[DEFEATED] Repeal "National Economic Freedoms"

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I received a telegram from Ardchoille saying, among other things:

If your repeal didn't pass I’d probably start a Hive Mind discussion on an updated ruling to clarify the situation.

Seeing as I want such a clarification, and if my repeal passes I won't get it, I am hereby declaring this repeal attempt abandoned.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It will be hard for the mods to "clarify" the "situation" NEF creates, without delving into policy opinions with their rulings. There's no way for the mods to remain neutral on policy when making a ruling on whether a regulation of commerce serves to address an "extreme hazard to national populations." Mods have been correctly reluctant to get involved on those debates, and I don't think they can carve out a special case for NEF without it setting a precedent that will drag them into future policy debates.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It will be hard for the mods to "clarify" the "situation" NEF creates, without delving into policy opinions with their rulings. There's no way for the mods to remain neutral on policy when making a ruling on whether a regulation of commerce serves to address an "extreme hazard to national populations." Mods have been correctly reluctant to get involved on those debates, and I don't think they can carve out a special case for NEF without it setting a precedent that will drag them into future policy debates.

OOC: Which is why the old precedent - that a resolution was legal if it explicitly stated the situation posed an "extreme hazard", regardless of the merit of that claim; that a resolution was illegal if it did not make such a statement explicitly, regardlessly of how probable the situation it described would be to create such "extreme hazard" - was fair. It relied on the mods purely making a technical decision, and not delving into deciding policy: that should be for the WA voters to determine.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I guess I'm not seeing the importance of the statement. An author merely has to assert -- not even argue -- that a regulation of commerce addresses a hazard for the proposal to be in line with NEF. Everybody's generally in agreement with that. But to me that seems a useless formality. For mods to be monitoring compliance with NEF, they'd be relegated to reminding authors to make the assertion. Because any assertion makes the proposal legal, mods can simply deliver a blanket ruling that any regulation automatically addresses a hazard, thus saving time in legality reviews and debates.

So what's the value in seeking a clarification of the rules? Compliance with the hazards requirement in NEF is something that the mods simply can't adjudicate. NEF doesn't require an explicit enumeration, and mods will accept any assertion anyways. It seems the prudent thing to do is rewrite NEF or abandon it in favor of more targeted resolutions blocking international commerce intervention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Dark Star Republic]

I guess I'm not seeing the importance of the statement. An author merely has to assert -- not even argue -- that a regulation of commerce addresses of hazard for the proposal to be in line with NEF. Everybody's generally in agreement with that.

OOC: Are they? That's what I'm contesting here: a mod ruling that a proposal did not need to even assert any kind of 'hazard' justification for the proposal. That NEF could be wholly ignored.

If there is a general agreement that such an assertion is needed - and, hence, that previous mod ruling overruling Ardchoille and ignoring my challenge is explicitly overturned - then we're all good.

But to me that seems a useless formality. For mods to be monitoring compliance with NEF, they'd be relegated to reminding authors to make the assertion. Because any assertion makes the proposal legal, mods can simply deliver a blanket ruling that any regulation automatically addresses a hazard, thus saving time in legality reviews and debates.

I don't agree with that approach. However, if the mods do, then they should explicitly say so.

All I am really looking for is a statement of what moderation policy actually is.

[Ardchoille]

Well, there won't be any Hive Mind statement until the Hive Mind's scattered parts can reassemble. But please don't let that stifle discussion.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I guess I'm not seeing the importance of the statement. An author merely has to assert -- not even argue -- that a regulation of commerce addresses of hazard for the proposal to be in line with NEF. Everybody's generally in agreement with that.

OOC: Are they? That's what I'm contesting here: a mod ruling that a proposal did not need to even assert any kind of 'hazard' justification for the proposal. That NEF could be wholly ignored.

If there is a general agreement that such an assertion is needed - and, hence, that previous mod ruling overruling Ardchoille and ignoring my challenge is explicitly overturned - then we're all good.

I think NEF is a very unique resolution. It probably shouldn't have been reviewed as legal, but it's hard to foresee problems that arise. When it was passed, the everybody WAS in agreement that proposals merely needed to assert a hazard. Mods weren't going to adjudicate what was and was not a real hazard. That was left up to the political machinery of the WA.

But if we're looking at it from a logical and practical perspective requiring the assertion doesn't seem necessary to me. Mods are going to accept any assertion, and the resolution itself doesn't require the assertion in the first place. It requires only that resolutions seek to address a hazard, and because anything can be accepted as a hazard, then all commerce regulations are ipso facto legal. The assertion is a redundant step.

The only way I'm seeing to enforce the hazards requirement with any meaning is if mods begin judging the merits of the arguments. I don't see them wanting to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Dark Star Republic]

I think NEF is a very unique resolution. It probably shouldn't have been reviewed as legal, but it's hard to foresee problems that arise. When it was passed, the everybody WAS in agreement that proposals merely needed to assert a hazard. Mods weren't going to adjudicate what was and was not a real hazard. That was left up to the political machinery of the WA.

OOC: I can't tell if we agree or not on the legal issue, but I will say I absolutely do not see NEF as unique. I see it as identical to UN Security Act, and I think the precedent of that resolution - which was the product of some very long and in-depth legality discussions between players and the mods, the kind of thing that simply doesn't happen anymore - should still apply. Indeed, the main thing I am looking for is an explanation from the mystery mod who overruled Ardchoille as to why that precedent no longer applies.

The only way I'm seeing to enforce the hazards requirement with any meaning is if mods begin judging the merits of the arguments. I don't see them wanting to do that.

I disagree. That is exactly what they did by ruling Industrial Pollution Control legal: they declared that its arguments merited consideration as an extreme hazard. That was a political decision that should have been left to the voters to make.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If your position on the legal aspect is that there's a general requirement to pay lip service to NEF, like arms control and disarmament resolutions had to pay lip service to the UN Security Act back in the day, I think we agree on different levels. I'm understanding your position as: authors must explicitly enumerate (or, at least, explicitly assert) how the proposal addresses an extreme hazard to national populations. That's what the general consensus was when NEF was passed, and how we got a lot of commerce regulations through in spite of NEF's restrictions.

However, where we split is that I think that step isn't necessary. I take a more practical (admittedly heterodox) approach, rather than the legalism we're all used to dealing with. Like we've established, any assertion will pass legal muster. If any assertion will work, then all assertions will work, which makes all regulations legal. So the utility of including an argument or assertion is zero. Mods will never declare a commerce regulation illegal under NEF's restriction clauses, as long as some king of argument can be put forth. I don't think that argument needs to be in the form of an explicit statement. If we take the Pollution Control Act as an example, it's clear to me that the resolution is seeking to address some kind of harm or hazard with its commerce restrictions. So what is the point of explicitly stating so, when the resolution as a whole is proof enough?

At the extreme end of my position, I think mods could simply issue a blanket ruling that all commerce regulations automatically meet NEF's requirements. That's the outcome of legality reviews anyways, even if mods have to take the intermediate step of reminding authors to pay lip service to the NEF. I don't see the intermediate step as useful from a legal standpoint, because merely asserting that X is a hazard to national populations doesn't change anything about the proposal, compared to when it didn't have the assertion.

I'm not sure if the mod in question judged the policy on its merits, or if they did a mental shortcut past that intermediate stage. I would have to see the actual ruling, which I can't find anywhere.* I will say that if they did, then they're opening a can of worms they really shouldn't be opening.

* I reiterate my long-time call for mods to create a central archive of their decisions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I don't think your position is as "heterodox" as you claim: it is more or less exactly what was argued by opponents of the UNSA.

But I think we're arguing slightly different things at this stage. You're concerned with what the ruling should be. You may well be right, and if the mods adopted some variant of your position, I wouldn't fight it.* (I would, however, try to repeal NEF.) I am concerned with what the ruling actually is.

At the time of NEF (I wasn't active, but I've read the archives), there were various legality discussions, with Krioval more or less admitting he saw his resolution as having a huge loophole and that he was happy with that because it at least required "enumeration". Ardchoille expanded on this in a lengthy and detailed ruling at the time of Ethics in International Trade, leading to Unibot including the "extreme hazard" language in his proposal to assure its legality. But then this appears to have been totally abandoned, leading to Industrial Pollution Control being declared legal. There hasn't been any explanation of why The Most Glorious Hack (posting as Man or Astroman) was wrong in his UNSA ruling. There hasn't been any explanation of why Ardchoille was wrong in her EIT ruling. There hasn't been any explanation, at all.

You mention not being able to find the ruling in question. That's because it was never given. I have to this day not received a response to a legality challenge submitted almost four months ago: though Ardchoille said she would respond, then said she had already responded, then said she had no interest in responding, she was not exactly the mod in question, and I only found out third-hand that the challenge had even been rejected (in a process that was bizarrely claimed "reduced confusion").

Perhaps, they have adopted your line of thinking, that there's no need for the formality of trying to make a resolution legal and we should just permit contradiction so long as it's cool. Perhaps, there was something specific to Industrial Pollution Control (and to all the other resolutions cited here) that I missed, caught up in my foolish obsession with "wordy" proposals and trying to respond to "befuddled" newcomers. Perhaps the proposal was declared legal based on an Azande chicken sacrifice. I really couldn't say, but I would awfully like to find out.

* Assuming, of course, explanation of overruling TMGH/Ardchoile/etc.

[Ardchoille]

... then said she had no interest in responding

Fair go. I said I had already said all I had to say on the way it was handled, Ie, on the fact that you, who had challenged the proposal, didn't get a personal reply. The author got a personal reply, which he then gave the essence of in the thread: that either wording was satisfactory. The author was answered, the GA was informed. That's a common way of handling challenges, as I said and Flib confirmed.

[The Dark Star Republic]

... then said she had no interest in responding

Fair go. I said I had already said all I had to say on the way it was handled, Ie, on the fact that you, who had challenged the proposal, didn't get a personal reply. The author got a personal reply, which he then gave the essence of in the thread: that either wording was satisfactory. The author was answered, the GA was informed. That's a common way of handling challenges, as I said and Flib confirmed.

OOC: Oh, I see. I misinterpreted that bit - apologies. I will edit my post to clarify.

I do still think that was a shitty way to handle it incidentally, but I'm not going to argue that months later.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is there a reason why we can't just get the exact text of the ruling? It should be in the outbox of whichever mod sent it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Dark Star Republic]

To avoid confusion, rulings have to be given publicly (on the forums) or officially (via Voice of Mod TG).

Given there was no ruling posted on the forum, it must have been given by TG to Sakash; Sakash has now CTEd, so the only way of getting that ruling would, indeed, be for the mod in question to copy it over. Given I don't even know who that mod was, however, it's difficult to ask.

[Bears Armed]

To avoid confusion, rulings have to be given publicly (on the forums) or officially (via Voice of Mod TG).

Given there was no ruling posted on the forum, it must have been given by TG to Sakash; Sakash has now CTEd, so the only way of getting that ruling would, indeed, be for the mod in question to copy it over. Given I don't even know who that mod was, however, it's difficult to ask.

If it was a 'Voice of Mod' TG rather than one sent from the relevant Mod's own nation then wouldn't it be in the Mods' overall log of their collective activities, to which all of them have access?

[Krioval]

If your position on the legal aspect is that there's a general requirement to pay lip service to NEF, like arms control and disarmament resolutions had to pay lip service to the UN Security Act back in the day, I think we agree on different levels. I'm understanding your position as: authors must explicitly enumerate (or, at least, explicitly assert) how the proposal addresses an extreme hazard to national populations. That's what the general consensus was when NEF was passed, and how we got a lot of commerce regulations through in spite of NEF's restrictions.

For what it's worth, the intent was to force authors to somehow stipulate that their proposals addressed some critical economic issue of international importance, and to otherwise leave the internal commercial decisions of member states to their respective governments. Hence the phrasing "extreme hazards".

However, where we split is that I think that step isn't necessary. I take a more practical (admittedly heterodox) approach, rather than the legalism we're all used to dealing with. Like we've established, any assertion will pass legal muster. If any assertion will work, then all assertions will work, which makes all regulations legal. So the utility of including an argument or assertion is zero. Mods will never declare a commerce regulation illegal under NEF's restriction clauses, as long as some king of argument can be put forth. I don't think that argument needs to be in the form of an explicit statement. If we take the Pollution Control Act as an example, it's clear to me that the resolution is seeking to address some kind of harm or hazard with its commerce restrictions. So what is the point of explicitly stating so, when the resolution as a whole is proof enough?

Again, the idea is that if an author asserts that their resolution addresses "extreme hazards" to "national populations", the member states may call that interpretation into question during the proposal/resolution debate. This should not automatically be considered a question of legality, although there have been legality challenges based on NEF, but instead a question of validity: whether the proposing nation has sufficient support to advance their claim. Hence why Krioval (IC) would not oppose regulations on food and medicine standards, but would object to laws mandating domestic copyrights. I also envisioned that NEF would be used to protect the prerogative of WA member nations to trade without interference with non-WA nations; however, I feel that NEF has been of limited success in that regard.

At the extreme end of my position, I think mods could simply issue a blanket ruling that all commerce regulations automatically meet NEF's requirements. That's the outcome of legality reviews anyways, even if mods have to take the intermediate step of reminding authors to pay lip service to the NEF. I don't see the intermediate step as useful from a legal standpoint, because merely asserting that X is a hazard to national populations doesn't change anything about the proposal, compared to when it didn't have the assertion.

I think that it is important for authors of economic resolutions to make their case as to how their resolution addresses a critical issue. Otherwise, it could be construed as interference with no real point, other than to advance a particular economic agenda (conveniently, one opposed to the ideas of the NEF).

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think we all understand the intent of NEF. It's how that intent is translated into compliance that is in question. NEF doesn't actually require authors to include justifying text. Rather, NEF requires the resolution as a whole to address an extreme hazard. Including the argument in the text is just something we all assumed would be needed to avoid a legality challenge, but it's really not legally required.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Dark Star Republic]

Well, there won't be any Hive Mind statement until the Hive Mind's scattered parts can reassemble. But please don't let that stifle discussion.

Bump to see whether the Hive Mind are closer to a decision.

[Ardchoille]

Have now seen TGs, will post later today.
EDIT: The relevant TG from Sakash, who had at first queried about "missing words" and been asked for clarification, said:

Clause under question in the resolution:

"4. PROHIBITS Specific Industries/companies which do not have technology to reduce Pollution to safe limits."

Conflict pointed out with following previous resolution

National Economic Freedoms states:
"DEFINES "commerce" to include the sale, production, and consumption of a product or service,
...
REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:
...
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations"

one of the Suggestion solution by player

" In my (completely unofficial) opinion, something like this would work:

WORRIED that without proper safeguards, Industrial pollution is affecting common people’s health, clean water sources, food contamination & loss of income in some cases due to some irresponsible industries, and that such effects represent an extreme hazard to national populations."

link to discussion forum
viewtopic.php?t=264459

The relevant mod reply was
"

The wording appears fine either way.

... which I now notice is what I said in the original thread in December:

The mod handling the request replied to the author, saying that either formulation -- his wording or the one you proposed in this thread -- was acceptable.<snip>

I recognise this is only part of what you are concerned about. If I understand you correctly, you contend that if the "extreme hazard to national populations" wording has not been used in the Resolutions you list, then NEF is no longer useful because its exemption clause has been ignored.

However, I'd argue that if mods and players have generally accepted the interpretation that Glen-Rhodes advanced -- that what is required for legality is the description by the author of the circumstances that he considers extremely hazardous, with the GA still deciding by vote whether they accept the assertion -- then my original ruling, not the NEF requirement, is what's been ignored.

That suggests to me that at least three other mods who've been active since then, and the authors on whose work they've ruled, have apparently found the ruling not sustained by their reading of NEF, and so unworkable in practice. My original ruling was based on precedent, but I think it's too late to put that genie back in the bottle. The actual text of the Resolution can in fact be read in favour of the "show, rather than tell" version, and evidently, according to your researches, both mods and players have done so. The other active mods have independently sustained the authors who ignored it. I don't mean "sustained by explicit ruling"; I mean "sustained by not deleting" at the proposal stage. For all I know, I ended up doing the same, though the most recent example I remember checking had the exemption phrase in it. Whatever, I'm not going through all the mod logs since 2009 to find out who deleted what and why, and there's no way of checking who performed the negative (ie, not deleting).

So, then, I'm ruling that mods accept that a statement in the text of a proposal explaining the conditions that the author considers extremely hazardous is sufficient to avoid a contradiction violation of NEF.

I understand from your previous statements that this will mean the renewal of your Repeal. I accept that you have not found the phrase "extreme hazard to national populations" in the Resolutions you list. I would ask you, however, to consider whether all of them needed that or any description similar in intent. That is, whether the GA, in adopting them, was actually "generally restricting commerce", which is the action that would trigger the need for NEF's exemption clause. If not, then the phrase is not there simply because it was not needed. We have upheld in previous cases, across several categories, the counter-intuitive argument that some international rules or regulations can actually "reduce barriers" or "increase rights" (eg, by making international activity in that field easier through uniformity).

I won't be commenting on which Resolutions this caveat might affect, as that's a task for players.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The relevant mod reply was
"

The wording appears fine either way.

OOC: Hard to believe such a detailed, considered response caused any confusion at all. I note with amusement that after all this time, you still haven't indicated my GHR was even looked at: it's Sakash's TG that drew that response.

That suggests to me that at least three other mods who've been active since then, and the authors on whose work they've ruled, have apparently found the ruling not sustained by their reading of NEF, and so unworkable in practice.

My suspicion is it's mainly the latter. I'm not denying that actually enforcing the intended effect of NEF would have been arduous (though that to me is more an argument that it should have been deleted at the time or at least Krioval warned that his interpretation would be watered down to futility).

I don't mean "sustained by explicit ruling"; I mean "sustained by not deleting" at the proposal stage.

I know, and this is the problem I have been raising. When you don't provide explicit rulings, we don't know what's going on. If you are going to depart from precedent so starkly in the future, I would really recommend actually telling the players (the former "Case Study of Deleted Proposals" served a useful function in this regard, but it's apparent that the Reference Guide is never going to return).

So, then, I'm ruling that mods accept that a statement in the text of a proposal explaining the conditions that the author considers extremely hazardous is sufficient to avoid a contradiction violation of NEF.

Thank you. So long as I'm safe to interpret this as an explicit moderator ruling that The Most Glorious Hack was wrong about the United Nations Security Act and you were wrong about Ethics in International Trade, and that this ruling is now a new precedent that significantly alters the interpretation of National Economic Freedoms from that intended by its author - who had at the time stated that he felt his proposal would force legislators to enumerate such extreme hazards - then that's fine. All I've ever wanted was to know what the rules of this game actually are.

I understand from your previous statements that this will mean the renewal of your Repeal.

Yes, it will. I will probably have another legality query, as I want to change the tone a bit to reflect this complete reversal of precedent without falling foul of MetaGaming rules, but at least I now know I have to proceed with this, at some point.

[Krioval]

Thank you. So long as I'm safe to interpret this as an explicit moderator ruling that The Most Glorious Hack was wrong about the United Nations Security Act and you were wrong about Ethics in International Trade, and that this ruling is now a new precedent that significantly alters the interpretation of National Economic Freedoms from that intended by its author - who had at the time stated that he felt his proposal would force legislators to enumerate such extreme hazards - then that's fine. All I've ever wanted was to know what the rules of this game actually are.

I understand from your previous statements that this will mean the renewal of your Repeal.

Yes, it will. I will probably have another legality query, as I want to change the tone a bit to reflect this complete reversal of precedent without falling foul of MetaGaming rules, but at least I now know I have to proceed with this, at some point.

If your intent is to strengthen the provisions of NEF, I would be interested in a potential collaboration.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Thank you. So long as I'm safe to interpret this as an explicit moderator ruling that The Most Glorious Hack was wrong about the United Nations Security Act and you were wrong about Ethics in International Trade, and that this ruling is now a new precedent that significantly alters the interpretation of National Economic Freedoms from that intended by its author - who had at the time stated that he felt his proposal would force legislators to enumerate such extreme hazards - then that's fine. All I've ever wanted was to know what the rules of this game actually are.

Yes, it will. I will probably have another legality query, as I want to change the tone a bit to reflect this complete reversal of precedent without falling foul of MetaGaming rules, but at least I now know I have to proceed with this, at some point.

If your intent is to strengthen the provisions of NEF, I would be interested in a potential collaboration.

OOC: Maybe, but I have my doubts as to whether such a "strengthening" would hold up; it seems more likely it would be similarly watered down.

[Krioval]

OOC: Maybe, but I have my doubts as to whether such a "strengthening" would hold up; it seems more likely it would be similarly watered down.

That was the problem with the original as well. I preferred much stronger language back then, but there were concerns about the legality of an absolute blocker.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: Is this now-abandoned, after Ard's response or revived? I can't really tell from your response.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Maybe, but I have my doubts as to whether such a "strengthening" would hold up; it seems more likely it would be similarly watered down.

That was the problem with the original as well. I preferred much stronger language back then, but there were concerns about the legality of an absolute blocker.

OOC: Ok. I wouldn't want an "absolute blocker" to pass; irrespective of whether it would be politically or economically desirable, it would be as game-killingly boring as HotRodia's Stability Act or Knootoss's Subsidiarity Act.

So I think with regards to any possible replacement, we'll have to go our separate ways.