[PASSED] Recognition of the General Assembly

[Quintessence of Dust]

I just see this proposal as trying to sneak compliance in under the radar. I also must thank those GA members who posted here saying essentially that they they wanted nothing to do with the SC. Don’t worry the feeling is mutual.

Good! The fear is not that the feeling is mutual, it's that sometimes it isn't. The "let's lump these two things together that were separated for a very good reason" crowd are far more dangerous. To refer back to my all time favourite post:

Let’s put this entire argument out of its misery and go back to hating each other from across our respective boundaries.

Do you think there's a chance the other GCR delegates will help crush this?

[Sedgistan]

There's a point where players coming into the SC from other communities looking not to participate, but to rile people up and encourage animosity between their community and the SC, crosses the line into trolling. You're close to that point, Quintessence of Dust.

[Quintessence of Dust]

There's a point where players coming into the SC from other communities looking not to participate, but to rile people up and encourage animosity between their community and the SC, crosses the line into trolling. You're close to that point, Quintessence of Dust.

No. If "recognition of the General Assembly" is fit subject for a Declaration, then debate - and opposition - has to be allowed. That includes arguing, as I am, that the SC should not recognise the GA. Beyond that I have no desire to rile anyone up and the SC can go do its thing in whatever regard it likes so far as I'm concerned.

[Sedgistan]

No. If "recognition of the General Assembly" is fit subject for a Declaration, then debate - and opposition - has to be allowed. That includes arguing, as I am, that the SC should not recognise the GA.

That's fine. But the second part of your post, including the Biyah quote, came across differently.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Fair enough. It's not my suggestion that the two - separate, as I'm glad your post acknowledged - communities should bicker or interfere with each other or anything disruptive like that; just that they should have nothing to do with one another.

[Wallenburg]

Why is there any need for this declaration? The Security Council already recognizes the General Assembly, being the junior chamber to the World Assembly.

[The Random Thief]

Why is there any need for this declaration? The Security Council already recognizes the General Assembly, being the junior chamber to the World Assembly.

The SC has some real "Senior chamber" vibes, though.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: yo Cormac, do me a solid and don't invoke my role as site staff in support of your political ends when quoting something of mine not shared in an official capacity. I posted opposition here as a player, not as a member of GenSec. Connecting that role to my activity here in your countercampaign? Most uncool.

Ima be chill bout it this time. Let's not do it again though, yeah?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Ooc: yo Cormac, do me a solid and don't invoke my role as site staff in support of your political ends when quoting something of mine not shared in an official capacity. I posted opposition here as a player, not as a member of GenSec. Connecting that role to my activity here in your countercampaign? Most uncool.

Ima be chill bout it this time. Let's not do it again though, yeah?

Did you somehow imagine I'd say I'm sorry and it won't happen again? Because uh, you must not know me very well. If you don't want the fact you're in the GA Secretariat mentioned in conjunction with an outlandish statement you've made, maybe refrain from making outlandish statements while GenSec.

For those wondering, Separatist Peoples is coping about a counter-campaign telegram I sent.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: yo Cormac, do me a solid and don't invoke my role as site staff in support of your political ends when quoting something of mine not shared in an official capacity. I posted opposition here as a player, not as a member of GenSec. Connecting that role to my activity here in your countercampaign? Most uncool.

Ima be chill bout it this time. Let's not do it again though, yeah?

Did you somehow imagine I'd say I'm sorry and it won't happen again? Because uh, you must not know me very well. If you don't want the fact you're in the GA Secretariat mentioned in conjunction with an outlandish statement you've made, maybe refrain from making outlandish statements while GenSec.

For those wondering, Separatist Peoples is coping about a counter-campaign telegram I sent.

No, I don't know you that well. Up until right about now, I figured you for a reasonable if controversial player. Since you and I have had basicaally no interaction, I'd rather hoped we could be cool about what we generally see as a pretty serious invocation of the GenSec role.

You'd rather wrap a fundamental misunderstanding about my role with lies and half-truths. It's not an original tactic, but I can work with it. It's certainly one more point against further connecting the SC and GA, so I guess I'll count my blessings that your reputation is what it is.

[Cormactopia Prime]

No, I don't know you that well. Up until right about now, I figured you for a reasonable if controversial player. Since you and I have had basicaally no interaction, I'd rather hoped we could be cool about what we generally see as a pretty serious invocation of the GenSec role.

You'd rather wrap a fundamental misunderstanding about my role with lies and half-truths. It's not an original tactic, but I can work with it. It's certainly one more point against further connecting the SC and GA, so I guess I'll count my blessings that your reputation is what it is.

I don't even know what lies and half-truths you're talking about. The counter-campaign telegram literally links to your own post, notes that it's a disavowal of the Security Council (which it is), and notes that you are GenSec (which you are). I'm not really understanding how this is either unreasonable or controversial.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding why this matters because I'm, well, misunderstanding, but you may want to try explaining to me why it's a problem instead of vaguely threatening me with "Ima be chill bout it this time. Let's not do it again though, yeah?". I do not respond well to threats and intimidation tactics.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Also, while there is admittedly a fair amount of disdain for the SC among those who love the GA game best, the official lack of recognition isn't part of that, at all. From the very first thing I ever wrote for GenSec (didn't wind up being used, but I stand by the reasoning):

...So the Metagaming rule is essential. But why should it extend as far as prohibiting the mere mention of the Security Council? It's not like we're ordering the SC to impose a no-fly zone on West Bigtopia, we just want to name-drop it to give our resolution more gravitas. Isn't this just a terribly petty imposition of some old-timer's crotchety role-playing preferences?

The answer is no. By acknowledging the existence of a body that materially affects gameplay mechanics in a way that is logically absurd from the GA's perspective,¹ the GA would be examining (and thereby inviting) precisely the kind of nonsensical result described above. The GA only makes any sense if it is the sole supreme supranational body; and if all of its powers can be felt by member nations. If an alleged "power" of the GA does not actually affect member nations, that is an absurd result and therefore it cannot actually be a power of the GA. The Security Council, mechanically speaking an independent and somehow equally supreme supranational body², cannot be affected by the GA even though membership in both bodies is exactly contiguous; therefore for GA actions to make any sense whatsoever, the GA must not be able to recognize the SC's existence.


¹It could be argued that the Security Counsel's entire raison d'etre is the premeditated (not to say malicious) continual violation of GA Resolution #2, but not here.

²This state of affairs is nothing short of astonishing in the logic of the General Assembly; were it acknowledged openly in character, it would quickly become the sole topic of debate, legislation, military action, etc. etc. etc.

While there are a number of good, perfectly legitimate reasons for voting against this, the ones most being bandied about (in short, that the GA is full of petty bitches and the SC needs to show some backbone until us snivelling Model UN snobs display some humility and start treating y'all with basic human respect) are factually wrong with respect to why this situation exists. Basic RP logic dictates the GA's assumption of sole plenipotentiary world power. For the majority of us, it's nothing personal.

[Cormactopia Prime]

While there are a number of good, perfectly legitimate reasons for voting against this, the ones most being bandied about (in short, that the GA is full of petty bitches and the SC needs to show some backbone until us snivelling Model UN snobs display some humility and start treating y'all with basic human respect) are factually wrong with respect to why this situation exists. Basic RP logic dictates the GA's assumption of sole plenipotentiary world power. For the majority of us, it's nothing personal.

This and this do not reflect the thoughtful, more reasonable position you've articulated. They reflect exactly the pettiness and lack of respect you referenced. If it's true that a majority of the "GA community" don't feel that way, I'm glad to hear it, but those aren't the voices we're hearing.

[Separatist Peoples]

No, I don't know you that well. Up until right about now, I figured you for a reasonable if controversial player. Since you and I have had basicaally no interaction, I'd rather hoped we could be cool about what we generally see as a pretty serious invocation of the GenSec role.

You'd rather wrap a fundamental misunderstanding about my role with lies and half-truths. It's not an original tactic, but I can work with it. It's certainly one more point against further connecting the SC and GA, so I guess I'll count my blessings that your reputation is what it is.

I don't even know what lies and half-truths you're talking about. The counter-campaign telegram literally links to your own post, notes that it's a disavowal of the Security Council (which it is), and notes that you are GenSec (which you are). I'm not really understanding how this is either unreasonable or controversial.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding why this matters because I'm, well, misunderstanding, but you may want to try explaining to me why it's a problem instead of vaguely threatening me with "Ima be chill bout it this time. Let's not do it again though, yeah?". I do not respond well to threats and intimidation tactics.

I'm genuinely sorry you took that as a threat, because I didn't mean it that way. I'll take my cut of the blame on that, I should have explained that I assumed it was an error on your part and not an intentional conflstion.

As for the rest, I'm quite sure it's all a big misunderstanding and Occam's Razor applies and nobody will think poorly of the other side moving forward for it.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I don't even know what lies and half-truths you're talking about. The counter-campaign telegram literally links to your own post, notes that it's a disavowal of the Security Council (which it is), and notes that you are GenSec (which you are). I'm not really understanding how this is either unreasonable or controversial.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding why this matters because I'm, well, misunderstanding, but you may want to try explaining to me why it's a problem instead of vaguely threatening me with "Ima be chill bout it this time. Let's not do it again though, yeah?". I do not respond well to threats and intimidation tactics.

I'm genuinely sorry you took that as a threat, because I didn't mean it that way. I'll take my cut of the blame on that, I should have explained that I assumed it was an error on your part and not an intentional conflstion.

As for the rest, I'm quite sure it's all a big misunderstanding and Occam's Razor applies and nobody will think poorly of the other side moving forward for it.

Well, thank you for the apology. In turn, I'm also sorry for mentioning your GenSec role as it appears that's considered inappropriate by GA standards I'm not really familiar with and don't quite understand, and since it bothered you and certainly isn't essential to any argument I will refrain from doing it in the future.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm genuinely sorry you took that as a threat, because I didn't mean it that way. I'll take my cut of the blame on that, I should have explained that I assumed it was an error on your part and not an intentional conflstion.

As for the rest, I'm quite sure it's all a big misunderstanding and Occam's Razor applies and nobody will think poorly of the other side moving forward for it.

Well, thank you for the apology. In turn, I'm also sorry for mentioning your GenSec role as it appears that's considered inappropriate by GA standards I'm not really familiar with and don't quite understand, and since it bothered you and certainly isn't essential to any argument I will refrain from doing it in the future.

Per the tg I just sent, I also apologize. I assumed malice and certainly didn't measure my tone well. I'm glad we could clear the air.

[Kranostav]

How about the GA deals with nations and the SC deals with regions? Everyone writing some declaration against some national issue is (somewhat) getting on my nerves: these are GA issues that have very little to do with gameplay.

Championing LGBTQ Tolerance and Acceptance
Declaration on the Abolition of Heterosexuality
A Declaration Against Unmonitored Capitalism
Declaration of Opposition to Fascism
Declaration Against Communism
Addressing the War on Drugs

The above are all really national issues;¹ those should stay in the GA. The SC can do what gameplay does with its view that "nations" are players rather than "nations" standing in for a multitude of virtual inhabitants.

¹ I'm sure there'll be some protest from some of the authors of these proposals arguing that they're really proposals which affect the SC and not the nations or they are affecting national inhabitants themselves. Pointing that out is sophistry. The fundamental premise of the GA is that the WA affects member nations to affect the inhabitants thereof. These all make arguments which inherently are based on the "existence" of those national inhabitants, implicitly disclaiming the more gameplay-esque view that nations are players.

Im inclined to agree with this in concept.

Im unsure of how much this declaration is needed given its already assumed.

[Bananaistan]

While there are a number of good, perfectly legitimate reasons for voting against this, the ones most being bandied about (in short, that the GA is full of petty bitches and the SC needs to show some backbone until us snivelling Model UN snobs display some humility and start treating y'all with basic human respect) are factually wrong with respect to why this situation exists. Basic RP logic dictates the GA's assumption of sole plenipotentiary world power. For the majority of us, it's nothing personal.

This and this do not reflect the thoughtful, more reasonable position you've articulated. They reflect exactly the pettiness and lack of respect you referenced. If it's true that a majority of the "GA community" don't feel that way, I'm glad to hear it, but those aren't the voices we're hearing.

If my RP ignores, say, everything that goes on II is that pettiness and lack of respect? No it's not. I've literally no idea how or why my RP conventions, which aren't even written up anywhere, upset you so much. As SL has outlined - ignoring the SC in RP from a GA POV is perfectly reasonable and it's not an attack on anyone.

[URA World Assembly Affairs]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1570208

[Greater Cesnica]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the Security Council declaration, "Recognition Of The General Assembly".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[The Hazar Amisnery]

From an OOC perspective, the WA affects IC/rp stuff while the SC affects gameplay. I don't see any good things coming out of this.

[WayNeacTia]

(Image)

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the Security Council declaration, "Recognition Of The General Assembly".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

Amusing. Perhaps someone should check your recommendations before your post them. In particular I do love this part " It is driven by a fundamental belief that it simply does not make sense for two sister chambers to exist under the same banner- the World Assembly- but yet operate as though the other chamber doesn't exist." The Security Council has recognized the General Assembly for years. Just take a look at the number of commendations based upon GA authorship.

[Cormactopia Prime]

As an entity, the General Assembly and the Security Council remain equal in their overall power and influence, regardless of the way that this influence is disbursed or otherwise utilized;

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.

[Imperium of Josh]

As an entity, the General Assembly and the Security Council remain equal in their overall power and influence, regardless of the way that this influence is disbursed or otherwise utilized;

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

[WayNeacTia]

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

Some people actually give a shit about their stats and the GA can make those change pretty radically, so yeah the GA holds most of the power.