General Assembly Q&A

[Frisbeeteria]

Would either of you be willing to help me monitor an IC conflict raging between two alliances?

If this question was addressed at the two players you quoted, then a better way to ask would be Telegrams. It's not something for the forums, and definitely not for the GA forum.

If your question was addressed to the mods or the GA as a whole, then the answer is a straight-up "NO". The moderators (in their mod persona) don't perform in any IC role, and the GA is not involved in anything regarding condemnations or commendations.

Defwa would be happy to monitor for violation, act as arbiter in disputes in WA law, as well as facilitate civilian evacuation and peace talks if they are to occur. Please, lead the way.

Again, really not the place for this conversation. Telegrams, please.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

An in-character, informal diplomatic discussion on intervention in a war might be appropriate in the Strangers' Bar, though, wouldn't it?

[Bears Armed]

It has always been the case that non-members can deccide to comply voluntarily with any WA/GA resolutions that they choose, because of course otherwise every substantive resolution that passed would actually affect all non-members by forcing them to do the opposite instead.
It has been established by precedent and associated Modly ruling that a proposal telling a WA agency to provide a service to member nations can legally allow the agency to offer that service to any non-members who want it (and who are prepared to pay whatever price would be involved) as well.
Okay, so: Would it be legal for a proposal explicitly to include voluntary compliance with its restrictions in the price to be paid by any non-members who want the associated benefits?

(This is potentially relevant for my currrently-drafting 'Prevention of Wildfires' proposal.)

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'll bring this to the attention of the hivemind, but if you have a draft including such a clause written up you might as well post it in your thread and get some feedback on it. It'll certainly help our discussion of the issue.

[Bears Armed Mission]

I'll bring this to the attention of the hivemind, but if you have a draft including such a clause written up you might as well post it in your thread and get some feedback on it. It'll certainly help our discussion of the issue.

Done: viewtopic.php?p=19503666#p19503666 .

[Bears Armed]

One of the main principles on which this forum and its predecessors have operated for years, and that has been stated by various Mods (on plural occasions during that period) as applicable, is that “The Law Is What The Law Says” meaning that ‘Mandatory Compliance’ applies only to the actual wording of passed resolutions rather than to the authors’ presumed intentions as well.
Going by that principle, although a resolution banning some type of action within all member nations would automatically require all member nations both to refrain from authorising such actions and [presumably] to try preventing such actions — although the extent to which some of the more anarchic nations, (such as [owned-by-a-sometimes-Mod] Hotroddia, for example) actually could carry out preventative action was sometimes disputed — it would not also automatically require member nations to prosecute anybody caught performing such actions (and to impose “proper” sentences, rather than just “a slap on the hand”, in the event of conviction) unless its actual wording said so.

However, by their recent rejection of TDSR’s legality challenge against Mousebumple’s repeal of the ICC, the Mods have apparently accepted as ‘legally’ valid her argument that any resolution banning some type of action within all member nations does actively require the member nations to prosecute anybody caught performing such actions (and to impose “proper” sentences, rather than just “a slap on the hand”, in the event of conviction) even when that resolution’s actual wording doesn’t say that they must.

So, is that the only divergence from a strict interpretation of the principle that “The Law Is What The Law Says” that the Modly Hivemind now considers legally binding on member nations, or are there any others as well? And if the latter is the case, please can we be told about them before we proceed much further with any proposals so that we’ll know whether those proposed resolutions are really as ‘valid’ as we think they are or whether the Mods are going to turn around later on and tell us that they are wrong (or, at least superfluous) because of some difference in interpretation of which we were previously unaware?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Auss always said, "The law means what the law says."

And you spelled HotRodia wrong.

[Frisbeeteria]

“The Law Is What The Law Says”

This is off the top of my head and not a combined, researched, hivemind ruling ... but I've always unconsciously incorporated the idea that if a law exists, enforcement of that law is axiomatic. My interpretation of the first paragraph of the WA FAQ has always been "if it passes, it applies to your country." There are people who roleplay non-compliance on a nation level, but there are also people who roleplay other criminals. The fact that it's possible to violate the law doesn't change the definition of "law", which includes enforcement.

Seems to me that you're saying that we need to revisit the last 292 passed resolutions, and repeal and replace all of them that don't include "Oh by the way, yeah, you also have to enforce this law." I'm not buying that argument.

[Texan Hotrodders]

I think that there is an important distinction (as Bears Armed alluded to) between having a law on the books and having it enforced consistently. I'd suggest that there is a sliding scale on which enforcement is more effective or less effective.

There might be a fascist state in which enforcing a law might be completely unnecessary because nobody would dare to do anything for fear of a brutal crackdown from the state. There also might be an anarcho-socialist federation (such as this nation) that lacks a state apparatus of the sort that could enforce laws in the way that we would normally think of law enforcement.

I think that's actually pretty coherent with what the W.A. does to our national stats. The statistical changes from occasional resolutions have a negligible effect when compared to 2 issues a day over the course of several months.

So even from a game mechanics perspective, the fact is that compliance is mandatory, but how much that compliance affects your nation's characteristics can vary considerably depending on day-to-day governance.

I tend to think that this sort of variability is actually part of the fun of playing the game.

[The Dark Star Republic]

So, plea bargains are illegal in WA nations? State prosecutors have to pursue every case even if there is no realistic chance of obtaining a conviction or doing so would be prejudicial to the defendant's interests?

Of course mandatory compliance can mean mandatory enforcement, but to argue that that therefore means that every single case will be fully prosecuted seems naive.

[Frisbeeteria]

So, plea bargains are illegal in WA nations?

Now you're just bringing up silly stuff to waste time. I realize you want to make this into a black-and-white, the-mods-are-being-idiots discussion, but I'm not biting.

I never said "enforcement must catch ALL offenders and hit them with maximum penalties". Every form of crime, from littering to murder, has people who get caught and people who get away. As Texan Hotrodders said, some nations will be stricter and some will be more lenient.

[Glen-Rhodes]

What Gruen is trying to get you to answer is if WA resolutions by their nature force enforcement, or if nations can simply not enforce a law on their books, as happens all the time in the real world. The former is very much black and white, and would lead to plea bargains being illegal if they aren't explicitly authorized in resolutions that make something a crime.

That's because a plea bargain is normally when a prosecutor ignores the more serious charge, and the defendant pleas to a lesser charge. If enforcement is automatic and required, then there's no way to just ignore the more serious charge, if the defendant actually committed the crime. Hence, no way for a plea bargain to be legal under a mandatory compliance rule that also include mandatory enforcement.

[Chester Pearson]

What Gruen is trying to get you to answer is if WA resolutions by their nature force enforcement, or if nations can simply not enforce a law on their books, as happens all the time in the real world. The former is very much black and white, and would lead to plea bargains being illegal if they aren't explicitly authorized in resolutions that make something a crime.

That's because a plea bargain is normally when a prosecutor ignores the more serious charge, and the defendant pleas to a lesser charge. If enforcement is automatic and required, then there's no way to just ignore the more serious charge, if the defendant actually committed the crime. Hence, no way for a plea bargain to be legal under a mandatory compliance rule that also include mandatory enforcement.

I would guess the way you role-play your nation would determine that. Remember, resolutions do not affect normal citizens, they affect your government.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I realize you want to make this into a black-and-white, the-mods-are-being-idiots discussion, but I'm not biting.

Do I? Almost all of that rhetoric came from other people. I don't recall my GHR even making reference to anything of that sort.

(And I have never thought you or Hack were "idiots".)

I never said "enforcement must catch ALL offenders and hit them with maximum penalties". Every form of crime, from littering to murder, has people who get caught and people who get away. As Texan Hotrodders said, some nations will be stricter and some will be more lenient.

Yes, I agree. Hence why the contrary statement in the repeal seemed so obviously factually incorrect.

[Blood Wine]

There is a "no WA militairy" rule,but does militia fall under this? for example raising an organized counter-force in case of an alien invasion

[The Dark Star Republic]

There is a "no WA militairy" rule,but does militia fall under this? for example raising an organized counter-force in case of an alien invasion

Here is a long and complex discussion of whether or not the WA can fund a militia; the consensus appeared to be "no". You can ask for further clarification but I suspect the mods will be reluctant to give a final answer absent an actual proposal to comment on.

[Blood Wine]

There is a "no WA militairy" rule,but does militia fall under this? for example raising an organized counter-force in case of an alien invasion

Here is a long and complex discussion of whether or not the WA can fund a militia; the consensus appeared to be "no". You can ask for further clarification but I suspect the mods will be reluctant to give a final answer absent an actual proposal to comment on.

Sorry,should have been more clear
There wouldn't be any funding - but I mean establish a chain of command and protocols for a organized WA militia effort against a off-world threat
It wouldn't be a standing army but rather emergency protocols to establish a temporary army that disbands after the treat is gone

[Separatist Peoples]

Here is a long and complex discussion of whether or not the WA can fund a militia; the consensus appeared to be "no". You can ask for further clarification but I suspect the mods will be reluctant to give a final answer absent an actual proposal to comment on.

Sorry,should have been more clear
There wouldn't be any funding - but I mean establish a chain of command and protocols for a organized WA militia effort against a off-world threat
It wouldn't be a standing army but rather emergency protocols to establish a temporary army that disbands after the treat is gone

Which would be a WA military, and illegal. Again, without an actual proposal, its difficult to say.

[Blood Wine]

Sorry,should have been more clear
There wouldn't be any funding - but I mean establish a chain of command and protocols for a organized WA militia effort against a off-world threat
It wouldn't be a standing army but rather emergency protocols to establish a temporary army that disbands after the treat is gone

Which would be a WA military, and illegal. Again, without an actual proposal, its difficult to say.

It wouldn't seem like a WA military to me but rather a loose coalition of forces using an established protocol - the WA itself wouldn't have a say in it directly
I kinda don't wanne make a full draft on something that has a chance to be fully illegal >.> can a mod rule on this?

[Elke and Elba]

Sorry,should have been more clear
There wouldn't be any funding - but I mean establish a chain of command and protocols for a organized WA militia effort against a off-world threat
It wouldn't be a standing army but rather emergency protocols to establish a temporary army that disbands after the treat is gone

Which would be a WA military, and illegal. Again, without an actual proposal, its difficult to say.

You actually don't need an actual proposal, it's quite hard to get around it.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48437&p=19326972#p19326972

Even if you could, the optionality illegality would have scuttered any viable chance of getting this not-removed in the first place.

[Elke and Elba]

Which would be a WA military, and illegal. Again, without an actual proposal, its difficult to say.

It wouldn't seem like a WA military to me but rather a loose coalition of forces using an established protocol - the WA itself wouldn't have a say in it directly
I kinda don't wanne make a full draft on something that has a chance to be fully illegal >.> can a mod rule on this?

Mods do not rule on stuff generally, usually unless submitted and GHRs are filed.

[Mousebumples]

It wouldn't seem like a WA military to me but rather a loose coalition of forces using an established protocol - the WA itself wouldn't have a say in it directly
I kinda don't wanne make a full draft on something that has a chance to be fully illegal >.> can a mod rule on this?

Mods do not rule on stuff generally, usually unless submitted and GHRs are filed.

Give us a draft, and we'll give you an answer. We do not rule on hypotheticals.

-Mouse the Mod

[Separatist Peoples]

Which would be a WA military, and illegal. Again, without an actual proposal, its difficult to say.

You actually don't need an actual proposal, it's quite hard to get around it.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48437&p=19326972#p19326972

Even if you could, the optionality illegality would have scuttered any viable chance of getting this not-removed in the first place.

I really, really want to see such a proposal, though, so I avoided totally squashing the idea. Way to ruin what could potentially be tons of fun to RP. I had a particularly interesting bit prepared for the entrance of the Ainocran delegation!

On a slightly more serious note, it isn't impossible to have such an idea legal, just very, very hard. Too many unofficial rules would get violated to pass, but I could see an angle or two that wouldn't make it outright illegal.

[Defwa]

Which would be a WA military, and illegal. Again, without an actual proposal, its difficult to say.

It wouldn't seem like a WA military to me but rather a loose coalition of forces using an established protocol - the WA itself wouldn't have a say in it directly
I kinda don't wanne make a full draft on something that has a chance to be fully illegal >.> can a mod rule on this?

Definitely not. Anything that funds or even arranges a non optional military from multiple WA nations cannot be written in the WA. You can roleplay a separate organization. (OOC: But it would be like NATO is to the UN)

[Blood Wine]

It wouldn't seem like a WA military to me but rather a loose coalition of forces using an established protocol - the WA itself wouldn't have a say in it directly
I kinda don't wanne make a full draft on something that has a chance to be fully illegal >.> can a mod rule on this?

Definitely not. Anything that funds or even arranges a non optional military from multiple WA nations cannot be written in the WA. You can roleplay a separate organization. (OOC: But it would be like NATO is to the UN)

So...a optional army is possible?