[DEFEATED] Non-interference in Elections

[Defwa]

My biggest concern here is, is this piece of legislation necessary? Is it really going to better the situation?

I have doubts it will.

Currently, Against.

"How wouldn't it? Having dictatorships able to vote on further rules regarding the purely domestic democratic elections of nations is patently unfair, as many of those requirements actually hinder fledgling democracies, discouraging nations from choosing that path. This is the most reasonable FoD draft I've ever seen."

Well to be fair, we put all sorts of regulations on dictatorships, especially the "absolute" kind. But of course when we have such a nation represented in these halls, they're usually shown to the door.

[Bananaistan]

Updated the draft with the non-interference clause as the first operative clause as discussed on the previous page. Therefore, as we now have a clear mandate in the proposal I have also now removed the urges clause altogether as it has created some opposition and misunderstanding.

I am thinking submission in the near future.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Shouldn't it be "discourage" rather than "disencourage" in the preamble?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Good spot, I've changed it. Don't know what sort of brain fart I had going on then!

[The Dark Star Republic]

Curious that a proposal that's been in drafting for 5 months was deleted 5 hours after it was submitted.

[Bananaistan]

You submitted a Proposal that was unfortunately invalid. If you would like to submit another proposal, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines in the Proposal Rules forum thread. We highly recommend that you post a draft to the General Assembly Forum first to be checked before submitting it to the game! The people there are very helpful at polishing drafts so they meet the guidelines.

Your proposal was removed for issues involving its attempts to expand on duties of the OAE, established in resolution #130. Your proposal attempted to establish a new set of duties for the OAE which already existed within the confines of GAR#130.

Huh? Is there something unique to the OAE that it's role cannot be expanded like many other committees?

Have to say I'm sore over this. ~1400 stamps used in TGing delegates.

[Separatist Peoples]

You submitted a Proposal that was unfortunately invalid. If you would like to submit another proposal, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines in the Proposal Rules forum thread. We highly recommend that you post a draft to the General Assembly Forum first to be checked before submitting it to the game! The people there are very helpful at polishing drafts so they meet the guidelines.

Your proposal was removed for issues involving its attempts to expand on duties of the OAE, established in resolution #130. Your proposal attempted to establish a new set of duties for the OAE which already existed within the confines of GAR#130.

Huh? Is there something unique to the OAE that it's role cannot be expanded like many other committees?

OOC: I read that as there being a duplication issue in the duties of the OAE with the duties of GAR#130. Even if you're not in the wrong, its probably in your best interests to double check the wording and change it to be absolutely clear on the matter.

[The Dark Star Republic]

That ruling makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, why would they suggest you "post a draft" to the forum, given you did exactly that in November 2014? Inexplicable.

[Sedgistan]

Furthermore, why would they suggest you "post a draft" to the forum, given you did exactly that in November 2014? Inexplicable.

The first part is the stock telegram sent out when a proposal is deleted. Mods often (though not always) add commentary on the specific problems below.

[Bananaistan]

From GAR#17:
3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

From GAR#263
ix: Empowers the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct any and all essential financial checks required to verify a nations economic requirements to conform to this act and to approve or deny funds appropriately.

This took me 30 seconds. I'm sure I could look up more examples of committees established by unrepealed resolutions being used for expansions on their original duties but in a related fashion, like I had done. Any chance I wonder of a more complete ruling detailing the reasoning?

[Mallorea and Riva]

From GAR#17:
3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

From GAR#263
ix: Empowers the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct any and all essential financial checks required to verify a nations economic requirements to conform to this act and to approve or deny funds appropriately.

This took me 30 seconds. I'm sure I could look up more examples of committees established by unrepealed resolutions being used for expansions on their original duties but in a related fashion, like I had done. Any chance I wonder of a more complete ruling detailing the reasoning?

Of course, it's in the works. I'm on my phone rn

[Bananaistan]

Apologies, a telegram was sent prematurely before completely drafted. It did not contain the following: Further, your provision of non-interference duplicates article 3 of resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA Members. This article mandates no interference in politics (which implicitly includes elections).

So is it the committee or is it duplication or is it contradiction? I'm none the wiser.

[Bananaistan]

No sign of this actual ruling yet. In the absence of same I have no idea what to change or dispute about the ruling (IE if it is duplication I'd be pissed off that it wasn't just seen as minor duplication like a previous ruling I already addressed in this thread here.)

Is this going to be like DSR's Extradite or Prosecute proposal: wait months and months for an answer?

[Mallorea and Riva]

No sign of this actual ruling yet. In the absence of same I have no idea what to change or dispute about the ruling (IE if it is duplication I'd be pissed off that it wasn't just seen as minor duplication like a previous ruling I already addressed in this thread here.)

Is this going to be like DSR's Extradite or Prosecute proposal: wait months and months for an answer?

It's been one day since I said we would get you a ruling, give us a chance to get the language right. I'll be reviewing it tonight after work.

[Mousebumples]

No sign of this actual ruling yet. In the absence of same I have no idea what to change or dispute about the ruling (IE if it is duplication I'd be pissed off that it wasn't just seen as minor duplication like a previous ruling I already addressed in this thread here.)

Is this going to be like DSR's Extradite or Prosecute proposal: wait months and months for an answer?

It's been one day since I said we would get you a ruling, give us a chance to get the language right. I'll be reviewing it tonight after work.

Just a head's up that this is still being worked on. Mall got called away for some RL interference something or other, but we're trying to hammer out ruling language and (I hope) that we can get something posted to you later today, or at least this weekend.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is hilarious. The proposal is illegal, but you're not sure why yet.

[Christian Democrats]

This is hilarious. The proposal is illegal, but you're not sure why yet.

Not the first time this has happened. I recall this happening to me once, but I can't remember the proposal.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

This is hilarious. The proposal is illegal, but you're not sure why yet.

Kind of like being convicted of a crime, then waiting for the government to figure out what the crime was. This kind of shit is precisely why we are in the situation we are in in the WA. No number of threads full of ideas is going to change that unless we see actual change from the mods. Either the proposal is legal or it isn't. Those are the choices, this really isn't rocket science. As I have said before, and will continue to say: Either enforce the rules clearly and consistently, or stay the hell out of the WA, and let the voters decide this stuff.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I love all the promises in the other thread that GA moderation is going to improve, while this is happening, a textbook example of how broken things are.

This is hilarious. The proposal is illegal, but you're not sure why yet. :roll:

Not the first time this has happened. I recall this happening to me once, but I can't remember the proposal.

I think it was the Parental Consent Act.

[Bananaistan]

Indeed, this is quite ridiculous. Why not just tell us why this was pulled? This procrastination and the fact that it was deleted just 5 hours after submission would lead one to believe that this was just pulled without any deliberation at all. So why can't whoever pulled it just admit to it and say why?

Having now been on the receiving end of this shabby moderation, I would have to question whether it is worth being involved at all in this side of the game.

[Ardchoille]

Hive Mind ruling:

On review, we have decided that the original proposal should not have been removed. However, we feel that the author could fruitfully re-work sections to avoid the areas that led to the removal decision. GA Moderators will be posting their own thoughts and suggestions for clarification in this thread in the coming days/week.

Personal comment: I regret that this took so long. Thank you for your patience.

[The Dark Star Republic]

However, we feel that the author could fruitfully re-work sections to avoid the areas that led to the removal decision.

The areas that led to the removal decision were moderator incompetence. Short of including a plea for moderators not to smoke crack before perusing the queue for legal resolutions to delete, there doesn't seem to be anything Banananananaistan could do about that.

[Mousebumples]

Here's a few suggestions, if you care to redraft and expand the proposal text further:
1) Expand on the "establish a methodology" section further. Will these methodologies be cookie cutter or personalized by OEA gnomes for a given nation upon request? Will OEA gnomes work with a given nation to implement this methodology? Will any sort of documentation or instructional materials be made available to member states, colonies, transitioning states, etc., for reference?

2) Clarify more explicitly that the all member states (*not just transitioning nations) will be able to request the OEA's assistance with monitoring elections.

3) Split out the new "added functions of OEA" into an additional line item for further clarity. You may also want to further detail how the OEA will "certify the electoral system" and allow nations (presumably) to check on whether or not a given nation's electoral system has been verified. (since you referenced upthread a hypothetical where nations may refuse to trade with nations who don't have a certified electoral system, that seems relevant to your overall purpose)

4) You are welcome to encourage nations to verify whether or not a potential trade partner has a "certified electoral system" prior to engaging in any trade negotiations ... However, that may also tank your support among the more pro-free trade nations. But, depending on your feelings on this matter, taking such a route would not be rule breaking in theory. (*Use caution with your wording, since I'm sure it's possible to write such a clause in such a way that would violate some GA rule(s).)

Hope that's helpful!

[Bananaistan]

Hive Mind ruling:

On review, we have decided that the original proposal should not have been removed. However, we feel that the author could fruitfully re-work sections to avoid the areas that led to the removal decision. GA Moderators will be posting their own thoughts and suggestions for clarification in this thread in the coming days/week.

Personal comment: I regret that this took so long. Thank you for your patience.

So to summarise: somebody made a mistake, but you can change your proposal to avoid somebody making the same mistake despite the proposal being perfectly legal, and by the way we're not actually sorry for this mistake just sorry that it took a few days to own up to it.

Here's a few suggestions, if you care to redraft and expand the proposal text further:
1) Expand on the "establish a methodology" section further. Will these methodologies be cookie cutter or personalized by OEA gnomes for a given nation upon request? Will OEA gnomes work with a given nation to implement this methodology? Will any sort of documentation or instructional materials be made available to member states, colonies, transitioning states, etc., for reference?

2) Clarify more explicitly that the all member states (*not just transitioning nations) will be able to request the OEA's assistance with monitoring elections.

3) Split out the new "added functions of OEA" into an additional line item for further clarity. You may also want to further detail how the OEA will "certify the electoral system" and allow nations (presumably) to check on whether or not a given nation's electoral system has been verified. (since you referenced upthread a hypothetical where nations may refuse to trade with nations who don't have a certified electoral system, that seems relevant to your overall purpose)

4) You are welcome to encourage nations to verify whether or not a potential trade partner has a "certified electoral system" prior to engaging in any trade negotiations ... However, that may also tank your support among the more pro-free trade nations. But, depending on your feelings on this matter, taking such a route would not be rule breaking in theory. (*Use caution with your wording, since I'm sure it's possible to write such a clause in such a way that would violate some GA rule(s).)

Hope that's helpful!

Thanks for the suggestions but I think it's fine as is. We are almost 6 months in since the first draft was posted and in this period there has been some confusion and some posters have misinterpreted parts of it. It's rather simple as is and does what it says on the tin and I'm not sure changing it will enhance it's simplicity. Also I am not quite sure what you mean by "Split out the new "added functions of OEA" into an additional line item for further clarity".

However, I will hope against hope that a few more people might comment before deciding for or against any changes.

[Mousebumples]

Thanks for the suggestions but I think it's fine as is. We are almost 6 months in since the first draft was posted and in this period there has been some confusion and some posters have misinterpreted parts of it. It's rather simple as is and does what it says on the tin and I'm not sure changing it will enhance it's simplicity. Also I am not quite sure what you mean by "Split out the new "added functions of OEA" into an additional line item for further clarity".

Totally fine - and absolutely your call as the author. I just had some thoughts I figured I'd share (yes, belatedly ... ). What, if anything, you do with them is up to you to determine as the author.