Yet Another General Fund Is Mandatory Thread

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And just to put things in perspective, both the US and France owe more than $300 million to the RL UN. The donations NS nations have to pay the WA are likely chump change by comparison.

[Jarish Inyo]

Let's start with donations are voluntary. As written, using the most common definition of the words, donations are voluntary.

Only if you ignore the context, which you seem bound and determined to ignore, even though it is context that gives meaning to words - not arbitrarily chosen dictionary definitions.

I've not ignored the context. It doesn't read to me as making donations mandatory. It may read that way to you.

Then we can move onto the fact that GAR#17 has no obligation clauses for nations.

Yes it does. The GAO sends each nation an annual assessment (read: bill). That assessment in and of itself is a mandatory due. The context makes it so. The GAO wouldn't even be assessing members' donations if they were purely voluntary.

No, it doesn't. The context of clause 4 does not make it clear that assess means bill. I would hazard to say that many wouldn't have associated assess with bill. The GAO would be assessing a members donation if it was purely voluntary. Organizations do do assessments of people, businesses and countries they wish to solicit donations from.

Now, I don't recall stating that a donations are contrary to the GA's purpose as an organization.

Then what does this mean, exactly?:

Why or why [not] is relevant. The WA is suppose to make the world or worlds a better place. If it's policies of one of it's departments are harming or risking the health and safety of the people it's suppose to be helping and not making the world a better place, what's the point then?

It was a response to a statement to that it was irrelevant how the GAO funded itself and the WA.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, it doesn't. The context of clause 4 does not make it clear that assess means bill. I would hazard to say that many wouldn't have associated assess with bill. The GAO would be assessing a members donation if it was purely voluntary. Organizations do do assessments of people, businesses and countries they wish to solicit donations from.

Which, applied to this situation, makes no sense whatsoever. The GAO is actually assessing the amount owed, based on the criteria previously cited - it is not merely assessing a potential donor. A member nation already is a donor by virtue of being a member nation. The first clause makes that clear.

[Ainocra]

As a slightly off topic, this is why I wanted the replacement for 92 funded out of the general fund.
I figured that there would be a huge pool of untapped income there and that in no way could WASP make a sizable dent in it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The WA's expenses are vastly higher than those of the NSUN, so I'm not sure the specifics of Sophista's funding calculations carry over, but the general point is probably true. The WA funds several expensive programs whereas the NSUN generally expected individual nations to source funding on their own.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

... having something assessed, ... doesn't imply that payment is mandatory.

Tell that to my f#$%ing property taxes. I'm sure the town will be happy to give me my money back, since it was merely "assessed" and not "collected from my person by a couple of guys wielding baseball bats and butterfly knives."

[The Eternal Kawaii]

A member nation already is a donor by virtue of being a member nation. The first clause makes that clear.

Hate to break it to you, Kenny, but the preamble to the resolution makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

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;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

[Sciongrad]

A member nation already is a donor by virtue of being a member nation. The first clause makes that clear.

Hate to break it to you, Kenny, but the preamble to the resolution makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

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;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

OOC: Preambulatory clauses have no bearing on the operative section of the resolution, and because the operative section of the resolution makes it reasonably clear that "donations" are mandatory, the preamble could be the lyrics to "the Edge of Seventeen" translated into Latin and it wouldn't make a difference.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That sentence wasn't even supposed to be worded that way. It was a remnant from an early draft that also included "solicited" private donations as well as assessed national donations. I eventually scrubbed the private donations and forgot to fix the preamble. Still, it's preambulatory language, and the effects of the operative section decidedly outweigh it.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Hate to break it to you, Kenny, but the preamble to the resolution makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

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;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

OOC: Preambulatory clauses have no bearing on the operative section of the resolution, and because the operative section of the resolution makes it reasonably clear that "donations" are mandatory, the preamble could be the lyrics to "the Edge of Seventeen" translated into Latin and it wouldn't make a difference.

Preambulatory clauses establish the context by which the operative clauses can be understood. The problem with this resolution is the word "assessed" in Clause 4. As has been pointed out earlier, "assess" can have two meanings: "to calculate the value or worth of something", or "to impose a charge". To resolve this ambiguity, we have to determine the context that the word is being used in. And, based on the preamble, the context implies that it is the former, not the latter meaning that should be used.

[Jarish Inyo]

Those that argue that the donations are mandatory ignores the preamble and states that it has no bearing on the resolution at all. Even though the preamble states there purpose and arguments for the law to begin with. I've already stated that the context to me doesn't make GAR#17 require mandatory donations.

Everyone arguing that it mandates payment always points to clause 4 and states that asses means to bill. In fact, it doesn't automatically means that at all.

[Separatist Peoples]

Those that argue that the donations are mandatory ignores the preamble and states that it has no bearing on the resolution at all. Even though the preamble states there purpose and arguments for the law to begin with. I've already stated that the context to me doesn't make GAR#17 require mandatory donations.

Everyone arguing that it mandates payment always points to clause 4 and states that asses means to bill. In fact, it doesn't automatically means that at all.

Preambulatory clauses have literally never been binding. They are introductory fluff, and the reason why nobody has serious issues with them. Players often don't bother with them until later in drafting.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Preambulatory clauses have literally never been binding. They are introductory fluff, and the reason why nobody has serious issues with them. Players often don't bother with them until later in drafting.

Not that I want to feed the argument, but that's not really true. Preambles actually have been binding: for example, before years of precedent were casually overturned with - to this day - no explanation, "extreme hazard" was cited in preambles to avoid contradiction of National Economic Freedoms. And at least one of the mods has stated that the player view of preambles as non-binding isn't one shared by them (I don't have a post to specifically cite to hand, though, unfortunately).

[Railana]

OOC: Preambulatory clauses have no bearing on the operative section of the resolution, and because the operative section of the resolution makes it reasonably clear that "donations" are mandatory, the preamble could be the lyrics to "the Edge of Seventeen" translated into Latin and it wouldn't make a difference.

Preambulatory clauses establish the context by which the operative clauses can be understood. The problem with this resolution is the word "assessed" in Clause 4. As has been pointed out earlier, "assess" can have two meanings: "to calculate the value or worth of something", or "to impose a charge". To resolve this ambiguity, we have to determine the context that the word is being used in. And, based on the preamble, the context implies that it is the former, not the latter meaning that should be used.

I find this argument persuasive.

[Flibbleites]

This was in response to people posting idiotic proposals suggesting that the fund be in the neighborhood of 1%-5% of GDP.

Could be worse.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

That sentence wasn't even supposed to be worded that way. It was a remnant from an early draft that also included "solicited" private donations as well as assessed national donations. I eventually scrubbed the private donations and forgot to fix the preamble. Still, it's preambulatory language, and the effects of the operative section decidedly outweigh it.

Then why don't we just repeal, and replace the damn thing, making contributions mandatory, at Fris's calculations, and put this all behind us?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Because a clause explicitly making donations mandatory is responsible for two or three of the worst failing margins for resolutions of all time. This resolution was specifically tailored so as to assure its passage by not shoving it in nations' faces that they have to pay for the follies they repeatedly impose on the WA electorate.

But I am open to repeal, knowing that any replacement making it explicitly clear that nations pay for their collective mistakes will never pass. Just give me the word, and the WA will be stripped of all funding. I have the draft all ready to go. Go on, give me a reason.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Because a clause explicitly making donations mandatory is responsible for two or three of the worst failing margins for resolutions of all time. This resolution was specifically tailored so as to assure its passage by not shoving it in nations' faces that they have to pay for the follies they repeatedly impose on the WA electorate.

But I am open to repeal, knowing that any replacement making it explicitly clear that nations pay for their collective mistakes will never pass. Just give me the word, and the WA will be stripped of all funding. I have the draft all ready to go. Go on, give me a reason.

Well then post it for gods sake. Maybe we can come up with something different than what we have now, so this bullshit will cease.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The only way I could see an explicit funding proposal passing is if you make sure to allocate funds for third trimester abortions. Under literally any other circumstances, experience suggests it will simply fail and the WA will be left without funding and in the same complicated annoyance as the NSUN was. It's also going to be boring to have to discuss funding in every proposal; there'll be even less discussion of actual policy than the already minimal amount that currently takes place.

I can't remember his name, but that Nazi guy actually wanted to repeal WA General Fund to spite the WA regulars during the whole Security Council mess. That's how bad an idea it is.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh my Days?

[Sudarium]

Just as an FYI:

Back in 2005 or so, a few of us got together and tried to estimate the necessary "contribution" to properly fund the UN/WA. This was in response to people posting idiotic proposals suggesting that the fund be in the neighborhood of 1%-5% of GDP. People just don't realize what a huge chunk of change that would be.

I don't remember the specifics, but we ended up with a progressive tax rate that was significantly less than 1% ... as in 0.0000015% of a nation with ~200 million people (a standard, year old nation), ramping up to perhaps 0.0000025% for older, more successful nations. That generated a few tens of millions of %currency% from each member nation, while still providing hundreds of trillions in cash from the then 12,000 member nations. Given that virtually all of the WA's financial obligations are in the form of unfunded mandates, that was way more money than would be necessary to maintain the buildings, grounds, committee formations and expenses, and the various oversight bureaus that have been defined by WA law.

We currently have nearly 18,000 WA members. An average of $NSD 10 million from each member nation yields $NSD 180 trillion. In other words, mandatory or voluntary, the sums necessary to fund the WA are absolutely TRIVIAL in terms of percentage of GNP. Why does anyone care?

OOC: From reading Fris' post on this conversation you could think his words would be finale because the logic has been mathematically proven, so my position stands behind his words because they are 100% correct. Now instead of having a trivial conversation on the how about this mechanism, the topic could be shifted so we discuss the what, where, and why. Thus it occurred to me to propose another idea previously suggested by other players; add bookkeeping as a category. Then mold it; shape it to serve the intended goals here. This is my advice.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Oh my Days?

Wasn't he the one that tried to liberate Haven, and that was used as the justification for liberating Nazi Europe?

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Because a clause explicitly making donations mandatory is responsible for two or three of the worst failing margins for resolutions of all time. This resolution was specifically tailored so as to assure its passage by not shoving it in nations' faces that they have to pay for the follies they repeatedly impose on the WA electorate.

But I am open to repeal, knowing that any replacement making it explicitly clear that nations pay for their collective mistakes will never pass. Just give me the word, and the WA will be stripped of all funding. I have the draft all ready to go. Go on, give me a reason.

Ah come on, it's not that bad. For one thing, the WA won't be short on funding even if we assume voluntary donations. The mythical "Real World United Nations" muddles along with voluntary contributions by its member states; I don't see why the WA wouldn't do the same. And as Frisbeeteria pointed out, the assessed contributions are going to be chump change for most nations.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't think members' contributions to the RLUN are voluntary, either (though it has no more way to enforce their assessments any more than the gnomes do). Although I might have misread the link I provided above, in that the US actually owes the UN $800 million, plus $300+ million for peacekeeping operations. But it still stands that WA member contributions are comparably chump change.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I don't think members' contributions to the RLUN are voluntary, either (though it has no more way to enforce their assessments any more than the gnomes do). Although I might have misread the link I provided above, in that the US actually owes the UN $800 million, plus $300+ million for peacekeeping operations. But it still stands that WA member contributions are comparably chump change.

OOC: How in the hell can the U.S. owe 300 million in peacekeeping dues, when it provides 90% of the air support, and over 50% of the ground troops for U.N. peacekeeping operations?