[PASSED] Compliance Commission

[Imperium Anglorum]

We're also back here again. I should have a query in Moderation up later today.

[United Massachusetts]

Isn't this a metagaming violation?

[Mallorea and Riva]

We're also back here again. I should have a query in Moderation up later today.

Don't bother yet, try and get a debate going here about it first. Then, if you still think it's legal and have opposition, you can bring it to us.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We're also back here again. I should have a query in Moderation up later today.

Don't bother yet, try and get a debate going here about it first. Then, if you still think it's legal and have opposition, you can bring it to us.

---

Relevant proposal thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=373574&start=25

Question: Is this proposal's use of 'World Assembly Compliance Commission' (WACC) a case of metagaming or game mechanics?

For reference:

Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.

Proposals can not affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of member nations for non-compliance. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum.

Thus, three sub-points arise:

1. Is the use of WACC in this proposal breaking the fourth wall?
2. Are actions mandated in the game itself?
3. Will this proposal attempt to effect changes to how the game works?

If the answers to all three questions here are 'No', then I would contend that the proposal must be legal.

First, the fourth wall is not broken. This WACC is not the same as the WACC in the game, so this question is irrelevant. Nothing happens beyond the establishment of a new committee in the World Assembly. This is true because it is impossible for a World Assembly resolution to change anything in the game.

Second, actions are not mandated in the game itself. Mandating actions in the game would be something like an issue, which has an effect on statistics beyond the scope of the resolution. This does nothing of the sort and therefore cannot mandate anything external to the World Assembly in the game.

Third, nothing changes in how the game works. There are no actions which the Commission is charged to take that actually change how the game works or people's experience in that game. In fact, there are no enforcement clauses in this proposal whatsoever, thereby meaning that nothing changes in a nation's ability to their own game fields.

If the proposal doesn't break the fourth wall, it isn't a metagaming violation. If it doesn't mandate any actions in the game itself and doesn't attempt to effect changes in the game's mechanics, then it doesn't have a scope outside the World Assembly and doesn't change the mechanics, meaning that it meets the two criteria not to break a game mechanics violation. Thus, the proposal must be legal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Isn't this a metagaming violation?

OOC: None of it refers to the game as a game.

1. Establishes and empowers the WACC, hereafter referred to as the Compliance Commission, to conduct investigations on matters of national compliance with resolutions and thereby establish an impartial and objective factual basis for future claims of jurisdiction and trials;

OOC: I really think you need to find a different name. It will evaporate any concerns about Metagaming.

2. Requires both civilian police and military police to create a liaison point with the Commission to provide evidence, as presentable, on the subject of war crimes in particular and in noncompliance in general; demands that documents requested by the Commission not be destroyed and handed over promptly so long as state security permits;

"Civilian police and military police as in the individuals? I know you don't mean that, but you should add the term "authorities" or something analogous to clear that up."

3. Strongly encourages nations to cooperate with the Compliance Commission on those matters relevant to their security and the security of other nations; mandates that the Compliance Commission inform nations of the passage of legislation or enactment of administrative policies relevant to their nation and recommend policies to those ends;

"This should be two clauses, or the last half should be turned into a subordinate clause. This reads awkwardly."

4. Permits the Compliance Commission, in specific investigations, to accept information and data which are presented by non-member nations and nations not party to that investigation; allows the Compliance Commission to request the assistance of nearby nations such to adequately assess the nature and fact bases of such non-compliance under investigation;

"Same concern. Swap out the highlighted semicolon with "and", and you're golden. The break of a semicolon in this fashion is really best suited to a new clause."

5. Clarifies that the World Assembly Compliance Commission is a truth-seeking commission and has no ability to enforce or compel warrants, subpoenas, or judicial action on any nation, its leaders, or its citizens;

"We really need one of those, even if it is just tasked with determining something specific. That isn't, however, a criticism of this proposal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Establishes and empowers the WACC, hereafter referred to as the Compliance Commission, to conduct investigations on matters of national compliance with resolutions and thereby establish an impartial and objective factual basis for future claims of jurisdiction and trials;

OOC: I really think you need to find a different name. It will evaporate any concerns about Metagaming.

2. Requires both civilian police and military police to create a liaison point with the Commission to provide evidence, as presentable, on the subject of war crimes in particular and in noncompliance in general; demands that documents requested by the Commission not be destroyed and handed over promptly so long as state security permits;

"Civilian police and military police as in the individuals? I know you don't mean that, but you should add the term "authorities" or something analogous to clear that up."

3. Strongly encourages nations to cooperate with the Compliance Commission on those matters relevant to their security and the security of other nations; mandates that the Compliance Commission inform nations of the passage of legislation or enactment of administrative policies relevant to their nation and recommend policies to those ends;

"This should be two clauses, or the last half should be turned into a subordinate clause. This reads awkwardly."

4. Permits the Compliance Commission, in specific investigations, to accept information and data which are presented by non-member nations and nations not party to that investigation; allows the Compliance Commission to request the assistance of nearby nations such to adequately assess the nature and fact bases of such non-compliance under investigation;

"Same concern. Swap out the highlighted semicolon with "and", and you're golden. The break of a semicolon in this fashion is really best suited to a new clause."

5. Clarifies that the World Assembly Compliance Commission is a truth-seeking commission and has no ability to enforce or compel warrants, subpoenas, or judicial action on any nation, its leaders, or its citizens;

"We really need one of those, even if it is just tasked with determining something specific. That isn't, however, a criticism of this proposal."

OOC: I've made edits. I hope they clear it up. I grouped each clause into a themed section. I also hope that the addition of conjunctions helps even it out.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump. And I'd love it if someone could speak to me about the provisions in this proposal and not whether it is metagaming, since I would claim to you that an organisation called WACC is not metagaming.

[Hannasea]

OOC: The moderators have already been fairly clear that creating a Compliance Commission would be MetaGaming. I am not sure what sort of "discussion" is really possible, given that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The moderators have already been fairly clear that creating a Compliance Commission would be MetaGaming. I am not sure what sort of "discussion" is really possible, given that.

Considering that this entire thread (well, except the housecat portions, ) is about whether that is true or not, with significant support primarily on why it wouldn't be (except a now-DOS player), I don't think the jury is back on this one.

[Hannasea]

OOC: The moderators have already been fairly clear that creating a Compliance Commission would be MetaGaming. I am not sure what sort of "discussion" is really possible, given that.

Considering that this entire thread (well, except the housecat portions, :hug: ) is about whether that is true or not,

OOC: It is unambiguously true that the moderators have ruled that a compliance commission proposal such as this is illegal. So there's nothing to debate on that front.

with significant support primarily on why it wouldn't be (except a now-DOS player), I don't think the jury is back on this one.

That's a different matter. That's a debate about whether it should be illegal. Irrespective of where the player support comes down, though, given it would require the moderators overruling themselves in a very direct and abrupt fashion, there's really not a lot of point the players themselves debating it.

[Wrapper]

OOC: The moderators have already been fairly clear that creating a Compliance Commission would be MetaGaming. I am not sure what sort of "discussion" is really possible, given that.

Source, please? I can't find a ruling.

[Hannasea]

OOC: The moderators have already been fairly clear that creating a Compliance Commission would be MetaGaming. I am not sure what sort of "discussion" is really possible, given that.

Source, please? I can't find a ruling.

OOC: A couple of them weighed in on this, for example, though there've been others.

[Wrapper]

Source, please? I can't find a ruling.

OOC: A couple of them weighed in on this, for example, though there've been others.

Ah, thank you.

[Hannasea]

OOC: It's listed in the Rulings Archive. Is that no longer being made use of - or was it just not copied across to the current, actively used version?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: It's listed in the Rulings Archive. Is that no longer being made use of - or was it just not copied across to the current, actively used version?

1. Wrapper, do things carry over?
2. Where's the ruling?
3. If it actually does carry over, why would this be illegal?

[Wrapper]

The rulings archive needs a thorough review and update. Since the rules were changed a few months ago, with many of them reworded, a fair number of past rulings are no longer relevant. That said, there was little change to the Metagaming and Game Mechanics rules, so most of those rulings should still be relevant.

With that in mind, and keeping in mind that GAR#2 mandates each nation's compliance with WA laws, how is this resolution any different from Reduction of Noncompliance, which was ruled illegal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

With that in mind, and keeping in mind that GAR#2 mandates each nation's compliance with WA laws, how is this resolution any different from Reduction of Noncompliance, which was ruled illegal?

Because of all of this:

URGES member nations to impose sanctions against nations found guilty of noncompliance as long as they continue to be noncompliant,

ENCOURAGES member nations found guilty of noncompliance to punish those within their government responsible for noncompliance,

MANDATES that noncompliant nations be given condemnations, defined for the purposes of this resolution as parking tickets, and which are to be printed on non-biodegradable paper,

REAFFIRMS that full compliance is a goal and is therefore required.

None of which is in my proposal. My proposal is entirely investigative and gives the Wacc no powers beyond investigation. In fact, the reason Astrolinium's proposal was ruled illegal is because "it is trying to further enforce compliance when compliance is already enforced by the game mechanism". No such action is taken in this proposal. Because of that reasoning, that ruling is not relevant precedent and cannot be applied because this is not a substantially similar case.

[Wrapper]

Okay, not a ruling, but I do see where you're coming from, as far as Metagaming/Game Mechanics. I'm still struggling with a couple things here. One I'll put in an IC post later, since it has nothing to do with legality (spoiler alert: this is pretty damn close to a feel-good, do-nothing proposal). Two, I'm still not sold that this somehow doesn't contradict GAR#2. Nations are mandated to comply with international law; their domestic laws are appropriately changed, and in-game stats reflect those changes. So... where is the non-compliance on the national level?

Before you invoke something like ICC being legal, keep in mind that you're specifically looking at national compliance, and not individual lawbreakers.

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay, not a ruling, but I do see where you're coming from, as far as Metagaming/Game Mechanics. I'm still struggling with a couple things here. One I'll put in an IC post later, since it has nothing to do with legality (spoiler alert: this is pretty damn close to a feel-good, do-nothing proposal). Two, I'm still not sold that this somehow doesn't contradict GAR#2. Nations are mandated to comply with international law; their domestic laws are appropriately changed, and in-game stats reflect those changes. So... where is the non-compliance on the national level?

Before you invoke something like ICC being legal, keep in mind that you're specifically looking at national compliance, and not individual lawbreakers.

Ooc: just to clarify, you are referring to a systematic instance of noncompliance that GAR#2 bans? As in "in Doomtopia, we execute gays and set manatees on fire with leaded fuel!!!", and doesn't deal with "oh my god, my neighbor set a manatee on fire!"?

[Wrapper]

Okay, not a ruling, but I do see where you're coming from, as far as Metagaming/Game Mechanics. I'm still struggling with a couple things here. One I'll put in an IC post later, since it has nothing to do with legality (spoiler alert: this is pretty damn close to a feel-good, do-nothing proposal). Two, I'm still not sold that this somehow doesn't contradict GAR#2. Nations are mandated to comply with international law; their domestic laws are appropriately changed, and in-game stats reflect those changes. So... where is the non-compliance on the national level?

Before you invoke something like ICC being legal, keep in mind that you're specifically looking at national compliance, and not individual lawbreakers.

Ooc: just to clarify, you are referring to a systematic instance of noncompliance that GAR#2 bans? As in "in Doomtopia, we execute gays and set manatees on fire with leaded fuel!!!", and doesn't deal with "oh my god, my neighbor set a manatee on fire!"?

I am. Since clause 1 states it addresses "national compliance", it appears that that's what this proposal is trying to do: investigate and -- and, ummm, nothing else really, since it's so toothless as written -- whether or not nations are in compliance with international law. Again, if national compliance is mandatory, (1) how is this legal, and (2)....

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

...ARI: What's the point? Forgive us for saying so but as written this seems like a... what's that phrase, Ahume? (Ahume whispers.) Right, an exercise in pencil-whipping. Why should we finance a committee to do what the gnomes are already doing?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville enters the chamber with an irate look on his face.

"Let me get this straight, Ambassador...Parsons, is it? You want us to allow bureaucrats into our nation to assess whether or not our laws are in compliance with WA law. Let us overlook the fact that, with the exception of the Kennyites, we already allow gnomes to assess our compliance with every passed resolution. Instead, let us focus on the fact that there is no clause stating that these bureaucrats must make their findings public, so it's entirely possible for a nation to be non-compliant with only the WA being aware of the situation, although they can't do anything about it. Basically, this proposal is the status quo but with added paperwork. I'm open to the idea of further WA bureaucracy if it serves a legitimate use, but this is quite frankly ridiculous, Ambassador. For now, we stand opposed."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay, not a ruling, but I do see where you're coming from, as far as Metagaming/Game Mechanics. I'm still struggling with a couple things here. One I'll put in an IC post later, since it has nothing to do with legality (spoiler alert: this is pretty damn close to a feel-good, do-nothing proposal). Two, I'm still not sold that this somehow doesn't contradict GAR#2. Nations are mandated to comply with international law; their domestic laws are appropriately changed, and in-game stats reflect those changes. So... where is the non-compliance on the national level?

That is a valid reading of the proposal, though I would say that this assumption that compliance is mandatory and will always happen is utterly ridiculous and serves no purpose other than simply restricting the realm of roleplay. The only argument which I've heard for why it should be mandatory is either 2 GA, which is circular (compliance is mandatory because 2 GA says so, which is only relevant because compliance is mandatory), or WA-is-pointless-without-it. The latter is patently untrue, since the UN exists and exerts power and is blatantly contradicted by other portions of the game. Then, there's the 'compliance is mandatory'-a-la-la people. To which I would say,

PARSONS: A humanitarian aid ship from our Empire opened fire on an Alamanian submarine. This is in direct violation of 6 GA. Did my hand fall from my wrist?

However, to appease the compliance is mandatory crowed, I've changed the language to attempt to eliminate such a reading.

---

You want us to allow bureaucrats into our nation to assess whether or not our laws are in compliance with WA law

Nope.

Let us overlook the fact that, with the exception of the Kennyites, we already allow gnomes to assess our compliance with every passed resolution.

They don't.

Instead, let us focus on the fact that there is no clause stating that these bureaucrats must make their findings public, so it's entirely possible for a nation to be non-compliant with only the WA being aware of the situation, although they can't do anything about it.

Which is a resolution for another time, requiring a possible repeal of On Universal Jurisdiction (though I would argue that it wouldn't, since that resolution includes a 'ignore me' clause).

Basically, this proposal is the status quo but with added paperwork. I'm open to the idea of further WA bureaucracy if it serves a legitimate use, but this is quite frankly ridiculous, Ambassador. For now, we stand opposed."

It is a very interesting government indeed that does not destroy documents possibly embarrassing to the state.

[Hannasea]

OOC: Again, it doesn't really matter whether or not non-compliance is an interesting idea. The moderators have stated that mentioning the possibility of non-compliance makes a proposal illegal. The first line of this proposal mentions the possibility of non-compliance. So it's illegal, and that's really all there is to say about it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Again, it doesn't really matter whether or not non-compliance is an interesting idea. The moderators have stated that mentioning the possibility of non-compliance makes a proposal illegal. The first line of this proposal mentions the possibility of non-compliance. So it's illegal, and that's really all there is to say about it.

Where?