WA Nondiscrimination Act

[SchutteGod]

No ogres!

...do I even want to know what you're referring to?

OOC: I am a Shrek fan among you.

At any rate, there is quite a difference between using RP for purposes of improving and critiquing proposals (and intelligently debating resolutions), and pulling all sorts of ridiculous wank out your ass just to be a punk. (And I'm not accusing you of such behavior; I'm just speaking generally.) So I reserve the right to I.G.N.O.R.E. any instances of "RP" that are not offered in service of advancing the discussion for this proposal.

[Chester Pearson]

...do I even want to know what you're referring to?

OOC: I am a Shrek fan among you.

At any rate, there is quite a difference between using RP for purposes of improving and critiquing proposals (and intelligently debating resolutions), and pulling all sorts of ridiculous wank out your ass just to be a punk. (And I'm not accusing you of such behavior; I'm just speaking generally.) So I reserve the right to I.G.N.O.R.E. any instances of "RP" that are not offered in service of advancing the discussion for this proposal.

Ignore all you want. You can't reserve the right to ignore the nations that vote against this though....

[SchutteGod]

OOC: I am a Shrek fan among you.

At any rate, there is quite a difference between using RP for purposes of improving and critiquing proposals (and intelligently debating resolutions), and pulling all sorts of ridiculous wank out your ass just to be a punk. (And I'm not accusing you of such behavior; I'm just speaking generally.) So I reserve the right to I.G.N.O.R.E. any instances of "RP" that are not offered in service of advancing the discussion for this proposal.

Ignore all you want. You can't reserve the right to ignore the nations that vote against this though....

EDIT: Great, Can we get back to discussing the proposal now?

[Chester Pearson]

Ignore all you want. You can't reserve the right to ignore the nations that vote against this though....

EDIT: Great, Can we get back to discussing the proposal now?

Okay...

How about the fact that this pretty much duplicates the Charter of Civil Rights? That good for starters?

[SchutteGod]

It's already been explained three times why it doesn't.

I co-authored COCR, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

[Chester Pearson]

It's already been explained three times why it doesn't.

I co-authored COCR, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

Really? You know what you are talking about hmm?

1. All individuals with the capacity for independent, intelligent and abstract thought shall be considered persons.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

3. No World Assembly member state shall unnecessarily discriminate against any person in the application of local, national or international laws, on the basis of any natural or demographic classification that may apply to that person.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Please do explain for us in great detail, how those two don't duplicate one another?

2. All World Assembly resolutions declaring the rights and responsibilities of human beings, people or individuals shall apply to all persons residing in member states, or subject to their jurisdiction.

Is it really necessary to repeat the rules in another resolution? Rights and Responsibilities (as illegal as it is....) already did that. Do we really need to do it again?

So once again, do you really know what you are piping off about?

Whatever you think COCR covers, the mods have ruled that it applies only to human beings (or at least humanoids).

Where? Where have the mods made that ruling?

As far as this stands? In my opinion this whole thing is illegal for duplication. But hey feel free to keep on pressing that ignore button. When this is submitted (and we all know it will be....) expect a legality challenge, linking to this post right here.

[SchutteGod]

Please do explain for us in great detail, how those two don't duplicate one another?

One applies only to humans (see link below for more detail); this one does not.

2. All World Assembly resolutions declaring the rights and responsibilities of human beings, people or individuals shall apply to all persons residing in member states, or subject to their jurisdiction.

Is it really necessary to repeat the rules in another resolution? Rights and Responsibilities (as illegal as it is....) already did that. Do we really need to do it again?

First off, GA#2 is called Rights and Duties, and it only pertains to WA laws' effects on nations, not people (or in this case, "persons"). And this proposal is not a mere repetition of the rules, either. As far as I know, there is no rule as to whether all resolutions apply to elves or ponies.

So once again, do you really know what you are piping off about?

Hi. I don't believe we've met. My name is Kenny, I've been playing this game for the past decade, I've written more than a dozen resolutions (some of which actually passed), I've written multiple guides on how the UN/WA works (some of which might have helped a player or two), I helped write some of the rules, I wrote what is now known as COCR when it was just a UN resolution, and I allowed most of its text to be borrowed for the WA version of COCR. So yes, I do know what the fuck I'm piping off about. (Not just now, but generally.)

Whatever you think COCR covers, the mods have ruled that it applies only to human beings (or at least humanoids).

Where? Where have the mods made that ruling?

Here: viewtopic.php?p=5414119#p5414119

As far as this stands? In my opinion this whole thing is illegal for duplication. But hey feel free to keep on pressing that ignore button. When this is submitted (and we all know it will be....) expect a legality challenge, linking to this post right here.

I'm quaking in my boots.

[Louisistan]

"And once again the Secretariat rules strangely. Whatever. Okay, I accept the Secretariat's ruling as sufficient ground to establish a resolution like this. But isn't there a slight chance this might be considered an illegal ammendmend? Because as it is, this proposal (were it to pass) would retroactively change the meaning of resolutions which are already in place, wouldn't it?"

[Araraukar]

Here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 9#p5414119

OOC: And if you're such an old guard player on whatever nation you had previously, I'm sure you'll be able to link the "other Mod rulings" that the modly opinion there is based on? Also, that particular statement was a legality ruling on Bears' proposal.

The matter of fact is that in the current RP environment the CoCR text of "inhabitants" has trumped NERVUN's statement, the reverse of how NEF is being ignored by modly mandate. If you'd like to have mods revisit the issue, feel free to have a legality question - one that will give the final ruling on the issue - since I for one will continue to hold CoCR's "all inhabitants of member states" to be the IC-legal way things are.

[SchutteGod]

"And once again the Secretariat rules strangely. Whatever. Okay, I accept the Secretariat's ruling as sufficient ground to establish a resolution like this. But isn't there a slight chance this might be considered an illegal ammendmend? Because as it is, this proposal (were it to pass) would retroactively change the meaning of resolutions which are already in place, wouldn't it?"

I don't know. The last resolution on this issue to reach vote did essentially the same thing, but it was considered legal. Our last proposal on this subject - which like BA's, failed - didn't actually come out and say it, but would have had the same effect. I suppose we'll know if the mods like the text if this is ever formally challenged, and they are compelled to rule.

Here: viewtopic.php?p=5414119#p5414119

OOC: And if you're such an old guard player on whatever nation you had previously, I'm sure you'll be able to link the "other Mod rulings" that the modly opinion there is based on? Also, that particular statement was a legality ruling on Bears' proposal.

No, I cannot find whatever past rulings that one was based on, as the Jolt forums are long since disappeared, and the extant archives aren't very searchable. But it should be clear enough for you that at least according to that ruling, COCR does not apply to non-humans and therefore something like this would be necessary. Whether or not the exact wording of this proposal is actually legal.

The matter of fact is that in the current RP environment the CoCR text of "inhabitants" has trumped NERVUN's statement, the reverse of how NEF is being ignored by modly mandate. If you'd like to have mods revisit the issue, feel free to have a legality question - one that will give the final ruling on the issue - since I for one will continue to hold CoCR's "all inhabitants of member states" to be the IC-legal way things are.

"Current RP environment"? You don't think we've had all sorts of nations peopled by non-humans prior to 2011?! During the debate for our last attempt at this - which as previously noted, failed - a giant cyborg squid stormed into these halls, which was subsequently stabbed and inked the entire assembly. Why else do you think we've been trying to pass a resolution like this for all these years? If this made it to vote, it would be like the fifth or sixth attempt since as far back as I can remember. But yes, of course, you are free to interpret COCR to include any sapient species you please within your own jurisdiction. You're just not forced to.


EDIT: Language will be added to the preamble to clarify that this is not an attempt to replicate past legislation, but to expand on it. Hopefully that will clear matters up enough for people concerned that this is Duplication.

[Araraukar]

"Current RP environment"?

OOC: Yes, the one we live in now, where extant resolutions can be ignored because a mod said so.

You don't think we've had all sorts of nations peopled by non-humans prior to 2011?!

I know we did. I was here. Had I not been busy in real life at the time of Bears' attempt, you bet I would've been in that debate as well.

Why else do you think we've been trying to pass a resolution like this for all these years?

I get it why this is attempted. Belive it or not, I can see it from your POV. My POV simply is that it has already been done by CoCR.

Interestingly, from the debate from which you picked NERVUN's line...

Ardchoille wrote:

Compare that with the "clones" recognition; the legality argument that excluded it from being duplication was that when the WA ruled clones were people, then CoCR would apply to them.

You might want to use that when arguing for this thing, since if you take the mods' word on it, it doesn't apply to clones either. Which makes me wonder about identical twins, or artficial insemination that results in more than one copy of the original tsygote.

But yes, of course, you are free to interpret COCR to include any sapient species you please within your own jurisdiction. You're just not forced to.

No-one's forced to accept any sort of roleplay - people are free to accept in their own RP that humans don't exist. This is my main nation and while it's not in the WA, I do have a non-human puppet that is, so the WA-wide recognition of non-human sapients is important to me. My point just is that CoCR already does that with its "inhabitants" instead of "humans". If the mods are willing to wave away the CoCR like they do with NEF, then I don't know why the fuck we even have prior legislation, if it isn't taken into consideration.

Language will be added to the preamble to clarify that this is not an attempt to replicate past legislation, but to expand on it. Hopefully that will clear matters up enough for people concerned that this is Duplication.

Depends how it's written. And I think duplication (while still an issue) isn't as big an issue for you as people viewing this as an amendment. Also, the anti-pony faction will likely sink this, no matter which way you word it.

[SchutteGod]

I can certainly appreciate your personal interpretation of COCR, but I have to operate under the assumption that it is not universal (which it is assuredly not). Hence the WA's considering two of these resolutions since COCR passed.

Third time's the charm?

[Chester Pearson]

Hmmmm....

I seem to have driven my foot into my mouth here. Not exactly a pleasurable experience, and one I aim not to repeat. Would have been nice of Kenny to give somebody some warning that this is him. As it stands, I am going to gracefully bow out of this debate.

Let it be known though.... The Federation despises ponies, and shall vehemntly oppose this!

*stuipid talking horses..... (continues to mutter, while making his way to inspect the newest glue factory)*

[SchutteGod]

Heh, well, you are nothing if not magnanimous in "defeat." Sorry, I've used this puppet before (it's my HR-friendly puppet; OMGTKK abhors HR resolutions), so I was just a bit baffled at the reception it was getting.

[Araraukar]

so I was just a bit baffled at the reception it was getting.

OOC: Forum siggies exist to point out puppet nations - otherwise you'll likely get treated as the nation you post with (I do this, because I'm bad with names and cba remember everyone's unmarked puppets).

[Sciongrad]

so I was just a bit baffled at the reception it was getting.

OOC: Forum siggies exist to point out puppet nations - otherwise you'll likely get treated as the nation you post with (I do this, because I'm bad with names and cba remember everyone's unmarked puppets).

OOC: Does it matter whose posting? Kenny's an 11/10 great guy, but he shouldn't need to make clear that he's Kenny to get treated respectfully. Really, no one should. Love and respect, right? Or something, I don't know.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Does it matter whose posting? Kenny's an 11/10 great guy, but he shouldn't need to make clear that he's Kenny to get treated respectfully.

OOC: I meant that I tend to treat everyone the same. It's just when they start making strange claims, it helps their cause if they have some proof of knowing how things generally work around here.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Does it matter whose posting? Kenny's an 11/10 great guy, but he shouldn't need to make clear that he's Kenny to get treated respectfully.

OOC: I meant that I tend to treat everyone the same. It's just when they start making strange claims, it helps their cause if they have some proof of knowing how things generally work around here.

OOC: Fair enough.

IC: "Sciongrad has consistently supported legislation of this nature in the past and will continue to do so in the future. We offer Schuttean delegation our unwavering support and will likely provide a more focused criticism in the near future."

[Iron Felix]

I've used this puppet before (it's my HR-friendly puppet; OMGTKK abhors HR resolutions), so I was just a bit baffled at the reception it was getting.

OOC: I would have thought this was one of your more well known puppets.

IC: I hope this legislation cannot be construed to apply to Destructor Bunnies? They would quickly become unmanageable if they began thinking of themselves as persons.

Otherwise, I am in support of your efforts here.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee for State Security

[Exxosia]

1. All individuals with the capacity for independent, intelligent and abstract thought shall be considered persons.

That sounds like it wants to exclude hiveminds...

A hivemind is a gestalt entity and thus an individual person unto itself?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Whatever you think COCR covers, the mods have ruled that it applies only to human beings (or at least humanoids).

I'm not sure that ruling is current.

The "humans" rulings look contradictory at first glance. If we actually intended to rule that CoCR covers only humans, I'd like some more of whatever we were on.

[Araraukar]

Whatever you think COCR covers, the mods have ruled that it applies only to human beings (or at least humanoids).

I'm not sure that ruling is current.

The "humans" rulings look contradictory at first glance. If we actually intended to rule that CoCR covers only humans, I'd like some more of whatever we were on.

OOC: Thanks, DSR, I knew I'd seen it said to that effect somewhere.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If that's the case, then we really don't need to admonish every proposal-drafter not to leave other species out when writing $RIGHTS resolutions. Presumably, if COCR covers all sapient species, and thus they cannot be unfairly discriminated against, species-wank in drafting would be entirely unnecessary. So why do we keep doing it?

Also, I'd like to see an actual ruling, not just asides involving drug-innuendo from a cheeky moderator.


EDIT: thread flagged, hopefully a mod will take a look. I guess the problem I'm having with COCR is that "inhabitants" isn't really defined, and that the resolution, while seeking to stamp out prejudice against any "reductive categorization," lists a bunch of human(oid) types of discrimination (gender, race, skin color, etc.) but does not specifically identify minority sapient species as a protected group.

[Defwa]

If that's the case, then we really don't need to admonish every proposal-drafter not to leave other species out when writing $RIGHTS resolutions. Presumably, if COCR covers all sapient species, and thus they cannot be unfairly discriminated against, species-wank in drafting would be entirely unnecessary. So why do we keep doing it?

Also, I'd like to see an actual ruling, not just asides involving drug-innuendo from a cheeky moderator.


EDIT: thread flagged, hopefully a mod will take a look. I guess the problem I'm having with COCR is that "inhabitants" isn't really defined, and that the resolution, while seeking to stamp out prejudice against any "reductive categorization," lists a bunch of human(oid) types of discrimination (gender, race, skin color, etc.) but does not specifically identify minority sapient species as a protected group.

OOC: The species wank isn't about not being mentioned in resolutions, its about not being accounted for. Human centric legislation, such as things based on age conventions or like our recent poorly thought out legislation regarding work weeks based on human sleep patterns, can cause problems for species that age in different ways or don't sleep or sleep more. Its really on the same level as what I guess you might call a cultural wank as a reason for different educational systems, consent ages, and so on.
Its my understanding, and pretty much what the first half of that ruling you quoted said is, that human rights just means "rights" but because of linguistic limitations in english has to have human in front of it to make sense.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I would assume the game-coders used "human rights" because the term comprises an easily understood RL concept with many UN/WA legislative applications, not because they just needed a buzzword to fill in the blank.

The thing about accounting for different species: many proposals can be easily reworded so that they can have the maximum effect on sapient life. The problem comes when drafts are upended with irrelevant nonsense about how some nations are populated by ponies, and ponies are ponies and therefore don't need cars or paved streets, so your proposal about traffic regulations needs to be completely rewritten to include us!!!! At that point, you just need to let Reasonable Nation Theory take over and simply write your proposal to the substantial majority of societies that are realistic, modern and peopled by humanoids, and not take extreme outliers into account. This, of course, has been explained to you before, but for some reason you refuse to grasp it. Going off in tangents about aliens and gnomes and how they have different levels of stamina than humanoids does not help craft a workable proposal. We are here to help each other write workable proposals, after all, not repeatedly distract each other over many disparate forms of RP.

That being said, I don't want to have another RNT discussion in this thread. I'd rather just wait for a mod ruling as to whether COCR makes this proposal redundant, or if some clarification is needed to assure that WA rights and freedoms are extended to all sapient life.