople: (IC) Ahh, goddarnit, why can't we have the invincible, indestructible Gnomes^TM go running around finding evidence?

Ardchoille: Would you mind posting approval by whom and numbers up till the point of modly removal?

Wait, so other than Sanctaria (who has stat reasons): this is better off MD than GD? I'm not sure about the implications since MD has a terrible rep, IMHO. I like it Human Rights though, it seems like you are giving rights to people a la Ard's linky that Knootoss argued so.

Araraukar: Maybe it's time you look into the darn mirror and reflect on yourself. Don't put words into people's mouth, no one said about rescinding any permissions or whatsoever. Don't assume the moral high ground because you've equally no right to, like Sciongrad. What turned out to be an EnE mind-boggling response about why "we don't want to pull down it via a GHR" became into an Leveret-shouting "I'll keep this telegram in case of using it into the forums (before permission was granted)" and "I don't OOCly care about your opinions" madness of a telegram. Throwing a hissy fit? Nah. (IC) *goes back ignoring people hollering as usual*

[Sanctaria]

Wait, so other than Sanctaria (who has stat reasons): this is better off MD than GD? I'm not sure about the implications since MD has a terrible rep, IMHO. I like it Human Rights though, it seems like you are giving rights to people a la Ard's linky that Knootoss argued so.

Oh, please don't get me wrong - this is suited to Moral Decency. It's just a pity I can't vote for it even if I support its aims.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Wait, so other than Sanctaria (who has stat reasons): this is better off MD than GD? I'm not sure about the implications since MD has a terrible rep, IMHO. I like it Human Rights though, it seems like you are giving rights to people a la Ard's linky that Knootoss argued so.

Oh, please don't get me wrong - this is suited to Moral Decency. It's just a pity I can't vote for it even if I support its aims.

OOC: Out of interest, do you have a source on the claim that Moral Decency resolutions affect the economic ranking? I'd literally never seen that before. Or is it just that it affects the economic rankings off-site "calculators" come up with, because they incorporate a civil freedoms compnents?

[Sanctaria]

Oh, please don't get me wrong - this is suited to Moral Decency. It's just a pity I can't vote for it even if I support its aims.

OOC: Out of interest, do you have a source on the claim that Moral Decency resolutions affect the economic ranking? I'd literally never seen that before. Or is it just that it affects the economic rankings off-site "calculators" come up with, because they incorporate a civil freedoms compnents?

Moral Decency resolutions hit your economic strength, which is a hidden stat, rating on your nation page. This is very well documented at this stage.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Out of interest, do you have a source on the claim that Moral Decency resolutions affect the economic ranking? I'd literally never seen that before. Or is it just that it affects the economic rankings off-site "calculators" come up with, because they incorporate a civil freedoms compnents?

Moral Decency resolutions hit your economic strength, which is a hidden stat, rating on your nation page. This is very well documented at this stage.

OOC: Right, and I'm saying - could you provide said documentation, please?

If you're right, incidentally, the mods should definitely update the category descriptions, because that is absolutely not mentioned in the description of the Moral Decency effects.

[Sanctaria]

Moral Decency resolutions hit your economic strength, which is a hidden stat, rating on your nation page. This is very well documented at this stage.

OOC: Right, and I'm saying - could you provide said documentation, please?

If you're right, incidentally, the mods should definitely update the category descriptions, because that is absolutely not mentioned in the description of the Moral Decency effects.

Don't you track the effects of a passed WA resolution on your nation page? Free Trade resolutions increase Economy, Moral Decency hits it.

I got Moral Decency confused with Social Justice in my head. Again.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Right, and I'm saying - could you provide said documentation, please?

If you're right, incidentally, the mods should definitely update the category descriptions, because that is absolutely not mentioned in the description of the Moral Decency effects.

Don't you track the effects of a passed WA resolution on your nation page? Free Trade resolutions increase Economy, Moral Decency hits it.

I got Moral Decency confused with Social Justice in my head. Again.

OOC: Thank you.

[Sanctaria]

Don't you track the effects of a passed WA resolution on your nation page? Free Trade resolutions increase Economy, Moral Decency hits it.

I got Moral Decency confused with Social Justice in my head. Again.

OOC: Thank you.

Moral Decency does hit your other freedom though, so I'm still against it on that basis. I dislike those two categories immensely, they're almost synonymous with each other to me at this stage, hence the mix-up. Apologies.

[Dendodgia]

Wait, so other than Sanctaria (who has stat reasons): this is better off MD than GD? I'm not sure about the implications since MD has a terrible rep, IMHO. I like it Human Rights though, it seems like you are giving rights to people a la Ard's linky that Knootoss argued so.

Human rights give people the right to do something; this tells them not to do something, so it's moral decency, the opposing category. There is no other category in which a proposal like this could fit, to be honest, so make it mild moral decency and go with it.

(OOC: A few stat-players will oppose purely on the basis of the category, but that sort of defeats the point of the WA and I'd say most people judge WA proposals on their IC merits before their OOC stats - as someone with a MD proposal coming up, I certainly hope so. I also think it's slightly silly that something like the laws of war affect the civil rights of your everyday citizens, but that's unfortunately the way the system works.)

[Bears Armed]

Human rights give people the right to do something; this tells them not to do something, so it's moral decency, the opposing category. There is no other category in which a proposal like this could fit, to be honest

OOC; Because it would effectively bar nations (even ones with democratically-elected governments that have clear mandates from their peoples to fight the wars in which they're engaged) from commanding members of their armed forces to commit "perfidious" acts, not just bar individual members of those forces from spontaneously committing such acts, couldn't it be argued as 'Political Stability' on the precedent of at least one previous resolution (the now-repealed 'Law of the Sea') that also restricted government actions?

[Dendodgia]

Human rights give people the right to do something; this tells them not to do something, so it's moral decency, the opposing category. There is no other category in which a proposal like this could fit, to be honest

OOC; Because it would effectively bar nations (even ones with democratically-elected governments that have clear mandates from their peoples to fight the wars in which they're engaged) from commanding members of their armed forces to commit "perfidious" acts, not just bar individual members of those forces from spontaneously committing such acts, couldn't it be argued as 'Political Stability' on the precedent of at least one previous resolution (the now-repealed 'Law of the Sea') that also restricted government actions?

That is a good point, and I wouldn't oppose that classification, although I stand by my Moral Decency recommendation. Besides, it's not quite a ruling, but there is a somewhat official category recommendation a couple of pages back.

[Elke and Elba]

Human rights give people the right to do something; this tells them not to do something, so it's moral decency, the opposing category. There is no other category in which a proposal like this could fit, to be honest

OOC; Because it would effectively bar nations (even ones with democratically-elected governments that have clear mandates from their peoples to fight the wars in which they're engaged) from commanding members of their armed forces to commit "perfidious" acts, not just bar individual members of those forces from spontaneously committing such acts, couldn't it be argued as 'Political Stability' on the precedent of at least one previous resolution (the now-repealed 'Law of the Sea') that also restricted government actions?

OOC: Bears Armed hit the nail on the head and our solution. It seems a rewrite would be much likely have to be conducted to fit it to encompass the govt portion rather than just presuming perfidious actions are conducted by individuals per se.

As for Sanctaria: aren't there issues that can adjust your hidden stats back into place? I'm sure you should know which one exactly to use.

Dendodgia: Not entirely sure but it's for sure Cowardly Pacifist's proposal was certainly at least slightly different in some ways.

[Sanctaria]

As for Sanctaria: aren't there issues that can adjust your hidden stats back into place? I'm sure you should know which one exactly to use.

Yes I could do this. I could do this right now, but that would be an abuse of my position and not something I'm willing to do!

[Ardchoille]

That is a good point, and I wouldn't oppose that classification, although I stand by my Moral Decency recommendation. Besides, it's not quite a ruling, but there is a somewhat official category recommendation a couple of pages back.

Don't take that as set in stone. I feel a certain fondness for MD because it's the poor little puppy that's never chosen from the pound, but everything depends on how a proposal's written. When no particular category jumps into your arms and licks your nose, then you have to think about which one you can best adjust to.

[Elke and Elba]

That is a good point, and I wouldn't oppose that classification, although I stand by my Moral Decency recommendation. Besides, it's not quite a ruling, but there is a somewhat official category recommendation a couple of pages back.

Don't take that as set in stone. I feel a certain fondness for MD because it's the poor little puppy that's never chosen from the pound, but everything depends on how a proposal's written. When no particular category jumps into your arms and licks your nose, then you have to think about which one you can best adjust to.

Oh gosh Ard, aren't you cute? I've never thought categories can have parallels drawn with puppies.

[Elke and Elba]

Only the second update since the original composition at 2am on one fine day. Main changes made to stuff previously suggested that don't read out quite right partially because it was 2am, simplification of certain clauses, adding numbering, porting the preamble for the previously submitted one here and the inclusion of the Political Stability preambulatory clause.

As always, helpful comments welcomed, things that increase my blood pressure: nope.

As for the clause 6(?) with the italics, I'm trying to find a suitable phrasing because usually ruses of war differ from perfidy because perfidy takes advantage of certain rights or protections in war as accorded in international law that makes it perfidious (IRL). Problem is, we, uh, don't have "protections in international law" to start with...?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Tricky question - I myself think the present wording is fine. This proposal has our full support.

Regarding the category, have you considered International Security? It would make the world a lot safer if nations didn't feel inclined to blow up neutrals that approached them on the suspicion that the neutrals weren't.

(Edit: we should clarify that we are not at all convinced the proposal would be best as International Security - from what little we know of the gnomes, it probably doesn't fit it very well and besides there's the puppy argument that you'd have to contend with).

[Elke and Elba]

L&A: IS does seem to work too. It seems increasingly that the concern of this spreading itself across multiple domains is getting true, and I'll probably have to deal with the secretariat again on this issue.

That said, I'd love to hear the opinions of the people who were pointing out issues with the wording to present their approval/disapproval.

(OOC: You'll see things going a lot slower because I've stuff IRL. And I'm not into drama (which the WA loves to produce) - I like comedy. Drama is tedious and Comedies are a lil' tad boring, though. But you'll need something boring if things have been too colourful IRL )

[Sciongrad]

"Let's take a quick look at the preamble, which right now comes across as a little bit jumbled. Before we analyze the actual content, remember to start with "The General Assembly," otherwise the whole thing doesn't make much sense."

UNDERSTANDING that member states might engage in war,

"I would suggest you eliminate this altogether, as it doesn't do anything to advance your argument. Pointing out the obvious is not necessary. Furthermore, the World Assembly shouldn't imply that war is unavoidable - the sentiments advanced in legislation are nearly as important as the content."

NOTING that during warfare, member states might resort to deception and trickery by playing to the goodwill, altruism and/or trust of their opponents in order to win battles,

"Stylistically, I prefer the term "may" rather than might. It's your choice of course. Furthermore, I think the list, complete with an and/or and all, is a little unnecessary. You could probably get away with "troubled that member states may resort to deception during warfare,""

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that such deceitful conduct should never be condoned in any form of warfare between member states and their respective combatants, yet,

"I agree, but you should establish why this practice shouldn't be condoned. Your preamble is where you make your argument, and you haven't really done that here."

WORRYING that if nothing is done to curb this, the practice will be de facto condoned due to its ability to win warfare, despite the act of perfidy being despicable and shameful, also,

"This entire clause reads very awkwardly. I would radically alter the clause to get the same meaning across, but in more lucid prose. Term dropping words like "de facto" isn't really necessary either - I know what you're trying to say, but the placement comes across as forced. I would try and say what you mean succinctly and clearly."

FURTHER NOTING that limiting and restricting the power of the government(s) of the respective member states is thus needed in order to ensure member states are barred from commanding members of their respective armed forces to commit perfidious acts,

"This is equally as confusing as the last clause. I would argue that it may be worth eliminating altogether. Combining this clause and the last into something along the lines of "resolved that World Assembly involvement is necessary to ensure ethics and civility in warfare," is probably fine."

The World Assembly,

"This is interesting placement. I suggest you place it at the top, but this is not strictly incorrect."

1. DEFINES perfidy to be the conducting of actions with the intent to secure the goodwill of an adversary or opponent in war, in order to betray such trust;

"This clause doesn't make grammatical sense. "Defines 'perfidy' to be the act of gaining an enemy's trust through actions that suggest good faith, but with the intent of betraying the enemy to achieve an advantageous position;""

2. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, by but not limited to:
a) falsely declaring civilian status,
b) falsifying injury,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce;

4. BANS combatants of member states from utilising any form of identification, military or otherwise of any other sovereign state except their own during combat; of which such identification includes but is encompasses but are not limited to: flags, emblems, military uniforms and military insignia, unless,
i) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to utilise their own identification, and,
ii) the other sovereign state is not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;

"Bans is a poor operative verb. Maybe "forbids?" Also, be consistent with your formatting. Use either "a, b, c ..." or "i, ii., iii ..." but not both for the same purpose."

5. MANDATES member states to prosecute any non-compliant combatant representing the said member state in warfare;

"This would better read as "mandates that member states prosecute non-compliant combatants representing them in conflict;""

6. ASSURES member states that nothing in this resolution prohibits their combatants to practice ruses of war, which have the intent to mislead or invoke a reaction from their adversaries, so long as these ruses of war do not rely on malevolently utilising the goodwill extended by these combatants' adversaries;

"I know what you're trying to say here, but it's unclear. Perhaps "clarifies that nothing in this resolution prohibits the use of tactics that may utilize deceit, such as diversions, so long as the action does not constitute perfidy; furthermore, nothing in this resolution shall be construed as applying to non-physical warfare, such as cyber warfare;" Furthermore, combine clauses 6 and 7."

8. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution governs the conduct of warfare between any conflict between a member state and a non-member state, or between any conflict between non-member states;

"Remove this clause. I have criticized others for this, but creating a false distinction between member nations and non-member nations is inexcusable. After thouroughly condemning perfidy in warfare as "despicable," you later state that it's alright for member nations to use those same tactics on non-member nations. This is very harmful policy."

9. ASSERTS that the same protections and exemptions as dispensed in this resolution applies to conflicts with multiple parties, and;

"This is self-explanatory - I don't think this clause is necessary."

10. HOPES that member states will extend these practices mandated by this resolution to instances of warfare with adversary non-member states too.

"Remove this clause - without clause 8, this resolution would already require member nations to extend "these practices" to conflicts with non-member nations."

"On the topic of the category - as much as I don't like moral decency all that much, this does seem to fit. And while legislative precedent (in terms of how rules and categories are used) doesn't really exist, limiting certain behavior during war has fallen under moral decency before."

[Elke and Elba]

To Sciongrad: Noted with thanks. As for Moral Decency, while it does seem the most appropriate one, the opposition for MD bills are actually greater than just Sanctaria itself.

*looks around for the culprit who gave it a bad name*