Advertisement
by Mallorea and Riva » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:14 am
by United Massachusetts » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:22 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:01 am
United Massachusetts wrote:Mallorea and Riva wrote:SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.
Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:42 am
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:United Massachusetts wrote:Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.
Actually, Sierra Lyricalia wrote we should replace the purpose of the committee with something else and see if it still fits the category. I refuse to comment on the category beyond stating that the actual effect of the mandate should be to decrease economic prosperity across the WA. However, if I change all references to compliance with, say, "mandatory vaccination" or "defending against doomsday asteroids" the final clause still has the exact same effect (wrecking people's economies in my opinion) albeit for slightly more absurd reasons.
It is also worth pointing out that I previously argued that the real test needs to reside in whether the proposal can justify a stat change by what it requires STATES to do. A mandate that a state do SOMETHING even if in response to the committee was enough to save "Mandatory Vaccination Act", was seemingly sufficient to allow that proposal to go to a vote (where it mercifully failed for other reasons).
That said, I do feel like that argument for "Mandatory Vaccination Act" was stretching the limits of the rule to a level that no good statutory regime should be comfortable doing regularly. I also feel like this proposal is a step too far for that argument. In "Mandatory Vaccination Act" the mandate that saved it was a literal mandate to accomplish the actual purpose of the resolution (mandatory comprehensive vaccination). I am not sure economic warfare bears quite the same degree of association with policing compliance of WA resolutions. I would rather see the Committee Only rule meet the amendment axe into a less cumbersome form.
As a side note: SP, would you be open to amending the economic sanction mandate to exempt "essential goods" on the order of food, medical supplies, and the like? I would rather not RP my people dying of measles because my drug dealer decided to not pay a fine requiring me to embargo him.
by Wallenburg » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:19 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Wallenburg wrote:Again, this clause does not merely mention a committee. The mandate depends on the committee to function within the scope of the proposal. Replace the IAO with a judiciary board to rule on unauthorized transportation of saltwater taffy, and you no longer have a Furtherment of Democracy clause.
1) I am not aware of any such ruling.
2) How is full compliance "insufficient action"?
That is not what I take issue with. The problem here is that the committee and its actions, as described in its implementation, are inseparable from the mandate.
Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:26 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.
That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee, and if you follow the requirements of the doomsday asteroids test, you are left with an unquestionable category violation.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:28 pm
by Sciongrad » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:11 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:07 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...
OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule.
Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.
by Sciongrad » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:09 pm
Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.
My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:10 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:10 pm
My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.
OOC: We get it, you don't like how we've interpreted the ideological ban rule. You've got to get over this at some point.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:57 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Which would make for a category violation, since this is FoD, not Human Rights.
Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:31 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...
OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.
by The Greater Siriusian Domain » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:02 pm
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:03 pm
Sciongrad wrote:---snips---
I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I'll be honest, I'd be hella more comfortable if we did that first, before this gets submitted (SP mentioned somewhere this would be in drafting for a while, I think?). I don't know that it violates the committee rule as we currently enforce it, but at the very least it comes awfully close. I don't think anyone is wedded to a strong committee rule; it shouldn't be hard to find language that makes most prospective authors happy.
Seperatist Peoples wrote:I think there are extant laws that deal with those products. Certainly, medical and humanitarian supplies are protected from interdiction or seizure.
Seperatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:40 am
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:At the rate SP drafts, it could take a year, and still get out before this gets submitted (NOT THAT THAT'S A BAD THING SP!).
Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.
Also, please do not put too much faith in my argumentation. My argumentation was politics (and dissatisfaction with the obvious reading of the current rule) more than me actually believing that is how the currently drafted rule ought to be interpreted.
by Jarish Inyo » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:00 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:32 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:Opposed. Though love the idea that the GAO is to collect said fines when it has no power or ability to do so. So, it would still be business as usual even if this passes for many nations not wishing to be in compliance with poor thought out resolutions.
by Cardoness » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:18 am
The GAO is tasked to ensure that all collected fines are collected and applied to reduce the contribution amount from members found compliant during that assessment period.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:50 am
Cardoness wrote:Article 3 seems a littlecumbersome(clumsy?)The GAO is tasked to ensure that all collected fines are collected and applied to reduce the contribution amount from members found compliant during that assessment period.
Might I suggest dropping one of the "collected"?
I must also echo others in saying I believe this runs afoul the Committee Only rule, as well as the HoC rule (though I understand your argument in regards to that one). While I would support a tweaking of the committee rule, or at the least a clarification, I worry that doing away with it will lead to lazy resolutions. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a single clause that compels action by the state without any relation to a committee.
Finally, why did you create a sub-commission and not just task the WA Compliance Commission directly?
by Bruke » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:16 am
by Whovian Tardisia » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:31 pm
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.
by States of Glory WA Office » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:22 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:41 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: West Ladynia
Advertisement