[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Linux and the X]

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.

It'd probably be easiest to just stop being wrong.

[Wallenburg]

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.

From my perspective, denying 50% of the population the right to their own body is fundamentally evil. I understand that you think it is good. I reject that perspective. As Linux said, it would be far easier for you to not call the protection of human rights "fundamentally evil".

[United Massachusetts]

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

From my perspective, denying 50% of the population the right to their own body is fundamentally evil. I understand that you think it is good. I reject that perspective. As Linux said, it would be far easier for you to not call the protection of human rights "fundamentally evil".

Your opinion on abortion isn't relevant to the discussion. You said that the ISO would not levy disproportionate fines; I have argued that they would in clear language.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: This is highly interesting and, I have to agree, presents exciting RP opportunities. Now that we might face actual consequences for (inter alia) disrespecting international patents, looking the other way or occasionally even sponsoring international piracy, failing to ensure that physicians carrying out non-surgical abortions are trained as surgeons... We'll have to consider at the very least lampshading such policies with lip service and enforcement units to show the WA. And depending on how zealous or tolerant the WA turns out to be in interpreting what constitutes a disparity of labor and human rights standards in GAR #209, cl. 2(a), we could have a serious problem!

For the record, I don't particularly see the moral crisis for a state - the ultimate tool for causing personal accountability to vanish - taking the impersonal government action of making abortion legal for its citizens. Part of role playing an entire country is looking to the motivations and goals of even its villains and criminals. In my case, this means juggling the ideals of a [far] left-libertarian utopia that's not quite on the cusp of being truly post-scarcity with the geopolitical "reality" of hostile capitalist and communist states (to say nothing of the kleptocrats) who would love nothing more than to carve it up like Poland or Spain in the 1930s; and the resulting militarist, interventionist, aggressive, arguably unjust foreign policy that (this disgusting world forces on us) / (we eagerly embrace as taking arms against a sea of troubles and to hell with the naysayers). People can believe that militarism is wrong while taking part in unilateral military interventions! This is fascinating to me. And even SL has its private-equity leeches and Ayn Rand worshippers to contend with.

Anyway, I don't see how there aren't people in every nation who oppose the alleged ideals of that nation, some of whom even find their way into places of power. An entire nation full of people who all agree with each other is something out of a zombie movie or a Star Trek spinoff, not a political simulator. Even Dan'sTheManistan has to have treasonous political opponents to shove in its jails and gulags. For those playing broadly democratic or representative states, surely there are those who chafe at the bit which you've so well designed to fit their mouths? And surely your politicians have a strong motivation to make the World Assembly believe you're working on compliance or are already "compliant" without really actively complying. And they had that motivation under the old accepted paradigm, in which all we had to go on was the OOC stipulation by Max Barry that "it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest.)." Now we have genuine IC reasons to toe the line, and therefore the game has become (dare I say it) more realistic.

All of that, to me, is far more interesting than a monolithic bloc of Stepford citizens who will never comply with GAR ### because reasons.

[Wallenburg]

From my perspective, denying 50% of the population the right to their own body is fundamentally evil. I understand that you think it is good. I reject that perspective. As Linux said, it would be far easier for you to not call the protection of human rights "fundamentally evil".

Your opinion on abortion isn't relevant to the discussion.

But apparently yours are? Weird how that works.

You said that the ISO would not levy disproportionate fines; I have argued that they would in clear language.

The resolution literally says that these fines will be "calculated proportionately to the violation". You have to be illiterate or openly dishonest to argue that those proportionate fines will be disproportionate.

[United Massachusetts]

Your opinion on abortion isn't relevant to the discussion.

But apparently yours are? Weird how that works.

You said that the ISO would not levy disproportionate fines; I have argued that they would in clear language.

The resolution literally says that these fines will be "calculated proportionately to the violation". You have to be illiterate or openly dishonest to argue that those proportionate fines will be disproportionate.

The opinions of pro-lifers are relevant in that pro-lifers are the ones in non-compliance. We have to consider what penalties will bring them into compliance.

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;

My opinion is that proportionate fines will not coerce compliance from pro-lifers, precisely because they consider abortion to be murder.

[Wallenburg]

But apparently yours are? Weird how that works.

The resolution literally says that these fines will be "calculated proportionately to the violation". You have to be illiterate or openly dishonest to argue that those proportionate fines will be disproportionate.

The opinions of pro-lifers are relevant in that pro-lifers are the ones in non-compliance. We have to consider what penalties will bring them into compliance.

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;

My opinion is that proportionate fines will not coerce compliance from pro-lifers, precisely because they consider abortion to be murder.

Then, considering the rogue nation's refusal to pay the fines, they would be subject to additional fines for violating this resolution, and their fines for violating Reproductive Freedoms (or On Abortion) would increase proportionately to the state's obvious intent not to comply, its bad faith behavior in its violation, and its ever-lengthening history of noncompliance.

[Xanthal]

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

OOC: I understand. You think you're right; well bully for you, I think I'm right too. So does everyone. It's easy to stand up for your beliefs when it's free. Jesus understood that the true test is in being willing to pay the price. Those who can't even bring themselves to pay an imaginary price for their beliefs do not inspire awe in the strength of their convictions. You want United Massachusetts to flaunt the WA in the name of its morals? To be a symbol of civil disobedience in service of a higher truth than mortal law? Great. Pay the fine, take the hit of the sanctions, or shush.

[Bears Armed]

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.

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.

It'd probably be easiest to just stop being wrong.

OOC
I am not a Catholic. In RL terms I am probably an atheist, maybe an agnostic depending on exactly how one defines those terms. Nevertheless I regard your statements here as displaying a level of smug arrogance that I find irritating, undiplomatic, and unhelpful.

[Kenmoria]

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;

My opinion is that proportionate fines will not coerce compliance from pro-lifers, precisely because they consider abortion to be murder.

(OOC: The fines will be a minimum of whatever is required to force compliance with GA resolutions. Thus, the penalty will be related to how wealthy and able to withstand financial losses the nation in question is, and how determined they are to disobey legislation. A fine will be ‘proportionate’ to the infraction since, presumably, the noncompliance with 286 will be going on for a very long time and show no signs of stopping.)

[Sethtekia]

The Sethtekian Delegate enters the hallways to discuss the vote. He seemed furious at the votes intentions. "Do you think that the World Assembly can enforce such laws? What gives you the right to enact laws that hurt nations. Furthering democracy is a sham. Time and time again it has only led to corruption. Politicians taking bribes. Even if this is to pass. You cannot force nations to adhere by this as a Nation must ratify the law. And this... this a travesty. A direct threat to many nations. Why don't you just say it... you don't want Generals in charge... you don't want war. You wish to limit weapons. By unfair advantage? No. You want to pacify governments. The Kommandant will not stand for this insolence
"

[Separatist Peoples]

The Sethtekian Delegate enters the hallways to discuss the vote. He seemed furious at the votes intentions. "Do you think that the World Assembly can enforce such laws? What gives you the right to enact laws that hurt nations. Furthering democracy is a sham. Time and time again it has only led to corruption. Politicians taking bribes. Even if this is to pass. You cannot force nations to adhere by this as a Nation must ratify the law. And this... this a travesty. A direct threat to many nations. Why don't you just say it... you don't want Generals in charge... you don't want war. You wish to limit weapons. By unfair advantage? No. You want to pacify governments. The Kommandant will not stand for this insolence
"

"If you dislike democracy, why are you in a direct democratic system like the WA?

"Oh, and your tantrum isn't going to sway anybody."

[Azadistan-land of the free]

The Sethtekian Delegate enters the hallways to discuss the vote. He seemed furious at the votes intentions. "Do you think that the World Assembly can enforce such laws? What gives you the right to enact laws that hurt nations. Furthering democracy is a sham. Time and time again it has only led to corruption. Politicians taking bribes. Even if this is to pass. You cannot force nations to adhere by this as a Nation must ratify the law. And this... this a travesty. A direct threat to many nations. Why don't you just say it... you don't want Generals in charge... you don't want war. You wish to limit weapons. By unfair advantage? No. You want to pacify governments. The Kommandant will not stand for this insolence
"

“Get the fascists!” Says an Azadistani Sisters Guard member and hits slaps them in the face before being ordered to stop.

Whilst I abhor the violent response what I abhor more is that you would cause war for no reason and go back on your word. Have honour.- Professor Alexander Khan, Mufti, WA representative and army Captain

[Nova Anglo-Francia]

Well in just about half an hour, the bureaucrats will revel in their predictable victory, and the rogue nations will continue to be as such. Ho-hum. Tick tock.

[Wallenburg]

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

It'd probably be easiest to just stop being wrong.

OOC
I am not a Catholic. In RL terms I am probably an atheist, maybe an agnostic depending on exactly how one defines those terms. Nevertheless I regard your statements here as displaying a level of smug arrogance that I find irritating, undiplomatic, and unhelpful.

Not all Catholics are pro-life. I have firsthand experience with that.

Oh also this:

Administrative Compliance Act was passed 11,084 votes to 4,011.

Congrats on the win, SP!

[Lord Dominator]

"Congratulations sir ambassador. Now, I've heard there's something about the next round of drinks being on you..."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Congratulations sir ambassador. Now, I've heard there's something about the next round of drinks being on you..."

ELSIE: We might share the tab.

[Lord Dominator]

"Congratulations sir ambassador. Now, I've heard there's something about the next round of drinks being on you..."

ELSIE: We might share the tab.

'Hey, as long as it's free for me I don't care if the gropdamned violetists are paying."

[Ru-]

OOC: I would like to personally thank Auralia and United Massachusetts, and even Separatist Peoples in the following quote:

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.

You three have inspired me to stick with WA roleplay in the face of this and made me realize that my actions were rash and not realistic to how my nation would act in the IC realm. I was basically being a baby, whose OOC feelings towards the attitude of certain players, and my OOC opinions on how many players were viewing the fundamental RP purpose of the WA (rightly or wrongly, i felt strongly that the prevalent hostility towards compromise was not realistic roleplay for a member of a UN-like international body) basically made me act against my nation's IC interests and personality. Ru would never leave the WA willingly. The Ruvian government and historic national character are far too globalist for that, they might go the route of Auralia or UM if their hand is absolutely forced, but I feel it is wrong to ignore the actions of the WA just because of my OOC feelings, either toward specific resolutions, specific players, or to the current body as a whole.

This includes both my decision to leave (I will get to why it includes the act of leaving in a minute) and noncompliance of the "i'll just pretend this resolution never happened" variety, which involves simply never mentioning the resolution in question, keeping quiet about it, and keeping your noncompliance your own private secret, letting everyone assume you are compliant. (I know for a fact that this happens far more often then some of you might expect, and I will just respectfully agree to disagree with SP and others that actual noncompliance RP, where the player is vocal about it and admits to it, is more harmful. At least vocal noncompliance RP acknowledges that the resolution passed and exists, and that it has an effect on their nation, and their nation's government must make a decision on how to respond to it. It may be annoying to people who work really hard on organizing the voting coalitions it takes to pass especially controversial resolutions to be reminded that not every nation will change their ways because of their accomplishment. But what makes these resolutions really matter is people acknowledging them and role-playing their response to them, whether it is applauding the assembly for their work, or making their displeasure known and being forced by the resolution to be noncompliant which no nation ever wants to be. The way these resolutions won't matter is if a large amount of players are so disillusioned and overwhelmed that, lacking an idea for a satisfactory IC response, they lose the desire to participate in RP on these boards and just keep quiet, or decide to leave the WA.)

Leaving the WA is essentially deciding that "this resolution won't effect my nation, i don't need to make a decision on how my nation will respond nor do I need to RP it out. This resolution does not exist, and as far as my nation's canon is concerned, never happened." I feel this does far more to strip away the effectiveness of the passage of resolutions and to lower the stakes of resolution debates than nations who bother to RP the passage of a resolution their government does not agree with and having them make a decision of whether to reevaluate their polices and comply completely, come up with a weaselly creative compliance scheme, or to declare noncompliance and risk international ire, embarrassment, and a stained reputation. My opposition to this resolution was that with the current state of the WA and it's current strong and seemingly insurmountable ideological slant (even if it's the ideology i share almost completely), did not present a good environment for a resolution that discourages participation and interaction with the WA through noncompliance roleplay so strongly. I was deeply concerned with how players in the minority on particular recent issues might respond to such a resolution. That nobody seemed to care was very discouraging, but if the players I was so darn concerned about can muster up so much passion for the WA and stick with you guys, then I am certainly in no position to walk out on everyone.

Auralia and UM's predictions of people ceasing GA RP or throwing up their hands and leaving the WA completely is not just doom and gloom nonsense. I am actual living proof that this can cause players to get overly upset and overwhelmed, and not being able to think of a proper IC response for their nation, just end their relationship with the WA and this great group of posters by hitting the resign button, thus weakening this section of the site for us all. I can't really understand the posters who seem to actively prefer that players who don't agree with them leave the WA instead of continuing to RP with them. As our goal should be encouraging as many nations to be active participants in WA RP as possible. I felt that they are more concerned with earning "wins" over players they don't care for then trying to maintain a strong and entertaining RP environment for everybody and this feeling of actual attempts to push people out was a huge reason I (rashly and wrongly) decided to leave the WA in the first place. The quoted post from Separatist People gives me great hope that my feelings were perhaps unfounded, at least in his case and perhaps in the case of others who simply have a bigger problem with noncompliance posting then I do. I apologize for misunderstanding SP's intentions and allowing myself to think negatively when it was undeserved. It is now clear that this is truly just an attempt to make realistic noncompliance RP more interesting. If I take it personally and feel it is an attempt to push me or other nations out of the WA then that is my own problem, and I should just suck it up and not let it get in the way of IC Ru. Some might be disappointed that I'm not leaving but so be it.

The quoted post and the lively debate from Auralia and UM renewed my hope in the WA, and WA RP. Auralia and UM also outlined a clear picture of how Ru might respond to a hypothetical resolution (like the sanction demands in the ACA itself) that it finds unacceptable if it's willing to stand up to the backlash and bad press. I'd like to thank all three of you, and anyone else who takes the time to debate with or help encourage a player whose nation has only 1 completely insignificant vote, whether they do it knowingly or not. I'm inspired to do a better job acknowledging all resolutions in a realistic and interesting way through compliance, noncompliance, or something in between. Whether I or my nation agrees with them or not, and regardless of whether someone's blunt posting hurts my feelings OOCly, or I have OOC quibbles about how the voting goes down or why people vote the way they do. I don't anticipate that I will be "taking my ball and going home" by quietly leaving the WA again anytime soon. I apologize for it, and am grateful that I checked in on this thread tonight and got the reality check I needed.

[Omicron Convenience IV]

I don't know why there is this massive claim that people are being non-compliant with resolutions. They are being compliant with resolutions. It is not possible for any WA member to be non-compliant, so there isn't any question about it. I guess one could roleplay as being non-compliant, but the characters would be wrong and the nation would in fact be in compliance, so that doesn't mean anything at all. And I guess that one can OOC claim that their nation isn't compliant, as UM and Auralia do, but the claimants would be wrong and the nation would be in compliance, so that doesn't change anything.

I guess that sets up this comment then:

Convenient Ambassador: Thank you for your compliance.

[Wallenburg]

I don't know why there is this massive claim that people are being non-compliant with resolutions. They are being compliant with resolutions. It is not possible for any WA member to be non-compliant, so there isn't any question about it. I guess one could roleplay as being non-compliant, but the characters would be wrong and the nation would in fact be in compliance, so that doesn't mean anything at all. And I guess that one can OOC claim that their nation isn't compliant, as UM and Auralia do, but the claimants would be wrong and the nation would be in compliance, so that doesn't change anything.

I guess that sets up this comment then:

Convenient Ambassador: Thank you for your compliance.

That's not how RP or compliance work.

[Omicron Convenience IV]

Yea, it is. The game itself makes it work that way. And the FAQ outlines that it is the case too. While I certainly don't think it's impermissible to create enforcement mechanisms, I don't really think they do anything. The game mechanics enforce (1) automatic, (2) perfect, and (3) complete compliance with resolutions. Claims to the contrary are characters or players deceiving themselves.

EDIT: If you want an IC explanation, WA gnomes do it for you if you can't do it yourself. Also accords quite succinctly with WA plenary authority that way.