NationStates

The Security Council,

Documenting the creation of the World Assembly as a unicameral body on April 6, 2008, and the introduction of commendations and condemnations as the basis for the Security Council on May 27, 2009,

Noting that while the World Assembly evolved to bicameralism on June 9, 2009, there was no formal recognition between the General Assembly and the Security Council, despite flying a shared flag,

Believing that the brief mentions that this chamber has given its counterpart does not do the General Assembly justice, given the vast web of legislation passed by its denizens,

The following is found:

1. The General Assembly is formally recognized as the adjacent chamber to the Security Council, under the overarching organization of the World Assembly;
2. The General Assembly is responsible for the passage of international legislation affecting all members of the World Assembly, to be voted on and debated by these members in its entirety;
3. 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;
4. In the joining of either World Assembly chamber, membership to both chambers is granted and the rights and duties thereof are expected to be adhered to in their entirety;
5. An active disavowment of either chamber of the World Assembly should be considered a disavowment of both, with the full consequences being incurred upon the offender.

If you couldn't tell, I'm a bit out of practice with my authorship skills. Regardless, I feel like a topic along these lines would be something fun and help create a more intimate intertwining in terms of roleplay between the two chambers. It's not particularly long, but I didn't want to draw it out. Let me know your thoughts, I won't be hurt if it's not well-received; that's the fun of a new category, after all.

Morover wrote:An active disavowment of either chamber of the World Assembly should be considered a disavowment of both, with the full consequences being incurred upon the offender.

Just want to clarify something; so if someone openly opposes a GA resolution (which are binding in nature) and doesn't comply with it, so that means they would be barred from receiving a Security Council Commendation for their other hypothetical good work since they're also disavowing the Security Council as well?

That seems...kind of weird to me? Might be just a personal thing though.

Moonfungus wrote:

Morover wrote:An active disavowment of either chamber of the World Assembly should be considered a disavowment of both, with the full consequences being incurred upon the offender.

Just want to clarify something; so if someone openly opposes a GA resolution (which are binding in nature) and doesn't comply with it, so that means they would be barred from receiving a Security Council Commendation for their other hypothetical good work since they're also disavowing the Security Council as well?

That seems...kind of weird to me? Might be just a personal thing though.

OOC: Many players have had their commendations rejected or repealed due to non-compliance with GA proposals, most notably and recently, Christian Democrats.

Moonfungus wrote:

Morover wrote:An active disavowment of either chamber of the World Assembly should be considered a disavowment of both, with the full consequences being incurred upon the offender.

Just want to clarify something; so if someone openly opposes a GA resolution (which are binding in nature) and doesn't comply with it, so that means they would be barred from receiving a Security Council Commendation for their other hypothetical good work since they're also disavowing the Security Council as well?

That seems...kind of weird to me? Might be just a personal thing though.

Non-compliance has consequences. You can't get the best of both worlds, be a member of the WA but not be compliant with its resolutions. It's just and fair to tie consequences to actions such as non-compliance.

Moonfungus wrote:

Morover wrote:An active disavowment of either chamber of the World Assembly should be considered a disavowment of both, with the full consequences being incurred upon the offender.

Just want to clarify something; so if someone openly opposes a GA resolution (which are binding in nature) and doesn't comply with it, so that means they would be barred from receiving a Security Council Commendation for their other hypothetical good work since they're also disavowing the Security Council as well?

That seems...kind of weird to me? Might be just a personal thing though.

Now thats a good idea.

Interesting proposal concept. From a legality point of view, this part feels like it's legislating rather than expressing an opinion:

Morover wrote:Records the following into the charter of the Security Council:

Which is potentially avoidable by some rewording, as a lot of what follows on (e.g. "recognising") is essentially an expression of opinion.

I'd welcome input from others on this.

Daarwyrth wrote:Non-compliance has consequences. You can't get the best of both worlds, be a member of the WA but not be compliant with its resolutions. It's just and fair to tie consequences to actions such as non-compliance.

I'm extremely divided on this, because on one hand I believe that roleplaying should be encouraged in the SC more often and this proposal seems to be a step towards that, on the other it doesn't exactly make much sense for me to barr someone from getting their well-deserved commendation because they happened to not comply with one of the GA's 560 resolutions ages ago that they might've forgotten themselves? Despite not engaging with the GA community at all after that isolated event?

Sedgistan wrote:Interesting proposal concept. From a legality point of view, this part feels like it's legislating rather than expressing an opinion:

Morover wrote:Records the following into the charter of the Security Council:

Which is potentially avoidable by some rewording, as a lot of what follows on (e.g. "recognising") is essentially an expression of opinion.

I'd welcome input from others on this.

I think that might be my biggest gripe with this, that it seems more of a binding legislation instead of a declaration stating an opinion. Maybe reword it to sound more like a suggestion/recommendation? Also this somewhat overlaps with Sanctaria's draft.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: Many players have had their commendations rejected or repealed due to non-compliance with GA proposals, most notably and recently, Christian Democrats.

Christian Democrats holds problematic views towards LGBT communities and abortion, which was probably the deciding factor was instead of non-compliance, from what I've heard.

Moonfungus wrote:I'm extremely divided on this, because on one hand I believe that roleplaying should be encouraged in the SC more often and this proposal seems to be a step towards that, on the other it doesn't exactly make much sense for me to barr someone from getting their well-deserved commendation because they happened to not comply with one of the GA's 560 resolutions ages ago that they might've forgotten themselves? Despite not engaging with the GA community at all after that isolated event?

There's a major difference between nations openly declaring their non-compliance, and a player not being aware but not intentionally playing non-compliance. A Commendation for someone who is non-compliant rewards non-compliance, and that is something we shouldn’t want, in my opinion. No matter how deserving someone is of a Commendation, if they're non-compliant they're not deserving. If they return to a state of compliance, then they can get their Commendation. If they become non-compliant, their Commendation should be repealed. The WA shouldn’t accept non-compliance no matter which nation is being non-compliant. There's nothing to be divided about, because it's simple if you ask me: abide by the rules, or suffer the consequences for choosing not to. Actions have consequences and it's high time people remembered that.

Daarwyrth wrote:There's a major difference between nations openly declaring their non-compliance, and a player not being aware but not intentionally playing non-compliance. A Commendation for someone who is non-compliant rewards non-compliance, and that is something we shouldn’t want, in my opinion. No matter how deserving someone is of a Commendation, if they're non-compliant they're not deserving. If they return to a state of compliance, then they can get their Commendation. If they become non-compliant, their Commendation should be repealed. The WA shouldn’t accept non-compliance no matter which nation is being non-compliant. There's nothing to be divided about, because it's simple if you ask me: abide by the rules, or suffer the consequences for choosing not to. Actions have consequences and it's high time people remembered that.

I really don't get the logic of denying someone a deserving Commendation because they don't comply with a single GA resolution, even if their work has been in an entirely different field. Say someone is a successful community builder who've done countless good stuffs in multiple regions, built a large and successful region on the level of XKI, Europeia and Europe. In your ideal world, they would be barred from getting a Commendation because they decided to RP early on and doesn't comply with a controversial GA resolution that somehow survives the dozens of repeals thrown at it. A perfectly deserving candidate now can't get their deserved Commendation because apparently a single GA non-compliance of invalidates their years of good work here. It doesn't really seem fair to me.

If we were talking about the Commendation of a GA author or someone who RPs in II, then fair, you can take the non-compliance into account. Heck, you can even take it into account if the nominee in question is a serial non-complier, IC wise. But voting against someone's Commendation who has worked in an entirely different field because they aren't compliant with something they're not part of? Yeah...no.

Moonfungus wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:There's a major difference between nations openly declaring their non-compliance, and a player not being aware but not intentionally playing non-compliance. A Commendation for someone who is non-compliant rewards non-compliance, and that is something we shouldn’t want, in my opinion. No matter how deserving someone is of a Commendation, if they're non-compliant they're not deserving. If they return to a state of compliance, then they can get their Commendation. If they become non-compliant, their Commendation should be repealed. The WA shouldn’t accept non-compliance no matter which nation is being non-compliant. There's nothing to be divided about, because it's simple if you ask me: abide by the rules, or suffer the consequences for choosing not to. Actions have consequences and it's high time people remembered that.

I really don't get the logic of denying someone a deserving Commendation because they don't comply with a single GA resolution, even if their work has been in an entirely different field. Say someone is a successful community builder who've done countless good stuffs in multiple regions, built a large and successful region on the level of XKI, Europeia and Europe. In your ideal world, they would be barred from getting a Commendation because they decided to RP early on and doesn't comply with a controversial GA resolution that somehow survives the dozens of repeals thrown at it. A perfectly deserving candidate now can't get their deserved Commendation because apparently a single GA non-compliance of invalidates their years of good work here. It doesn't really seem fair to me.

If we were talking about the Commendation of a GA author or someone who RPs in II, then fair, you can take the non-compliance into account. Heck, you can even take it into account if the nominee in question is a serial non-complier, IC wise. But voting against someone's Commendation who has worked in an entirely different field because they aren't compliant with something they're not part of? Yeah...no.

Hold up, I think there's a miscommunication here. I am talking about non-compliance of World Assembly members, not nations outside of it. I am specifically talking about the member nations that choose to be non-compliant with the laws of the World Assembly, not nations that aren't a member of the body. Those outside of it are obviously not bound by the laws of the World Assembly, so they can't be non-compliant then. In such cases, it would have to be a case by case judgement whether they should be commended or not. If for example a nation has done tremendous work in NS, yet they RP a nation with a lively slave trade, then I think that would be very much at odds with the spirit of the World Assembly, should they receive a Commendation.

Either way, I hope that clears up the miscommunication, as I see now that you were talking about non-members of the World Assembly, while I was talking about actual members of the organisation.

Daarwyrth wrote:Hold up, I think there's a miscommunication here. I am talking about non-compliance of World Assembly members, not nations outside of it. I am specifically talking about the member nations that choose to be non-compliant with the laws of the World Assembly, not those outside of it. Those outside of it are obviously not bound by the laws of the World Assembly, so they can't be non-compliant then. In such cases, it would have to be a case by case judgement whether they should be commended or not. If for example a nation has done tremendous work in NS, yet they RP a nation with a lively slave trade, then I think that would be very much at odds with the spirit of the World Assembly.

Either way, I hope that clears up the miscommunication, as I see now that you were talking about non-members of the World Assembly, while I was talking about actual members of the organisation.

Ohhhhhhhhhh...

Right, this is awkward. Uhm, don't mind me, I'm just going to slip away quietly now.

Good luck with this draft, Morover.

This is the worst thing I have ever seen.

Moonfungus wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:Hold up, I think there's a miscommunication here. I am talking about non-compliance of World Assembly members, not nations outside of it. I am specifically talking about the member nations that choose to be non-compliant with the laws of the World Assembly, not those outside of it. Those outside of it are obviously not bound by the laws of the World Assembly, so they can't be non-compliant then. In such cases, it would have to be a case by case judgement whether they should be commended or not. If for example a nation has done tremendous work in NS, yet they RP a nation with a lively slave trade, then I think that would be very much at odds with the spirit of the World Assembly.

Either way, I hope that clears up the miscommunication, as I see now that you were talking about non-members of the World Assembly, while I was talking about actual members of the organisation.

Ohhhhhhhhhh...

Right, this is awkward. Uhm, don't mind me, I'm just going to slip away quietly now.

Good luck with this draft, Morover.

Haha, don't worry about it! I was operating on the same misconception so we were both fumbling in the dark a little but yes, we should return the conversation back to the primary topic, namely Morover's draft!

For the record, I'm of the interest that this pass alongside Sanctaria's draft, which I feel is very well-written and a perfect use of the new category. I have intentionally kept it rather vague on noncompliance, but I can potentially make it even more abstract/tone down the language of it if it continues to be deemed out of place.

I guess this can be said for literally every declaration draft, but what does this aim to achieve? What is the goal here? Why is this needed?

Honeydewistania wrote:I guess this can be said for literally every declaration draft, but what does this aim to achieve? What is the goal here? Why is this needed?

It's absolutely not needed, but I think it is an interesting premise in terms of roleplay, which, if nothing else, I hope the introduction of Declarations helps foster within the SC. I am curious, though - are you more critical of the draft for the draft's sake, or for the sake of it being under the new category?

Morover wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:I guess this can be said for literally every declaration draft, but what does this aim to achieve? What is the goal here? Why is this needed?

It's absolutely not needed, but I think it is an interesting premise in terms of roleplay, which, if nothing else, I hope the introduction of Declarations helps foster within the SC. I am curious, though - are you more critical of the draft for the draft's sake, or for the sake of it being under the new category?

A bit of both really. At least for the other drafts, they send an important message, albeit very much restated ones. I just don’t see how this really benefits anyone (even in ‘roleplay’).

Honeydewistania wrote:

Morover wrote:It's absolutely not needed, but I think it is an interesting premise in terms of roleplay, which, if nothing else, I hope the introduction of Declarations helps foster within the SC. I am curious, though - are you more critical of the draft for the draft's sake, or for the sake of it being under the new category?

A bit of both really. At least for the other drafts, they send an important message, albeit very much restated ones. I just don’t see how this really benefits anyone (even in ‘roleplay’).

I'll be the first to admit that this a far more behind-the-scenes kind of proposal, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day, I write these things because I either think they're interesting or otherwise fun. Will it really suck if this doesn't go into effect? No. I just think it could add some flavor, if you disagree that's fine. I understand it's kind of unorthodox.

Edit: Also, I think the Declaration category is more suited to things similar to this than to say "so-and-so issue is good".

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.

I agree with IA here. The SC does truly have an entirely new category to toy around with and use in new ways. As much as I’ve criticized the G20 idea in the NSGP server for example, it is at least something new and innovative. It would truly be a shame to allow this new category to become just some mini-GA.

Sedgistan wrote:Interesting proposal concept. From a legality point of view, this part feels like it's legislating rather than expressing an opinion:

Morover wrote:Records the following into the charter of the Security Council:

Which is potentially avoidable by some rewording, as a lot of what follows on (e.g. "recognising") is essentially an expression of opinion.

I'd welcome input from others on this.

This has been edited, to hopefully maintain the message I've intended without falling afoul of legality issues.

Re IA and Vara: I'd tend to agree with you both, but I am somewhat confused as to the relevance towards the proposal at hand. I have to assume it's signaling support towards this, at least in principle, given that one of the intentions is to ensure a divide in these sorts of things. If wanted, I can try and update the language to more heavily focus on that aspect.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Championing LGBTQ Tolerance and Acceptance

The first draft? I agree. The current draft? There's a strong focus on regional activities in it now, as well as on regional and player events and the gameplay element of tags.

To return to the topic of the draft at hand: I may not be an experienced SCer, but I like the symbolic nature of this draft proposal. Because that's what Declarations are supposed to be, among others, no? Symbolic declarations of an opinion or standpoint and I think this would fit in with that.

Morover wrote:Re IA and Vara: I'd tend to agree with you both, but I am somewhat confused as to the relevance towards the proposal at hand. I have to assume it's signaling support towards this, at least in principle, given that one of the intentions is to ensure a divide in these sorts of things. If wanted, I can try and update the language to more heavily focus on that aspect.

Well, I don’t think my General Attitude to the GA (let’s pretend the wordplay was purposeful at first) but I’m not exactly against the idea of a separation act. And for a GAer proposal for an SC declaration, it’s certainly better than whatever that attempt was to legislate who should and shouldn’t be commended was, or that non-compliance nonsense. So, sure. I personally have nothing against the proposal in general.

Oh, and if you were expecting specific assistance on wording or structure, sorry, I’m not nearly that helpful . Good luck though!

Support.

Quintessence of Dust wrote:This is the worst thing I have ever seen.

This ...

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.

... and this.

I'm not a fan of this new overlap between the GA and the SC - me and my RP will continue to assume that the GA is the only part of the WA.