[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[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.

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

Very tolerant of you.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

Catholic players are capable of roleplaying nations subject to non-catholic rules. If you want total control over your nation, the WA is perhaps not the ideal place for your main nation.

[Land Without Shrimp]

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.

Catholic players are capable of roleplaying nations subject to non-catholic rules. If you want total control over your nation, the WA is perhaps not the ideal place for your main nation.

In my view, it's a lot more difficult(yet rewarding) to RP as a nation that is opposed to many of the WA's mandates yet thinks it is better to be part of a global community than to self-isolate. So for my part at least, as long as the WA doesn't attempt to enforce compliance via physical measures(i.e., boots on the ground), my nation will stay in the WA. We still heavily resent the attempts of the WA to continue to interfere in our nation's sovereignty(especially in matters that are solely internal to our nation's borders and do not have any bearing on our interactions with other nations).

[Separatist Peoples]

Catholic players are capable of roleplaying nations subject to non-catholic rules. If you want total control over your nation, the WA is perhaps not the ideal place for your main nation.

In my view, it's a lot more difficult(yet rewarding) to RP as a nation that is opposed to many of the WA's mandates yet thinks it is better to be part of a global community than to self-isolate. So for my part at least, as long as the WA doesn't attempt to enforce compliance via physical measures(i.e., boots on the ground), my nation will stay in the WA. We still heavily resent the attempts of the WA to continue to interfere in our nation's sovereignty(especially in matters that are solely internal to our nation's borders and do not have any bearing on our interactions with other nations).

You can totally resist and resent the WA! Thats great! It makes for fantastic roleplay! Refusal to follow WA law and blatantly ignoring the consequences of such is not, though.

[Linux and the X]

Catholic players are capable of roleplaying nations subject to non-catholic rules. If you want total control over your nation, the WA is perhaps not the ideal place for your main nation.

In my view, it's a lot more difficult(yet rewarding) to RP as a nation that is opposed to many of the WA's mandates yet thinks it is better to be part of a global community than to self-isolate. So for my part at least, as long as the WA doesn't attempt to enforce compliance via physical measures(i.e., boots on the ground), my nation will stay in the WA. We still heavily resent the attempts of the WA to continue to interfere in our nation's sovereignty(especially in matters that are solely internal to our nation's borders and do not have any bearing on our interactions with other nations).

If you refuse to comply with international law, you are not, in fact, being a part of the global community. You are a rogue state demanding a voice in law you refuse to recognise.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm merely pointing out that this resolution only really does anything with regards to issues like abortion.

No, it deals with people who are not compliant. Nations that refuse to ban slavery or discriminate wildly are subject to the same enforcement mechanisms. The weighing here should be really clear, if we actually care about morality. If you really think that it is preferable for there to be no enforcement system against slavery, genocide, war crimes, etc. because abortion is too much of a harm to suffer, then you should have your moral compass recalibrated.

[Terra Novae Libero]

"International peace and voluntary cooperation between nations are the cornerstones of a functional international society. But this goes beyond cooperation and treaty-making to pure, unfiltered coercion by the global power. A world state is a foul and despicable thing, that would ensnare in its jaws every living person there is. There would be no fleeing from its vicious grasp, not matter to which corner of the earth one fled. This disastrous act would repudiate the primary role of the nation-state exemplified in resolutions such as, for example, #2.

If this resolution is passed, Terra Novae Libero will not comply with it. This resolution would effectively turn the World Assembly from an international forum to a federal lawmaking body, which no sane nation-state government would accept. International peace and goodwill may be desirable, but a world state is not and shall never be. We will pay no fines levied against us, and we will not sanction anyone who refuses to do so. Any person who is in the employ of these kangaroo courts will be banned from our nation, and we shall be better off for it.

We would also encourage all nations to end any cooperation with the Compliance Commission."

-Ambassador Francis Johnson

[Separatist Peoples]

"International peace and voluntary cooperation between nations are the cornerstones of a functional international society. But this goes beyond cooperation and treaty-making to pure, unfiltered coercion by the global power. A world state is a foul and despicable thing, that would ensnare in its jaws every living person there is. There would be no fleeing from its vicious grasp, not matter to which corner of the earth one fled. This disastrous act would repudiate the primary role of the nation-state exemplified in resolutions such as, for example, #2.

If this resolution is passed, Terra Novae Libero will not comply with it. This resolution would effectively turn the World Assembly from an international forum to a federal lawmaking body, which no sane nation-state government would accept. International peace and goodwill may be desirable, but a world state is not and shall never be. We will pay no fines levied against us, and we will not sanction anyone who refuses to do so. Any person who is in the employ of these kangaroo courts will be banned from our nation, and we shall be better off for it.

We would also encourage all nations to end any cooperation with the Compliance Commission."

-Ambassador Francis Johnson

"We look forward to watching stiff sanctions form against your nation."

OOC: There's no real reason to engage with this kind of "debate", so you go ahead and play alone in the corner, I guess.

[Aclion]

I'm merely pointing out that this resolution only really does anything with regards to issues like abortion.

No, it deals with people who are not compliant. Nations that refuse to ban slavery or discriminate wildly are subject to the same enforcement mechanisms. The weighing here should be really clear, if we actually care about morality. If you really think that it is preferable for there to be no enforcement system against slavery, genocide, war crimes, etc. because abortion is too much of a harm to suffer, then you should have your moral compass recalibrated.

Slavery is a bad example, were already required to sanction it.

[Separatist Peoples]

No, it deals with people who are not compliant. Nations that refuse to ban slavery or discriminate wildly are subject to the same enforcement mechanisms. The weighing here should be really clear, if we actually care about morality. If you really think that it is preferable for there to be no enforcement system against slavery, genocide, war crimes, etc. because abortion is too much of a harm to suffer, then you should have your moral compass recalibrated.

Slavery is a bad example, were already required to sanction it.

OOC: I suppose torture is a pretty good example, then? No sanctions required, as I recall, and uncomfortably broad support in the name of "justice" or interrogation.

Though, I suppose we could all argue that people shouldn't sanction slavery in contravention of WA law if they really feel like its ok.

[United Massachusetts]

"International peace and voluntary cooperation between nations are the cornerstones of a functional international society. But this goes beyond cooperation and treaty-making to pure, unfiltered coercion by the global power. A world state is a foul and despicable thing, that would ensnare in its jaws every living person there is. There would be no fleeing from its vicious grasp, not matter to which corner of the earth one fled. This disastrous act would repudiate the primary role of the nation-state exemplified in resolutions such as, for example, #2.

If this resolution is passed, Terra Novae Libero will not comply with it. This resolution would effectively turn the World Assembly from an international forum to a federal lawmaking body, which no sane nation-state government would accept. International peace and goodwill may be desirable, but a world state is not and shall never be. We will pay no fines levied against us, and we will not sanction anyone who refuses to do so. Any person who is in the employ of these kangaroo courts will be banned from our nation, and we shall be better off for it.

We would also encourage all nations to end any cooperation with the Compliance Commission."

-Ambassador Francis Johnson

"We look forward to watching stiff sanctions form against your nation."

OOC: There's no real reason to engage with this kind of "debate", so you go ahead and play alone in the corner, I guess.

OOC: I mean, he isn't really wrong or anything.

[United Massachusetts]

I'm merely pointing out that this resolution only really does anything with regards to issues like abortion.

No, it deals with people who are not compliant. Nations that refuse to ban slavery or discriminate wildly are subject to the same enforcement mechanisms. The weighing here should be really clear, if we actually care about morality. If you really think that it is preferable for there to be no enforcement system against slavery, genocide, war crimes, etc. because abortion is too much of a harm to suffer, then you should have your moral compass recalibrated.

Most reasonable and otherwise compliant nations probably already punish those who allow slavery, genocide, or war crimes.

Also, would this resolution for the United States to heavily sanction Saudi Arabia, thereby severely damaging its own economy?

[Xanthal]

OOC: Don't get me wrong, I can be the sorest of losers, but at least I have the decency to offer a pithy rejoinder or two and slink off to sulk quietly; this is just sad. If you want to keep your nation in the WA while ignoring the things you don't like about the WA without IC consequence, that's lame but nobody can stop you: this is free form RP, here's no GM here. Congrats, you win. I'm with Separatist Peoples pretty much 100% on this one.

[Auralia]

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

A significant portion of real world non-compliance is indeed national non-compliance -- in the form of refusing to ratify or abide by treaties, to respect the judgments of international tribunals, to abide by UN resolutions, and so on. And even instances of individual non-compliance with respect to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the like, when performed by state agents, can be validly characterized as national non-compliance as well.

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

I agree. I will gladly stipulate that Auralia has poor diplomatic relations with and is being sanctioned by the majority of member states for its open non-compliance. OOCly, I can certainly understand it when players bring it up in the context of drafting or vote against my proposals on that basis -- at least up to a certain point.

Here's the thing, though -- ICly, would member states treat us any better if we were a non-member state? We'd have the same laws on abortion, after all. So it still makes sense IC for us to remain a member in the hope that we might eventually fix World Assembly policy on this issue.

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.

Setting aside the fact that those issues aren't remotely comparable, the fact that there will always be a bunch of crazies making poorly reasoned arguments whom we all ignore will not prevent the World Assembly from becoming an echo chamber.

For that, you need true ideological balance in the form of educated opponents making rational arguments in favour of their positions and presenting competently written legislation that poses a real competitive threat. Using willingness to roleplay a nation supportive of abortion as a sort of ideological litmus test you have to pass to play the World Assembly game will absolutely create an echo chamber, at least on this issue.

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.

If Separatist Peoples would legalize chattel slavery simply because the World Assembly told them to do so, that says a great deal about the moral fibre (or lack thereof) of its government. You may feel comfortable roleplaying such a nation. I am not, and do not see why I should be obliged to in order to play this game.

As I said, I don't object to suffering consequences for non-compliance. I suppose I could write a fictional news dispatch or two to demonstrate this, though I'm not great at that sort of thing.

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

Sorry, I'm a little confused by this response. You're saying you are not opposed to banning pro-life players from the game, but you know for a fact that many support doing so?

GA rules don't deal with roleplay...

You can pretty much stop right there, then. The practice does not violate any rule, and therefore it is not cheating. One may disagree with the practice and consider it "unsportsmanlike" given GA norms -- though of course I would disagree and have constantly sought to change those norms -- but it is not cheating.

So calling me "someone who openly and loudly breaks [the rules of this game]" or stating that I have a "willful disregard for...the OOC rules" with respect to non-compliance roleplay is tantamount to defamation, and I demand that it stop.

[Auralia]

I'm merely pointing out that this resolution only really does anything with regards to issues like abortion.

No, it deals with people who are not compliant. Nations that refuse to ban slavery or discriminate wildly are subject to the same enforcement mechanisms. The weighing here should be really clear, if we actually care about morality. If you really think that it is preferable for there to be no enforcement system against slavery, genocide, war crimes, etc. because abortion is too much of a harm to suffer, then you should have your moral compass recalibrated.

UM is referring to the fact that member states almost certainly impose sanctions on nations who commit slavery, genocide, war crimes, etc. because there is a broad consensus that such acts are morally abhorent. The World Assembly certainly has a role to play in coordinating such sanctions to ensure they are fairly applied and to maximize their effectiveness. I imagine both UM and I see this as a positive feature of the ACA.

Less attractive is the fact that the ACA will inevitably be used to browbeat nations into compliance with controversial policies for which there is no such consensus, such as abortion. This is the main reason why voluntary sanctions are a preferable approach.

[Aclion]

Slavery is a bad example, were already required to sanction it.

OOC: I suppose torture is a pretty good example, then? No sanctions required, as I recall, and uncomfortably broad support in the name of "justice" or interrogation.

Though, I suppose we could all argue that people shouldn't sanction slavery in contravention of WA law if they really feel like its ok.

We could. But it's academic. Enough nations oppose slavery for the sanctions to be effective.

[Linux and the X]

Here's the thing, though -- ICly, would member states treat us any better if we were a non-member state? We'd have the same laws on abortion, after all. So it still makes sense IC for us to remain a member in the hope that we might eventually fix World Assembly policy on this issue.

So you're just gonna openly admit you want to act as a rogue state while demanding a vote in this Assembly?

FOH

[Separatist Peoples]

I agree. I will gladly stipulate that Auralia has poor diplomatic relations with and is being sanctioned by the majority of member states for its open non-compliance. OOCly, I can certainly understand it when players bring it up in the context of drafting or vote against my proposals on that basis -- at least up to a certain point.

Here's the thing, though -- ICly, would member states treat us any better if we were a non-member state? We'd have the same laws on abortion, after all. So it still makes sense IC for us to remain a member in the hope that we might eventually fix World Assembly policy on this issue.

Probably. My IC nation cares far more that members of the WA operate on equal playing fields than about the substance of your law. We don't actually care what nonmembers do, because they are acting within the bounds of their law. We are a litigious bunch like that.

Setting aside the fact that those issues aren't remotely comparable, the fact that there will always be a bunch of crazies making poorly reasoned arguments whom we all ignore will not prevent the World Assembly from becoming an echo chamber.

For that, you need true ideological balance in the form of educated opponents making rational arguments in favour of their positions and presenting competently written legislation that poses a real competitive threat. Using willingness to roleplay a nation supportive of abortion as a sort of ideological litmus test you have to pass to play the World Assembly game will absolutely create an echo chamber, at least on this issue.

Nothing in my version of compliance detracts from opposition's arguments.

If Separatist Peoples would legalize chattel slavery simply because the World Assembly told them to do so, that says a great deal about the moral fibre (or lack thereof) of its government. You may feel comfortable roleplaying such a nation. I am not, and do not see why I should be obliged to in order to play this game.

Separatist Peoples is imaginary, and the moral fiber of an imaginary place is worth nothing at all. The more I see you take this line, the more like a bad attempt at emotional blackmail I feel this is. On par with "If this passes, I am quitting the WA" from various one shot wonders.

As I said, I don't object to suffering consequences for non-compliance. I suppose I could write a fictional news dispatch or two to demonstrate this, though I'm not great at that sort of thing.

Its a start.

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

Sorry, I'm a little confused by this response. You're saying you are not opposed to banning pro-life players from the game, but you know for a fact that many support doing so?

The reverse, though I see how you got that.

You can pretty much stop right there, then. The practice does not violate any rule, and therefore it is not cheating. One may disagree with the practice and consider it "unsportsmanlike" given GA norms -- though of course I would disagree and have constantly sought to change those norms -- but it is not cheating.

Right-o. It isn't cheating any more than "miscounting" your damage during a dungeoncrawl so you don't take your hits. Just because the GA rules cannot enforce roleplay (without a tremendous amount of moderation) doesn't mean you aren't shitting all over the implicit rules of roleplay.

So calling me "someone who openly and loudly breaks [the rules of this game]" or stating that I have a "willful disregard for...the OOC rules" with respect to non-compliance roleplay is tantamount to defamation, and I demand that it stop.

You do. You break the rules of the roleplay, and you have a willful disregard for how this part of the game is designed. Cutting out my argument in choice spots doesn't change reality.

If you believe it is defamation, then I eagerly await your service of process. Mostly because defamation requires the statement to be false. The proper jurisdiction is the Federal District Court of New Hampshire, provided you can prove damages in excess of $75,000. Until then: You Are Breaking The Rules Of Roleplay With Wanton Disregard. What is most disappointing is that it comes from a player with such skill, who could obviously rise above should they have the wherewithal to do so.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: Don't get me wrong, I can be the sorest of losers, but at least I have the decency to offer a pithy rejoinder or two and slink off to sulk quietly; this is just sad. If you want to keep your nation in the WA while ignoring the things you don't like about the WA without IC consequence, that's lame but nobody can stop you: this is free form RP, here's no GM here. Congrats, you win. I'm with Separatist Peoples pretty much 100% on this one.

We're fine RP-ing consequences for our legislation on abortion. We're not fine with being compelled to either leave the Assembly or adopt a position contrary to the moral law. Go ahead and sanction us; I don't really care from an OOC perspective. Let's refrain from forcing those with strong views on controversial issues from being forced to adopt policy they consider abhorrent with every fibre of their being.

What nation wouldn't voluntarily sanction those nations engaging in slavery? Or permitting human trafficking? Most nations already do. This is about controversial issues like abortion, and any attempt to cover it up is disingenuous.

So calling me "someone who openly and loudly breaks [the rules of this game]" or stating that I have a "willful disregard for...the OOC rules" with respect to non-compliance roleplay is tantamount to defamation, and I demand that it stop.

You do. You break the rules of the roleplay, and you have a willful disregard for how this part of the game is designed. Cutting out my argument in choice spots doesn't change reality.

If you believe it is defamation, then I eagerly await your service of process. Mostly because defamation requires the statement to be false. The proper jurisdiction is the Federal District Court of New Hampshire, provided you can prove damages in excess of $75,000. Until then: You Are Breaking The Rules Of Roleplay With Wanton Disregard. What is most disappointing is that it comes from a player with such skill, who could obviously rise above should they have the wherewithal to do so.

We ought to take a look at the rules of roleplay then. Because it would be silly to suggest that non-compliance somehow is illegal. It isn't and never has been. Nor should it be an implicit rule. It is entirely reasonable to imagine non-compliance with the mandates of an inept international body with no sovereignty. It's not like it's ever happened in the real world or anything.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Don't get me wrong, I can be the sorest of losers, but at least I have the decency to offer a pithy rejoinder or two and slink off to sulk quietly; this is just sad. If you want to keep your nation in the WA while ignoring the things you don't like about the WA without IC consequence, that's lame but nobody can stop you: this is free form RP, here's no GM here. Congrats, you win. I'm with Separatist Peoples pretty much 100% on this one.

We're fine RP-ing consequences for our legislation on abortion. We're not fine with being compelled to either leave the Assembly or adopt a position contrary to the moral law. Go ahead and sanction us; I don't really care from an OOC perspective. Let's refrain from forcing those with strong views on controversial issues from being forced to adopt policy they consider abhorrent with every fibre of their being.

What nation wouldn't voluntarily sanction those nations engaging in slavery? Or permitting human trafficking? Most nations already do. This is about controversial issues like abortion, and any attempt to cover it up is disingenuous.

OOC: My nation doesn't sanction anybody we don't have to, regardless of the offense, because we're isolationist. Obviously, that can't last. You're assuming that nations will engage in strict sanctions without legal backing. While I think its only necessary to presume that most nations do comply with WA law, you can't presume that most nations engage in sanctions for violations without explicit direction to do so. Not everybody goes above and beyond. In fact, most probably won't, if only to preserve their political capital. Fortunately, you reserve a lot more of that with legal authority at your back.

[Kowani]

OOC: Don't get me wrong, I can be the sorest of losers, but at least I have the decency to offer a pithy rejoinder or two and slink off to sulk quietly; this is just sad. If you want to keep your nation in the WA while ignoring the things you don't like about the WA without IC consequence, that's lame but nobody can stop you: this is free form RP, here's no GM here. Congrats, you win. I'm with Separatist Peoples pretty much 100% on this one.

We're fine RP-ing consequences for our legislation on abortion. We're not fine with being compelled to either leave the Assembly or adopt a position contrary to the moral law. Go ahead and sanction us; I don't really care from an OOC perspective. Let's refrain from forcing those with strong views on controversial issues from being forced to adopt policy they consider abhorrent with every fibre of their being.

What nation wouldn't voluntarily sanction those nations engaging in slavery? Or permitting human trafficking? Most nations already do. This is about controversial issues like abortion, and any attempt to cover it up is disingenuous.

Very well. Imagine the WA as a club. Everyone gets to vote on the club’s rules. However, if the side you supported lost, you are supposed to abide by the rules. If you consider them unacceptable, then try to change them, or, failing that, you leave. Tell everyone else how sucky the club is. But, if you want to remain a member, you are supposed to abide by the rules. This way, we have more than strongly worded letters we can send to those who do not want to abide by said rules. We cannot kick noncompliant nations out, so something like this is quite possibly, unless GA2 is repealed, the only way to actually enforce the rules.

[United Massachusetts]

We're fine RP-ing consequences for our legislation on abortion. We're not fine with being compelled to either leave the Assembly or adopt a position contrary to the moral law. Go ahead and sanction us; I don't really care from an OOC perspective. Let's refrain from forcing those with strong views on controversial issues from being forced to adopt policy they consider abhorrent with every fibre of their being.

What nation wouldn't voluntarily sanction those nations engaging in slavery? Or permitting human trafficking? Most nations already do. This is about controversial issues like abortion, and any attempt to cover it up is disingenuous.

OOC: My nation doesn't sanction anybody we don't have to, regardless of the offense, because we're isolationist. Obviously, that can't last. You're assuming that nations will engage in strict sanctions without legal backing. While I think its only necessary to presume that most nations do comply with WA law, you can't presume that most nations engage in sanctions for violations without explicit direction to do so. Not everybody goes above and beyond. In fact, most probably won't, if only to preserve their political capital. Fortunately, you reserve a lot more of that with legal authority at your back.

I think that urging nations to enact sanctions is entirely reasonable. They are then able to determine which resolutions it is reasonable and feasible to combat with sanctions. Because this resolution implicitly acknowledges that they'll do so anyways. The legal backing of the WA will go a long way to combating the most egregious violations of human rights. Is it really worth sanctioning a major economic powerhouse that bans circumcision, for instance? Compare that to a nation that has legalized slavery, and my point becomes clearer. It makes sense to coordinate a response to non-compliance, and, in many cases, to levy sanctions. In other cases, it (a.) does not make sense and (b.) forces nations out of the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: My nation doesn't sanction anybody we don't have to, regardless of the offense, because we're isolationist. Obviously, that can't last. You're assuming that nations will engage in strict sanctions without legal backing. While I think its only necessary to presume that most nations do comply with WA law, you can't presume that most nations engage in sanctions for violations without explicit direction to do so. Not everybody goes above and beyond. In fact, most probably won't, if only to preserve their political capital. Fortunately, you reserve a lot more of that with legal authority at your back.

I think that urging nations to enact sanctions is entirely reasonable. They are then able to determine which resolutions it is reasonable and feasible to combat with sanctions. Because this resolution implicitly acknowledges that they'll do so anyways. The legal backing of the WA will go a long way to combating the most egregious violations of human rights. Is it really worth sanctioning a major economic powerhouse that bans circumcision, for instance? Compare that to a nation that has legalized slavery, and my point becomes clearer. It makes sense to coordinate a response to non-compliance, and, in many cases, to levy sanctions. In other cases, it (a.) does not make sense and (b.) forces nations out of the WA.

OOC: Small violations without consequence undermine authority and lead to Big violations. I'd rather take harsh steps to prevent a small harm than open the door wide to large ones on the misguided hope that nations will take care of it themselves. When, clearly, they don't.

[United Massachusetts]

We're fine RP-ing consequences for our legislation on abortion. We're not fine with being compelled to either leave the Assembly or adopt a position contrary to the moral law. Go ahead and sanction us; I don't really care from an OOC perspective. Let's refrain from forcing those with strong views on controversial issues from being forced to adopt policy they consider abhorrent with every fibre of their being.

What nation wouldn't voluntarily sanction those nations engaging in slavery? Or permitting human trafficking? Most nations already do. This is about controversial issues like abortion, and any attempt to cover it up is disingenuous.

Very well. Imagine the WA as a club. Everyone gets to vote on the club’s rules. However, if the side you supported lost, you are supposed to abide by the rules. If you consider them unacceptable, then try to change them, or, failing that, you leave. Tell everyone else how sucky the club is. But, if you want to remain a member, you are supposed to abide by the rules. This way, we have more than strongly worded letters we can send to those who do not want to abide by said rules. We cannot kick noncompliant nations out, so something like this is quite possibly, unless GA2 is repealed, the only way to actually enforce the rules.

Imagine if the club's rules required me to renounce a core belief of mine, and requires others to engage in evil. Do I not have a moral obligation, on my part, to stay in the club and attempt to make reforms, especially if said club can't actually force me to do anything? Also, if that club is part of an online browser game, am I supposed to either run a nation against my core RL moral beliefs or not partake in the fun of the GA at all?

United Massachusetts contends that a morally unjust law is not a binding law at all, and that the highest binding law is the moral one. No law can compel us to do something immoral.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't understand why you guys believe voluntary sanctions are useful when they don't happen at all. Saudi Arabia tortures and disappears feminist activists. Where are the super-sanctions? The PRC disappears its population, murders thousands every year, does forced organ harvesting on missionaries and Falun Gong. Where are the super-sanctions? Burma commits genocide on Rohingya. Where are these super-sanctions?