PASSED: The Right to Education

[Meekinos]

I recently withdrew New Rockport's approval of this proposal. I feel a bit bad about doing so after Ms. Papadakis was kind enough to amend it to accommodate my country's federalism. However, I share Dr. Castro's and Ms. Harper's concerns.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Republic of New Rockport
Delegate to the World Assembly, Region of Albion

We understand and will allow the appropriate review committee assess the situation as they see fit, but have chosen for profit reasons to leave it. We have consulted the Meekinosian Capitalist Manifest for the words of wisdom the Profits of Prophet had to offer us.

"Never doubt the power of public opinion; their purchasing power is the proof. Give them what they want and they will buy." ~ Gavrill Raptis, Master Tailor, 3rd Prophet

With this, we leave it. The prophets are our ultimate guardians and never do we doubt their wisdom.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I recently withdrew New Rockport's approval of this proposal. I feel a bit bad about doing so after Ms. Papadakis was kind enough to amend it to accommodate my country's federalism. However, I share Dr. Castro's and Ms. Harper's concerns.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Republic of New Rockport
Delegate to the World Assembly, Region of Albion

We understand and will allow the appropriate review committee assess the situation as they see fit, but have chosen for profit reasons to leave it. We have consulted the Meekinosian Capitalist Manifest for the words of wisdom the Profits of Prophet had to offer us.

"Never doubt the power of public opinion; their purchasing power is the proof. Give them what they want and they will buy." ~ Gavrill Raptis, Master Tailor, 3rd Prophet

With this, we leave it. The prophets are our ultimate guardians and never do we doubt their wisdom.

As cryptic as ever, I see. Would you mind translating your response in to plain language, so I can have a better understanding of your intentions?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Meekinos]

As cryptic as ever, I see. Would you mind translating your response in to plain language, so I can have a better understanding of your intentions?

This is how we are raised; this is normal speak for us. For you though we can try and explain it, though we've never thought of such things in "plain language". If you insist, what it means is that we leave judgement to the delegates who can decide whether or not to support it, and to the oversight committee, I believe they are what some in these parts refer to as "Moderators". Quite the lovely lot as I recall. An insightful bunch.

[Sydia]

I approved this proposal a while ago (I generally approve most proposals in the correct format and let the voters have their way with it), I've just been informed of this problematic clause.

I think certain questions need to be cleared up before we can conclusively decide that the proposal is illegal or not, particular the issue that the proposal does mandate conditions for a nations educational system.

3e), as I read it at first glance, allowed for other systems of education not mentioned (a 'catch all' as it were), but I was unsure how this would provide a 'get out of proposal free' card for nations. My understanding is that a nation could retain it's right to educate on the dark side of the moon for all it likes, but the clauses of 1 and 2 would still apply (as being mandated).

Of course, it may well be that I am misinterpreting this clause and the proposal does provide a 'get-out' for nations who could care less about education and stick children down coal mines claiming it is their form of education and since the resolution cannot affect the right to have this form, none of the other clauses apply.

It's a strong feelings kidney whichever way you slice it, so I will await the author's rebuke of the very plausible second interpretation there.

In the meantime I feel these concerns are valid enough to warrant a withdraw of approval, at least for now.

[Meekinos]

It was only meant as a catch-all right and not an option for copping out. We felt it would be unfair to limit the type of system. It has always caused problems when the type of system is dictated as all nations tend to have their own approach. Some opt for the academic system, some for a system focused on skills training, others a combination. It could be religious, secular. This was an attempt to establish a right for everyone while respecting sovereignty; a very delicate balancing act.

[Sydia]

It was only meant as a catch-all right and not an option for copping out. We felt it would be unfair to limit the type of system. It has always caused problems when the type of system is dictated as all nations tend to have their own approach. Some opt for the academic system, some for a system focused on skills training, others a combination. It could be religious, secular. This was an attempt to establish a right for everyone while respecting sovereignty; a very delicate balancing act.

Indeed. How do you respond to nations claiming that their educational system consists of sending kids up chimneys or somesuch (which cannot be changed and is enshrined in the resolution as a right), so many of the mandated clauses cannot apply to them?

To those arguing that the proposal is illegal, in the above example, can it not be argued that in order to exploit this clause the meaning of the words 'education system' must be viewed so liberally as to become meaningless?

[Meekinos]

Indeed. How do you respond to nations claiming that their educational system consists of sending kids up chimneys or somesuch (which cannot be changed and is enshrined in the resolution as a right), so many of the mandated clauses cannot apply to them?

It would be a job and in order to do the job, they would have to learn it first. It would then be up to the nation to provide the education in that very area so that the outcome is the child doing such a thing is able to learn and apply that knowledge. If there is a right to learn and better one's self through such things then it should be considered an education system. Even if we do not all agree on the methods, the desired outcome is the same, for the citizens of the WA to be freely engage in the learning process at any time in any way.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It was only meant as a catch-all right and not an option for copping out. We felt it would be unfair to limit the type of system. It has always caused problems when the type of system is dictated as all nations tend to have their own approach. Some opt for the academic system, some for a system focused on skills training, others a combination. It could be religious, secular. This was an attempt to establish a right for everyone while respecting sovereignty; a very delicate balancing act.

This is extremely reasonable. However, it's plainly clear that you failed to do what you tried to do. The clause is in all actuality a 'get out proposal free' card. There is nothing in this resolution that stops a nation from, say, establishing an educational system that is a single day of watching cartoons. That's extreme, but it's a valid example that illustrates the point that the clause, while intended to do good, does nothing but allow nations to subvert whatever impact was intended to be created by this proposal.

Thus, it's only common sense that you withdraw the proposal.

To those arguing that the proposal is illegal, in the above example, can it not be argued that in order to exploit this clause the meaning of the words 'education system' must be viewed so liberally as to become meaningless?

Only if you take the argument to such extremes. Earlier, I provided an example of a national educational system in which the government is unable to regulate so-called 'user-pay' schools, which means not following the entirety of the first article. This is not an extreme scenario for ultra-capitalist nations, which exist in strong numbers. A corporate school system that operates under a social Darwinist philosophy, doesn't establish uniform standard curriculum between schools owned by different sectors, and doesn't provide 'tools needed for learning' is in all sense of the word an educational system. Under 3e, this system would be protected and would not have to comply with the mandates.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

It would be a job and in order to do the job, they would have to learn it first. It would then be up to the nation to provide the education in that very area so that the outcome is the child doing such a thing is able to learn and apply that knowledge. If there is a right to learn and better one's self through such things then it should be considered an education system. Even if we do not all agree on the methods, the desired outcome is the same, for the citizens of the WA to be freely engage in the learning process at any time in any way.

(OOC: Are you serious? "If the educational system of a nation is stuffing children up chimneys, at least they're learning how to sweep a chimney"?)

[Sydia]

It was only meant as a catch-all right and not an option for copping out. We felt it would be unfair to limit the type of system. It has always caused problems when the type of system is dictated as all nations tend to have their own approach. Some opt for the academic system, some for a system focused on skills training, others a combination. It could be religious, secular. This was an attempt to establish a right for everyone while respecting sovereignty; a very delicate balancing act.

This is extremely reasonable. However, it's plainly clear that you failed to do what you tried to do. The clause is in all actuality a 'get out proposal free' card. There is nothing in this resolution that stops a nation from, say, establishing an educational system that is a single day of watching cartoons. That's extreme, but it's a valid example that illustrates the point that the clause, while intended to do good, does nothing but allow nations to subvert whatever impact was intended to be created by this proposal.

Thus, it's only common sense that you withdraw the proposal.

To those arguing that the proposal is illegal, in the above example, can it not be argued that in order to exploit this clause the meaning of the words 'education system' must be viewed so liberally as to become meaningless?

Only if you take the argument to such extremes. Earlier, I provided an example of a national educational system in which the government is unable to regulate so-called 'user-pay' schools, which means not following the entirety of the first article. This is not an extreme scenario for ultra-capitalist nations, which exist in strong numbers. A corporate school system that operates under a social Darwinist philosophy, doesn't establish uniform standard curriculum between schools owned by different sectors, and doesn't provide 'tools needed for learning' is in all sense of the word an educational system. Under 3e, this system would be protected and would not have to comply with the mandates.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

It would be a job and in order to do the job, they would have to learn it first. It would then be up to the nation to provide the education in that very area so that the outcome is the child doing such a thing is able to learn and apply that knowledge. If there is a right to learn and better one's self through such things then it should be considered an education system. Even if we do not all agree on the methods, the desired outcome is the same, for the citizens of the WA to be freely engage in the learning process at any time in any way.

(OOC: Are you serious? "If the educational system of a nation is stuffing children up chimneys, at least they're learning how to sweep a chimney"?)

This is my main concern - any youth scheme can be argued to be an 'educational system' (hence my examples of down the mines and up the chimneys - obviously of little educational value, yet they have aright to it under the current proposal).

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is my main concern - any youth scheme can be argued to be an 'educational system' (hence my examples of down the mines and up the chimneys - obviously of little educational value, yet they have aright to it under the current proposal).

(OOC: For what it's worth, we do have something called the Reasonable Nation convention. If I'm not mistaken, it prevents people from using these examples when trying to repeal a resolution or get a proposal deleted. So, while using extremes is the best way to illustrate a point, it isn't entirely valid. However, the best rebuttal Meekinos has come up with to my corporate school set-up is that scholarships could be given. I'm not sure whether he or she honestly believes that the proposal is legal, or if it's just a case of not wanting to admit they're wrong. But, that's borderline trolling, so I digress...)

[Meekinos]

This is my main concern - any youth scheme can be argued to be an 'educational system' (hence my examples of down the mines and up the chimneys - obviously of little educational value, yet they have aright to it under the current proposal).

(OOC: For what it's worth, we do have something called the Reasonable Nation convention. If I'm not mistaken, it prevents people from using these examples when trying to repeal a resolution or get a proposal deleted. So, while using extremes is the best way to illustrate a point, it isn't entirely valid. However, the best rebuttal Meekinos has come up with to my corporate school set-up is that scholarships could be given. I'm not sure whether he or she honestly believes that the proposal is legal, or if it's just a case of not wanting to admit they're wrong. But, that's borderline trolling, so I digress...)

ooc: You did admit yourself that it was an extreme. We could have made an OOC comment on it0pointing out just how unlikely that example was but decided not to because we wanted to humour that query. We realised when it was written that it was unreasonable the example. As for corporate schools, it wasn't just scholarships, but also vouchers and interest-free loans. An interest-free loan would be legal because it would mean the principal cost is fixed and won't increase with the interest either being simple or compound.

[Glen-Rhodes]

ooc: You did admit yourself that it was an extreme. We could have made an OOC comment on it0pointing out just how unlikely that example was but decided not to because we wanted to humour that query. We realised when it was written that it was unreasonable the example. As for corporate schools, it wasn't just scholarships, but also vouchers and interest-free loans. An interest-free loan would be legal because it would mean the principal cost is fixed and won't increase with the interest either being simple or compound.

(OOC: Sydia's example was the extreme. Mine is extremely reasonable. You don't seem to get what 'unregulated' means. It means nobody is going to force anybody to give scholarships, loans, vouchers, or whatever. Nobody is going to force standard curriculum. Hell, nobody is going to force anybody to even educate past basic math. With that one clause that you seem so adamant about keeping and protecting, this is all allowed. The mandates are allowed to be ignored. This is optionality, and it is illegal. I can't explain it much better than that.)

[Meekinos]

(OOC: Sydia's example was the extreme. Mine is extremely reasonable. You don't seem to get what 'unregulated' means. It means nobody is going to force anybody to give scholarships, loans, vouchers, or whatever. Nobody is going to force standard curriculum. Hell, nobody is going to force anybody to even educate past basic math. With that one clause that you seem so adamant about keeping and protecting, this is all allowed. The mandates are allowed to be ignored. This is optionality, and it is illegal. I can't explain it much better than that.)

ooc: We fully know what unregulated is. What the clause pertaining to debt is about is saying people can still get into debt but not to the point where they are drowning and it isn't worth it. What this means for the corporate education system is not they are going to be regulated; the government can leave that part alone. The government instead has to find a way to stay within those terms. For some it could mean state-sponsored, for others just a loan itself. Also, what makes basic math so important? There are nations where math is unnecessary, so why even mandate teaching something that doesn't fit in with their goals? Outlining a specific rage of subjects is dangerous because it rules out others.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador to Meekinos,

I understand you really want this idea to pass but it needs to be revised and the only way to do this is to voluntarily withdraw your proposal. Among the things in my mind is that children should be required to attend education and that member states will need to have education in their nation. I promise, honoured ambassador, that I will help you to improve the draft to a marvellous version. The Right to Education needs to something that many can be proud of.

Thank you.

[Glen-Rhodes]

ooc: The government instead has to find a way to stay within those terms.

(OOC: No, it doesn't. It has a right to not stay within those terms, given to it by the proposal itself.)

[Ardchoille]

Finally, after many headaches, I'll rule: The proposal is NOT illegal on the grounds of an optionality violation.
I base this on three points: the "Mandates" wording, the dictionary definitions of "educate" and "educational system" and the explanation of, and reason for, an optionality violation.

I feel that "mandates" deals with Dr Castro's objection that "Could's and should's aren't an excuse". If there is a method by which a nation can comply (should this proposal become a resolution), then it must comply. So, by saying "yes, a nation could provide scholarships", you're admitting that there is a way for that nation to comply. Similarly, a government could declare itself the "user" who must pay, in that a government needs, and will "use", educated citizens. Whether a nation employs the suggested methods of compliance or invents still another is up to the nation itself, but it must find some way to comply.

This next objection is what sent me scurrying to the dictionary for definitons:

A corporate school system that operates under a social Darwinist philosophy, doesn't establish uniform standard curriculum between schools owned by different sectors, and doesn't provide 'tools needed for learning' is in all sense of the word an educational system.

The definitions that seemed most relevant were:

Educate: 1 a : to provide schooling for <chose to educate their children at home> b : to train by formal instruction and supervised practice especially in a skill, trade, or profession
2 a : to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction b : to provide with information : inform <educating themselves about changes in the industry>
3 : to persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way <educate the public to support our position>

Education system: The system of formalized transmission of knowledge and values operating within a given society.

From that, I get that "education system" is a broad concept; in Dr Castro's example, the "system" is "corporate". That needn't change. Elements of the system may need to change to fit the "mandates" clauses, but I don't see that the system itself needs to. (For example, on 1f), the government could set up a corporation to rent or buy "tools of learning" from the other educational corpoations and make them available to all students in all parts of the system; on 1e), it could define "all students must be literate" as its entire national curriculum; but, whatever rules-lawyering it indulges in, it has to do, in some way, all the things in the "mandates" clause.)

The final part of my decision was the ruleset, partily its words and partly its purpose. The definition of an Optionality violation is summarised like this: "The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out." The part complained of doesn't flatly contradict the Mandated section. It lists specific system types, and then says other system types not specifically mentioned -- whether because the author couldn't think of them, or thought others might exist later -- also won't be affected. I'm reading that as "what system you use to educate is immaterial, provided you achieve education". It's the equivalent of an "including, but not limited to" line.

I think the dictionary definitions eliminate the extreme examples; you've got to be systematic about instructing and informing and developing "mentally, morally and aesthetically". If you can achieve that up a chimney or in one day of looking at cartoons, yes, you'd be okay, but I think Reasonable Nations does come into action here.

About the ruleset purpose: it isn't intended to put up a hedge of steel-tipped thorns that will stop almost any proposal; it's meant to keep out unoworkable ones that are incomprehensible, stupid or suggest doing things the GA isn't able to do. Hack's rules distil beautifully the possible ways to goof up a proposal, but they don't mean that every single proposal that contains a flaw must DIE! Preferably by FIRE!, any more than the rules on flaming mean that every mild insult must incur a warning or a ban.

With all that said ... though I won't delete the proposal for the suggested form of illegality, I think the proposer should consider that going ahead with it will mean that, if it passes, the co-author's name will be permanently associated, against their will, with a proposal they now consider flawed.

It also will go to vote with a ready-made hook to hang a repeal on. The possibility of many repeals should not deter a writer from submitting a proposal -- Nuclear Arms Act was obviously going to be subject to many a repeal attempt -- but you need to be as confident as you can be that such attempts will fail. The amount of argument this has generated will make it very easy for a repeal author to argue that it was "dubious" or "unsound" and you'll have to spend most of your time arguing about a single clause instead of about the much more defensible purpose of the legislation.

Also, some of the wording's a little sticky: "f) Any level of government to control the education system" and that "Whereas" in (2).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

OOC: Sorry if I was being paranoid.

Since the proposal has been given an all-clear I will reinstate my approval.

[Ardchoille]

Just remembered: Glen-Rhodes, Meekinos was a member of my region quite recently. If you want another Game Mod's opinion, a GH request will do the trick.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I feel that "mandates" deals with Dr Castro's objection that "Could's and should's aren't an excuse". If there is a method by which a nation can comply (should this proposal become a resolution), then it must comply. So, by saying "yes, a nation could provide scholarships", you're admitting that there is a way for that nation to comply. Similarly, a government could declare itself the "user" who must pay, in that a government needs, and will "use", educated citizens. Whether a nation employs the suggested methods of compliance or invents still another is up to the nation itself, but it must find some way to comply.

Fair enough. But I'm still reading that nations still have a right to have an education system that doesn't comply with the mandates. A nation could comply, but it doesn't have to, contrary to what you're saying. I don't see how a nation, on one hand, can have a right to have any form of educational system, but on the other be told what details its system must have. I've read through your decision, and can't find where you explain that.

From that, I get that "education system" is a broad concept; in Dr Castro's example, the "system" is "corporate". That needn't change. Elements of the system may need to change to fit the "mandates" clauses, but I don't see that the system itself needs to.

In my opinion, that would infringe on the right of nations to have any other educational system they want. The right doesn't mention that the system has to comply. It's like telling your kid that they can eat anywhere on their birthday, but not this place, that place, this other place, so on and so forth. It's either 'eat anywhere' or 'eat from a place on this list'. Translated, it's either 'any other educational system' or 'any other educational system that complies with the mandates'.

If this 'corporate school system' is forced to give tools to students, establish a standard curriculum, and everything else the proposal mandates, then it's no longer the same system, and the nation's right to have any 'other form of educational system' would be infringed upon by the very proposal that gave it such a right. I'm not arguing that the WA shouldn't be changing these things, but I can't see how this proposal could change them, while simultaneously saying that it can't.

I'm reading that as "what system you use to educate is immaterial, provided you achieve education". It's the equivalent of an "including, but not limited to" line.

But it doesn't say that. It specifically says that nations have a right to have any other form of educational system, and such a system may in fact differ from the mandates in the proposal. When did we start saying that the intention of the proposal is what counts, rather than it's language? If I write one thing, but mean another, which is applied? What I wrote, or what I intended to write?

I understand that it's a minor clause and arguing with you isn't going make you change your mind. I'm not trying to be hostile towards you, or anything like that. But I still feel that this proposal is obviously illegal, and I'm frustrated that you don't see it that way. So, maybe I will look for another Game Mod's opinion. I was under the impression that a mod's opinion is final.

On a side-note, if it passes, it will probably never be repealed, for the same reasons that "Access to Science in Schools" is unlikely to ever be repealed, and for the same reasons my campaign to get delegates to remove their approvals of this proposal failed. People (a) judge by titles, rather then content or (b) judge by intents of the proposal, rather than what it actually says. I guess the lesson here is that I should have submitted my Primary Education Act months ago. Though, in light of the ruling that this right can be subverted with mandates -- correct me I'm wrong -- I don't see why I can't submit it now, even though it vastly changes nations' educational systems; it only changes elements, I could say, since a corporate school system could still exist.

Speaking of that, I bring up this:

The argument could be made that the proposal's language neither affirms nor denies the existence of such a right, since the language says that the proposal explicitly does not affect it, but that argument may find itself to be on shaky grounds.

What do you think of that, in your own personal opinion?

Edit:

Just remembered: Glen-Rhodes, Meekinos was a member of my region quite recently.

Possibly why one person I TG'd thought Meekinos was a mod, and actually a puppet of Kyrozerkia. :\

[Meekinos]

We express our gratitude to the review committee. We are glad that it is able to understand what we have been aiming to achieve and respect their decision. Even if the decision had been the inverse, we would have accepted it as well because it is prudent. As we stated earlier, we would oblige the review committee and rely on its knowledge as per the wisdom of the Prophets for Profit laid out in the MCM.

ooc: Pardon me whilst I arch an amused eyebrow at you Glen, but really? Cute that you thought I was someone with power, but alas, I must disappoint and admit that I am not. It is possible the person you had corresponded with had mistaken me for someone else. It happens in a game this big.

[Glen-Rhodes]

ooc: Pardon me whilst I arch an amused eyebrow at you Glen, but really? Cute that you thought I was someone with power, but alas, I must disappoint and admit that I am not. It is possible the person you had corresponded with had mistaken me for someone else. It happens in a game this big.

(OOC: I didn't. I don't know why the guy thought you were; he never said. I won't name names, though. I just found it interesting that he was pretty sure... )

[Meekinos]

ooc: Pardon me whilst I arch an amused eyebrow at you Glen, but really? Cute that you thought I was someone with power, but alas, I must disappoint and admit that I am not. It is possible the person you had corresponded with had mistaken me for someone else. It happens in a game this big.

(OOC: I didn't. I don't know why the guy thought you were; he never said. I won't name names, though. I just found it interesting that he was pretty sure... )

ooc: Glad that's been cleared up.

[Ardchoille]

I understand that it's a minor clause and arguing with you isn't going make you change your mind. I'm not trying to be hostile towards you, or anything like that. But I still feel that this proposal is obviously illegal, and I'm frustrated that you don't see it that way. So, maybe I will look for another Game Mod's opinion. I was under the impression that a mod's opinion is final.

It is. But over-riding that is the mods' collective commitment to transparency, which we talk about a lot -- believe me, exhaustively, and if you think that I'm wordy, well ... -- and I realised that leaving unsaid the fact that I "know" Meekinos would not be transparent (though in that sense I "know" half the active WA players, but still, others might consider it relevant). Just as you included, because it could be relevant, the fact that you had a proposal along similar lines which would be invalidated by this proposal (on which point I'm not giving an opinion here). So I'm offering you the possibility of a second opinion, if you think my decision was influenced by anything other than the bare legality issue.

Just remembered: Glen-Rhodes, Meekinos was a member of my region quite recently.

Possibly why one person I TG'd thought Meekinos was a mod, and actually a puppet of Kyrozerkia. :\

As to the puppetry, obviously I must not comment on that. I would be obliged to "out" a player who was using puppets to create a false sense of support for a proposal, or anyone, mod or not, who was using his or her position to influence a decision on one. I can say that the only comment on this proposal made to me that isn't publicly visible was a nudge that there was a thread about it in Moderation. Certainly, it has been given "special" treatment, in that I've hauled it up for closer examination than it would normally get; but that's because you issued a legality challenge and, though there's no actual need for a speedy decision, given its position in the queue, I still give those priority over normal queue sweeps.

Speaking of that, I bring up this:

The argument could be made that the proposal's language neither affirms nor denies the existence of such a right, since the language says that the proposal explicitly does not affect it, but that argument may find itself to be on shaky grounds.

What do you think of that, in your own personal opinion?

I think the difference beween us is that I'm giving over-riding weight to the "mandates" section, while you're regarding the "does not affect" section as undercutting all of it. I see the "does not affect" bit as qualifying, not eliminating, the mandate. We also differ on the weight we give to the words in the disputed clause; I'm emphasising my interpretation of "educational system". I don't see the disputed clause as rendering the proposal neutral on the existence of a right to education.

This was an extremely close decision. In fact, I'd copied the approvals so I could TG them to Meekinos with the usual deletion note when I took my customary last look over the thread and the proposal, was struck by a point Sydia raised, and reconsidered. It took me a couple of hours checking references from that point to get to deciding that it was, in fact, legal.

I'm also coming at it after a recent conversation with (primarily) Scolo and Hack when we were discussing the Gregorian-calendar-in-proposals issue, and that led to my comment here about what the rules are for: not a fence to keep all proposals out, but a gate where they're "carded" merely for the proposal equivalent of being old enough to be allowed into the great Proposals Musical Fayre and Popfest.

This does not set a precedent that the inclusion of a "Mandates" clause over-rules a complete (and illegal) "you don't have to do this after all" clause. I'm arguing that the clause you interpret as "you don't have to do this after all" isn't as comprehensive as you believe it is.

My personal opinion is that if it requires so much nit-pickery either side of the line it's going to get the same treatment in debate, its purpose will be overshadowed, if not defeated, and it's almost certain there'll be a repeal attempt. If it were my proposal, in these circumstances I'd withdraw it, send you a conciliatory TG and haul both our asses off to another drafting thread where we could work on a joint proposal. Failing that, I'd take it out, cut the disputed clause, try to foresee if this would introduce any weaknesses, polish the wording and throw it back in again. It's not uncommon for a good proposal to go through several appearances in the queue before it goes to vote.

But that's very easy for me to say when neither proposal is something I've worked hard on drafting and when I have no real idea of the political interactions between your respective states or the probability of a compromise between you.

[Glen-Rhodes]

My personal opinion is that if it requires so much nit-pickery either side of the line it's going to get the same treatment in debate, its purpose will be overshadowed, if not defeated, and it's almost certain there'll be a repeal attempt. If it were my proposal, in these circumstances I'd withdraw it, send you a conciliatory TG and haul both our asses off to another drafting thread where we could work on a joint proposal. Failing that, I'd take it out, cut the disputed clause, try to foresee if this would introduce any weaknesses, polish the wording and throw it back in again. It's not uncommon for a good proposal to go through several appearances in the queue before it goes to vote.

That would be the preferable way of going about it. I doubt it will happen, though, based on Meekinos' "I'll leave it up to the 'review committee'", which I'm assuming is just "Hey, if it passes, it was obviously good enough"... which just about the most annoying thing that's been happening these days. If he or she does decide to take your advice, I'd be willing to let him or her meld in to mine whatever parts of this proposal don't already exist in mine. Though, my proposal does mandate courses, which apparently is an uber-bad idea in a education proposal. But whatever. I have other projects to fall back on. The Primary Education Act is just my 'prized proposal', 9+ months in the making, but never submitted for this or that unknown reason.

Anyways, I'm guessing you didn't see this question, since it was buried somewhere at the end of a paragraph: if the mandates in this proposal outweigh the rights, would the mandates in my proposal outweigh them also? As you put it, the 'elements' of a system would have to change -- mandated courses being the change -- but the system itself would still be allowed.

[Scolopendra]

Okay, second opinion. By the numbers.

Category: Education
Area of Effect: Educational

Okay, that makes sense.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the importance of education as a contributing factor to self and community betterment;

Understanding the importance of an individual's growth through continual learning;

Believing that equal opportunity learning will better the community as a whole;

Further acknowledging a nation's right to an education system that is custom tailored to its needs;

Blah blah blah, although I bet the right thing and the equal opportunity thing will come in handy and so I bolded it. Nevertheless, this is fluff text. "Believing that the world is shaped like a burrito, we hereby propose to sit in a gravy boat and say 'choo choo choo.'" I know that sort of thing doesn't fly, but since acknowledging, understanding, and believing things doesn't carry legalistic weight, it's not the sharp pointy part of the proposal.

Hereby,

1. Mandates that Member States shall:

Okay, "mandates." A nicer form of "dictates" or "demands" or "commands." It commands member states, so...

a) Not restrict the pursuit of learning for its citizens;
b) Promote learning and education within its borders;
c) Ensure affordability for its citizens if it has a user-pay system, so that even the lowest income earners are able to send their children to school and return to school in order to better themselves, without incurring a burdensome debt;
d) Create its own national standards for teachers to ensure a reasonable level of competence;
e) Establish a standard curriculum for its students based on its own needs and future goals;
f) Ensure that the tools needed for learning are made available to all;
g) Not force a citizen to end their education upon reaching age of majority.

1a) Does this mean that if someone applies for, say, a government scholarship and is denied, it is restricting the pursuit of learning? That's just rhetorical. The statement itself is legal, I just wouldn't ever make it myself.
1b) This can be done with a post-it note stuck to a mailbox. Legal.
1c) Key word here is if. If there's no user-pay system, there's no requirement in this clause. If there is one, there is. Sort of if the proposal were "feed the hungry" and said "if there are hungry people, they must be fed." This isn't opt-out, this is get-out-because-of-the-structure-of-the-command.
1d) Fine.
1e) Fine.
1f) Fine, although again I wouldn't word it that way.
1g) Fine, although what if the person is failing? The easy way to game this system would be to go "hey man, I'm a student, don't crimp my learning" and so there'd be dead-beat slackers always at school. If they starve or lack housing at a state school, then their right to learning is being indirectly restricted (1a).

Overall thought so far: since it's commanding states to do this, 1d-g basically make it mandatory for everyone in the nation, including corporations and whatever. It's certainly not optional.

2. Whereas no formal government funded educational system exists, Member States shall:

Whoa, nelly. Now we have a condition put in... which is fine, but the previous section was unconditional.

a) Allow its citizens to pursue their education abroad;
b) Allow for the private sector to provide education.

Still, these conditional statements don't conflict with the above. It says "if there's no government system, the government will allow private interests to do it and people can go abroad. "Allow" means "let them do it if they want." I'll allow you to have a cookie, but that doesn't mean I'm actively getting it for you. In any case, this is a conditional "let the private interests do it" while the first section is still unconditional. Since the first section isn't optional, if people don't want to go abroad and the private sector doesn't want to do schools, then the government has to get into the schooling business because Section One Is Unconditional.

I'd honestly add "...to provide education that meets the requirements of Section One above" or some such to 2b so as to clarify it, but there's nothing illegal about it.

3. Emphasises that this Resolution does not affect a member state's right to have:

So these things aren't banned, but remember, Section One is unconditional:

a) Religious schools and religious teaching;
b) Vocational schools with specific focuses;
c) Academic schools at primary, secondary and post-secondary levels;
d) Home-schooling systems;
e) Any other form of educational system;
f) Any level of government to control the education system.

So as long as Section One is accomplished, it does not matter if these are the methods used to accomplish it.

Based on my reading--Section One is inviolate--it's legal.