General Assembly Q&A

[Elke and Elba]

Ard, can I haz a legality check on this?

I mean it - since clause 2 and clause 4 are honestly overlaps on PMC, aaand Patient Rights Act.

Pleeease?

*steals Eireann Fae's Faerie Cookies and offers them to Ard. With more choc chips. *

EDIT: Not to mention trying to reinvent the wheel on circumcision. And I'm motivated when you said

(Permit Male Circumcision makes circumcision legal and says it's a medical procedure. Logic makes it non-emergency. That's not really relevant to the legality of EF's proposal, but it comes up later.)

Which uh to say, if calling circumcision a cosmetic procedure - is a cosmetic or a medical procedure? And since you said

If this is not a medical procedure, then you can legally write new consent conditions for it.
But if it is a medical procedure, consent conditions already exist.

, by including circumcision in the bill, it reeks of illegality as mentioned, it reinvents the wheel on circumcision (which is a medical procedure as noted in PMC).

Ok, I shall give a tl;dr format for Ard to help my case.

1. Medical Procedures can't have new consent conditions on as per Patient's Rights Act.
2. PMC states circumcision is a medical procedure.
3. That draft states circumcision is also a cosmetic procedure, and rewrites consent conditions for it.
4. Consent conditions cannot be written for circumcision because of 2, but well, you could have duplication right? But-
5. Even if the draft is a duplication of what Patient's Rights Act say - you can't, since you have said in EF's draft - "But there are existing consent conditions for non-emergency medical procedures. You can't duplicate or contradict those. "
6. Thus, Auralia's draft is equally illegal.

I hope that made a lot more sense than senseless rambling as stated above. Had to read 4 different resolutions to reach that conclusion to strengthen my claim, Ard.

[Mousebumples]

Ard, can I haz a legality check on this?

I'd ordinarily suggest you file a GHR - since it's already submitted and at quorum. However, I happen to know that one has already been filed and is under moderator review ... *whistles innocently*

However, my argument was more contradiction/amending than anything else. So if you'd like to file a new GHR on the matter, spelling out your points of concern, you're welcome to do so. (I'm not sure how often it happens, but I do know that multiple GHRs are sometimes filed on a given proposal in the queue.)

[Kryozerkia]

Ard, can I haz a legality check on this?

I'd ordinarily suggest you file a GHR - since it's already submitted and at quorum. However, I happen to know that one has already been filed and is under moderator review ... *whistles innocently*

However, my argument was more contradiction/amending than anything else. So if you'd like to file a new GHR on the matter, spelling out your points of concern, you're welcome to do so. (I'm not sure how often it happens, but I do know that multiple GHRs are sometimes filed on a given proposal in the queue.)

We've received the GHR and filed it for review. We've also included Elke and Elba's concerns, so there's no need for them to file a separate GHR.

[Elke and Elba]

I'd ordinarily suggest you file a GHR - since it's already submitted and at quorum. However, I happen to know that one has already been filed and is under moderator review ... *whistles innocently*

However, my argument was more contradiction/amending than anything else. So if you'd like to file a new GHR on the matter, spelling out your points of concern, you're welcome to do so. (I'm not sure how often it happens, but I do know that multiple GHRs are sometimes filed on a given proposal in the queue.)

We've received the GHR and filed it for review. We've also included Elke and Elba's concerns, so there's no need for them to file a separate GHR.

Kryo You should have said that a minute earlier! I just filed it and this came in -.-" Really sorry, Kryozerkia.

Anyway, feel free to delete my request since my concerns have been included. That was efficiently fast - thank you!

Regards,
EnE

EDIT: I've made the tl;dr format a little bit clearer on the GHR, so you might want to use that as a platform instead of a rushed out one here, anyway. ^_^ Thanks again!

[Auralia]

I'm not sure why this discussion is taking place in the Q&A thread rather than the proposal's thread, but whatever...

Unlike Consent of Cosmetic Procedures, Cosmetic Procedures and Minors duplicates (not contradicts) the provisions of the Patient's Rights Act permitting legal guardians to consent to medical procedures for their charges.

That said, duplication is only illegal when the proposal contains no (legal) constructive material of its own. This is not the case here, as the proposal in clause 4 clearly encourages member nations to adopt certain consent rules for all cosmetic procedures (i.e. letting legal guardians consent to procedures for their charges, etc.), as opposed to the Patient's Rights Act, which only permits such consent rules and only for procedures that are both cosmetic and medical.

[Kryozerkia]

We've received the GHR and filed it for review. We've also included Elke and Elba's concerns, so there's no need for them to file a separate GHR.

Kryo You should have said that a minute earlier! I just filed it and this came in -.-" Really sorry, Kryozerkia.

Anyway, feel free to delete my request since my concerns have been included. That was efficiently fast - thank you!

Regards,
EnE

EDIT: I've made the tl;dr format a little bit clearer on the GHR, so you might want to use that as a platform instead of a rushed out one here, anyway. ^_^ Thanks again!

I've forwarded it to the WA lawyers so we can review it.

I only saw yours just after I filed Mouse's with the review team.

[ALMF]

Two rolls questions on an replacement I working on.

As to "house of cards:

RECOGNIZING: this belief, as applied, violates the spirit of World Assembly Resolution #35 but is not covered as applied in many places.

SIMILARITY: this belief is used to end-run the spirit of medical access guaranteed by GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 29.

REQUIRES: nations to include actions against abortions, providers, and patients as "criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice" (against females) under all existing laws (WA and national) including World Assembly Resolution #35 and respond accordingly.


Also a conflict has been suggested for:

SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES: usage of parent, mother, father, person, individual, et al with regards
to fetuses as a violation of universal right analogous to the (false) clam that members of a religious minority sacrifice children of the majority religion in there religious rituals.

FORBIDS: nations from recognizing the belief in fettle person-hood as "reasonable" (or equivalent) for the purpose of "state interest" (or equivalent) nor for criminal/civil defenses.

REQUIRES: nations to include actions against abortions, providers, and patients as "criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice" (against females) under all existing laws (WA and national) including World Assembly Resolution #35 and respond accordingly.

Edit: also what happens if moitipal proposes are qued simultaneously and pass?

Can I get a answer pleas

[Kryozerkia]

Two rolls questions on an replacement I working on.

As to "house of cards:

RECOGNIZING: this belief, as applied, violates the spirit of World Assembly Resolution #35 but is not covered as applied in many places.

SIMILARITY: this belief is used to end-run the spirit of medical access guaranteed by GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 29.

REQUIRES: nations to include actions against abortions, providers, and patients as "criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice" (against females) under all existing laws (WA and national) including World Assembly Resolution #35 and respond accordingly.


Also a conflict has been suggested for:

SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES: usage of parent, mother, father, person, individual, et al with regards
to fetuses as a violation of universal right analogous to the (false) clam that members of a religious minority sacrifice children of the majority religion in there religious rituals.

FORBIDS: nations from recognizing the belief in fettle person-hood as "reasonable" (or equivalent) for the purpose of "state interest" (or equivalent) nor for criminal/civil defenses.

REQUIRES: nations to include actions against abortions, providers, and patients as "criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice" (against females) under all existing laws (WA and national) including World Assembly Resolution #35 and respond accordingly.

Edit: also what happens if moitipal proposes are qued simultaneously and pass?

Can I get a answer pleas

Yes, it's a house of cards violation. Your proposal relies on the existence of GAR#29 and #35. If either was repealed, then your proposal wouldn't have the legs to stand on. Hence, house of cards. If you remove one aspect, the whole house collapses in on itself. You could write your proposal without those two dependencies.

[Aligned Planets]

I'm currently penning a draft in the GA forum, the Shale Gas Act which is attempting to outline responsibilities for hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

It has gone through its first and second draft and, in its present form at the suggestion of another, would convene a WA Panel on Fracking (WAPF). Whilst happy to bend towards the will of the GA, I am not keen on constituting a needless committee and neither are some others. I wondered if I could devolve some of the oversight requirements of WAPF to an appropriate pre-existing committee (in a current resolution), with the proviso in the proposal that all such powers would return back to national governments should said committee cease to exist due to repeal (to avoid House of Cards) and thusly remove WAPF from the draft completely.

Would that work?

[Kryozerkia]

I'm currently penning a draft in the GA forum, the Shale Gas Act which is attempting to outline responsibilities for hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

It has gone through its first and second draft and, in its present form at the suggestion of another, would convene a WA Panel on Fracking (WAPF). Whilst happy to bend towards the will of the GA, I am not keen on constituting a needless committee and neither are some others. I wondered if I could devolve some of the oversight requirements of WAPF to an appropriate pre-existing committee (in a current resolution), with the proviso in the proposal that all such powers would return back to national governments should said committee cease to exist due to repeal (to avoid House of Cards) and thusly remove WAPF from the draft completely.

Would that work?

It's common to assign additional duties to existing, relevant committees/agencies within the WA. It is entirely legal. Assigning additional duties to existing committees doesn't violate the house of cards rule as you aren't citing nor relying on the resolution's existence to prop up yours. Committee can exist even after the original resolution that created it is repealed because it has additional duties to carry out. A committee only ceases to exist when it no longer has any duties.

[Aligned Planets]

It's common to assign additional duties to existing, relevant committees/agencies within the WA. It is entirely legal. Assigning additional duties to existing committees doesn't violate the house of cards rule as you aren't citing nor relying on the resolution's existence to prop up yours. Committee can exist even after the original resolution that created it is repealed because it has additional duties to carry out. A committee only ceases to exist when it no longer has any duties.

Excellent. Thank you for the explanation

[Port blood]

Creating Military or Police Force

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

This applies to everything,correct?,so the WA can't have a anthem for example?
Can this rule be avoided by mandating all national anthems are changed?




Also,in theory a string of well written,well executed,far hitting resolutions could push all WA members into anarchy?

[Ardchoille]

Sorry, I can't follow the logic that makes a "no army" rule into a "no anthem" rule.

Since, as far as I know, there is no "no anthem" rule, you'd have trouble making a proposal to wriggle out of it. What you would have trouble with is getting people to take it seriously.

But I never underestimate the ingenuity of GA posters. If you can think of an appropriate category and strength, and come up with some wording that won't cause Ambassadors to start messy punch-ups all over the new carpet, give it a burl. You may be interested in this thread.

Also,in theory a string of well written,well executed,far hitting resolutions could push all WA members into anarchy?

Yes, in theory, such Resolutions could. In practice, given that

• you can't outright ban an ideology,
• you'd have to repeal a helluva lot of existing Resolutions
• the current make-up of the GA makes significant opposition likely
• [IC]Whatever their politics, the Ambassadors aren't likely to vote their cushy jobs out of existence[/IC],

I'd say the plan wouldn't have Buckley's.

[Port blood]

Sorry,i thought it was a rule meaning "no WA x"


It should be possible if you can get enough people on board,just keep pushing all nation stats to 100,you could even do it over the course of months,It'll cause a slow but certain shift towards anarchy

[The Dark Star Republic]

Sorry,i thought it was a rule meaning "no WA x"


It should be possible if you can get enough people on board,just keep pushing all nation stats to 100,you could even do it over the course of months,It'll cause a slow but certain shift towards anarchy

Yes, technically by passing lots of Strong Human Rights, Free Trade and Furtherment of Democracy resolutions, you could push them up, but there's a lot of inertia built into NS. Very new nations get affected a lot more by categories than older nations; when I had 5+ billion nations in the UN/WA, even Strong resolutions barely touched them.

[That's my interpretation, anyway, purely based on observation.]

Your rather bizarre little project wouldn't work, anyway, as people remain free to answer issues.

[Port blood]

Sorry,i thought it was a rule meaning "no WA x"


It should be possible if you can get enough people on board,just keep pushing all nation stats to 100,you could even do it over the course of months,It'll cause a slow but certain shift towards anarchy

Yes, technically by passing lots of Strong Human Rights, Free Trade and Furtherment of Democracy resolutions, you could push them up, but there's a lot of inertia built into NS. Very new nations get affected a lot more by categories than older nations; when I had 5+ billion nations in the UN/WA, even Strong resolutions barely touched them.

[That's my interpretation, anyway, purely based on observation.]

Your rather bizarre little project wouldn't work, anyway, as people remain free to answer issues.

Some people stopped answering issues though,plus if pushed enough it will work
And it isnt a project,just wondering about it

[Aligned Planets]

I'm having trouble fitting the Shale Gas Act into any particular GA resolution category.

It's bouncing around between Advancement of Industry / Environmental Deregulation (which it really isn't..) and Environmental (All Businesses) which it might be by virtue of not fitting into one of the three specific Environmental categories.

Is there an answer you'd suggest, an option I hadn't thought of? Or what does one do if one's proposal is uncategorisable?

Looking again at the GA Proposal Compendium, would it fall under Social Justice as per:

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all WA member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all WA member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

(emphasis mine)

AP

[Elke and Elba]

As per a request by DSR (and concerns that I do share) - can it be checked by the Secretariat as to whether it is permissible to submit "Radiowaves and Microwaves Act" under Free Trade/Mild, or if there is a more appropriate category or strength that this resolution draft should take?

[Ardchoille]

Queries noted, checking. AP, standard mod response to "my proposal doesn't fit in any category" is "then pick a category and rewrite to fit", but I'll have a look at the ones you've been considering before I hit you with that particular frypan.

[Aligned Planets]

{snip} AP, standard mod response to "my proposal doesn't fit in any category" is "then pick a category and rewrite to fit", but I'll have a look at the ones you've been considering before I hit you with that particular frypan.

Many thanks - appreciate that one hehe. I've currently redrafted it into SJ as above; I'm sure collectively the thread and I could come up with a suitable operative clause if needed.

[Imperium of Tanith]

I am wondering if it is at all possible to make a Resolution that bans the creation of other resolutions on a certain topic, such as ones dedicated to the Abortion issue, the Death Penalty, and other such things that keep coming up over and over again in the World Assembly and that just cause us to look like a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at eachother.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I am wondering if it is at all possible to make a Resolution that bans the creation of other resolutions on a certain topic, such as ones dedicated to the Abortion issue, the Death Penalty, and other such things that keep coming up over and over again in the World Assembly and that just cause us to look like a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at eachother.

They're called "Blockers", and yes, it's possible to suspend WA action in a certain area; but it's not possible to ban the WA from ever discussing a certain issue. A "blocker" closes off discussion on a particular issue - for example the Clean Prostitute Act prevents the WA from legalising or criminalising prostitution - but can itself be targetted for repeal. Because you cannot prohibit a resolution from being repealed, it wouldn't ever be completely possible to stop discussion of a certain issue.

[Imperium of Tanith]

I am wondering if it is at all possible to make a Resolution that bans the creation of other resolutions on a certain topic, such as ones dedicated to the Abortion issue, the Death Penalty, and other such things that keep coming up over and over again in the World Assembly and that just cause us to look like a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at eachother.

They're called "Blockers", and yes, it's possible to suspend WA action in a certain area; but it's not possible to ban the WA from ever discussing a certain issue. A "blocker" closes off discussion on a particular issue - for example the Clean Prostitute Act prevents the WA from legalising or criminalising prostitution - but can itself be targetted for repeal. Because you cannot prohibit a resolution from being repealed, it wouldn't ever be completely possible to stop discussion of a certain issue.

Close enough for me, I'll be back in a few days with a couple of Blockers written up.

[The Dark Star Republic]

They're called "Blockers", and yes, it's possible to suspend WA action in a certain area; but it's not possible to ban the WA from ever discussing a certain issue. A "blocker" closes off discussion on a particular issue - for example the Clean Prostitute Act prevents the WA from legalising or criminalising prostitution - but can itself be targetted for repeal. Because you cannot prohibit a resolution from being repealed, it wouldn't ever be completely possible to stop discussion of a certain issue.

Close enough for me, I'll be back in a few days with a couple of Blockers written up.

I'm not sure why. There are already two abortion blockers being drafted on the forums in case the current repeal passes, and an existing blocker of sorts on the death penalty.

[Ardchoille]

<snip> whether it is permissible to submit "Radiowaves and Microwaves Act" under Free Trade/Mild ...

Answered in thread.