[Defeated] Peaceful First Contact

[Underwater Sovereignties]

Although I agree that nations of unknown origin should not be attacked, I am still voting against this proposal as it is too brief and unspecific. It fails to establish a difference between those who knowingly attack unknown peoples to conquer them and those who go to war with an unknown nation that is openly hostile. It also assumes that knowledge of uncontacted nations is nonexistent and does not take reconnaissance and espionage into account.

[Umeria]

"So in what circumstances does civilian authority permit to the active clause, especially in one where the persons or vehicles are unknown? Perhaps I have misunderstood. Is there really any indication, then, where a citizen has jurisdiction to take presumptuous action, and is there yet a basis anywhere to state that in international law?"

"When they make a territorial incursion."

Although I agree that nations of unknown origin should not be attacked, I am still voting against this proposal as it is too brief and unspecific.

"So much for brevity being the soul of wit."

It fails to establish a difference between those who knowingly attack unknown peoples to conquer them and those who go to war with an unknown nation that is openly hostile.

"Actually it does, by allowing you to attack if they are hostile."

It also assumes that knowledge of uncontacted nations is nonexistent and does not take reconnaissance and espionage into account.

"No it doesn't; the proposal does not apply if the nation is not unknown."

[Wallenburg]

"This sort of law is totally unfamiliar to me. I know of no state which cedes its territory over to individual property owners. Landowners may keep an area as their property, but it near universally remains the territory of the state. Trespassing is not territorial incursion. Furthermore, a reading that this requires vigilantism is beyond reason. The only active clause prohibits the use of violence within a certain set of parameters. In no way does it require the use of violence."

"Sophistry, to quote a colleague. It permits it. Then, by your saying, it does not apply to non-military citizens, for they can never defend territory that is truly theirs to protect, and so only it is for the military and the sort. The resolution is in contradiction with how it is perceived, perhaps."

"No, the resolution's mandate clearly applies to 'all citizens'. Please read the resolution instead of arguing on matters you seem to know little to nothing about."

OOC: I say let the author set things straight, for he is likely to know his work best and what it entails.

The Riverpostian Ambassador looks over the transcript briefly before interjecting:

"Alas, I can see where the perceived compelling notion arose. My intention was to indicate it suggest the legal allowance for street vigilantism, though I imagine some citizens for every few nations interpret it to become duty, which is troubling in itself. No sophistry, at least for the sender, and for that I rescind the statement if it might be deemed offensive."

OOC: Authorial intent has no relevance to the actual effect of the resolution, I'm afraid.

[Riverpost]

"Citizens apply to this resolution if they make an undefined territorial incursion, then. This allows citizens to what, and does it allow citizens to respond against the military? I enjoy the fervor of this defense, but truthfully it worries me that the vagueness would only serve to internationally back civilian retributions or ambiguities among civic liability which would result quite contrary to the mandate of this resolution.

If this were just on the military not to attack unless attacked? It'd be pretty reasonable. Otherwise, allowing citizens at any point to be involved in a domain equal to the armed forces puts them in a dangerous spot that at best goes into the field of protecting property and at worst permitting partisan actions that could result in an opposing force treating civilians indiscriminately to combatants; either allowance, for which both the ambassadors of Wallenburg and Umeria have narrowed it to the latter, or none at all. Citizens all apply to this, and they apply when fellow citizens make territorial incursions. It's an allowance to take the job of the military into the hands of the often untrained individual -- a dangerous giving built on a single and open-ended active clause.

All intended, it's an honorable attempt, but the reason it lacks much support internationally could quite well because it blurs civil and civic functions far too much, and at that barely defines either of them in this context at all. Looking back, it appears there was question as to how this issue could be salvageable, for I think the consensus in past discussions of this also had been quite reluctant to accept it, and for that I wonder if the author came surprised to the lack of global backing when it was actually tabled. If anything, as was mentioned beforehand, it's a simple and common thing for nations to engage in contact with a trespassing force before engaging, especially if the immediate intent is unclear; and with that, why could this resolution not instead regulate this? It's uncovered, as far as I've inquired, so that the rules of engagement are not somewhat standardized or mandated to WA nations in any way. Allowing attack on territorial incursion alone without any further mandate is wrong, Ambassador, as it does just about nothing but gratify tinpot madmen.

Unless you'd like to affirm your nation's support for the stated resolution effect?"

OOC: It feels like with territorial incursions and even an "attack" being undefined, it seems that the resolution is relying on a house of cards resolution somewhere in the archives or the gavel of national judges for interpretation. If it's the latter, then it really then has no observable effect unless nations individually choose to accept it, and if it's the former, well then I question the legality in it. If it's neither, how can you just throw out "attacks" and "territorial incursions" without concretely defining them? I'm not very much opposed to the resolution in itself in principle, but the fact that it doesn't define itself -- leaving it to gnomes to explain -- it's a bit silly to vote on a let-out clause to begin with.

[Riverpost]

OOC: Authorial intent has no relevance to the actual effect of the resolution, I'm afraid.

OOC: I'm just curious why the resolution has no actual effect.

[Umeria]

OOC: It means you can't attack unknown entities unless they're hostile. That's it. How is this so hard to understand?

internationally back civilian retributions or ambiguities among civic liability

I didn't go to jargon school so I have no idea what this means or why it applies to this proposal.

allowing citizens

The proposal does not force anyone to attack! It's a restriction on attacks which, yes, applies to both civilians and the military. If I did what you're suggesting and made it only apply to the military, it would give civilians more "allowance" to attack!

snip

Holy crap this is a lot of words. I'll say it again: this is a restriction on attacks. There's nothing stopping you from writing another resolution to further restrict them if you want. It's not "allowing" anything.

"attack" being undefined

Pick up a dictionary.

OOC: I'm just curious why the resolution has no actual effect.

No, you're complaining that the proposal doesn't have enough legal jargon in it. Guess what? I submitted this a few months ago with definitions and jargon and everything, and it failed. Why? One of the reasons was because it had loopholes! That's right, adding unnecessary jargon doesn't fix loopholes, it creates them!

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Authorial intent has no relevance to the actual effect of the resolution, I'm afraid.

OOC: I'm just curious why the resolution has no actual effect.

Literally nobody is saying that. Don't make up arguments.

[Alba and Cymru]

Hereby prohibits all citizens of member nations from attacking persons or vehicles of unknown origin, unless it is in response to either an attack or a territorial incursion by said persons or vehicles.

So if the attacking nation has any clue who or what it is performing a military operation upon, this resolution is null.

[Kenmoria]

Hereby prohibits all citizens of member nations from attacking persons or vehicles of unknown origin, unless it is in response to either an attack or a territorial incursion by said persons or vehicles.

So if the attacking nation has any clue who or what it is performing a military operation upon, this resolution is null.

(OOC: Yes, that is the intent of the proposal. It is designed to tackle ‘first contact’, which refers to two nations meeting for the very first time, who therefore wouldn’t have any knowledge of each other.)

[Shazbotdom]

CURRENT VOTE:
Aye: 3,837 || Nay: 11,449

[Umeria]

CURRENT VOTE:
Aye: 3,837 || Nay: 11,449

So?

[Shazbotdom]

CURRENT VOTE:
Aye: 3,837 || Nay: 11,449

So?

Just giving people an OOC update? Sometimes we do that in the GA.

*shrugs*

[Umeria]

So?

Just giving people an OOC update? Sometimes we do that in the GA.

*shrugs*

Huh, only ever seen something like that after the vote ends.

[Heavens Reach]

Just giving people an OOC update? Sometimes we do that in the GA.

*shrugs*

Huh, only ever seen something like that after the vote ends.

OOC: I haven't been here long, but I've seen numerous proposals updated mid-thread. That said, given your prior exchanges, I can understand the suspicion.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I'm just curious why the resolution has no actual effect.

No, you're complaining that the proposal doesn't have enough legal jargon in it. Guess what? I submitted this a few months ago with definitions and jargon and everything, and it failed. Why? One of the reasons was because it had loopholes! That's right, adding unnecessary jargon doesn't fix loopholes, it creates them!

(OOC: I think the issue was that the definitions weren’t precise enough to completely close possible loopholes. A properly-crafted definition won’t create any issues, since will simply restrict the scope of the proposal to cover more precisely what the author intended. Personally, I don’t see that much of an issue with ‘attack’ being undefined, but I can see why other people might.)

[Umeria]

No, you're complaining that the proposal doesn't have enough legal jargon in it. Guess what? I submitted this a few months ago with definitions and jargon and everything, and it failed. Why? One of the reasons was because it had loopholes! That's right, adding unnecessary jargon doesn't fix loopholes, it creates them!

(OOC: I think the issue was that the definitions weren’t precise enough to completely close possible loopholes. A properly-crafted definition won’t create any issues, since will simply restrict the scope of the proposal to cover more precisely what the author intended. Personally, I don’t see that much of an issue with ‘attack’ being undefined, but I can see why other people might.)

The scope of the proposal already covers exactly as much as I wanted it to. The "loophole" that Riverpost was complaining about is that the operative clause applies to both military and non-military citizens, which I consider to be a good thing.

If I were to define "attack", it would have gone something like "Defines attack as any offensive action taken against another entity", which means exactly the same thing as the dictionary definition.

[Epluribus Unum]

Link to the proposal

Global Disarmament | Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the right of member nations to defend their borders;

Noting that in a first contact, both parties have little to no knowledge of the other;

Realizing that without such knowledge, it is impossible to determine whether starting a war would be beneficial;

Further noting that the consequences of a non-beneficial war are often disastrous;

Concluding, therefore, that member nations should refrain from initiating unprovoked attacks on nations they just met until they know what they have to gain;

Proclaiming that first impressions matter;

Hereby prohibits all citizens of member nations from attacking persons or vehicles of unknown origin, unless it is in response to either an attack or a territorial incursion by said persons or vehicles.

May I ask why first contact needs be peaceful?

[Umeria]

May I ask why first contact needs be peaceful?

"Because war is hell."

[Antarctic Socialist Federal Republic]

It's good for small and weak countries, but everyone is a war maniac, isn't it? (joking)

[Umeria]

"Peaceful First Contact" was defeated 13,422 votes to 4,499.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no feasible way for me to pass this, and will thus be abandoning the attempt.

[Wallenburg]

I believe the correct title tag, for posterity, is [DEFEATED].

[Umeria]

I believe the correct title tag, for posterity, is [DEFEATED].

Can I not have even a little fun

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I believe the correct title tag, for posterity, is [DEFEATED].

Can I not have even a little fun

You were given plenty of notice about that, it seems:

I guess "Make Legislation Funny Again" is dead.

[Umeria]

Yeah okay I've changed the title tag, if only to prevent distraction from the current at vote thread.

But in my humble opinion Sabotaged by Warmongers is a much more accurate description than Defeated.

[Wallenburg]

Can I not have even a little fun

You were given plenty of notice about that, it seems:

I guess "Make Legislation Funny Again" is dead.

Correct. Fun is prohibited. Although a more recent example would be a reference to how Abortionplexes For All was treated for its comedic tone.

Yeah okay I've changed the title tag, if only to prevent distraction from the current at vote thread.

But in my humble opinion Sabotaged by Warmongers is a much more accurate description than Defeated.

More accurate, but it's still easier to find this via the search function when the tags are standard.