[PASSED] Reducing Statelessness

[Araraukar]

OOC: Btw, since mods apparently read this thread, shouldn't GESTAPO count as RL reference? And a fairly offensive one at that? Or would we allowed to be made a committee named Non-Aggressive Zealous Institution?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Btw, since mods apparently read this thread, shouldn't GESTAPO count as RL reference? And a fairly offensive one at that? Or would we allowed to be made a committee named Non-Aggressive Zealous Institution?

That ruling would basically mean that the original resolution should be illegal. And also that nothing could ever mention the committee again.

[Araraukar]

That ruling would basically mean that the original resolution should be illegal.

OOC: It probably should.

And also that nothing could ever mention the committee again.

Which would likely be for the best.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That ruling would basically mean that the original resolution should be illegal.

OOC: It probably should.

And also that nothing could ever mention the committee again.

Which would likely be for the best.

How are you going to get the original one removed? Secretariat action?

[Araraukar]

How are you going to get the original one removed? Secretariat action?

OOC: I'm not allowed opinions now? However, re-using a bad idea is still a bad idea.

[Imperium Anglorum]

How are you going to get the original one removed? Secretariat action?

OOC: I'm not allowed opinions now? However, re-using a bad idea is still a bad idea.

Please tell me where I said you cannot have opinions. I'm asking where how your opinion would be implemented.

[Tinfect]

That ruling would basically mean that the original resolution should be illegal.

OOC: It probably should.

OOC:
No, it shouldn't.

And also that nothing could ever mention the committee again.

Which would likely be for the best.

No, it wouldn't.

[Muscalia]

OOC: I'll have to check, but isn't it already illegal to deprive WA members citizens of citizenship without their having a replacement citizenship ready? Or am I thinking of real world laws again?

Wouldn't matter. If they are deprived of their citizenship, they in effect become refugee's and Refugee Protection would apply making this whole mess illegal for duplication.

Second.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm not allowed opinions now? However, re-using a bad idea is still a bad idea.

Please tell me where I said you cannot have opinions. I'm asking where how your opinion would be implemented.

OOC: I meant that I am allowed to hold an opinion of something (in this case "GESTAPO" being an offensive RL reference and thus making the resolution that establishes it something that shouldn't have passed) without actively trying to remove it, and especially without actively trying to remove it via what you seem to refer to as underhanded tactics (using mods rather than a repeal). That resolution was passed at a time when I wasn't, due to various reasons, partaking drafting.

Just because something passed in the past, doesn't mean it would work as a precedent for passing something similar now. This may work differently for existing committees, but that doesn't change the fact that it is in my opinion an offensive RL reference for a committee name shortening. I'm wondering now what the mods would think of a committee name that would come up as NAZI (Naturally Applied Zoological Institution, perhaps?) or worse.

The only saving grace of your proposal on this issue (committee name) is that it doesn't use the shortening.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: Btw, since mods apparently read this thread, shouldn't GESTAPO count as RL reference? And a fairly offensive one at that? Or would we allowed to be made a committee named Non-Aggressive Zealous Institution?

The Real World violation rule contemplates that players are referring to things or people that exist in the real world as they exist in the real world. As such, using GESTAPO as an acronym is not a violation. It doesn't cross the line in terms of offensiveness in my eyes either.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The only saving grace of your proposal on this issue (committee name) is that it doesn't use the shortening.

Mate. I also don't like the acronym. That's why I didn't use it. Comparatively, it's much better than all prior ones.

[Araraukar]

The only saving grace of your proposal on this issue (committee name) is that it doesn't use the shortening.

Mate. I also don't like the acronym. That's why I didn't use it. Comparatively, it's much better than all prior ones.

OOC: This may be the only case in which I'd suggest not using an existing committee.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Mate. I also don't like the acronym. That's why I didn't use it. Comparatively, it's much better than all prior ones.

OOC: This may be the only case in which I'd suggest not using an existing committee.

OOC: Then, you could always advise to anyone who is to use the committee that it should be termed something like the 'Passport Organisation', 'Global Immigration Organisation', etc.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Anyway, I'd like to send this to the floor some time, preferably after Separatist People's resolution is finished voting.

[Wrapper]

You don't need clause 1 if every time you use the word "nation" you're already using the phrase "member nation". Other than that, it looks good to us, we'll support this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You don't need clause 1 if every time you use the word "nation" you're already using the phrase "member nation". Other than that, it looks good to us, we'll support this.

It's for all future resolutions.

[Separatist Peoples]

You don't need clause 1 if every time you use the word "nation" you're already using the phrase "member nation". Other than that, it looks good to us, we'll support this.

It's for all future resolutions.

"Member states are the only states resolutions can act upon. By the nature of the system, that is implied. Moreover, a phrase can be redefine with ease in another resolution, so it makes little difference to attempt to define it in perpetuity."

[Mousebumples]

OOC: Btw, since mods apparently read this thread, shouldn't GESTAPO count as RL reference? And a fairly offensive one at that? Or would we allowed to be made a committee named Non-Aggressive Zealous Institution?

The Real World violation rule contemplates that players are referring to things or people that exist in the real world as they exist in the real world. As such, using GESTAPO as an acronym is not a violation. It doesn't cross the line in terms of offensiveness in my eyes either.

Agreed. I would recommend against using the acronym in your proposal (or any proposal), if only because I think you'll have people voting against on those grounds. However, the committee itself (or its name) are not a rule violation, in my view.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's for all future resolutions.

"Member states are the only states resolutions can act upon. By the nature of the system, that is implied. Moreover, a phrase can be redefine with ease in another resolution, so it makes little difference to attempt to define it in perpetuity."

This legislates out the 'nations' -> metagaming.

The Real World violation rule contemplates that players are referring to things or people that exist in the real world as they exist in the real world. As such, using GESTAPO as an acronym is not a violation. It doesn't cross the line in terms of offensiveness in my eyes either.

Agreed. I would recommend against using the acronym in your proposal (or any proposal), if only because I think you'll have people voting against on those grounds. However, the committee itself (or its name) are not a rule violation, in my view.

That's why I am using a different name for the committee.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I intend to send this to the floor some time soon.

[Wallenburg]

Defines 'nation' as World Assembly member nations to clear up some annoying confusion;

This rider still doesn't sit well with me. If you're going to put it in, at least use it in this proposal.

[The Silver Sentinel]

This should be an interesting legality dispute. Of course it could be very easily circumvented simply by removing the clause entirely. There isn't anything in the rules which specifically says that individuals can't be impacted by resolutions directly, though I'm open to anyone throwing some precedent my way before any decision is made.

IA is the clause even necessary? Why do they need WA passports if they can't be made stateless to begin with?

"Nonmembers can still create stateless individuals, and states Balkanizing would have that effect."

So citizens in non-member states that have been made stateless by those non-members automatically have WA issued passports issued to them? If that is the intention, I would argue this is illegal as it is indirectly legislating upon non-members.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Defines 'nation' as World Assembly member nations to clear up some annoying confusion;

This rider still doesn't sit well with me. If you're going to put it in, at least use it in this proposal.

I do use it.

"Nonmembers can still create stateless individuals, and states Balkanizing would have that effect."

So citizens in non-member states that have been made stateless by those non-members automatically have WA issued passports issued to them? If that is the intention, I would argue this is illegal as it is indirectly legislating upon non-members.

For god's sakes man. Read.

[The Silver Sentinel]

I am still trying to figure out how this does not duplicate Refugee Protection.

For instance Refugee Protection defines a refugee as "A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution. This shall not exclude persons also defined as refugees under different criteria by provisions of national or other international law.". Under this definition, any person who has been made stateless becomes a refugee and thus is automatically granted protection under Refugee Protection.

Further to that Refugee Protection states "2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to or expelled a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation." which would totally negate the any reason to issue a WA Passport, as nations are already required to make a good faith effort to either accommodate that refugee, or assist said refugee by transporting them to a nation which will accept them as a refugee.

As it stands this whole issue is a duplication illegality.

[Wrapper]

"Member states are the only states resolutions can act upon. By the nature of the system, that is implied. Moreover, a phrase can be redefine with ease in another resolution, so it makes little difference to attempt to define it in perpetuity."

This legislates out the 'nations' -> metagaming.

Oh for crying out loud. Take it out. We have resolutions that legally act on member nations yet restrict what they do with non-member nations. This includes GAR#300 for example. By putting this in and decreeing that from now on nations = WA nations you are gutting such resolutions, decreeing child pornography can be exported to non-member nations in certain circumstances (age of consent in non-member nation lower than age of consent in member nation).

OOC: I mean, what the fuck? "Nations" has always been legal, it's "all nations" that isn't. You keep this in and I will file a GHR to get it removed because of your stated intent.