[PASSED] WA Development Foundation

[Sanctaria]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=11493007#p11493007

Removed and I will be smacking people to get an answer back to you as fast as possible.

I thought they already modified the language since y'all didn't get back to them in time?

Edit: I completely oppose this piece of legislation, and will be unlikely to be persuaded to support it, but the inclusion of the line "No member nation shall unilaterally absolve itself of its sovereign debt." should make it significant in strength, shouldn't it? It was, I believe included for exactly that reason, and I'm fairly certain it passes muster on that count.

Since we're back to a drafting phase, I'll be offering some viewpoints tomorrow, but as for now, I'm completely mystified as to why this got deleted. Hopefully some light gets shed on it.

I'm not a moderator, so what do I know? As an author though, this sucks to see.

I believe some people submitted GHRs questioning the strength of the proposal even with the new mandate. Since it reached quorum and would be up for vote soon, and because the Secretariat have been know to take their time deliberating on such issues, I'm assuming that's why it was removed.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I believe some people submitted GHRs questioning the strength of the proposal even with the new mandate. Since it reached quorum and would be up for vote soon, and because the Secretariat have been know to take their time deliberating on such issues, I'm assuming that's why it was removed.

OOC: Not to derail the thread, but if that's the case it's a terrible process isn't it?

"Somebody says it should be removed, we're not sure if it should, so we'll remove it just in case?" There was a least a day and a half left on my own resolution, they could've at least waited that long... right?

I mean, in good faith Auralia requested a legality review. 10 days later, without that review, but with changes that made the original request irrelevant, they went ahead with the proposal.

If there were GHR's on it's legality, that's a different story of course, but if the moderator stance is to delete first and ask questions later, it starts to explain why people file GHR's instead of debating the resolutions.

[Sanctaria]

I believe some people submitted GHRs questioning the strength of the proposal even with the new mandate. Since it reached quorum and would be up for vote soon, and because the Secretariat have been know to take their time deliberating on such issues, I'm assuming that's why it was removed.

OOC: Not to derail the thread, but if that's the case it's a terrible process isn't it?

"Somebody says it should be removed, we're not sure if it should, so we'll remove it just in case?" There was a least a day and a half left on my own resolution, they could've at least waited that long... right?

I mean, in good faith Auralia requested a legality review. 10 days later, without that review, but with changes that made the original request irrelevant, they went ahead with the proposal.

If there were GHR's on it's legality, that's a different story of course, but if the moderator stance is to delete first and ask questions later, it starts to explain why people file GHR's instead of debating the resolutions.

((OOC: You can complain here if you feel necessary.

I can understand why they did it, and I can understand why Auralia might be upset. But them's the breaks. Anyway, he uses a TG script so once resubmission is made it won't take long, and little effort I'd wager, to get it back up to quorum.))

[Glen-Rhodes]

I can understand why they did it, and I can understand why Auralia might be upset. But them's the breaks. Anyway, he uses a TG script so once resubmission is made it won't take long, and little effort I'd wager, to get it back up to quorum.

It's right that what's done is done. They can't re-add the proposal with the same approvals, nor can they just put up for vote. (Well, they could, but they shouldn't open the floodgate by making an exception here.) And as long as the queue is empty, Auralia can get it to quorum quickly enough, with or without an automated campaign. Well, depending on how long it takes the mod team to discuss the new legality issue (if there is one)...

So the only discussion worth having now is a postmortem, figuring how what went wrong and how to fix the issue. It's up to the mod team to decide if they want to have that discussion. This isn't the first time a proposal under review was deleted after it reached quorum. The circumstances are iffy, though. Auralia made the necessary changes to render the legality review moot. The mod team didn't seem to catch up with the changes. I don't blame NERVUN for following proper procedure, because I'm sure he either wasn't aware of the changes, or at least still thought the proposal was still under review. It's an unfortunate event, though, and I'm sure there are some underlying issues to discuss regarding how slowly the legality review process has been moving lately.

[Neldaria]

After a cursory look, the question of "what went wrong" seems to have a very easy answer. Aurilia put the resolution up for Quorum too soon and had no business doing it. The representative only has them self to blame for not awaiting a real Mod's final say.

[Auralia]

After a cursory look, the question of "what went wrong" seems to have a very easy answer. Aurilia put the resolution up for Quorum too soon and had no business doing it. The representative only has them self to blame for not awaiting a real Mod's final say.

Perhaps you should take a bit more than a "cursory look" at the issue before summarily assigning all blame to me.

[NERVUN]

It's the ruling of the Secretariat that the proposal as written does not reach the strength of either strong or significant. Most of it is not binding on WA nations and the changes that might possibly need to be made do not seem to suggest a completely free market system will be installed.

- Ayawotenu Daneremackor,
Acting Undersecretary for the Co-chair of the Acting Secretary General Pro-Tempore for the World Assembly

Modly OOC: To explain this one, we agree that significant changes MIGHT be needed in order for a developing nation to met the standards, but in looking at your proposal, the standards seem to be more of a mid-point than the end of the spectrum. Given the strength rules state:

Mild - Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way

and

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

This seems to be more inline with what your proposal is going for, a swinging from a government controlled economy towards a more free one, but you're not heading towards an all bets are off/Jennifer Government style one either, just the mid-point. While yes, you do have a single binding clause within the proposal, if we removed the rest of it, it again would seem to fall into a limited area of policy and again push things to the center.

To re-iterate, there is nothing wrong with the proposal itself, just the strength. It can be resubmitted with the corrected strength and we'll look forward to it at vote.

[Neldaria]

Perhaps you should take a bit more than a "cursory look" at the issue before summarily assigning all blame to me.

Then would you care to correct me? Because this post suggests I am correct:

It would have been nice if you had waited for the legal ruling that you requested first.
GR, while an experienced player, is not a Moderator and does not make final determinations about the legality of something.

That seems to pretty clearly state you moved forward before receiving Moderator Approval, apparently taking advice from Glen-Rhodes, who is not a Moderator. I for one would call that as a failure on your part.

[Auralia]

It's the ruling of the Secretariat that the proposal as written does not reach the strength of either strong or significant.

I would like to appeal this ruling, if possible. I take particular issue with the following statement:

While yes, you do have a single binding clause within the proposal, if we removed the rest of it, it again would seem to fall into a limited area of policy and again push things to the center.

Sovereign debt is a relatively large area of policy, and the binding clause in the proposal affects the way nations treat sovereign debt in a significant way. If this proposal passes, nations can no longer unilaterally declare bankruptcy. That unprecedented level of accountability will radically change the way governments and investors approach sovereign loans. As such, the proposal deserves a strength of Significant.

Furthermore, there is precedent in my favour. Glen-Rhodes' failed resolution, International Financial Stability Convention, contained an optional committee and a sovereign debt clause, exactly like this proposal. His resolution made it to vote with a strength of Significant; therefore, unless the resolution was illegal, shouldn't mine have a strength of Significant as well?

[Neldaria]

Ah, the time honored and highly effective "he got away with it, why can't /I/?" tactic. This should be fun to watch. *grabs popcorn*

[Glen-Rhodes]

This seems to be more inline with what your proposal is going for, a swinging from a government controlled economy towards a more free one, but you're not heading towards an all bets are off/Jennifer Government style one either, just the mid-point. While yes, you do have a single binding clause within the proposal, if we removed the rest of it, it again would seem to fall into a limited area of policy and again push things to the center.

I have to strongly disagree, as well, even if it doesn't come as any surprise. Banning unilateral debt repudiation and saying member states cannot absolve themselves of their debt is in no way Mild. It is the cornerstone of international finance, which itself is the cornerstone of free trade. It doesn't push member states towards the center. Rather, the policy is firmly to the extreme of the spectrum. It doesn't even exist in the real world, apart from customary norms and normal debt agreements, where states have avoided instating it in international law.

Neither is it a narrow policy, considering how broad international finance is in and of itself. Calling it a very limited policy area essentially throws the entire idea into disarray: what is "limited" and what is "broad"? World Assembly Trade Rights, a Strong resolution, was about equal treatment of imports and exports. If sovereign debt is a limited area of policy, why is import/export broad? Medical Provisions in Blockade is even narrower, as it only deals with blockades of medical supplies. Yet it is legal as a Significant resolution. Concerning Financial Fraud is a Significant resolution about fraud: is financial fraud a broader policy area than sovereign debt? Freedom in Medical Research is yet another example of a Significant resolution with a policy area scope similar to this proposal. The most damning example here is Legalizing Prostitution, which was Significant as well. I strongly recommend the mod team reconsider their opinion that sovereign debt is too limited a policy area for Significant strength.

... a swinging from a government controlled economy towards a more free one, but you're not heading towards an all bets are off/Jennifer Government style one either, just the mid-point.

Which Significant and Strong resolutions don't fit this description? Which Significant and Strong Free Trade resolution are about pushing member states into a "Jennifer Government-style" world? Absolutely none. Again, I hope the mod team will reconvene and reconsider their arguments. It sounds to me as if you guys decided you didn't want it to be Significant strength, and tried to come up with a ruling to ensure it can't be Significant. Because these judgments do not sit well with the entire existing body of Free Trade resolutions passed in the past four years.

Furthermore, I'm a bit worried when you say that removing the mandatory clause leaves a resolution that just pushing things to the center. Why are we removing the mandatory clause at all? Why is that being discussed? If Auralia were to including yet another broad mandatory clause, would the mod team simply say, "Well, if we remove it, it's just a Mild resolution. So you have to submit it with mild Strength?"

Ah, the time honored and highly effective "he got away with it, why can't /I/?" tactic. This should be fun to watch. *grabs popcorn*

Please stop offering your commentary when you don't know what you're talking about. Mods are supposed to use precedent in their rulings, and precedent comes from previous resolutions.

[Neldaria]

Ah, the time honored and highly effective "he got away with it, why can't /I/?" tactic. This should be fun to watch. *grabs popcorn*

Please stop offering your commentary when you don't know what you're talking about. Mods are supposed to use precedent in their rulings, and precedent comes from previous resolutions.

Yes however the idea of precedent relies on existing law. The resolution in question failed to become part of law, so the mods are free to come to a different decision in this case. Even if it had become law, they could still technically reverse their ruling (because that happens too, precedents get overturned) however it'd be messy within the game's mechanics.

[Auralia]

Please stop offering your commentary when you don't know what you're talking about. Mods are supposed to use precedent in their rulings, and precedent comes from previous resolutions.

Yes however the idea of precedent relies on existing law. The resolution in question failed to become part of law, so the mods are free to come to a different decision in this case. Even if it had become law, they could still technically reverse their ruling (because that happens too, precedents get overturned) however it'd be messy within the game's mechanics.

Actually, precedent includes anything that comes to vote, whether it passed or failed.

[Mousebumples]

Actually, precedent includes anything that comes to vote, whether it passed or failed.

Not necessarily. Do you have a Secretariat citation of such a definition of precedent?

Sadly, the Secretariat is not infallible. There have been resolutions that were discovered to be illegal after they made it to vote in the past.

Passed legislation is law, in terms of precedent and any illegalities are voided. However: just because the U.N.I.B.O.T. committee passed once upon a time does not mean that future proposals with such branding would be declared legal. Just because one potential piece of contradictory legislation made it to a vote (and passed) doesn't mean that future pieces of contradictory legislation will be allowed to go to a vote. Et cetera.

I firmly believe The Secretariat should view all legality challenges - based on rules, not based on duplication, contradiction, etc. - in light of the rules as they presently exist. Just because GR's proposal made it to a vote doesn't mean that it should have made it to a vote.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

^Indeed. In the case of "something similar was done before and that was legal" arguments, the key question is whether that earlier thing was challenged. Even glaringly illegal elements have made it to a vote. That doesn't mean they're actually legal, it just means the time for challenging their illegality has passed and, as a consequence, those challenges are waived.

edited multiple times for terrible, terrible grammar

[Flibbleites]

Passed legislation is law, in terms of precedent and any illegalities are voided. However: just because the U.N.I.B.O.T. committee passed once upon a time does not mean that future proposals with such branding would be declared legal. Just because one potential piece of contradictory legislation made it to a vote (and passed) doesn't mean that future pieces of contradictory legislation will be allowed to go to a vote. Et cetera.

Exactly, otherwise we'd have to allow RL references because of Max Barry Day.

[Auralia]

Passed legislation is law, in terms of precedent and any illegalities are voided. However: just because the U.N.I.B.O.T. committee passed once upon a time does not mean that future proposals with such branding would be declared legal. Just because one potential piece of contradictory legislation made it to a vote (and passed) doesn't mean that future pieces of contradictory legislation will be allowed to go to a vote. Et cetera.

I certainly don't deny that. However, precedent certainly counts for something. Glen-Rhodes's resolution was based on a certain interpretation of the rules, an interpretation that was tacitly accepted by the mods. There needs to be a good reason to change that interpretation, but so far I haven't seen any convincing arguments. Quite the opposite, actually - the counter-arguments made by Glen-Rhodes and I are quite strong.

[Free South Califas]

Passed legislation is law, in terms of precedent and any illegalities are voided. However: just because the U.N.I.B.O.T. committee passed once upon a time does not mean that future proposals with such branding would be declared legal. Just because one potential piece of contradictory legislation made it to a vote (and passed) doesn't mean that future pieces of contradictory legislation will be allowed to go to a vote. Et cetera.

I certainly don't deny that. However, precedent certainly counts for something. Glen-Rhodes's resolution was based on a certain interpretation of the rules, an interpretation that was tacitly accepted by the mods. There needs to be a good reason to change that interpretation, but so far I haven't seen any convincing arguments. Quite the opposite, actually - the counter-arguments made by Glen-Rhodes and I are quite strong.

Under this reasoning, the mods could tacitly accept anything simply by not being omniscient, and you would take it as an endorsement that needed to be explicitly revoked.

It must be tough to be a mod in your world.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Just because GR's proposal made it to a vote doesn't mean that it should have made it to a vote.

You can't point to a single resolution and call it precedent, unless an actual legality decision was made on it. But it is a valid point in the argument, and it does help prove precedent. The high likelihood is that including a single broad mandate from the beginning would not have led anybody to challenge the legality of this proposal. That's because the difference between Mild and Significant has always, without debate, been settled by mandates. Although I argued, and still maintain, that this proposal could be Significant strength without the mandate, including the mandate undoubtedly erased that question. In this very thread, people stopped questioning the legality of the strength.

With my old proposal, Ardchoille specifically pointed out that the last mandate saved the proposal, although she was sure to say it wasn't an official mod ruling. (However, mod statements should and do carry weight, ruling or not.) There was absolutely no question about my proposal's legality, and it went to vote! So I find it very difficult to understand why the mod team has reversed course and gone against consensus belief on what makes a proposal pass the Mild threshold. Mild proposals have always done everything up to mandating. If a proposal had a mandate, and wasn't addressing some niche issue, nobody until a few days ago would have considered it illegal. You're blatantly denying reality if you say otherwise.

In addition to that, I hope the mods address the points I raised. The entire existing body of Free Trade resolutions go against their ruling. With this new ruling, it's not clear at all what the new threshold is. When is a proposal properly Mild, Significant, or Strong? Our old thresholds have been thrown on the window. (Although I doubt the mods will see their ruling as having that much of an affect, I for one could not describe to a new player what the ratings now mean. If they do stick with this ruling, they will need to write a primer and clearly delineate the strengths.

Free Trade has never been about pushing member states towards a crazy laissez-faire world or towards a more command-style economy. I have no clue where they came up with this characterization, and i would like a clear explanation of why they think that's what the Free Trade category is. The strongest Free Trade resolution we've ever had is the World Assembly Economic Union, and that most certainly was not "heading towards an all bets are off/Jennifer Government style" economy. In fact, equating free trade with a laissez-faire, corporation-dominated world makes no sense. Free trade isn't about getting rid of regulations. It's about working under a different system of regulations. Reducing barriers to trade isn't about getting rid of government involvement in the economy. It's about the government being involved in different ways. The description of Free Trade is, "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." It's not, "A resolution to reduce government involvement in the economy and increase economic freedoms and liberties."

[Auralia]

I certainly don't deny that. However, precedent certainly counts for something. Glen-Rhodes's resolution was based on a certain interpretation of the rules, an interpretation that was tacitly accepted by the mods. There needs to be a good reason to change that interpretation, but so far I haven't seen any convincing arguments. Quite the opposite, actually - the counter-arguments made by Glen-Rhodes and I are quite strong.

Under this reasoning, the mods could tacitly accept anything simply by not being omniscient, and you would take it as an endorsement that needed to be explicitly revoked.

It must be tough to be a mod in your world.

First of all, one does not need to be omniscient to examine a queued proposal before it goes to vote for illegalities.

That said, I recognize that illegalities can slip by, but that is the exception rather than the rule. As a general rule, resolutions that go up to vote should be considered legal, and if anyone challenges legality from that point on, they have a substantial burden of proof. I'm sorry, but that's not an unreasonable policy.

Free trade isn't about getting rid of regulations. It's about working under a different system of regulations. Reducing barriers to trade isn't about getting rid of government involvement in the economy. It's about the government being involved in different ways. The description of Free Trade is, "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." It's not, "A resolution to reduce government involvement in the economy and increase economic freedoms and liberties."

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.

[Moronist Decisions]

It's odd that your delegation goes to such great lengths to insist on having to write a proposal that is significant rather than mild - which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Hint: listen, cherish and obey the secretariat. We mean it. Listen to their advice and directives, it makes you a much better delegation and much more successful at writing.

Amber Stivers
Assistant to Secretary II for Cultural Affairs
Office of the Representative to the General Assembly

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's odd that your delegation goes to such great lengths to insist on having to write a proposal that is significant rather than mild - which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

This ruling doesn't affect just Auralia and just this proposal.

[Mousebumples]

It's odd that your delegation goes to such great lengths to insist on having to write a proposal that is significant rather than mild - which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

This ruling doesn't affect just Auralia and just this proposal.

... Yes? Is this supposed to be some sort of groundbreaking revelation? *scratches head*

[Auralia]

Hint: listen, cherish and obey the secretariat. We mean it. Listen to their advice and directives, it makes you a much better delegation and much more successful at writing.

How patronizing.

This ruling doesn't affect just Auralia and just this proposal.

... Yes? Is this supposed to be some sort of groundbreaking revelation? *scratches head*

His point is that this ruling sets a bad precedent for the strengths of all future Free Trade proposals. That's a serious problem that needs to be resolved; that's why we're going through so much trouble to appeal the ruling.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This ruling doesn't affect just Auralia and just this proposal.

... Yes? Is this supposed to be some sort of groundbreaking revelation? *scratches head*

Moronist Decision's post seemed to argue that Auralia is going to such great lengths in this legal battle, when he could just change the strength. I meant to say that the legal battle is about more than just this proposal, as it really changes how strength works with the Free Trade category.

For example, I have no clue if my International Financial Stability Facility proposal would still be legal. It also only contains one universal mandate (the same exact one this proposal does, by the way). But it also covers a much broader international finance area: not just developing countries, but really all countries. (That's not to say international financing of developing economies is a narrow subject area, though.) I do plan on returning to that proposal at some point, and I think it's ridiculous that I would have to submit it under Mild, when things like the formerly-active Legalizing Prostitution and The Gem Trading Accord are Significant-strength resolutions.