[PASSED] Recognition of the General Assembly

[WayNeacTia]

All this talk about precedent is so exciting! Is this a taste of what the GA is like?

Depends on who is participating in the thread.

[Sandaoguo]

I'm pretty sure they can't. The precedent is pretty categorical when it comes to the legality of mentioning the Security Council.

Not really. It's gone back and forth over the years. Currently GenSec has it as illegal. Before that, it was legal. Before that, it was illegal. Before that, there was no SC.

When was mentioning the SC ever legal in the GA, and where was that documented?

[Separatist Peoples]

Now that the proposal is at vote and this clause is still in it, I just want to point out this is objectively false -- and in two ways.

First, it's false from a game mechanics perspective. The General Assembly can actually, mechanically compel nations to follow its resolutions by having an actual impact on national statistics of WA member nations. The Security Council does not have such power. None of its resolutions has mechanical effects except Liberations, and Liberations can only compel the removal of a password from one region at a time rather than compelling tens of thousands of nations to change policies all at once. This power imbalance is real and in no sense can the Security Council be regarded as equal in mechanical power to the General Assembly.

Second, it's false even just from a roleplay perspective. The General Assembly can pass and in fact has passed resolutions prohibiting WA member nations from engaging in non-compliance with General Assembly resolutions. These resolutions are binding from a roleplay perspective, based on the rules of the General Assembly. The Security Council, by contrast, cannot pass resolutions prohibiting anyone from doing anything. Declarations are non-binding; at best, they can issue guidelines, which are only enforceable through voluntary efforts by nations and regions through roleplay and gameplay. The General Assembly actually has roleplay power to enforce its own resolutions; the Security Council does not. Again, this is not equality. There is a fundamental power imbalance.

This clause being outright false should be a fatal flaw that prevents the proposal's passage, but if not, I hope it will lead to repeal.

Of course, in terms of actually doing anything remotely consequential to the politics of the game... GA's stuff means jack shit, it has no power, and it does nothing

The fact it needs to come into the SC's chamber to have anyone pay attention to it is like... its own story

I appreciate your antipathy to the GA. It goes both ways. That said, we are not here because we need the game to pay attention to us. In fact most GA regulars are here trying to keep the SC away from the GA. We don't want the SC to pay attention to us. We rather liked the benign neglect.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Not really. It's gone back and forth over the years. Currently GenSec has it as illegal. Before that, it was legal. Before that, it was illegal. Before that, there was no SC.

When was mentioning the SC ever legal in the GA, and where was that documented?

On my phone, but check the GenSec rulings repository - correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there's a 2016(?) ruling on it.

[Sandaoguo]

When was mentioning the SC ever legal in the GA, and where was that documented?

On my phone, but check the GenSec rulings repository - correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there's a 2016(?) ruling on it.

Looks like there was a *very brief* moment, after the 2016 rules rewrite, where mods decided that mentioning the SC was legal (though I can’t find where mods ever posted their explanation, if they did): viewtopic.php?p=29557939#p29557939

It was overturned 3 months later in GenSec’s first decision: viewtopic.php?p=30530231#p30530231

Given that, I think it’s safe to say the precedent is well-established. Sedgistan’s “SC is legal now” ruling would be an aberration.

[Sedgistan]

Was it ever clear that mentioning the SC in the GA was illegal prior to that post of mine? As I indicated here, I felt people extrapolated more from Ardchoille's "Mentioning the activities of the Security Council is metagaming" than was intended. Unless someone can dig up a mod ruling that a mere mention of the SC was illegal in the 2009-16 period, I stand by that view. Which would make mentioning the SC in GA proposals being illegal, a modern ruling originating from GenSec, and only in place for 5 of the 12 years of the SC/GA's coexistence.

Even Wallenburg thought it was a good idea back then:

This is neither an exception to the metagaming rule, nor a change of the rules. The metagaming rule as currently written absolutely permits acknowledgement of the Security Council.

[Wallenburg]

Was it ever clear that mentioning the SC in the GA was illegal prior to that post of mine? As I indicated here, I felt people extrapolated more from Ardchoille's "Mentioning the activities of the Security Council is metagaming" than was intended. Unless someone can dig up a mod ruling that a mere mention of the SC was illegal in the 2009-16 period, I stand by that view. Which would make mentioning the SC in GA proposals being illegal, a modern ruling originating from GenSec, and only in place for 5 of the 12 years of the SC/GA's coexistence.

Even Wallenburg thought it was a good idea back then:

This is neither an exception to the metagaming rule, nor a change of the rules. The metagaming rule as currently written absolutely permits acknowledgement of the Security Council.

This is getting extremely off-topic. My thoughts on what the GA rules should be have no bearing on this resolution.

[Imperium of Josh]

Of course, in terms of actually doing anything remotely consequential to the politics of the game... GA's stuff means jack shit, it has no power, and it does nothing

The fact it needs to come into the SC's chamber to have anyone pay attention to it is like... its own story

I appreciate your antipathy to the GA. It goes both ways. That said, we are not here because we need the game to pay attention to us. In fact most GA regulars are here trying to keep the SC away from the GA. We don't want the SC to pay attention to us. We rather liked the benign neglect.

A repeal would serve us both well then...

[Morover]

Recognition of the General Assembly was passed 9,016 votes to 3,601.

Thanks to all my supporters, and I trust you all will support my next Declaration: "Derecognition of the Security Council"!

Jokes aside, I know I made a lot of people rather upset with this proposal - some people who don't differentiate the author from their proposals, I made mad at myself. I would like to say that, unexpected controversy aside, I genuinely think a lot of the concerns are not as big a deal as some of the people make them. I write proposals because I think it's fun to write them, and this started off as a result of me thinking it would be fun. Admittedly, it was far less fun and far more stressful than I had intended. I urge those who are so vehemently opposed to it to let it stand, as I think it actually does some good in terms of being an example of what Declarations should be, and possibly allows for more substantive roleplay in the Security Council than what we've been receiving - an outcome I think most players hoped would arise from Declarations.

That being said, those who are seeking repeal, I only ask that you bear in mind the same fun-seeking part of proposal writing that I sought with this one, and I will give feedback as I would any other proposal. Tinfect, I'll be reaching out momentarily with feedback, as I would with anyone.

Thanks, guys! Again, I'm glad to be back

-Morover

[Quintessence of Dust]

Was it ever clear that mentioning the SC in the GA was illegal prior to that post of mine?

Yes.

[Team Lennox]

Recognition of the General Assembly was passed 9,016 votes to 3,601.

Thanks to all my supporters, and I trust you all will support my next Declaration: "Derecognition of the Security Council"!

Jokes aside, I know I made a lot of people rather upset with this proposal - some people who don't differentiate the author from their proposals, I made mad at myself. I would like to say that, unexpected controversy aside, I genuinely think a lot of the concerns are not as big a deal as some of the people make them. I write proposals because I think it's fun to write them, and this started off as a result of me thinking it would be fun. Admittedly, it was far less fun and far more stressful than I had intended. I urge those who are so vehemently opposed to it to let it stand, as I think it actually does some good in terms of being an example of what Declarations should be, and possibly allows for more substantive roleplay in the Security Council than what we've been receiving - an outcome I think most players hoped would arise from Declarations.

That being said, those who are seeking repeal, I only ask that you bear in mind the same fun-seeking part of proposal writing that I sought with this one, and I will give feedback as I would any other proposal. Tinfect, I'll be reaching out momentarily with feedback, as I would with anyone.

Thanks, guys! Again, I'm glad to be back

-Morover

Congratulations on another well written proposal