DEFEATED: Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"

[Aundotutunagir]

In fact, as I've said numerous times before, this repeal never hinged on any violation of "Freedom of Expression"; it alluded to it merely to show that the World Assembly, no matter if it was IC or OOC, believes in such a right: IC, because it was written IC, and OOC because it voted on by mostly OOC persons.

No, in WAR #30 the World Assembly states that it believes in the citizens of WA nations having that right. It most certainly does not make the case for players or regions having that right.

edit: Should have posted as Mad Sheep. Meh.

[Glen-Rhodes]

There's no need to shout GR, this is only a disagreement.

Well, I get pretty annoyed when people aren't understanding what I'm saying, and are arguing with a false interpretation of my words. If we're going to debate, we need to understand what we're actually debating about.

I'm afraid though that despite agreeing with you to some extent I must dissent from your assertion that all WA laws apply to all WA actions. Had we been able to meld the two worlds of SC OOC activity and WA IC activity that might be the case, but levels of intransigence on all sides have made such an accomodation impossible hence the seperation of the GA and SC.

The SC is capable of dealing with OOC issues in an OOC fashion, and the GA deals with IC issues in an IC fashion. The two organisations clearly have different competences and incompatible laws thus far.

I don't discount the possibility, indeed I would welcome it, that the laws of both SC and GA respect the spirit of eachother but as of now this cannot be the case.

From my point of view, the incompatibility only exists on the IC side. The two chambers weren't separated to accommodate OOC players; they were separated to accommodate us roleplayers. If there truly existed an incompatibility of OOC players and IC World Assembly resolutions, then those resolutions wouldn't be getting the 3,000+ voter turnout, of which a a large percentage is of purely OOC players. We are humans. We are intelligent. We are able to separate the real and IC worlds, thus no incompatibility between the 'IC' resolutions and our real-world minds exists. It only exists between our real-world information and IC characters' minds.

No, in WAR #30 the World Assembly states that it believes in the citizens of WA nations having that right. It most certainly does not make the case for players or regions having that right.

Your responding to an argument that nobody is making. I've never said the World Assembly can grant players freedom of speech, or anything else for that matter. I'm arguing that the World Assembly has to comply with its own laws, whether those laws come from the SC or the GA. Anyways. Explain to me, if there is no possible OOC interpretation of any GA resolution, how players with no concept of 'in-character' can understand GA resolutions, debate their principles, and decide whether or not to vote for or against them.

[Urgench]

There's no need to shout GR, this is only a disagreement.

Well, I get pretty annoyed when people aren't understanding what I'm saying, and are arguing with a false interpretation of my words. If we're going to debate, we need to understand what we're actually debating about.

I'm afraid though that despite agreeing with you to some extent I must dissent from your assertion that all WA laws apply to all WA actions. Had we been able to meld the two worlds of SC OOC activity and WA IC activity that might be the case, but levels of intransigence on all sides have made such an accomodation impossible hence the seperation of the GA and SC.

The SC is capable of dealing with OOC issues in an OOC fashion, and the GA deals with IC issues in an IC fashion. The two organisations clearly have different competences and incompatible laws thus far.

I don't discount the possibility, indeed I would welcome it, that the laws of both SC and GA respect the spirit of eachother but as of now this cannot be the case.

From my point of view, the incompatibility only exists on the IC side. The two chambers weren't separated to accommodate OOC players; they were separated to accommodate us roleplayers. If there truly existed an incompatibility of OOC players and IC World Assembly resolutions, then those resolutions wouldn't be getting the 3,000+ voter turnout, of which a a large percentage is of purely OOC players. We are humans. We are intelligent. We are able to separate the real and IC worlds, thus no incompatibility between the 'IC' resolutions and our real-world minds exists. It only exists between our real-world information and IC characters' minds.

That's an extremely one sided view GR. Many were the voices raised who were completely uninterested in compromise on the Pro-SC side.

The point is that those resolutions were not written by or for us real human beings playing NS in the real world, had they been they would have been radically different in many if not all cases, they were written to apply to an imaginary world which is radically different to the real world. The rules for GA resolution writing make this the case.

I don't disagree that many vote for GA resolutions for OOC reasons, heck that's probably why Condemn Nazi Europe passed, but that doesn't mean those laws have any OOC competence, they specifically do not or otherwise they would be illegal. This means that OOC issues cannot currently conflict with GA law.

Like I said the spirit of the both kinds of law should be respected by both kinds of WA legislator but that doesn't mean overlapping competences actually and practically exist. Previously I have been quite forward about my concern that neither SC or GA write laws which directly contradict oneanother in spirit, but in deed is another matter and one type of resolution ultimately has no direct bearing upon the other except in a conceptual context, a context I admit is rather important to me but clearly isn't to many others.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's an extremely one sided view GR. Many were the voices raised who were completely uninterested in compromise on the Pro-SC side.

The point is that those resolutions were not written by or for us real human beings playing NS in the real world, had they been they would have been radically different in many if not all cases, they were written to apply to an imaginary world which is radically different to the real world. The rules for GA resolution writing make this the case.

I don't disagree that many vote for GA resolutions for OOC reasons, heck that's probably why Condemn Nazi Europe passed, but that doesn't mean those laws have any OOC competence, they specifically do not or otherwise they would be illegal. This means that OOC issues cannot currently conflict with GA law.

Like I said the spirit of the both kinds of law should be respected by both kinds of WA legislator but that doesn't mean overlapping competences actually and practically exist. Previously I have been quite forward about my concern that neither SC or GA write laws which directly contradict oneanother in spirit, but in deed is another matter and one type of resolution ultimately has no direct bearing upon the other except in a conceptual context, a context I admit is rather important to me but clearly isn't to many others.

Ack. It's frustrating that we agree with each other on the principle, but not on the details. If OOC players are able to use supposed IC resolutions for the OOC means, would this affect, positively or otherwise, the IC world of the GA? I don't think it would, since it has been happening since the advent of the World Assembly. Once the resolution leaves the GA forum, it becomes part of the OOC world, just as much as it is a part of the IC one. In general, is this even debatable? I don't think it is. The byproduct of our game becomes part of the other crowd's game. There's no reason for it not to. There's no legitimate reason why World Assembly resolutions can't be used outside the small IC world of the General Assembly, aside from some players trying to protect their pristine roleplaying environment from a threat that never existed in the first place. By allowing this kind of thing, you aren't required to change how you play; the OOC use of resolutions has been happening for awhile, without roleplayers ever changing how they play.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Would you actually try and understand what I'm saying?

I understand exactly what you're saying. You're saying that a GA resolution that guarantees freedom of expression to the citizens of WA nations can be cited as justification in a repeal of a SC resolution that condemned the members of a region for being Nazis.

Your responding to an argument that nobody is making. Anyways. Explain to me, if there is no possible OOC interpretation of any GA resolution, how players with no concept of 'in-character' can understand GA resolutions, debate their principles, and decide whether or not to vote for or against them.

I'm certain that everyone understands that this is a nation simulation game and that the provisions of WA law apply to the imaginary citizens of our made-up countries. I doubt there's anyone out there who feels those resolutions have some bearing on them personally, in an OOC RL manner.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I'm certain that everyone understands that this is a nation simulation game and that the provisions of WA law apply to the imaginary citizens of our made-up countries. I doubt there's anyone out there who feels those resolutions have some bearing on them personally, in an OOC RL manner.

I dunno. I'm starting to wish Prevention of Torture applied to these forums.

[Urgench]

That's an extremely one sided view GR. Many were the voices raised who were completely uninterested in compromise on the Pro-SC side.

The point is that those resolutions were not written by or for us real human beings playing NS in the real world, had they been they would have been radically different in many if not all cases, they were written to apply to an imaginary world which is radically different to the real world. The rules for GA resolution writing make this the case.

I don't disagree that many vote for GA resolutions for OOC reasons, heck that's probably why Condemn Nazi Europe passed, but that doesn't mean those laws have any OOC competence, they specifically do not or otherwise they would be illegal. This means that OOC issues cannot currently conflict with GA law.

Like I said the spirit of the both kinds of law should be respected by both kinds of WA legislator but that doesn't mean overlapping competences actually and practically exist. Previously I have been quite forward about my concern that neither SC or GA write laws which directly contradict oneanother in spirit, but in deed is another matter and one type of resolution ultimately has no direct bearing upon the other except in a conceptual context, a context I admit is rather important to me but clearly isn't to many others.

Ack. It's frustrating that we agree with each other on the principle, but not on the details. If OOC players are able to use supposed IC resolutions for the OOC means, would this affect, positively or otherwise, the IC world of the GA? I don't think it would, since it has been happening since the advent of the World Assembly. Once the resolution leaves the GA forum, it becomes part of the OOC world, just as much as it is a part of the IC one. In general, is this even debatable? I don't think it is. The byproduct of our game becomes part of the other crowd's game. There's no reason for it not to. There's no legitimate reason why World Assembly resolutions can't be used outside the small IC world of the General Assembly, aside from some players trying to protect their pristine roleplaying environment from a threat that never existed in the first place. By allowing this kind of thing, you aren't required to change how you play; the OOC use of resolutions has been happening for awhile, without roleplayers ever changing how they play.

OK what your talking about is an informal process which one naturally presumes will exist anyway.

But if we take your proposed new dispensation in to account in future then GA resolutions will have to be radically changed in scope, content, and nature, I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it is a necessary result of what your suggesting. Laws composed for a world as vast and eccentric as the NSWA-verse can't even really, truly relate to real life except in the most abstract of ways.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm certain that everyone understands that this is a nation simulation game and that the provisions of WA law apply to the imaginary citizens of our made-up countries. I doubt there's anyone out there who feels those resolutions have some bearing on them personally, in an OOC RL manner.

See, you're still assuming that I'm arguing that resolutions can give the player-behind-the-screen freedoms and rights. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm arguing that the World Assembly has to comply with its own laws, and that the SC ought to respect the wills and intents of GA resolutions. In a case where the World Assembly grants some kind of right and says that it can't infringe on that right, then it shouldn't be able to infringe on that right, whether the infringing it does through the GA or the SC.

Both chambers are still in the World Assembly. If they were two completely different things, with two completely different memberships, where you were a member of the General Assembly or of the Security Council, then your argument would hold some weight, in my eyes. But, they aren't. Again, they are both in the World Assembly, and they should, where possible, respect the laws of one another. In the real world, we can interpret GA resolutions in an OOC way; the problem only exists when trying to interpret OOC resolutions in an IC way. The problem can't be reversed.

But if we take your proposed new dispensation in to account in future then GA resolutions will have to be radically changed in scope, content, and nature, I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it is a necessary result of what your suggesting. Laws composed for a world as vast and eccentric as the NSWA-verse can't even really, truly relate to real life except in the most abstract of ways.

No changes have to made to the way GA resolutions are written, Urgench. The whole point is that resolutions have always been able to be interpreted in an OOC way, for OOC purposes. Otherwise, you would need to have knowledge of what 'in-character' is in order to comprehend any GA resolutions. That's obviously not the case; at least, I hope we can all agree on that.

[Urgench]

I'm certain that everyone understands that this is a nation simulation game and that the provisions of WA law apply to the imaginary citizens of our made-up countries. I doubt there's anyone out there who feels those resolutions have some bearing on them personally, in an OOC RL manner.

See, you're still assuming that I'm arguing that resolutions can give the player-behind-the-screen freedoms and rights. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm arguing that the World Assembly has to comply with its own laws, and that the SC ought to respect the wills and intents of GA resolutions. In a case where the World Assembly grants some kind of right and says that it can't infringe on that right, then it shouldn't be able to infringe on that right, whether the infringing it does through the GA or the SC. Both chambers are still in the World Assembly. If they were two completely different things, with two completely different memberships, where you were a member of the General Assembly or of the Security Council, then your argument would hold some weight, in my eyes. But, they aren't. Again, they are both in the World Assembly, and they should, where possible, respect the laws of one another. In the real world, we can interpret GA resolutions in an OOC way; the only problem exists when trying to interpret OOC resolutions in an IC way. The problem can't be reversed.

OK I agree with what your saying but this disagreement comes from a confusion about the actual effect or action of a specific resolution, had the Freedom of Expression act been loose enough in wording that it might have been possible to make a credible claim that it did protect the right of a region of players to call themselves "Nazi" then I would completely support your position.

However the Freedom of Expression act clearly was not worded in such a way, the rules and the game-reality of that time made that impossible. Therefore no part of the Freedom of Expression act can have any bearing on OOC laws passed to solve OOC issues in the SC.

Other GA resolutions may well be shown to have wording which is credibly interpretable as having some effect on OOC activity, I think few if any, and certainly this can become an aspect of future resolutions writing but currently if one applies the old rule of thumb that the law does what the law says then no GA resolution I can think of has any direct bearing on OOC activities or issues which the SC is designed to deal with.

I stress again that this does not mean that I think that the spirit of GA or SC laws should not be mutually respected but that cannot be an explicit part of the resolution writing process or the any other processes to do with resolutions as yet since there are no rules which enforce such a mutual respect therefore making such respect explicit.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... However the Freedom of Expression act clearly was not worded in such a way, the rules and the game-reality of that time made that impossible. Therefore no part of the Freedom of Expression act can have any bearing on OOC laws passed to solve OOC issues in the SC.

Other GA resolutions may well be shown to have wording which is credibly interpretable as having some effect on OOC activity, I think few if any, and certainly this can become an aspect of future resolutions writing but currently if one applies the old rule of thumb that the law does what the law says then no GA resolution I can think of has any direct bearing on OOC activities or issues which the SC is designed to deal with.

I stress again that this does not mean that I think that the spirit of GA or SC laws should not be mutually respected but that cannot be an explicit part of the resolution writing process or the any other processes to do with resolutions as yet since there are no rules which enforce such a mutual respect therefore making such respect explicit.

Eh. I don't think I ever proposed that Freedom of Expression actually granted that freedom to players.* Freedom of Expression doesn't state the World Assembly can't infringe on a person's expression, if we're going to get technical about language. However, the intent of the resolution was an argument in favor of the universal democratic freedom of expression. That's why I alluded to it, because I'm trying to establish an SC precedent that states that you cannot condemn an ideology, or a group of players for merely adhering 'non-violently' to an ideology.

*The argument's transformed in to whether or not any resolution can cross the line from GA to SC, from IC to OOC. You touch on that in the second paragraph I quoted. So, I've been saying that if a resolution prevented the WA from infringing on that freedom/right, then neither chamber should be able to condemn somebody for expressing themselves.

[Urgench]

No changes have to made to the way GA resolutions are written, Urgench. The whole point is that resolutions have always been able to be interpreted in an OOC way, for OOC purposes. Otherwise, you would need to have knowledge of what 'in-character' is in order to comprehend any GA resolutions. That's obviously not the case; at least, I hope we can all agree on that.

Of course GA resolutions have a relationship with the real world in many ways, but I think you seriously underestimate the extent to which the rules for GA resolution wiritng have been designed to tailor resolutions to a very specific set of parameters. GA resolutions would be utterly different if they had not been informed by these parameters, and if you change those parameters you wil change the resulting resolutions. I'm not making any judgement about whether such a change is a good thing or a bad thing I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[Urgench]

Eh. I don't think I ever proposed that Freedom of Expression actually granted that freedom to players. Freedom of Expression doesn't state the World Assembly can't infringe on a person's expression, if we're going to get technical about language. However, the intent of the resolution was an argument in favor of the universal democratic freedom of expression. That's why I alluded to it, because I'm trying to establish an SC precedent that states that you cannot condemn an ideology, or a group of players for merely adhering 'non-violently' to an ideology.

The argument's transformed in to whether or not any resolution can cross the line from GA to SC, from IC to OOC. You touch on that in the second paragraph I quoted.

And I certainly sympathise with this aim. I think it might be better achieved by simply stating in the reppeal that the SC should not condemn nations or regions on a purely Ideological basis. This way you will create a precedent which respects the intent of GA law by creating a new and autonomous SC law which contains the same intent but for a different context.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Of course GA resolutions have a relationship with the real world in many ways, but I think you seriously underestimate the extent to which the rules for GA resolution wiritng have been designed to tailor resolutions to a very specific set of parameters. GA resolutions would be utterly different if they had not been informed by these parameters, and if you change those parameters you wil change the resulting resolutions. I'm not making any judgement about whether such a change is a good thing or a bad thing I'm just pointing out the obvious.

I guess I'm not understanding why they would need to change, if players have been using them in an OOC way all along. In what ways would they have to be different?

This thread is going too fast for me.

[Urgench]

Of course GA resolutions have a relationship with the real world in many ways, but I think you seriously underestimate the extent to which the rules for GA resolution wiritng have been designed to tailor resolutions to a very specific set of parameters. GA resolutions would be utterly different if they had not been informed by these parameters, and if you change those parameters you wil change the resulting resolutions. I'm not making any judgement about whether such a change is a good thing or a bad thing I'm just pointing out the obvious.

I guess I'm not understanding why they would need to change, if players have been using them in an OOC way all along. In what ways would they have to be different?

This thread is going too fast for me.

Well for instance if I had written the CoCR with an OOC dimension in mind I would have expressly made certain forms of discriminatory behaviour unique to the context of playing NS illegal. I would have made it Illegal to banject players from regions simply because they held differing opinions to the rest of region, or because they used flags or mottos which expressed support for or dissent from political or social or personal phenomena. I would have targeted certain forms of cyber bullying and ostracism, and numerous other unpleasant forms of online discrimination and also.

These are just for instance, I could go on.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Well for instance if I had written the CoCR with an OOC dimension in mind I would have expressly made certain forms of discriminatory behaviour unique to the context of playing NS illegal. I would have made it Illegal to banject players from regions simply because they held differing opinions to the rest of region, or because they used flags or mottos which expressed support for or dissent from political or social or personal phenomena. I would have targeted certain forms of cyber bullying and ostracism, and numerous other unpleasant forms of online discrimination and also.

These are just for instance, I could go on.

Well, that would be completely transforming the GA in to an OOC environment. We wouldn't need to do that, if players were already taking our 'IC' resolutions and 'OOC-fying' them for their own purposes. No changes have to be made at all, from either side. We continue on writing 'IC' resolutions, as if they apply only to our world; they continue taking the byproduct of our roleplaying, and using it for their purposes (which doesn't affect our roleplaying). The issue here is whether or not this 'OOC-fying' can extend to the OOC side of the Security Council. In my eyes, the opposing argument is merely superficial; we don't want to meld IC and OOC together. But, to me, they wouldn't be melded together... the condition would continue to exist as it does today, only it would be able to utilize the OOC Security Council.

[Urgench]

Eh. I don't think I ever proposed that Freedom of Expression actually granted that freedom to players. Freedom of Expression doesn't state the World Assembly can't infringe on a person's expression, if we're going to get technical about language. However, the intent of the resolution was an argument in favor of the universal democratic freedom of expression. That's why I alluded to it, because I'm trying to establish an SC precedent that states that you cannot condemn an ideology, or a group of players for merely adhering 'non-violently' to an ideology.

The argument's transformed in to whether or not any resolution can cross the line from GA to SC, from IC to OOC. You touch on that in the second paragraph I quoted.

And I certainly sympathise with this aim. I think it might be better achieved by simply stating in the reppeal that the SC should not condemn nations or regions on a purely Ideological basis. This way you will create a precedent which respects the intent of GA law by creating a new and autonomous SC law which contains the same intent but for a different context.

I'm not sure if you missed this post, but it neatly puts my position on this problem.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not sure if you missed this post, but it neatly puts my position on this problem.

I did miss it. Thanks.

I think that's what I've done with the second-to-last clause: "BELIEVING that condemnations are to be directed at nations or regions and not ideological beliefs". I'm not sure if I can say something along the lines of "ADHERING that condemnations...", since that might be legislating within a repeal.

Like I said, this has turned in to a more general discussion... It probably belongs in its own thread. If I were mod, I would have forked it. But, alas...

[Dallsiph]

The World Assembly,

REALIZING that the World Assembly has a tradition of staying neutral, when it comes to denouncing or celebrating any given political, economic, or religious ideology,

NOTING that Security Council Resolution #3 condemns a political and religious ideology outright, and not any specifically condemnable actions taken by NAZI EUROPE, and that in doing so, the World Assembly has made it permissible to assert prejudice in to its resolutions,

HOPING that all the members of the World Assembly realize how paramount upholding freedom of expression and speech is, even if such expression or speech is viewed as deplorable by society,

ALSO NOTING that NAZI EUROPE has not caused any international problems by exercising their freedom of expression,

ASSERTING that by condemning any given political, economic, or religious ideology, the World Assembly threatens to limit freedom of expression and speech,

ENCOURAGING member states to thoughtfully analyze and dismiss any resolution that attempts to declare one ideology acceptable or deplorable,

BELIEVING that condemnations are to be directed at nations or regions and not ideological beliefs,

The World Assembly hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #3, "Condemn NAZI EUROPE".

I never thought I'd see myself drafting a Security Council resolution, but officially condemning an ideology and bastardizing the purpose of C&Cs is not quite acceptable.

(Since I'm not too sure if I should be IC, this an OOC post...)

I'm for this resolution because exercising freedom of speech to exert hate to whole variety of ethnic backgrounds is just wrong. Going overboard with freedom of speech is why so many bad things happen in America. Let's put it this way: If someone gets punished for going overboard with freedom of speech, others will not.

And this region is denouncing political, and religious ideology, not this resolution.

[Eldradus]

The sons and daughters of Asuryan support repealing the condemnation of NAZI EUROPE.

The very condemnation of them for thier ideals or past actions of other governments following the same structure is a foolish and childish action at best. The past actions of so called Nazii represent the urge for control in Humanity. It is completely natural, and all of humanity commits these and similar atrocities at one moment or another. To wish to condemn one nation for these actions means you wish to condemn all humanity for natural actions.

While we do not mind the idea of condemning Humanity to the purity of fire, know that if you ensure one nation will be delivered to a firery tomb...We shall ensure that all others soon follow it into the devouring flames.

~ Farewell Mon'keigh

[Glen-Rhodes]

The proposal has been submitted! Please approve of if it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/council=0/start=18

For some reason, when there's more than one resolution with the same title, the search function only displays the earliest one. Anyways, Morlago, the author of the other repeal, has agreed to get his deleted and support this one.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is your permanent link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=nazi

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is your permanent link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=nazi

I would have used that, but it only shows Morlago's proposal, not mine.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

This is your permanent link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=nazi

I would have used that, but it only shows Morlago's proposal, not mine.

Once Morlago's is gone that link will work for yours.

[Ardchoille]

Going to need a request from Morlago for that, either in Moderation or via Getting Help. Or delegates could just refrain from approving it for another day.

I'm sorry I haven't been able to take part in this debate (mortgages have to be fed), but if it passes it will effectively give the SC a player-generated rule, so goodonyermates.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is your permanent link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=nazi

I would have used that, but it only shows Morlago's proposal, not mine.

Ah, I had not noticed that.