Yet Another General Fund Is Mandatory Thread

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It also completely contradicts itself, stating that even though the resolution is repealed, its effects are not. How does that make sense?

Also, Honest Mistake: nowhere does WAGF say donations are "voluntary."

[EDIT] Threadjack split from Silly and Illegals after discussion of an illegal proposal that attempted to repeal GA#17, WA General Fund.

Sheesh, if anyone should have known better it's the regulars in the S&I thread. Have the Gnomes been putting something extra in the office water-cooler?

*flails about indiscriminately with rolled-up newspaper*

Next time, don't be so lazy. Start a new thread yourselves. -- Ard[/EDIT]

[EDIT 2] And that goes for the "compliance is mandatory" threadjack, too.[/EDiT]

[Jarish Inyo]

The WAGF doesn't state its compulsory either.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The WAGF doesn't state its compulsory either.

Yes, it does:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

[Defwa]

The WAGF doesn't state its compulsory either.

Yes, it does:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

The reason for the confusion is "assessing" what should be donated means to estimate, calculate, or evaluate. Assess does not mean to take the money.
I personally accept the interpretation of the mods but were it not for that, and were we to use the definition of assess at it is in english...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

2. to fix or determine the amount of (damages, a tax, a fine, etc.):
"The hurricane damage was assessed at six million dollars."

3. to impose a tax or other charge on.

[Alqania]

Yes, it does:

The reason for the confusion is "assessing" what should be donated means to estimate, calculate, or evaluate. Assess does not mean to take the money.
I personally accept the interpretation of the mods but were it not for that, and were we to use the definition of assess at it is in english...

Exactly, the GAO makes an assessment = decision. Whether the GAO or someone else collects the funds is irrelevant. If my income taxes are assessed by one part of the government and collected by another, it's clearly the assessing authority that calls the shots, while the tax collector simply follows orders. The assessor (GAO) tells the member state how much to pay. Compliance is mandatory.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It also says something in there about the GAO collecting the actual donations. So it sets the amount, then (presumably) sics collections agents on those who neglect to pay.

[Jarish Inyo]

Coppliance is not mandatory. Thats the biggest lie that keeos being told in the WA. Donations are not cumpulsatory. Because the GAO assets what it believes a nation can donate based on national income and its ability to give. That's information that the nation tells the GAO freely. No nation is actually required to share that information to the GAO.

In essence, nations actually decide the amount of the donation they choose to give to the fund.

Defination of donation from dictionary.com

1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Maybe this should be split if it's going to become an in-depth discussion.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Coppliance is not mandatory.

OK, first off, turn the spellcheck on your phone back on. Secondly, when you preface your statement with such a bald-faced lie such as this, there is very little reason to take anything you say afterward seriously. It's uttered on these forums so often it's become a meme: Compliance is mandatory.

[Jarish Inyo]

Becasue it's uttered on these forums so often it's become a meme doesn't make it true. Compliance is not manditory. It's just widely believed that it is. There are several other things in the RL that was said so often that people believed it was true that. But those turned out to be false.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Fine. Let's assume for a moment that you're right, and any resolution can be easily ducked with but one flick of a defiant dictator's pen. If that's true, then does it really fucking matter if what WAGF says is happening actually is happening or not? If one of the resolutions fails because it contains no explicit compliance mechanism (point of fact: they all do, it's called the Compliance Commission), then they all fail.

I agree with gruen: this needs to be split out.

[Jarish Inyo]

The committee only changes laws to comply with resolutions. It doesn't ensure the nation is actually in compliance.

Also the resolution creating the WAGF has no compliance mechanism. It creates the fund and GAO. It doesn't actually require nations to make donations or provide the GOA with the information it needs to make its asset.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

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;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

I don't know how it could be any clearer than that. Whether member states want to "donate" or not, someone's going to be on hand every year to collect the donations. And I would point out that since past proposals to explicitly instruct nations to pony up were met with mass hostility, derision, and some of the worst margins of failure in UN/WA history, a decidedly more subtle approach (to make it sound like it wasn't mandatory when it really was) was favored when the WA was established. Hence WAGF.

[Defwa]

KERA may have forty people on the phone to collect donations. When was the last time you actually called them, though?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Who's Kera? Is she hot?

[Ardchoille]

Kenny, if you start another threadjack in the threadjack I will chain you to the oars. Now get back on your bench and row!

[The Republic of Lanos]

If donations are required, wouldn't that negate the point of donating to the WA? It sounds like a membership fee to me.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It sounds like a membership fee to me.

That's what it is. What it's actually called in the resolution doesn't matter.

And please, no more responses re: "But it says donation! You know what that means, right?" I know it says "donation." But I also know that it states the GAO must send nations the bill every year and collect the money. What the payment is actually called (whether it's donation, contribution, beer money, temporary refund adjustment, "BITCHWHEREMYMONEY?!?", or pink fluffy unicorn) is neither here nor there.

[Jarish Inyo]

It sounds like a membership fee to me.

That's what it is. What it's actually called in the resolution doesn't matter.

And please, no more responses re: "But it says donation! You know what that means, right?" I know it says "donation." But I also know that it states the GAO must send nations the bill every year and collect the money. What the payment is actually called (whether it's donation, contribution, beer money, temporary refund adjustment, "BITCHWHEREMYMONEY?!?", or pink fluffy unicorn) is neither here nor there.

Actually, the WAGF doesn't send a bill or collect money at all. It [b]does not[/b] state that the GAO does either. I'm gonna apologize now, but I'm be putting the definition of some of the words as I lay out my argument. I also hope it will help explain why there is a difference in opinion on if paying into the WAGF is mandatory or not.

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme

solicit (from dictionary.com)
1. to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.
2.to entreat or petition (someone or some agency).

donation
1. an act or instance of presen(from dictionary.com)ting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.

From what I get from this and the definition of solicited donations is that the WA is seeking funding from member nations and private benefactors. Basically, anyone can donate to the WAGF.

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

From this, I get that the WAGF is funded solely by donations that the member nations may give.

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;

I take from this is that the GAO is the only authorized agency to receive donations for the WAGF. As the definition of collect as it applies to this resolution, it means to receive or compel payment. I believe in this Kenny and myself are using the opposite meanings for the word. I interrupt is state above. I can not speak for Kenny, but in my opinion, he believes the compel payment in his view on how the WAFG and the GAO works.

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

assess (from dictionary.com)
1. to estimate officially the value of (property, income, etc.) as a basis for taxation.
2. to fix or determine the amount of (damages, a tax, a fine, etc.
3. to impose a tax or other charge on.
4.to estimate or judge the value, character, etc., of; evaluate.

Again, I believe this comes down to which definition of the word one uses. I believe that assessed means to estimate the value. I believe Kenny believes to impose a tax.

For the most point, how one views if paying into the WAGF is mandatory or not is dependent which definition of certain words a sentient uses.

At this point, I would point out that nations do have a way in how big their donation is valued at. The GAO is required to make their assessment based on nation's wealth and ability to pay. The GAO gets the information of a nation's ability to pay from said nation. Nothing in Resolution #17 requires a nation to provide that information to the GAO so they can complete the required assessment.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh FFS, you can find any RW nation's GDP simply by referencing any of several public indices detailing global wealth. You don't think the gnomes are able to calculate a nation's wealth based on public stats provided by the NS equivalent of, for example, the CIA World Factbook or the IMF? Also, your little charade flies directly in the face of Reasonable Nation Theory, as it is anything but reasonable to assume that a nation would willingly keep its economic activities a secret just to get out of paying a few measly million dollars to the WA -- when it would severely risk the prospect of attaining any kind of foreign investment, business, aid or trade deal. It would be colossally stupid. It wouldn't be done. Not every nation in the NS world can be its own little North Korea, jealously secretive and isolated from the entire world, and surviving on the good will of the Chinese alone. Sheesh.

Also, waving dictionary definitions around isn't going to prove anything. No nation can reasonably claim to be able to duck the (assumed) persistence of the GAO simply by citing alternate definitions of common words -- especially when you consider the context in which these words appear. For example, "solicit." That word appears only in preambulatory language, and thus holds zero legal weight. In the actual operative section, the GAO is instructed to assess and collect donations. Now to "assessed." According to WAGF, the amount assessed is based on a nation's wealth and ability to give. Why would the GAO even need to assess a specific amount of a national donation if it were purely voluntary? The very fact that the donation amount is specified by the GAO on an annual basis very heavily implies it is a mandatory amount, not a voluntary "suggested donation." Finally, "collect" and "donation." The most common definitions don't mean shit once you can accept the fact that the GAO's mandate to collect donations is on a compulsory, and not a voluntary, basis. Therefore, "collect" simply means to take, and "donation" merely means anything that is given. Again, it's the context that governs the meaning of words, and only by ignoring it (which again would require flouting RNT) do nations even hope to get out of paying the hell up.

[Jarish Inyo]

The gnomes of the GAO can easily determine what a nation's wealth is easily. But it can not determine what a nation's ability to give is, which is a requirement for the assessment. The GAO needs that information from a nation on it's ability to give to give. After all, the GAO doesn't know how much of a nation's wealth said nation spends on maintaining it's infrastructure, military, health care, education, etc. My charade as you call it, doesn't fly directly in the face of Reasonable Nation Theory. I didn't assume that a nation would willingly keep its economic activities a secret just to get out of paying into WAFG. As I stated earlier, nothing in Resolution #17 requires a nation to provide the information, such as the few examples I listed above, to the GAO so it can complete its assessment by the criteria outlined in section section 4.

Actually, waving dictionary definitions around helps clear things up. Or shows the difference in opinions on how this proposal works with both sides using the same words but using the different definitions of the words. After all a law only does what the law say it does. I see nothing in the context of the entire resolution that shows me that donations are mandatory. Especially, the part that about 'a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme' that you so causally dismiss because it isn't part of the operational clauses. And nothing in the operational clauses makes donations mandatory.

Why would the GAO would needs to assess specific amount of a national donation if it were purely voluntary is the same reason RL Christian churches and other other charitable organizations. To assess the maximum amount that can be asked from an individual or business. Because the GAO does an assessment annually doesn't heavily imply that a donation is mandatory. It reassesses what it can ask for. After all, a nations wealth and ability to pay is not going to be the same every year. And if the GAO is gonna to ask for a donation, it is going to need to know how much it can ask for.

Finally, "collect" and "donation." The most common definitions don't mean shit once you can accept the fact that the GAO's mandate to collect donations is on a compulsory, and not a voluntary, basis.

And this is where we differ. Some of us don't accept that GAO's mandate is to collect donations compulsory. Yes, there is a mandate to collect what donations that donor nations or private donors gives to the WAGF, but I see no evidence in the text of the proposal that makes donations mandatory. I realize that you authored the proposal and that in your mind, its clear that it is suppose to be compulsory. But, as it reads using the most common definitions, that is not clear in the text. Using the most common definitions leaves it open for an interruption that nations can voluntarily donate any amount they choose. Again, the law does only what the law says. It matters not what is implied. Only what it states. And nothing in the resolution requires nations to donate or pay into the WAGF in any form. As written, using the most common definition of donation, donor, collect, and assess, the resolution only sets up the WAGF as being funded by voluntary donations by nations wishing to do so. It establishes that the GAO as the organization that accepts the donations, manages the fund, assesses what a nation could donate and solicit donations from members.

I've used definitions to show how there are two different views on how the WAFG is funded and managed. I've acknowledged that as worded, using definitions other then the most common, that it could be seen as a compulsory donation. But there is nothing clearly stating clearly that this is the case in the resolution.

[Sciongrad]

And this is where we differ. Some of us don't accept that GAO's mandate is to collect donations compulsory. Yes, there is a mandate to collect what donations that donor nations or private donors gives to the WAGF, but I see no evidence in the text of the proposal that makes donations mandatory.

OOC:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Assess: set the value of a tax, fine, etc., for (a person or property) at a specified level.

Whether or not you accept this is less an issue of interpretation and more an issue of reading comprehension. GAR#17 requires member nations to pay mandatory sums of money to the General Fund - that's a fact that is not really up to interpretation. The fact that they're called donations is completely irrelevant to whether or not they are mandatory payments.

[Jarish Inyo]

And this is where we differ. Some of us don't accept that GAO's mandate is to collect donations compulsory. Yes, there is a mandate to collect what donations that donor nations or private donors gives to the WAGF, but I see no evidence in the text of the proposal that makes donations mandatory.

OOC:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Assess: set the value of a tax, fine, etc., for (a person or property) at a specified level.

Whether or not you accept this is less an issue of interpretation and more an issue of reading comprehension. GAR#17 requires member nations to pay mandatory sums of money to the General Fund - that's a fact that is not really up to interpretation. The fact that they're called donations is completely irrelevant to whether or not they are mandatory payments.

Actually GAR#17 does not require member nations to pay into the WAGF in any form. GAR#17 has no requirements for member nations in it. It establishes the WAGF and GAO. It only has mandates for the GAO. And those mandates are a matter of interpretation. My reading comprehension is fine. And using, what Kenny refers to as the most common definitions of the words, GAR #17 reads as a voluntary donation. Its in the interpretation of those words that makes this a compulsory or voluntary donation.

I do like that those that argue that payment is mandatory uses just one definition of the word assess. And only that that applies to taxes and fines. Below is the other definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary. I go with the definition officially stating the amount of the donation being asked.

assess
: to make a judgment about (something)
: to officially say what the amount, value, or rate of (something) is
: to tax or charge (someone or something)
: to require (a person, business, etc.) to pay a particular amount of money

[Alqania]

Let's play the synonym game:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be estimated annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be judged annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be valued annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be charged annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be imposed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

With any of those words, the clause still means that the payment is mandatory. In fact, let's try a nonsensical verb as well:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be perceflufficated annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Even with the nonsensical verb, the sole reasonable interpretation of the clause is that donations are made according to donors' national wealth and ability to give, NOT according to donors' wishes.