Oops.
I meant SP has cute furry pets that serve as valid excuses to do something.
Sorry. Laughing myself to death here.
Advertisement
by Araraukar » Mon May 02, 2016 7:53 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kryozerkia » Tue May 03, 2016 7:46 am
by Excidium Planetis » Tue May 03, 2016 8:28 am
Kryozerkia wrote:I've removed this as an 'announcement' but it won't be locked.
There is a discussion in [DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services" that seems relevant. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Do you consider the assertion that GAR#97 prohibits privatized healthcare to be accurate? Other observations? I picked this because the arguments on the surface seem well-reasoned and it is the sort of repeal the Mods may see in a legality challenge.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sciongrad » Tue May 03, 2016 8:35 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:I've removed this as an 'announcement' but it won't be locked.
There is a discussion in [DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services" that seems relevant. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Do you consider the assertion that GAR#97 prohibits privatized healthcare to be accurate? Other observations? I picked this because the arguments on the surface seem well-reasoned and it is the sort of repeal the Mods may see in a legality challenge.
I see that as a reasonable interpretation. In fact, because it plainly requires government funding of the healthcare system, it at minimum makes all healthcare subsidized, if not public.
This argument could not be construed as an Honest Mistake or a deliberate falsehood.
GAR#97 wrote:5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:
a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;
by Araraukar » Tue May 03, 2016 8:53 am
Sciongrad wrote:Whoa, not so fast! GAR#97 requires a government funded healthcare option but it does not prohibited a privatized option. The resolution states in relevant part that:GAR#97 wrote:5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:
a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;
You can fashion an argument around the notion that nations shouldn't have to establish a public healthcare system but you can't argue that the resolution prohibits privatized healthcare. And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sciongrad » Tue May 03, 2016 8:54 am
Araraukar wrote:Sciongrad wrote:Whoa, not so fast! GAR#97 requires a government funded healthcare option but it does not prohibited a privatized option. The resolution states in relevant part that:
You can fashion an argument around the notion that nations shouldn't have to establish a public healthcare system but you can't argue that the resolution prohibits privatized healthcare. And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.
Personally I think the resolution contradicts itself; if requires majority of funding to come from the government (which usually would mean making the healthcare public), but then turns around and says that it can be private after all. The only sane way to interprete that as non-contradiction that I can see was to say that nations can have private healthcare, but that the government pays them to treat the patients.
by Christian Democrats » Tue May 03, 2016 2:06 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:I've removed this as an 'announcement' but it won't be locked.
There is a discussion in [DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services" that seems relevant. I'd like to hear your thoughts here. Do you consider the assertion that GAR#97 prohibits privatized healthcare to be accurate? Other observations? I picked this because the arguments on the surface seem well-reasoned and it is the sort of repeal the Mods may see in a legality challenge.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Excidium Planetis » Tue May 03, 2016 2:54 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:
I see that as a reasonable interpretation. In fact, because it plainly requires government funding of the healthcare system, it at minimum makes all healthcare subsidized, if not public.
This argument could not be construed as an Honest Mistake or a deliberate falsehood.
Whoa, not so fast! GAR#97 requires a government funded healthcare option but it does not prohibit a privatized option. The resolution states in relevant part that:GAR#97 wrote:5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:
a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;
2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources.
You can fashion an argument around the notion that nations shouldn't have to establish a public healthcare system but you can't argue that the resolution prohibits privatized healthcare.
And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Unibot III » Tue May 03, 2016 5:33 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Christian Democrats » Tue May 03, 2016 6:30 pm
Unibot III wrote:I'm not sure the resolution makes a distinction between care and system, like CD is making. Although it's a neat interpretation.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Unibot III » Tue May 03, 2016 7:37 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Kryozerkia » Wed May 04, 2016 5:38 am
by Liagolas » Wed May 04, 2016 9:00 pm
by Sandaoguo » Thu May 05, 2016 11:56 am
Sciongrad wrote:And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.
by Unibot III » Thu May 05, 2016 4:23 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Sciongrad » Thu May 05, 2016 4:38 pm
Sandaoguo wrote:Sciongrad wrote:And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.
Well, this is the thing isn't it? Is it an Honest Mistake to argue one interpretation in a repeal, when there's a valid interpretation that satisfies the opposing argument?
by Unibot III » Thu May 05, 2016 5:03 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Sandaoguo wrote:Well, this is the thing isn't it? Is it an Honest Mistake to argue one interpretation in a repeal, when there's a valid interpretation that satisfies the opposing argument?
When I said Reasonable Nation Theory should be considered when applying the honest mistake rule, this is one of the situations I had in mind. If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.
By the way, thanks Kryo for having this discussion. It's important and I'm glad you're seeking player input on this issue.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu May 05, 2016 5:12 pm
Sciongrad wrote:If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sciongrad » Thu May 05, 2016 5:15 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Sciongrad wrote:If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.
That essentially makes every resolution unrepealable, since every repeals argument relies on the idea that a nation finds their interpretation of the resolution to be in conflict with their self interest.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu May 05, 2016 5:21 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:That essentially makes every resolution unrepealable, since every repeals argument relies on the idea that a nation finds their interpretation of the resolution to be in conflict with their self interest.
That isn't true, unless you're arguing that infinitely many reasonable interpretations exist for every resolution. I'm sure violating the rights of a neutral state is in the interest of many member nations, but no such reasonable interpretation exists in GAR#255 that would allow for that.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sciongrad » Thu May 05, 2016 5:21 pm
Unibot III wrote:Sciongrad wrote:When I said Reasonable Nation Theory should be considered when applying the honest mistake rule, this is one of the situations I had in mind. If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead. In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.
By the way, thanks Kryo for having this discussion. It's important and I'm glad you're seeking player input on this issue.
Reasonable Nation Theory is multi-faced though - and you've actually identified that. There's two parts to RNT:
(1) If a clause can be interpreted in such way that it reaches a prima facie unreasonable conclusion, something ludicrous, that interpretation should be dismissed.
(2) If there are multiple interpretations, nations will always prefer the one that is in their nation's interests. The "reasonable" interpretation.
Prohibiting private healthcare is neither obviously ludicrous, nor necessarily against a state's interests (a state's interests includes the welfare of their citizens.) So really, RNT simply does not apply to this particular problem. This isn't to say that either interpretation is right or wrong, but RNT can't be used to discern which interpretation is right, because both interpretations at least superficially pass RNT.
RNT is more a tool for WA authors than it is for moderators - it's a way for authors to distinguish between legitimate criticism of their proposals and nit-picky bafflegab ("WHAT ABOUT FLYING MONKEY PIGS!?")
by Sciongrad » Thu May 05, 2016 5:25 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Sciongrad wrote:That isn't true, unless you're arguing that infinitely many reasonable interpretations exist for every resolution. I'm sure violating the rights of a neutral state is in the interest of many member nations, but no such reasonable interpretation exists in GAR#255 that would allow for that.
And I am arguing that there is no reasonable interpretation of GA#97 that would allow a private health system.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu May 05, 2016 7:03 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:And, even if that interpretation hypothetically existed, it would not be a reasonable one because member nations that want privatized healthcare could reasonably interpret the resolution as permitting it.
They could not reasonably interpret it to allow a private health system. Reasonable Nation Theory only holds up when the interpretation is actually valid. Otherwise, nations could "reasonably" interpret extant laws to allow genocide if they really wanted to commit genocide. You can't have a valid interpretation that somehow ignores the fact that GA#97 explicitly states the health system (not just one form of healthcare) must be funded by the guv'ment.
Sciongrad wrote:In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sciongrad » Thu May 05, 2016 7:07 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:You have said here that if a repeal argues one interpretation is the only viable one, and others exist (even if they aren't reasonable), that makes the repeal deceptive. Such reasoning makes all repeals illegal, then, since all rely on nations accepting interpretations that go against self interest even if other interpretations are possible.
Sciongrad wrote:If a repeal identifies an interpretation that some member nations may find objectionable, that should only be an acceptable argument if there doesn't exist some alternate and reasonable interpretation that those member nations could choose to use instead.
Sciongrad wrote:That isn't true, unless you're arguing that infinitely many reasonable interpretations exist for every resolution. I'm sure violating the rights of a neutral state is in the interest of many member nations, but no such reasonable interpretation exists in GAR#255 that would allow for that.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu May 05, 2016 7:20 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:You have said here that if a repeal argues one interpretation is the only viable one, and others exist (even if they aren't reasonable), that makes the repeal deceptive. Such reasoning makes all repeals illegal, then, since all rely on nations accepting interpretations that go against self interest even if other interpretations are possible.
I 100% did not say that. I specifically and explicitly qualified that an alternate interpretation must be reasonable.
In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.
I am saying that if two or more reasonable interpretations exist, and a repeal author identifies one but neglects the fact that a reasonable nation would choose the other (and by doing so eliminate the objection raised in the repeal), then that repeal is deceptive.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Simone Republic
Advertisement