[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[United Massachusetts]

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.

We've previously stated that punishing small violations so severely is counter-productive in that it decreases WA membership, and, from a RP perspective is economically infeasible. The WA should encourage nations to sanction the non-compliant and coordinate their doing so; they shouldn't be forced to ruin their economies in order to punish anti-abortion nations.

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?

Why is that? Perhaps because Western economies and strategic interests depend on them. Would it be reasonable, from an economic standpoint, to require the US to sanction China? I'm pointing out that where sanctions are feasible, they will be enacted by reasonable nations on their own. What about where said sanctions are unreasonable, as is the case particularly with China and Saudi Arabia? Should the WA really force nations to enact unreasonable sanctions?

[Xanthal]

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: Since you seem intent on making this about abortion, let's do that for a moment. Would you be this adamant in opposing stronger enforcement if the WA had made abortion illegal instead of legal? I'm seriously asking, I don't know you very well yet. As I'm sure you're aware, most people are all too happy to impose their morality on others- it's only when the shoe's on the other foot that it suddenly becomes an outrage. I can't take any freedom of conscience argument seriously when someone is only talking about his conscience.

[Auralia]

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?

They absolutely do happen, but I don't understand why you think the ACA would somehow change the existing political and economic reasons why nations do not impose sanctions under these circumstances.

[United Massachusetts]

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: Since you seem intent on making this about abortion, let's do that for a moment. Would you be this adamant in opposing stronger enforcement if the WA had made abortion illegal instead of legal? I'm seriously asking, I don't know you very well yet. As I'm sure you're aware, most people are all too happy to impose their morality on others- it's only when the shoe's on the other foot that it suddenly becomes an outrage. I can't take any freedom of conscience argument seriously when someone is only talking about his conscience.

I make it about abortion because it certainly is. I have already provided evidence that there exists significant non-compliance among the pro-life community to GA 286. And, as I've previously stated, this resolution will probably have the most effect on the abortion issue.

As for the question, I absolutely would oppose mandatory sanctions on controversial issues. On such issues, it should be the job of nations to determine a reasonable response in line with their own moral beliefs and economic realities. I do not support the suppression of most sincerely held beliefs, as this resolution would do.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

We've previously stated that punishing small violations so severely is counter-productive in that it decreases WA membership, and, from a RP perspective is economically infeasible. The WA should encourage nations to sanction the non-compliant and coordinate their doing so; they shouldn't be forced to ruin their economies in order to punish anti-abortion nations.

Ooc: WA membership being up is only good if those members comply. Otherwise, it's just for show.

You dont have to ruin your economy to comply with the ACA. Read the text, champ.

[United Massachusetts]

We've previously stated that punishing small violations so severely is counter-productive in that it decreases WA membership, and, from a RP perspective is economically infeasible. The WA should encourage nations to sanction the non-compliant and coordinate their doing so; they shouldn't be forced to ruin their economies in order to punish anti-abortion nations.

Ooc: WA membership being up is only good if those members comply. Otherwise, it's just for show.

You dont have to ruin your economy to comply with the ACA. Read the text, champ.

4. Member states must enforce the strongest sanctions available against those member states that refuse to pay IAO fines, subject only to the limitations of extant law, until the fines are paid or the issue becomes moot.

Imagine if New Hampshire, UM's largest trading partner, was forced to implement the "strongest sanctions available" against United Massachusetts, a non-compliant nation that isn't going to be magically made to pay an unjust fine. What would happen?

[Auralia]

My IC nation cares far more that members of the WA operate on equal playing fields than about the substance of your law.

I'm afraid prioritizing standardization over substance makes little sense to me, but it's your nation.

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.

Let me remind you that this entire discussion was in response to your assertion that non-compliance roleplay should no longer be "tolerated". I have no intention of leaving the World Assembly after the ACA passes, but nor do I have any intention of changing my position on the legitimacy of non-compliance. I was trying to get you to see things from my point of view, though I see now that this was a waste of time.

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.

It's telling that this is the best example you can come up with, given the clear differences between the codified rules of the d20 system and "implicit rules of roleplay" that aren't even close to universally accepted (even by current and former members of GenSec) and are largely contrary to the whole idea of a realistic political simulator.

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.

Whatever. If you're not prepared to distinguish between the actual rules of the game versus conventions that aren't universally accepted or enforced, there's clearly no point discussing this further.

You want me barred from the game? Change the rules. Until then, I'm not going anywhere.

[Xanthal]

...I don't understand why you think the ACA would somehow change the existing political and economic reasons why nations do not impose sanctions under these circumstances.

OOC: Well, speaking only for myself, Xanthal doesn't currently make a policy of sanctioning WA members for non-compliance with WA resolutions. This law would require it to do so, or face sanctions itself from other compliant nations. In that scenario, I expect it to start putting sanctions on non-compliant countries. To varying degrees depending on its own situation, naturally, but still that's at least some bite that wasn't there before. So there's that.

...I absolutely would oppose mandatory sanctions on controversial issues. On such issues, it should be the job of nations to determine a reasonable response in line with their own moral beliefs and economic realities. I do not support the suppression of most sincerely held beliefs, as this resolution would do.

OOC: Well then, taking you at your word, I can respect that. I still disagree with you on the wisdom of the WA not enforcing its own resolutions, but I respect it.

[United Massachusetts]

...I don't understand why you think the ACA would somehow change the existing political and economic reasons why nations do not impose sanctions under these circumstances.

OOC: Well, speaking only for myself, Xanthal doesn't currently make a policy of sanctioning WA members for non-compliance with WA resolutions. This law would require it to do so, or face sanctions itself from other compliant nations. In that scenario, I expect it to start putting sanctions on non-compliant countries. To varying degrees depending on its own situation, naturally, but still that's at least some bite that wasn't there before. So there's that.

We don't think it economically reasonable or politically desirable to enact strict punishment for small violations of limited resolutions on a legitimate moral basis.

[Linux and the X]

Imagine if New Hampshire, UM's largest trading partner, was forced to implement the "strongest sanctions available" against United Massachusetts, a non-compliant nation that isn't going to be magically made to pay an unjust fine. What would happen?

Your economy would be pretty fucked.

I have no intention of leaving the World Assembly after the ACA passes

Of course not. Then you'd have to stop pretending that you're not a rogue nation.

[United Massachusetts]

I have reserved the 286th post to protest GA 286, Reproductive Freedoms.

Imagine if New Hampshire, UM's largest trading partner, was forced to implement the "strongest sanctions available" against United Massachusetts, a non-compliant nation that isn't going to be magically made to pay an unjust fine. What would happen?

Your economy would be pretty fucked.

As would New Hampshire's. Not a desirable outcome for anyone.

[Linux and the X]

I have reserved the 286th post to protest GA 286, Reproductive Freedoms.

Your economy would be pretty fucked.

As would New Hampshire's. Not a desirable outcome for anyone.

Just because they're your biggest trade partner doesn't mean you're theirs. I imagine they'd be much happier trading with the entire WA than one rogue state.

[United Massachusetts]

I have reserved the 286th post to protest GA 286, Reproductive Freedoms.


As would New Hampshire's. Not a desirable outcome for anyone.

Just because they're your biggest trade partner doesn't mean you're theirs. I imagine they'd be much happier trading with the entire WA than one rogue state.

Imagine if the converse was true. UM is NH's largest trading partner. They'd be devastated.

[Linux and the X]

Just because they're your biggest trade partner doesn't mean you're theirs. I imagine they'd be much happier trading with the entire WA than one rogue state.

Imagine if the converse was true. UM is NH's largest trading partner. They'd be devastated.

Yes. If you have another country at exactly the right level of dependence that their economy relies trade with you, but that they cannot depend on your support, you'd really be screwing them. We suspect that they'd tell you to decide whether you're a rogue state or a WA member.

[Xanthal]

We don't think it economically reasonable or politically desirable to enact strict punishment for small violations of limited resolutions on a legitimate moral basis.

OOC: What can I say? Xanthal takes its WA obligations seriously. When you cede some of your sovereignty to an institution that's not entirely under your control, sometimes you'll be put in the position of having to act against your own preferences. That's a choice the Federation made as a country when it joined the World Assembly. If your ban on the death penalty passes, Xanthal will abide by that too, even though it considers the alternative immoral, because it understands that's exactly what it signed up for. If the day comes that it can no longer fulfill its duties to the WA, it will relinquish its WA privileges. Why? Because continuing to benefit from membership in an organization when you're intentionally subverting it- even if you think your cause is righteous- is wrong, IC or OOC.

[Wallenburg]

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.

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.

Make up your fucking mind already.

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.

The rules that are broken are those written into World Assembly law. This shouldn't be hard for you to understand.

[Wallenburg]

We've previously stated that punishing small violations so severely is counter-productive in that it decreases WA membership, and, from a RP perspective is economically infeasible. The WA should encourage nations to sanction the non-compliant and coordinate their doing so; they shouldn't be forced to ruin their economies in order to punish anti-abortion nations.

Since you apparently didn't read the resolution:

c. Coordinate with the WA General Accounting Office ("GAO") to assess and levy a fine and schedule calculated proportionately to the violation but in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from member states;
d. The assessments must be based on:

1. the severity of the noncompliance,
2. the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation,
3. the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation,
4. the state’s history of noncompliance,
5. force majeure preventing the state from fulfilling its obligations, and
6. other mitigating or aggravating circumstances;

[United Massachusetts]

We've previously stated that punishing small violations so severely is counter-productive in that it decreases WA membership, and, from a RP perspective is economically infeasible. The WA should encourage nations to sanction the non-compliant and coordinate their doing so; they shouldn't be forced to ruin their economies in order to punish anti-abortion nations.

Since you apparently didn't read the resolution:

c. Coordinate with the WA General Accounting Office ("GAO") to assess and levy a fine and schedule calculated proportionately to the violation but in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from member states;
d. The assessments must be based on:

1. the severity of the noncompliance,
2. the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation,
3. the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation,
4. the state’s history of noncompliance,
5. force majeure preventing the state from fulfilling its obligations, and
6. other mitigating or aggravating circumstances;

A proportionate fine would not bring most pro-life nations in line with legalized murder.

[Linux and the X]

Since you apparently didn't read the resolution:

A proportionate fine would not bring most pro-life nations in line with legalized murder.

Then we'll make sure not to legalise murder.

[Wallenburg]

Since you apparently didn't read the resolution:

A proportionate fine would not bring most pro-life nations in line with legalized murder.

If we're going to go straight to the "legalized murder" crap, I suppose there's no convincing you.

[United Massachusetts]

A proportionate fine would not bring most pro-life nations in line with legalized murder.

If we're going to go straight to the "legalized murder" crap, I suppose there's no convincing you.

It's what pro-life nations consider it to be.

So, please tell me whether a proportionate punishment would convince you to legalize what you consider to be murder.

[Nova Anglo-Francia]

It appears that in response to people not following established World Assembly Resolutions, we are introducing additional World Assembly Resolutions. Which I'm sure will be completely enforced and obeyed by all party's present.

As always, we will accept the outcome of the General Assembly's efforts, however redundant it may be.

[Xanthal]

If we're going to go straight to the "legalized murder" crap, I suppose there's no convincing you.

OOC: Did you really believe you had a chance of that to start with? You're talking to people that refuse to leave the WA, refuse to follow the laws of the WA, and refuse to accept the consequences of not following the laws of the WA. What possible reason could they have to change their approach when their OOC philosophy lets them have their IC cake and eat it too? Either roll with it or fire up the ignore cannon, there's really not much else you can do.

[Wallenburg]

If we're going to go straight to the "legalized murder" crap, I suppose there's no convincing you.

OOC: Did you really believe you had a chance of that to start with? You're talking to people that refuse to leave the WA, refuse to follow the laws of the WA, and refuse to accept the consequences of not following the laws of the WA. What possible reason could they have to change their approach when their OOC philosophy lets them have their IC cake and eat it too? Either roll with it or fire up the ignore cannon, there's really not much else you can do.

I had sort of reserved hope that UM wouldn't venture into the "God's law" argument and all the bullshit associated with it. I suppose I was too optimistic.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: Did you really believe you had a chance of that to start with? You're talking to people that refuse to leave the WA, refuse to follow the laws of the WA, and refuse to accept the consequences of not following the laws of the WA. What possible reason could they have to change their approach when their OOC philosophy lets them have their IC cake and eat it too? Either roll with it or fire up the ignore cannon, there's really not much else you can do.

I had sort of reserved hope that UM wouldn't venture into the "God's law" argument and all the bullshit associated with it. I suppose I was too optimistic.

You have to try to understand it from our perspective, though.