[Passed] Repeal "Responsible Arms Trading"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Judging by the lack of a response from Imperium Anglorum, however, I'm assuming that even he acknowledges the entire resolution is specious, and rebutting criticism is unnecessary now that it's essentially passed.

Fundamentally, I wanted to take no part in changing how people were to vote or change the distribution of present and future votes. However, since you appear to want me to respond — in this post, I will be attempting to refute the two major arguments against this repeal. This entire post will be OOC. Also, please read this while playing classical music or something like that. It is not meant to be in any way angry or rantish (although it certainly is long).

The arguments against the repeal (not for its illegality, I will address that later) fall into two categories. (1) The use of the words 'violent nature of non-developed countries' and (2) that the repeal's argument against clause (7) is going to allow trade with people who want to commit genocide and ethic cleansing.

---

First, may I point out that the issue with clause (2) was formed sometime after 11 May 2015 00:47 GMT, as first, Sciograd claimed that my repeal was legal (first following quote) and then [EDIT: latched on to the arguments in a] submitted GHR against it which included as an argument (this is implied by the second following quote).

I suppose you can at least brag that this is legal. Although it seems that's all it has going for it.

this is probably the least important reason of those listed as to why this repeal is illegal, but I still have no idea how you can say that to claim people outside of the Western world are barbaric is anything but trolling.

I would like to say upfront that the inclusion of the language in clause (2) was a mistake in omission due to issues with my three drafts and syncing between my iPhone's edits and my Mac's edits. However, I do not believe that it can be legitimately interpreted as 'grossly offensive', especially since the argument against the inclusion of that language can was contrived for a GHR removal request.

Furthermore, I agree with the moderator decision that this is not 'grossly offensive' (for obvious reasons regarding the resolution itself, but including the following reason since) this is (1) supported by logical statements about the development of the security state and competent police forces in undeveloped countries and (2) is not grossly offensive, since there is a subjective interpretation to 'grossly', which ipso facto of the moderator decision, is not offensive to all people.

---

Second, the argument against this repeal has repeatedly referenced how it could be used to commit genocide and or ethnic cleansing.

This argument is nice because it's specious, but no one has ever argued successfully that trading steel to ethnic cleansers is justifiable when that steel will be used to commit genocide.

It doesn't matter. Even if raw materials were parts, they shouldn't be traded if they're being used to commit genocide. There is substantive distinction between trading guns to ethnic cleansers and trading material that will be made into a gun to ethnic cleansers.

However, there is no mention of clause (7).a in the repeal text (mostly because I agree with the restriction given in clause (7).a). Instead, there is mention of clauses (7).b and (7).c, which speak of the prohibition of arms sales [(7).b] when they can be diverted and [(7).c] when used in a 'war of conquest or expropriation'. Simply put, nobody is claiming that WA nations should be permitted to sell weapons to ethnic cleaners and or genocidal maniacs.

The first quote above states that 'no one has ever argued successfully that trading steel to ethnic cleansers is justifiable when that steel will be used to commit genocide', which mind you, is based upon the same definition of armaments in RAT.(1) as interpreted in RRAT.(1). This quote, however, is absolutely true. Nobody has ever successfully argued that trading steel to ethnic cleansers is justifiable, but that is primarily because nobody has ever argued that such trade is justifiable (at least, in recent memory).

---

This leaves the remaining point made about the legality of the proposal, primarily from the difference between 'reason to suspect' and 'possibility' and whether it is an honest mistake.

No, it isn't. Interpreting words incorrectly, like the author has done here, is the very definition of an honest mistake. There is no room for interpretation because a reason to suspect does not mean the same thing as a possibility. And even if, hypothetically, it was acceptable to completely disregard the definitions of words when repealing legislation, no reasonable nation would interpret "reason to suspect" as a "possibility." The threshold for possibility is so wildly more restrictive than "reason to suspect" that any nation that interpreted it as meaning possibility would be unable to trade armaments ever. No reasonable nation would ever interpret it that way, especially considering a very explicit legal definition exists that prevents that type of interpretation from occurring. I'd say I'm shocked at the level of incompetency displayed here, but I'm not.

Having started reading the Legal track at university, I have never encountered the use of the words 'reason to suspect' in a legal manner. Furthermore, the claim that words or phrases which have 'actual legal meaning' should be treated with those meanings in mind has been repeatedly shot down. I have used that justification for non-compliance in the past, and generally, that has been framed as a Dictionary-vs-dictionary fight where nobody is correct, since we are not all lawyers.

However, it is clearly possible to interpret the words of the resolution as done here. This was done repeatedly in the original debate thread, for example:

OOC: This is wrong. You're either unwilling to understand what the clause actually means because you're ideologically opposed or you simply don't understand what I've been telling you. Please take another good read of what we've already gone over. If you still can't understand, then I'll try and explain it again. Unless, of course, you're intentionally spreading misinformation, in which case I'd really prefer it if you stopped.

This is not wrong. You stated it's the nation's government to determine "reason to suspect". A nation determine what constitutes "reason to suspect" for itself. You can keep saying it is wrong, but it is not. "Reason to suspect" is subjective even in the legal world.

"I do not need evidence. I need 'reason to suspect' according to the resolution, which is not evidence. If you had any idea whatsoever about common criminal law, you would know the difference. And there is indeed good reason to suspect these weapons may be used aggressively: The odds of a nation starting a war in which the armaments would be used is above 0% in most cases. Therefore there is reason to suspect the armaments would be used to initiate a conflict!"

Anyway, the interpretation of the words given, ipso facto of the interpretation ascribed above by the quote, the repeal text, and by the moderator decision, means that there is non-zero-per-cent chance of interpretation in this fashion.

---

For the sake of transparency, I would like to mention that during my telegram campaign for the repeal of this resolution, I was contacted by a number of people who wished to see a replacement for this resolution. I will absolutely support a replacement which deals with the issues highlighted in the repeal text (for example, a replacement which prohibits the sale of arms to genocidal maniacs, since there is no objection to that in the repeal text and nobody is saying that we should allow such arms sales).

[Mousebumples]

OOC: With all due respect, if I started a thread in general about how barbaric and violent the developing world is, I doubt it would remain open long. But at this point, I guess this we're digressing from discussing the absolute nonsense presented in the text of the repeal. Judging by the lack of a response from Imperium Anglorum, however, I'm assuming that even he acknowledges the entire resolution is specious, and rebutting criticism is unnecessary now that it's essentially passed.

A few general comments:

1) NSG =/= GA. What is allowed in GA legislation is not necessarily welcome in NSG and vice versa. Both forums have their own culture and rules. (i.e. NS Forum Rules =/= GA Proposal Rules)

2) If you have a post about the "violent nature of non-developed countries" (quote from the repeal text) in NSG, that would likely be okay. The hyperbolic extremes with regards to the words you're putting in the author's mouth because you're not pleased that it's passing may or may not be okay - depends on the full context of the post in question.

3) You (and others) can continue to litigate this, if you want, but considering you've had almost all of the active GA mods weigh in, I think you may be better off trying to argue against the "specious arguments" to the delegates that are voting in favor of this repeal rather than trying to wage a winless battle on the GA forum.

[The Dark Star Republic]

First, may I point out that the issue with clause (2) was formed sometime after 11 May 2015 00:47 GMT, as first, Sciograd claimed that my repeal was legal (first following quote) and then submitted a GHR against it which included that as an argument (as implied by the second following quote).

OOC: No he didn't. I submitted the GHR, not Scion.

3) You (and others) can continue to litigate this, if you want, but considering you've had almost all of the active GA mods weigh in, I think you may be better off trying to argue against the "specious arguments" to the delegates that are voting in favor of this repeal rather than trying to wage a winless battle on the GA forum.

So, is that confirmation that we are not allowed to appeal the ruling?

[Mallorea and Riva]

3) You (and others) can continue to litigate this, if you want, but considering you've had almost all of the active GA mods weigh in, I think you may be better off trying to argue against the "specious arguments" to the delegates that are voting in favor of this repeal rather than trying to wage a winless battle on the GA forum.

So, is that confirmation that we are not allowed to appeal the ruling?

You've been appealing throughout this thread regarding the grossly offensive bit of the ruling. If you want to appeal the Honest Mistake aspect then submit a GHR or say so here.

[The Dark Star Republic]

So, is that confirmation that we are not allowed to appeal the ruling?

You've been appealing throughout this thread regarding the grossly offensive bit of the ruling.

That was never the main part of the rules challenge, just an additional note.

If you want to appeal the Honest Mistake aspect then submit a GHR or say so here.

Obviously, given you haven't even accurately responded to that challenge. But we've previously told such appeals aren't allowed.

[Wrapper]

Obviously, given you haven't even accurately responded to that challenge. But we've previously told such appeals aren't allowed.

Gruen, with all due respect, it's exactly this kind of petty rules-lawyering that's put me off the GA for some time now.

After conferring with a small team of GA Moderators, we determined that this repeal can go to vote.

Emphasis mine. Surely, if, in the interest of making a speedy decision, only a "small team" of moderators is consulted (unlike the ruling you linked to, where "all active GA mods have discussed it"), there is someone who can hear an appeal, yes? Besides, in the infamous "WA Mission" repeal attempt of GAR #2, there was indeed an appeal -- a multiple-third-party appeal, and a successful one at that -- of a mod ruling. So, there is precedent.

Just make the appeal, instead of arguing about whether or not you can appeal.

[Elke and Elba]

Obviously, given you haven't even accurately responded to that challenge. But we've previously told such appeals aren't allowed.

Gruen, with all due respect, it's exactly this kind of petty rules-lawyering that's put me off the GA for some time now.

After conferring with a small team of GA Moderators, we determined that this repeal can go to vote.

Emphasis mine. Surely, if, in the interest of making a speedy decision, only a "small team" of moderators is consulted (unlike the ruling you linked to, where "all active GA mods have discussed it"), there is someone who can hear an appeal, yes? Besides, in the infamous "WA Mission" repeal attempt of GAR #2, there was indeed an appeal -- a multiple-third-party appeal, and a successful one at that -- of a mod ruling. So, there is precedent.

Just make the appeal, instead of arguing about whether or not you can appeal.

As one of the two who made the appeal then, I do concur with what Wrapper is saying. An appeal does no harm.

Furthermore, given that not exactly all of the WA mods have weighed in, there's a chance that it could be overturned - unlike one of the cases that everyone weighed in and there was no one left to appeal to.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that this resolution seems like it is making its way on passing, which I thought wouldn't happen. But I guess that's how life passes in the WA, ja?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Obviously, given you haven't even accurately responded to that challenge. But we've previously told such appeals aren't allowed.

Gruen, with all due respect, it's exactly this kind of petty rules-lawyering that's put me off the GA for some time now.

If you don't like "petty rules-lawyering", then I don't imagine the repeal has done wonders for your mood.

Just make the appeal, instead of arguing about whether or not you can appeal.

All I'm waiting for is confirmation that there can be an appeal, as it seems a bit pointless putting in the effort of making one if the response is simply going to be "you're not allowed to appeal" (as it has been in the past). That's not so unreasonable?

[Wrapper]

If you don't like "petty rules-lawyering", then I don't imagine the repeal has done wonders for your mood.

Indeed, the preponderance and success of rules-lawyering repeals has not brightened my days. Yet another reason I've been lurking quietly the past few months.

[Elke and Elba]

Gruen, with all due respect, it's exactly this kind of petty rules-lawyering that's put me off the GA for some time now.

If you don't like "petty rules-lawyering", then I don't imagine the repeal has done wonders for your mood.

Just make the appeal, instead of arguing about whether or not you can appeal.

All I'm waiting for is confirmation that there can be an appeal, as it seems a bit pointless putting in the effort of making one if the response is simply going to be "you're not allowed to appeal" (as it has been in the past). That's not so unreasonable?

IIRC that only happened because the circumstances then was that all WA mods have looked through the issue at hand. There was therefore, technically, no one to appeal to.

Wrapper has made it quite clear from his observation that there must be at least one WA mod not looking through this, contrary to prior assertions otherwise. The point of an appeal insofar is to provide/strengthen your line of argument that would make other mods agree, or have the mods that ruled otherwise to agree with you.

What's the point of weighing the pro/cons of an appeal in the first place if your purpose of appealing (which isn't that hard nor that lengthy to write in the first place) lies on a definitive answer by a mod? If you wish to, just do so. There's 2 days left anyway on the vote and it's unlikely that the mods will be that efficient if you decide to comply to a bureaucratic structure of doing things.

If I had thought so much in the first place for that Auralian repeal of GAR #2 whether to submit or not, I don't think I would have ever submitted the GHR to persuade the mods despite being told otherwise in the first place. And if I don't, I would have never known that I could have succeeded. Just my two cents.

[Land of the Blue Chicken]

Make peace, not war!

[Separatist Peoples]

Make peace, not war!

"War is far more profitable, though. Nobody ever went hungry selling weapons."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Make peace, not war!

"War is far more profitable, though. Nobody ever went hungry selling weapons."

...and to the point at hand, the target resolution won't change that. Should this repeal fail, the worst and stupidest wars will become a degree more difficult to wage. But arms dealers still won't go hungry. At all.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"War is far more profitable, though. Nobody ever went hungry selling weapons."

...and to the point at hand, the target resolution won't change that. Should this repeal fail, the worst and stupidest wars will become a degree more difficult to wage. But arms dealers still won't go hungry. At all.

"Sadly, the instinct of your lobes is probably right, Ambassador Zakalwe, but given the utter slog that it was to get even this fairly minimal restriction passed we are extremely reluctant to part with it, especially on such obviously spurious grounds.

"Remember: peace is good for business."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...and to the point at hand, the target resolution won't change that. Should this repeal fail, the worst and stupidest wars will become a degree more difficult to wage. But arms dealers still won't go hungry. At all.

"Sadly, the instinct of your lobes is probably right, Ambassador Zakalwe, but given the utter slog that it was to get even this fairly minimal restriction passed we are extremely reluctant to part with it, especially on such obviously spurious grounds.

"Remember: peace is good for business."

Indeed. I wonder if I need my cynicism level checked out... I hate to have to do a psych eval, but the most optimistic and emphatic piece I meant to say was about the repeal failing! Ah well... there's still time for a sudden table-flipping switcheroo. You never know.

[Defwa]

Make peace, not war!

"War is far more profitable, though. Nobody ever went hungry selling weapons."

Good old Rule of Acquisition 35

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Remember: peace is good for business."

A Ferengi in a galaxy not so far away and not so long ago says: Ah, but remember the 34th Rule of Acquisition, 'War is good for business'. Quoting the 35th Rule of Acquisition... you have talent!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Remember: peace is good for business."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: I miss Wrapper's presence in these debates. We always had a fun time rehashing the Rules of Acquisition on that front. *sigh*

[Defwa]

"Remember: peace is good for business."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: I miss Wrapper's presence in these debates. We always had a fun time rehashing the Rules of Acquisition on that front. *sigh*

OOC: *looks up from an episode of DS9* and what am i?Dead gagh?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I miss Wrapper's presence in these debates. We always had a fun time rehashing the Rules of Acquisition on that front. *sigh*

OOC: *looks up from an episode of DS9* and what am i?Dead gagh?

DS9, I think, was the best trek. There was so much though, that they could have done with Enterprise... such a massive amount of unused potential there.

[Wrapper]

We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, brackets-pacifists-end-brackets, always take to heart the notion that "Peace is good for business" (OOC: Rule #35 roolz, Rule #34 droolz). Of course, that said, in the spirit of good debate--

Wad Ari pauses and makes a hocking noise, then expectorates loudly, while Wad Ahume swiftly produces a tissue from his breast pocket and bends down to the ground.

--and fair play--

Wad Ari launches another loogie, but this one lands on the back of Wad Ahume's neck, making a very subtle splashy sound.

--we wish to state that for the record we admire the fortitude of those in the repeal author's camp, and congratulate them for finally succeeding in getting their agenda to vote... on their 42nd attempt.

Wad Ahume whispers briefly in his ear.

Whatever. Now that that formality is out of the way, we are of course voting against this pile of... er... this excremental... this... oh fuck it all, this repeal sucks Go'a'uld balls. Another perfectly fine resolution ruined by some warmonger-favoring toadies of the far-right. Or left. Whichever. Anyway, we swear, upon all that is unholy, to uphold and support Sciongrad's notion that armaments, where legal of course, should be responsibly tracked and documented to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, and we wholeheartedly encourage the downtrodden Ambassador from Sciongrad to hang in there, don't give up, if at first you don't succeed, try try try try try try again, and all that happy horseshit. Now if you'll excuse us, we must go back into our hidey-hole, it's still karaoke season for another six weeks. Toodle-fucking-oo!

[Wall-e Persons]

We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, brackets-pacifists-end-brackets, always take to heart the notion that "Peace is good for business" (OOC: Rule #35 roolz, Rule #34 droolz). Of course, that said, in the spirit of good debate--

Wad Ari pauses and makes a hocking noise, then expectorates loudly, while Wad Ahume swiftly produces a tissue from his breast pocket and bends down to the ground.

--and fair play--

Wad Ari launches another loogie, but this one lands on the back of Wad Ahume's neck, making a very subtle splashy sound.

--we wish to state that for the record we admire the fortitude of those in the repeal author's camp, and congratulate them for finally succeeding in getting their agenda to vote... on their 42nd attempt.

Wad Ahume whispers briefly in his ear.

Whatever. Now that that formality is out of the way, we are of course voting against this pile of... er... this excremental... this... oh fuck it all, this repeal sucks Go'a'uld balls. Another perfectly fine resolution ruined by some warmonger-favoring toadies of the far-right. Or left. Whichever. Anyway, we swear, upon all that is unholy, to uphold and support Sciongrad's notion that armaments, where legal of course, should be responsibly tracked and documented to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, and we wholeheartedly encourage the downtrodden Ambassador from Sciongrad to hang in there, don't give up, if at first you don't succeed, try try try try try try again, and all that happy horseshit. Now if you'll excuse us, we must go back into our hidey-hole, it's still karaoke season for another six weeks. Toodle-fucking-oo!

Honestly, I think its high time that SG1 hand the Jaffa some actual weapons so they can overthrow their corrupt masters. Now that this repeal may pass, we might be able to do that.

[Excidium Planetis]

I should like to state that the people of Excidium Planetis are extremely happy that this repeal should soon pass, as we really need weapons to wage wars of aggression. It's actually vital to our survival in some cases.

[Separatist Peoples]

I should like to state that the people of Excidium Planetis are extremely happy that this repeal should soon pass, as we really need weapons to wage wars of aggression. It's actually vital to our survival in some cases.

"What, you couldn't build your own? If a nation can't supply its own military, should it really be waging war?"

[Sciongrad]

First, may I point out that the issue with clause (2) was formed sometime after 11 May 2015 00:47 GMT, as first, Sciograd claimed that my repeal was legal (first following quote) and then [EDIT: latched on to the arguments in a] submitted GHR against it which included as an argument (this is implied by the second following quote).

I'll be the first to admit that I actually didn't think this was illegal until the much more perceptive Gruen pointed out the honest mistakes in his GHR.

Second, the argument against this repeal has repeatedly referenced how it could be used to commit genocide and or ethnic cleansing.

However, there is no mention of clause (7).a in the repeal text (mostly because I agree with the restriction given in clause (7).a). Instead, there is mention of clauses (7).b and (7).c, which speak of the prohibition of arms sales [(7).b] when they can be diverted and [(7).c] when used in a 'war of conquest or expropriation'. Simply put, nobody is claiming that WA nations should be permitted to sell weapons to ethnic cleaners and or genocidal maniacs.

The text doesn't need to explicitly state that you believe trading raw materials to human rights violators is acceptable, that is the implication. Including raw materials as armaments, by itself, is not a fault in the resolution. The implication is that because the trade of raw materials is also limited by this resolution, then that is somehow a flaw in the resolution, but that would only be the case of trading raw materials to undermine human rights was acceptable. It's not, and no one has even attempted to justify that argument, because it's indefensible. It's simply easy to say "this bans more than just guns, and that's bad!" Most people will see that as a bad thing without thinking about why that's a bad thing. And on top of this, the entire argument in the first place presupposes that "parts" include raw material, and that in itself is quite a stretch.

Having started reading the Legal track at university, I have never encountered the use of the words 'reason to suspect' in a legal manner. Furthermore, the claim that words or phrases which have 'actual legal meaning' should be treated with those meanings in mind has been repeatedly shot down. I have used that justification for non-compliance in the past, and generally, that has been framed as a Dictionary-vs-dictionary fight where nobody is correct, since we are not all lawyers.

Reasonable suspicion is a defined legal standard in U.S. jurisprudence. I have no idea whether or not this standard exists in the U.K., but it absolutely does in the United States.

However, it is clearly possible to interpret the words of the resolution as done here. This was done repeatedly in the original debate thread, for example:

There is a difference between comprehension and interpretation. To willfully interpret the proposal in such a way that makes it impossibly more restrictive when there exists a very explicit alternative is not something a reasonable nation would do. The two quotes you cited were not reasonable interpretations, they were either willful misinterpretations or not misunderstandings of the original resolution. No reasonable nation would read "reason to suspect" as "possibility," and reasonable nation theory is the standard that's used here.

For the sake of transparency, I would like to mention that during my telegram campaign for the repeal of this resolution, I was contacted by a number of people who wished to see a replacement for this resolution. I will absolutely support a replacement which deals with the issues highlighted in the repeal text (for example, a replacement which prohibits the sale of arms to genocidal maniacs, since there is no objection to that in the repeal text and nobody is saying that we should allow such arms sales).

I will be resubmitting this, but I will not be making any substantive changes, and I will especially not be making any that address the "claims" brought up in this repeal.