[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: the ACA operates fine without Reproductive Freedoms. I wouldn't look to repeal the ACA if you repealed RF. Or change my perspective. If players dislike GA resolutions, they should repeal them and respect the RP we have built. That's how the game works.

What hurts the game is having no good response to "well, I'm ignoring this". That just harms the collective RP. I'm just trying to keep legislation relevant to the RP. Because there is no response to Noncompliance that matters. At least you can debate a repeal effort.

1. You are correct with regards to ACA not being dependent on RF. The two can't be separated in consideration, though--if we're talking about non-compliance, we have to deal with the actual resolutions not being complied with. The mandates of this resolution won't bring RF-non-compliant nations into compliance; it will push them out of the WA.
2. A RP that actually deals with non-compliance in a realistic way, rather than pretending we have some sort of sovereignty (I contend that this resolution is both unrealistic and economically infeasible) is certainly more desirable. Non-compliance doesn't harm the RP; it's what happens IRL all the time.

Ooc: RP that deals with realistic noncompliance is possible under this. It's something I explicitly considered. I routinely roleplay having a legal dispute with the WA that puts my nation in the realm of possible noncompliance. Realistic noncompliance by non-edgelords is not as simple, but no less possible.

This truly was meant to give an IC response to edgelords. I'm convinced you've a negative view of my intentions clouding your perspective, because this was not meant as a personal attack.

[United Massachusetts]

1. You are correct with regards to ACA not being dependent on RF. The two can't be separated in consideration, though--if we're talking about non-compliance, we have to deal with the actual resolutions not being complied with. The mandates of this resolution won't bring RF-non-compliant nations into compliance; it will push them out of the WA.
2. A RP that actually deals with non-compliance in a realistic way, rather than pretending we have some sort of sovereignty (I contend that this resolution is both unrealistic and economically infeasible) is certainly more desirable. Non-compliance doesn't harm the RP; it's what happens IRL all the time.

Ooc: RP that deals with realistic noncompliance is possible under this. It's something I explicitly considered. I routinely roleplay having a legal dispute with the WA that puts my nation in the realm of possible noncompliance. Realistic noncompliance by non-edgelords is not as simple, but no less possible.

This truly was meant to give an IC response to edgelords. I'm convinced you've a negative view of my intentions clouding your perspective, because this was not meant as a personal attack.

1. I agree that one can have realistic non-compliance, as you claim to have, and several other nations do. From a policy perspective, though, I don't think this will have much of an impact besides driving otherwise compliant nations (sparing one resolution) out of the WA. It feels like a poor solution and one that is unrealistic given that the WA has no ability to actually enforce its laws.
   
2. I do have a somewhat negative view of your intentions in this case, to be entirely honest (not meant as a personal attack), and I'll try to recalibrate this. Having said that, I still am unconvinced that this resolution will do any actual good. I can certainly see economic harms though.

[Wallenburg]

Or, until recently, capital punishment.

Not really, for reasons I've expressed.

Yes, really, for the reason that noncompliance is noncompliance, and this proposal is entirely indifferent to the ideological stances of any particular nation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ugh. At this rate, magical compliance is actually fucking preferable.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Magical compliance was always preferable.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Magical compliance was always preferable.

Ooc: if only it was reasonable.

[Auralia]

((OOC: You guys realize that people will just roleplay non-compliance with the ACA, right? Auralia certainly isn't going to impose the "strongest sanctions available" on member states who refuse to pay severe fines due to legitimate or trivial non-compliance, because such punishments are either completely unjustified or grossly disproportionate.

Even with the ACA, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.))

[Land Without Shrimp]

((OOC: You guys realize that people will just roleplay non-compliance with the ACA, right? Auralia certainly isn't going to impose the "strongest sanctions available" on member states who refuse to pay severe fines due to legitimate or trivial non-compliance, because such punishments are either completely unjustified or grossly disproportionate.

Even with the ACA, it all comes down to what member states will and will no do. The World Assembly has no real power.))

OOC: Strongest agreement to the above. Also makes me glad to know that I'm not totally alone in my disgust with this proposal.

IC: My nation most heartily disagrees with the notion that the WA should be policing compliance, especially considering the recent increasingly intrusive measures being passed. My nation will continue to be in non-compliance with any measures of the WA that violate the laws of my nation. Any attempt by the WA to force my nation into compliance will be seen as a gross violation of my nation's sovereignty.

[Separatist Peoples]

((OOC: You guys realize that people will just roleplay non-compliance with the ACA, right? Auralia certainly isn't going to impose the "strongest sanctions available" on member states who refuse to pay severe fines due to legitimate or trivial non-compliance, because such punishments are either completely unjustified or grossly disproportionate.

Even with the ACA, it all comes down to what member states will and will no do. The World Assembly has no real power.))

Ooc: at what point do we stop bothering writing proposals if none of them will be obeyed? Tolerating this kind of roleplay without it enriching the experience is destructive to the game.

If you're gonna pack up your toys and declare that nobody else can touch them, just go home, because that doesnt help the game.

It's like trying to compromise with children.

[Auralia]

Ooc: at what point do we stop bothering writing proposals if none of them will be obeyed? Tolerating this kind of roleplay without it enriching the experience is destructive to the game.

If you're gonna pack up your toys and declare that nobody else can touch them, just go home, because that doesnt help the game.

It's like trying to compromise with children.

I think it would be a good idea to have a serious discussion about why we play this game, then. I can't speak for others, but I like how this game lets me simulate being a politician. I enjoy writing legislation that I would like to see enacted, as well as competing with ideological opponents to then enact it. Without ideological opponents, I imagine this game would be a lot less fun.

I am totally willing to roleplay compliance with policy even when I think it is is misguided and harmful, such as Sciongrad's free movement of labour proposal or UM's ban on capital punishment. But I will not roleplay compliance with policy that is fundamentally evil. If you give me no option but to roleplay compliance with such policy or stop playing, then I would rather just stop playing. I think that would be unfortunate, though, because I do enjoy playing this game, and I think my participation does make it more fun for you and others, if only as a skilled opponent -- though of course, if I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

I think part of the problem is that the whole concept of the World Assembly is fundamentally flawed at some level. No organization like the World Assembly would exist in reality, since no state would effectively grant complete power to a bare majority of arbitrary states.

The universal norm for international relations is unanimous consent. The few international organizations with the power to enact binding legislation enforceable against unwilling parties, such as the UN Security Council and the European Union, have checks on the exercise of that power (vetos, supermajority requirements, etc.) as well as limited areas of competence. It is no coincidence that the more powerful of those two, the European Union, has a much smaller membership of friendly states with similar governance and levels of economic development -- and even they have problems with non-compliance and withdrawal.

Maybe this is a good argument for restructuring the World Assembly to operate in a more realistic fashion.

[United Massachusetts]

Ooc: at what point do we stop bothering writing proposals if none of them will be obeyed? Tolerating this kind of roleplay without it enriching the experience is destructive to the game.

If you're gonna pack up your toys and declare that nobody else can touch them, just go home, because that doesnt help the game.

It's like trying to compromise with children.

I think it would be a good idea to have a serious discussion about why we play this game, then. I can't speak for others, but I like how this game lets me simulate being a politician. I enjoy writing legislation that I would like to see enacted, as well as competing with ideological opponents to then enact it. Without ideological opponents, I imagine this game would be a lot less fun.

I am totally willing to roleplay compliance with policy even when I think it is is misguided and harmful, such as Sciongrad's free movement of labour proposal or UM's ban on capital punishment. But I will not roleplay compliance with policy that is fundamentally evil. If you give me no option but to roleplay compliance with such policy or stop playing, then I would rather just stop playing. I think that would be unfortunate, though, because I do enjoy playing this game, and I think my participation does make it more fun for you and others, if only as a skilled opponent -- though of course, if I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

I think part of the problem is that the whole concept of the World Assembly is fundamentally flawed at some level. No organization like the World Assembly would exist in reality, since no state would effectively grant complete power to a bare majority of arbitrary states.

The universal norm for international relations is unanimous consent. The few international organizations with the power to enact binding legislation enforceable against unwilling parties, such as the UN Security Council and the European Union, have checks on the exercise of that power (vetos, supermajority requirements, etc.) as well as limited areas of competence. It is no coincidence that the more powerful of those two, the European Union, has a much smaller membership of friendly states with similar governance and levels of economic development -- and even they have problems with non-compliance and withdrawal.

Maybe this is a good argument for restructuring the World Assembly to operate in a more realistic fashion.

Seconded.

[Wallenburg]

((OOC: You guys realize that people will just roleplay non-compliance with the ACA, right? Auralia certainly isn't going to impose the "strongest sanctions available" on member states who refuse to pay severe fines due to legitimate or trivial non-compliance, because such punishments are either completely unjustified or grossly disproportionate.

Even with the ACA, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.))

Legitimate noncompliance isn't a thing. Sorry. No points for Auralia, the ball is returned to the opposition.

I am totally willing to roleplay compliance with policy even when I think it is is misguided and harmful, such as Sciongrad's free movement of labour proposal or UM's ban on capital punishment. But I will not roleplay compliance with policy that is fundamentally evil. If you give me no option but to roleplay compliance with such policy or stop playing, then I would rather just stop playing.

In that case, I imagine you would absolutely support me roleplaying noncompliance with Ban on Conversion Therapy, International Patent Agreement, Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection, and should it pass, any ban on capital punishment. After all, all of these resolutions are fundamentally evil, at least ICly.

I think that would be unfortunate, though, because I do enjoy playing this game, and I think my participation does make it more fun for you and others, if only as a skilled opponent -- though of course, if I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

Nobody has fun playing with cheaters. Think about that long and hard. Why would anyone who actually respects the rules of this game have fun playing with someone who openly and loudly breaks them?

[Aclion]

((OOC: You guys realize that people will just roleplay non-compliance with the ACA, right? Auralia certainly isn't going to impose the "strongest sanctions available" on member states who refuse to pay severe fines due to legitimate or trivial non-compliance, because such punishments are either completely unjustified or grossly disproportionate.

Even with the ACA, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.))

Legitimate noncompliance isn't a thing. Sorry. No points for Auralia, the ball is returned to the opposition.

Is so, for example if a resolution forbids an action mandated by another WA resolutions.

[Separatist Peoples]

Legitimate noncompliance isn't a thing. Sorry. No points for Auralia, the ball is returned to the opposition.

Is so, for example if a resolution forbids an action mandated by another WA resolutions.

That's not really noncompliance. It's just illegal.

[Wallenburg]

Legitimate noncompliance isn't a thing. Sorry. No points for Auralia, the ball is returned to the opposition.

Is so, for example if a resolution forbids an action mandated by another WA resolutions.

That's called contradiction, which we have GenSec handle before it becomes a problem.

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote FOR this resolution. The People's Hindu Matriarchy works to reinforce and strengthen democratic institutions.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajyasya

[Auralia]

Legitimate noncompliance isn't a thing. Sorry. No points for Auralia, the ball is returned to the opposition.

That's one of the very points at dispute here. From an IC point of view, clearly there is some objective standard by which we judge World Assembly policy, which is why we repeal it from time to time. And in cases where World Assembly policy is contrary to that objective standard, in at least some cases it is legitimate to abide by that objective standard rather than the authority of the World Assembly. From an OOC point of view, the possibility of non-compliance is the only reason I can play the game, because I'm not interested in roleplaying a nation that is intentionally complicit in intrinsic evil.

In that case, I imagine you would absolutely support me roleplaying noncompliance with Ban on Conversion Therapy, International Patent Agreement, Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection, and should it pass, any ban on capital punishment. After all, all of these resolutions are fundamentally evil, at least ICly.

If your nation ICly really believes that and has reasonable grounds for doing so, then from a OOC roleplay perspective I'm fine with it -- though I might disagree, try to convince you otherwise, and impose sanctions and the like IC.

Nobody has fun playing with cheaters. Think about that long and hard. Why would anyone who actually respects the rules of this game have fun playing with someone who openly and loudly breaks them?

Are you calling me a cheater for roleplaying non-compliance? If so, why haven't you reported me to moderation or filed a GHR?

[Linux and the X]

From an OOC point of view, the possibility of non-compliance is the only reason I can play the game,

OOC, "all member nations must abide by legislation [the WA] passes".

because I'm not interested in roleplaying a nation that is intentionally complicit in intrinsic evil.

Okay, I know I was away for a bit, but when did the WA start mandating intrinsic evil?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Willful disregard for the underlying roleplay and the OOC rules to avoid the consequences of losing on a point you feel strongly about sounds a lot like pleading for special treatment. All members can resign at any point. All members can effect repeals of any resolution they dislike. Beyond that, you haven't an entitlement to a specific end result, and I am unmoved by personal unwillingness to accept that.

[Wallenburg]

Okay, I know I was away for a bit, but when did the WA start mandating intrinsic evil?

Since duh abhortions!

[Auralia]

OOC: Willful disregard for the underlying roleplay and the OOC rules to avoid the consequences of losing on a point you feel strongly about sounds a lot like pleading for special treatment. All members can resign at any point. All members can effect repeals of any resolution they dislike. Beyond that, you haven't an entitlement to a specific end result, and I am unmoved by personal unwillingness to accept that.

I'm not demanding a particular end result. I have no OOC objection to you ICly continuing to support World Assembly mandated abortion on demand and sanctions for any member state who refuses to comply. Nor do I have an OOC objection to such policy being enacted. That's not the issue here.

I'm trying to respond to your OOC comments on compliance by pointing out that this is supposed to be a realistic political simulation. Part of reality is people not complying with laws they believe to be unjust. Demanding that they roleplay such compliance as a condition of participation is unrealistic and contrary to the purpose of the simulation.

It also ensures that the game will become nothing more than a echo chamber. The whole point of a realistic political simulation is that players have the option of acting in a manner consistent with their values. A nation that collectively views abortion as the intentional killing of an innocent being would be categorically prohibited by the moral law from legalizing the practice as a condition of joining an international organization. A pro-life player therefore has to pretend to be a villain in order to play a game where everyone is supposed to be the good guy, working towards a better future!

Look at it this way -- if the World Assembly legalized genocide, slavery or a similar evil, would you as a player be willing to roleplay its legalization in your nation as a condition of continuing to play the game? Is that consistent with a realistic political simulation? Does it sound like any fun?

Of course, perhaps you do want to effectively ban pro-life players from the game. (It's pretty clear from their comments that some players certainly feel that way.) If so, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Regardless, I must insist that you, Wallenburg, or someone else cite the rule that is being broken by non-compliance roleplay. If there is no such rule, stop claiming that there is.

[Linux and the X]

I'm trying to respond to your OOC comments on compliance by pointing out that this is supposed to be a realistic political simulation.

You've been playing long enough to know that's not true.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm trying to respond to your OOC comments on compliance by pointing out that this is supposed to be a realistic political simulation. Part of reality is people not complying with laws they believe to be unjust.

There is a big difference between individual noncompliance and national noncompliance, to my mind.

Demanding that they roleplay such compliance as a condition of participation is unrealistic and contrary to the purpose of the simulation.

Noncompliance is possible, but also ignoring consequences for noncompliance is patently unrealistic.

It also ensures that the game will become nothing more than a echo chamber. The whole point of a realistic political simulation is that players have the option of acting in a manner consistent with their values. A nation that collectively views abortion as the intentional killing of an innocent being would be categorically prohibited by the moral law from legalizing the practice as a condition of joining an international organization. A pro-life player therefore has to pretend to be a villain in order to play a game where everyone is supposed to be the good guy, working towards a better future!

A lot of players throw this around, but at the end of the day, there is little danger of the WA becoming an echo chamber. We STILL have people who argue in favor of denying marriage equality to homosexuals, or who want to see biological weapons and torture liberalized. This is a non-issue that, I feel, is often deployed as a smokescreen.

Look at it this way -- if the World Assembly legalized genocide, slavery or a similar evil, would you as a player be willing to roleplay its legalization in your nation as a condition of continuing to play the game? Is that consistent with a realistic political simulation? Does it sound like any fun?

While I'm repealing it? Yeah, I would. Or I'd roleplay actually suffering the severe consequences of noncompliance. Or of compliance in the face of severe resistance. I could probably turn that into a really interesting roleplay. I suppose thats the difference here: I'm willing to take a political loss into a roleplay opportunity.

Of course, perhaps you do want to effectively ban pro-life players from the game. (It's pretty clear from their comments that some players certainly feel that way.) If so, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

I'm not. I know for a fact many are.

Regardless, I must insist that you, Wallenburg, or someone else cite the rule that is being broken by non-compliance roleplay. If there is no such rule, stop claiming that there is.[/quote]
GA rules don't deal with roleplay, but the mandatory nature of resolutions is clear. Still...

Optionality: Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all member nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed.

We clearly don't approve of noncompliance. We take steps to block it. Recognizing that it exists is a different story than permitting it, but that doesn't change that the GA was never intended to tolerate noncompliance.

I think you know many of the other examples. I think the WA page and the FAQs also have some, but that one is the best example. Years of mod precedent follow that, too. Frustrating the intent of the game is going to earn you ire, and I can see the argument in favor of calling it cheating. It can certainly be godmodding in the same way that not taking casualties or accepting consequences of other roleplays is godmodding.

[United Massachusetts]

Forcing Catholic players to comply with resolutions they consider to be intrinsically and morally evil forces them to play the villain. It harms the collective RP to force nations to govern themselves exactly to the mandates of WA legislation.

[Linux and the X]

Forcing Catholic players to comply with resolutions they consider to be intrinsically and morally evil forces them to play the villain. It harms the collective RP to force nations to govern themselves exactly to the mandates of WA legislation.

Well, they're wrong. And they can just stand there in their wrongness and be wrong and get used to it.