Mod Rulings Requested in GA

[Intellect and the Arts]

It has been requested that a Mod please let us know if WA Peacekeeping Operations Act would be in violation of GA#2 due to the proposal including the WA having an army.

It is also being requested that a Mod please provide clarification as to whether Family and Religion would be in violation of GA#30, with the assertion being that the proposal effectively does nothing other than duplicate a guarantee of freedom of expression on behalf of parents regarding their religion, and possibly GA#35 for similar reasons. My understanding is that a proposal that is in queue but not yet up to vote may still receive a ruling, but if I am mistaken then I duly apologize.

Gratitude in advance.

[Enn]

It has been requested that a Mod please let us know if WA Peacekeeping Operations Act would be in violation of GA#2 due to the proposal including the WA having an army.

Perhaps more to the point, whether it would be a violation of the WA Rules, in particular

"Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it."

[Ardchoille]

*sigh* Lawyer-lashing incoming.

[Linux and the X]

It is also being requested that a Mod please provide clarification as to whether Family and Religion would be in violation of GA#30, with the assertion being that the proposal effectively does nothing other than duplicate a guarantee of freedom of expression on behalf of parents regarding their religion, and possibly GA#35 for similar reasons. My understanding is that a proposal that is in queue but not yet up to vote may still receive a ruling, but if I am mistaken then I duly apologize.

Since I am among those who espouse such a view, I'd like to better explain. (I won't be adding "in my view" to everything, because it's bloody obvious I'm talking about my views.) There are two interpretations of Family and Religion: that it would simply allow parents to discuss religion with their childred, and that it would allow parents to force their children to attend the services of and practice the religion of the parent's choice up until the threshold of majority.

As to the first interpretation, GAR#30, Freedom of Expression, "[a]ffirms the right of all people to express their [...] religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal". Therefore, if Family and Religion does indeed simply allow parents to share their religious views, it is a duplication of GAR#30. Indeed, GAR#30 allows one to share their religious views with anyone, not merely one's minor offspring.

The second interpretation doesn't quite make it illegal, but it would be extremely dangerous. If Family and Religion, with the second interpretation, were to pass, it would require all nations to allow parents to force their minor offspring to attend religious services and to participate in religious rites. Under GAR#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, "[a]ll inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present". This includes protection from being forced to participate in religious activities. Therefore, in order to remain in compliance with both GAR#35 and what would be GAR#120 (Family and Religion), nations would have no choice but to allow ANY person to force ANY OTHER person to attend and participate in religious rites, even over the objections of the person being so forced. While I cannot find any resolution that this would duplicate (thank whatever diety you believe in for that) or contradict (a glaring omission), making it illegal, I highly doubt that it would be supported by many if any nations if they realised this. In terms of legality, I would suspect that requiring what is essentially the legalisation of kidnapping (and possibly worse, given what may fall under the umbrella of "religious rites") would be considered BLOODY STUPID.

[Ardchoille]

Re the WA Peacekeeping Operations Act: we see it as violating GA#2 and, in application, GA#14; but more fundamentally, we were unanimous in the view that it's in violation of the Rules for Proposals:

• Army, Police, SWAT, etc
  
  The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

That's a sub-clause of Game Mechanics violations -- "Anything that requires an adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code, falls into this category."

We're still looking at Family and Religion. The OP is right, a proposal that is in queue but not yet up to vote may still be the subject of a ruling.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... we were unanimous in the view that it's in violation of the Rules for Proposals...

I'm being a bugger, but how were you guys unanimous there that peacekeeping is illegal, yet you guys were also unanimous that trying and convicting criminals (aka, being a police) is perfectly legal?

I don't see how, unless you're going to rely on a pretty flimsy and arbitrary manipulation of words, this ruling right here can come from the same group as the ruling that made the Multilateral Prosecution Act and the ICC legal.

[Mousebumples]

I'm being a bugger, but how were you guys unanimous there that peacekeeping is illegal, yet you guys were also unanimous that trying and convicting criminals (aka, being a police) is perfectly legal?

I don't see how, unless you're going to rely on a pretty flimsy and arbitrary manipulation of words, this ruling right here can come from the same group as the ruling that made the Multilateral Prosecution Act and the ICC legal.

In my experience, the trying and convicting of criminals is an action completed in the judiciary branch of government. A police force would fall under the "executive branch" (in the US), so they are, in fact, distinct.

Certainly, I don't mean to speak for the moderation staff - and my apologies if this comment is out of turn in Moderation - but that is the difference in my eyes.

[Unibot]

My follow-up question would be how this requires an adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code? By that train of logic, all committees require an adjustment to how the game does things. But thanks for the ruling.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In my experience, the trying and convicting of criminals is an action completed in the judiciary branch of government. A police force would fall under the "executive branch" (in the US), so they are, in fact, distinct.

Yeah, that's the attempt at justification -- a flimsy manipulation of words. A criminal justice system and a police system are the same thing. The World Assembly is policing the world. Nerv's ruling was in part based on some kind of notion that the rule only prevents The World Police^TM, but doesn't prevent policing action that isn't literally police officers going after somebody.*

Still, then, the problem arises in how the same team can find peacekeeping illegal. The rule only talks about a WA Army^TM. Peacekeepers are not an army -- an army defends a state (which often means being an aggressor), a peacekeeping force keeps peace. So, either they were wrong then and are reversing course, or they are wrong now and need to further deliberate.

Now, I'm not certain how Unibot's proposal conflicts with Neutrality of Nations, so I hope Ard can expand on that. That resolution isn't in any way binding on the World Assembly as an actor. But more importantly, his proposal requires that nations cease conflict, so N-o-N wouldn't come into play anyways.

* Nerv's ruling was also based on the idea that the World Assembly isn't directly holding prisoners. It's merely 'renting' prisons to hold WA-convicted criminals. So, if the same is done for peacekeeping forces -- the WA just 'renting' peacekeepers -- would that be legal or illegal? Keep in mind that the police and army restrictions are in the same exact rules and the same exact clauses of Rights and Duties, so I don't think it would be very genuine or legitimate to have different tests for legality.

[Kryozerkia]

Family and Religion legality ruling posted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

My follow-up question would be how this requires an adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code? By that train of logic, all committees require an adjustment to how the game does things. But thanks for the ruling.

I would like to ask this question, as well. I don't see how legislating peacekeepers would require changes to the actual game any more than the ICC or MPA required changes to the actual game. (Or any committee that actually does something affecting member states...)

[Intellect and the Arts]

Thanks to the Mods for their attention in these matters. It's always good to know that the Powers That Be can be relied upon for the settlement of such disputes.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Still, then, the problem arises in how the same team can find peacekeeping illegal.

Peacekeepers are a military force. This ain't rocket science.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Still, then, the problem arises in how the same team can find peacekeeping illegal.

Peacekeepers are a military force. This ain't rocket science.

I don't disagree. But for some reason peacekeepers are considered military forces, but trying, convicting, and housing criminals in WA-funded prisons isn't considering the WA policing the world.

To me, it looks like the only reason the mods came to the conclusion that the Multilateral Prosecution Act wasn't illegal, was because it wasn't blatantly a World Police^TM -- there weren't any uniformed police officers with WA badges. The WA instead contracted other nations' police forces. Now, if we can do that, I don't think it would be very consistent or logical to say we can't contract out peacekeeping forces. Either the mods were wrong in allowing the MPA and ICC, or they'd be wrong in not allowing peacekeepers. (That is, if Unibot were to use the same technique he used with the MPA -- contracting these things out.) Do I want that to happen? I don't know, yet. I think the rule against WA police/military is kind of arbitrary -- nobody has yet been able to say how it's actually metagaming. (In fact, it seems that very question is avoided every single time it's asked.) As a matter of opinion, I think peacekeepers are OK, but police aren't. But it would be pretty biased for that to be a rule.

If the MPA/ICC ruling stands, mods would have pretty much tied their hands with contracted peacekeepers. Then that begs the question: can we subvert all of those similar rules by using nations as proxies? I think so, which is why I said that the MPA/ICC ruling was the worst ruling ever to come from the mod team.

[Unibot]

(In fact, it seems that very question is avoided every single time it's asked.)

That's really what I wanna know, why is a "WA Army", meta-gaming? And any other kind of committee is totally legal... wheres the conflicting line between roleplay and gameplay? But the proxy-MPA is a good question as well. I've gotten a decent answer for the former question from Bears Armed but its still riddled with holes.. I mean, any committee affects nations.. if it doesn't it shouldn't be in a WA proposal... how would a "WA Army", as a fictional committee, be any different?

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's really what I wanna know, why is a "WA Army", meta-gaming? And any other kind of committee is totally legal... wheres the conflicting line between roleplay and gameplay? ... I mean, any committee affects nations.. if it doesn't it shouldn't be in a WA proposal... how would a "WA Army", as a fictional committee, be any different?

Maybe if the question keeps getting asked, we'll get an answer. The usual answer I was always given was that mods couldn't referee wars in II -- it would just be impossible. I don't know, maybe back when the rule was first created II actually complied with UN resolutions. But they don't now, and they probably never will. So, that reasoning is outmoded.

Then there's the gameplay issue: how on earth is creating a WA army affecting gameplay? I can understand if somebody is submitting a proposal saying war should be added to the game, with the WA getting an army of its own. That would be affecting gameplay. Maybe there was a rule originally saying that's not allowed, but it somehow got warped into no roleplayed WA army, police, etc.

Hopefully the mods can come up with a coherent and relevant reasoning for the rule. If they can't, then hopefully they get rid of it. Rights and Duties already prevents a direct WA Army, so it's not like much would change. Although, I would also like mods to respond to my arguments of how the MPA+ICC legality decision doesn't also allow an army-by-proxy to exist.

[Unibot]

The usual answer I was always given was that mods couldn't referee wars in II -- it would just be impossible. I don't know, maybe back when the rule was first created II actually complied with UN resolutions. But they don't now, and they probably never will. So, that reasoning is outmoded.

I've heard that one too -- I agree that although what past conventions may have been, any roleplaying of a committee, such as the roleplaying of the ICC is non-canon -- and thus, why should we just arbitrarily decide differently with a WA military?

Oh, and I shake my head to the suggestion that II ever complied to the WA, at-least according to the reaction that I got from the II Old Guard when I tried to get the SC's politics more entwined with the WA. It was just another thing to restrict their roleplaying freedom, which is fair enough to me.

[Unibot]

Hopefully the mods can come up with a coherent and relevant reasoning for the rule. If they can't, then hopefully they get rid of it. Rights and Duties already prevents a direct WA Army, so it's not like much would change. Although, I would also like mods to respond to my arguments of how the MPA+ICC legality decision doesn't also allow an army-by-proxy to exist.

GA#2 prevents a partisan armed conflict under the banner of the WA, peacekeeping is mutual and non-partisan -- the mod ruling however extends the rule to seemingly anything involving a man in a WA outfit carrying a gun and shooting at someone else, for nothing else than security. Because security is seemingly non-partisan. X is a security risk, so the WA removes X with Y -- no international conflict, just a simple social contract that is agreed by all in the facility that X is disobeying to facilitate a "security risk" as defined by the social contract.

Which begs to question, if we theoretically defined any mutually agreed area between two aggressive nations as a "facility", and asked for the necessary security to maintain the stipulations of a contract, namely, peace... *whistles*

[Unibot]

Also GA#2 blantly supports GR's proxy idea...

As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Why puts those words there if you were not suggesting that the WA could engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities.. not under the WA banner? But instead via proxy troops.

[Enn]

You could possibly ask Fris about that one. He's still around a little bit. And a NSUN player from well before his Moddom.

[NERVUN]

We're locking this because the issues being brought up are not really ones that should be in Moderation but in an WA thread (No, that does not mean go start one). We WILL answer your question, possibly in one of the stickies, but we are currently going through the list of every point and it's a rather long one since you guys are asking for details.

[Kryozerkia]

Also GA#2 blantly supports GR's proxy idea...

As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Why puts those words there if you were not suggesting that the WA could engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities.. not under the WA banner? But instead via proxy troops.

Then all nations which have previously declared themselves to be neutral in the conflict would no longer be able to hide behind the safeties of resolution #14: Neutrality of Nations if they volunteer to be part of this task force. But then, if members can volunteer soldiers, etc, they then have the option not to, since peace keeping could be viewed as a type of military action.

5. Institutes the World Assembly Peacekeeping Taskforce with a voluntary commitment of soldiers and military provisions from member-nations and non-member-nations...

That would give us the small problem of optionality. After all, resolutions are binding on all members.