[DRAFT] Declaration on Non-Compliance

[Wallenburg]

Yes, I think the WA should think twice about commending nations that practice slavery or permit child sex trafficking. I think the WA should think twice about commending nations that sell weapons of war to brutal conquerors or poison water supplies because it'll save them a fraction of a penny on the dollar.

But many C/Cs are about the player behind the nation. Yes, RP Commendations for nations that do such things are inappropriate, but GP Commendations shouldn't be blocked for those reasons.

"But what about the player" doesn't work on two counts:
1) C&Cs are in-character, and metagaming (such as commending a nation explicitly as a player) is illegal.
2) Any WA player can choose to comply with WA resolutions. By choosing to play a rogue state, they forfeit certain preferential treatment by the body they insult.

Those aren't the only things that have been passed, though. Following your logic, we should deny commendations of any kind to a nation that violates, say, the death penalty ban for particularly evil people-- e.g. a person that has committed a holocaust in a nation. I disagree for a large number of reasons. I myself have violated-- and will continue to violate, regardless of sanctions or other actions-- this particular area of WA legislation.

I guess I'll be opposing any commendations of your nation as well.

Why? Because nations ought to be able to act independently and choose their own laws.

When you join the World Assembly, you forfeit that right. The orcishness of demanding total freedom from WA law but also all the powers that come with being a WA member is maddeningly poor form and is for good reasons discouraged by those who care even a little about the WA.

I'd like to add that you are also in violation of that, so I am afraid I must ask you not to "throw your fucking stones."

Wallenburg has not executed a single person since the passage of GA#443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents". I do not know what you mean.

[Karteria]

This resolution has my support.

[Meretica]

But many C/Cs are about the player behind the nation. Yes, RP Commendations for nations that do such things are inappropriate, but GP Commendations shouldn't be blocked for those reasons.

"But what about the player" doesn't work on two counts:
1) C&Cs are in-character, and metagaming (such as commending a nation explicitly as a player) is illegal.
2) Any WA player can choose to comply with WA resolutions. By choosing to play a rogue state, they forfeit certain preferential treatment by the body they insult.

Those aren't the only things that have been passed, though. Following your logic, we should deny commendations of any kind to a nation that violates, say, the death penalty ban for particularly evil people-- e.g. a person that has committed a holocaust in a nation. I disagree for a large number of reasons. I myself have violated-- and will continue to violate, regardless of sanctions or other actions-- this particular area of WA legislation.

I guess I'll be opposing any commendations of your nation as well.

Why? Because nations ought to be able to act independently and choose their own laws.

When you join the World Assembly, you forfeit that right. The orcishness of demanding total freedom from WA law but also all the powers that come with being a WA member is maddeningly poor form and is for good reasons discouraged by those who care even a little about the WA.

I'd like to add that you are also in violation of that, so I am afraid I must ask you not to "throw your fucking stones."

Wallenburg has not executed a single person since the passage of GA#443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents". I do not know what you mean.

I don't mean total independence from the WA-- I am referring to a select few issues, especially issues that may be considered controversial. Even though you still have the death penalty as a policy in your nation, I'd like to see an official record stating that no executions have taken place.

[Meretica]

"But what about the player" doesn't work on two counts:
1) C&Cs are in-character, and metagaming (such as commending a nation explicitly as a player) is illegal.
2) Any WA player can choose to comply with WA resolutions. By choosing to play a rogue state, they forfeit certain preferential treatment by the body they insult.

I guess I'll be opposing any commendations of your nation as well.

When you join the World Assembly, you forfeit that right. The orcishness of demanding total freedom from WA law but also all the powers that come with being a WA member is maddeningly poor form and is for good reasons discouraged by those who care even a little about the WA.

Wallenburg has not executed a single person since the passage of GA#443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents". I do not know what you mean.

I don't mean total independence from the WA-- I am referring to a select few issues, especially issues that may be considered controversial. Even though you still have the death penalty as a policy in your nation, I'd like to see an official record stating that no executions have taken place.

Seeing that you have, as requested, provided proof (sent via TG), I can no longer use that particular example regarding Wallenburg itself. However, to deny a nation its right to be recognized for any achievements it has made for the slightest in fracture, regardless of what it involves, is simply ridiculous. Assuming that there was a modern-day genocide on NS, with millions of deaths within one specific group, aside from the fact that the WA says "no," what reason would stay the hand of the executioner in this case? Should a nation execute a war criminal that has committed the crime of genocide, I do not think that the nation in question should be eternally condemned for executing that individual, especially if they follow the other Resolutions set forth by the Assembly.

[WayNeacTia]

Why? Because nations ought to be able to act independently and choose their own laws. I'd like to add that you are also in violation of that, so I am afraid I must ask you not to "throw your fucking stones."

Then repeal their commendation if you feel so strongly on the matter. By joining the WA you give up a lot of autonomy. If someone chooses to roleplay non-compliance, good for them I suppose.

General Rant: My main issue with the whole idea is that we have the in-character Compliance Commission that pretty much forces nations into compliance, otherwise they go broke with the fines. This on the other hand is "codifying" an out of character response to players to choose non compliance in that "Fine you don't want to listen to the Compliance Commission, we will beat you over the head with the Security Council and poo poo any commend attempt on you" and I don't like that at all, as the General Assembly has made it clear the Security Council does not actually exist. Lets face the facts here, this is an out of charter resolution at heart. If it wasn't we would not have declarations on quorum raiding and region destruction which are clearly out of charatcer events. The idea is sound, and is the type of thing I expected to see out of the gates, but I feel it gives the Security Council yet another weapon that can and most likely will be abused. I will be happy to see the rule subset that is likely coming for declarations, which spell out how they are to be used and see just how loosely rule 2 is going to be enforced.

[Sanctaria]

General Rant: My main issue with the whole idea is that we have the in-character Compliance Commission that pretty much forces nations into compliance, otherwise they go broke with the fines. This on the other hand is "codifying" an out of character response to players to choose non compliance in that "Fine you don't want to listen to the Compliance Commission, we will beat you over the head with the Security Council and poo poo any commend attempt on you" and I don't like that at all, as the General Assembly has made it clear the Security Council does not actually exist. Lets face the facts here, this is an out of charter resolution at heart. If it wasn't we would not have declarations on quorum raiding and region destruction which are clearly out of charatcer events. The idea is sound, and is the type of thing I expected to see out of the gates, but I feel it gives the Security Council yet another weapon that can and most likely will be abused. I will be happy to see the rule subset that is likely coming for declarations, which spell out how they are to be used and see just how loosely rule 2 is going to be enforced.

RP decisions should also have RP ramifications. Yes, the compliance commission can fine them, but that resolution can be repealed. Also, it's not unusual for you to have a declaratory or aspirational "this is how we should treat X who do Y" and then have a legislative backing to that declaratory opinion. Both can exist IC, there's no reason for them to be exclusive.

An IC declaration saying there should be consequences for non-compliance should list examples of consequences, which this does. I personally think a legitimate IC reaction to IC/RP'd non-compliance is a body - that does recognise the GA even if it's not reciprocated because of current metagaming rules - saying that if you are a nation breaking the rules, one of the consequences you may face is that we will scrutinise your proposed commendation very deeply or, that we would urge nations to reject those proposed commendations altogether.

I didn't write this as an OOC resolution, indeed in the server when I brought it up as an idea, I framed it very much as an IC/RP'd response. I see it very deeply as potential IC/RP'd consequences, which marries with the fact I am in a RP region that is GA heavy.

[WayNeacTia]

General Rant: My main issue with the whole idea is that we have the in-character Compliance Commission that pretty much forces nations into compliance, otherwise they go broke with the fines. This on the other hand is "codifying" an out of character response to players to choose non compliance in that "Fine you don't want to listen to the Compliance Commission, we will beat you over the head with the Security Council and poo poo any commend attempt on you" and I don't like that at all, as the General Assembly has made it clear the Security Council does not actually exist. Lets face the facts here, this is an out of charter resolution at heart. If it wasn't we would not have declarations on quorum raiding and region destruction which are clearly out of charatcer events. The idea is sound, and is the type of thing I expected to see out of the gates, but I feel it gives the Security Council yet another weapon that can and most likely will be abused. I will be happy to see the rule subset that is likely coming for declarations, which spell out how they are to be used and see just how loosely rule 2 is going to be enforced.

RP decisions should also have RP ramifications. Yes, the compliance commission can fine them, but that resolution can be repealed. Also, it's not unusual for you to have a declaratory or aspirational "this is how we should treat X who do Y" and then have a legislative backing to that declaratory opinion. Both can exist IC, there's no reason for them to be exclusive.

An IC declaration saying there should be consequences for non-compliance should list examples of consequences, which this does. I personally think a legitimate IC reaction to IC/RP'd non-compliance is a body - that does recognise the GA even if it's not reciprocated because of current metagaming rules - saying that if you are a nation breaking the rules, one of the consequences you may face is that we will scrutinise your proposed commendation very deeply or, that we would urge nations to reject those proposed commendations altogether.

I didn't write this as an OOC resolution, indeed in the server when I brought it up as an idea, I framed it very much as an IC/RP'd response. I see it very deeply as potential IC/RP'd consequences, which marries with the fact I am in a RP region that is GA heavy.

You make perfectly valid points. But as I was saying, this just reads far too much like out of character for me. I just don't want to see the Security Council have yet another weapon to beat people over the head with. I understand nations should face consequences for snubbing their noses at the WA, if they are members, but this just seems far too heavy handed to me. (I am aware that commendation attempts rarely pass if someone is in non compliance)

[Sandaoguo]

It really doesn't make any sense to recognize "creative compliance" in any official capacity, particularly a supportive one. The paradigm was created back when compliance was "mandatory" according to the rules of the UN/WA, to the point where it was illegal to even suggest that member state could be in non-compliance with a resolution. The only way to "not comply" with a resolution was to read it in such a tortured way that it effectively had no impact on your nation. But that paradigm is useless now, because recognizing non-compliance under the rules has been legal for nearly 5 years.

There's no good faith "creative compliance," because the entire point is to not comply. It's by definition an act of bad faith. Is it possibly more interesting than straight up saying "our nation is not bound by this resolution"? Maybe, that's up to the community to determine socially. Is it still non-compliance? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it done is bad faith, because the nation is purposefully avoiding complying with the plain meaning of the law? Of course it is.

Personally, I find it far more realistic for member states to straight up say they're not bound by a resolution they fundamentally disagree with. Take execution for example, a resolution that bans member states from implementing death as a punishment for crime. Is it better for a more authoritarian member state to say, "We're going to keep executing people anyways. Try and stop us, if you think you can." Versus the nation going, "Well we're defining 'death' as the cessation of life via any means other than firing squad" or "We aren't technically executing someone for a 'crime', but instead a 'transgression against the state', so we're technically in compliance!"

"Creative compliance" is the latter, and I've always found to be pretty a ridiculous thing to value. A big reason why WA culture prefers the absurdity over the more realistic non-compliance is rooted in a semi-ideological aversion to what it would be to actually fight against non-compliance-- international courts, sanctions, peacekeeping, etc. It's always been strange that creative compliance has been praised as the "right way to role-play non-compliance," when the reality is the UN and the WA after it just refused to actually value roleplaying noncompliance, because they were married to the idea that noncompliance wasn't allowed and thus neither were resolutions that established things like an International Court of Justice.

[Hulldom]

It really doesn't make any sense to recognize "creative compliance" in any official capacity, particularly a supportive one. The paradigm was created back when compliance was "mandatory" according to the rules of the UN/WA, to the point where it was illegal to even suggest that member state could be in non-compliance with a resolution. The only way to "not comply" with a resolution was to read it in such a tortured way that it effectively had no impact on your nation. But that paradigm is useless now, because recognizing non-compliance under the rules has been legal for nearly 5 years.

There's no good faith "creative compliance," because the entire point is to not comply. It's by definition an act of bad faith. Is it possibly more interesting than straight up saying "our nation is not bound by this resolution"? Maybe, that's up to the community to determine socially. Is it still non-compliance? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it done is bad faith, because the nation is purposefully avoiding complying with the plain meaning of the law? Of course it is.

Personally, I find it far more realistic for member states to straight up say they're not bound by a resolution they fundamentally disagree with. Take execution for example, a resolution that bans member states from implementing death as a punishment for crime. Is it better for a more authoritarian member state to say, "We're going to keep executing people anyways. Try and stop us, if you think you can." Versus the nation going, "Well we're defining 'death' as the cessation of life via any means other than firing squad" or "We aren't technically executing someone for a 'crime', but instead a 'transgression against the state', so we're technically in compliance!"

"Creative compliance" is the latter, and I've always found to be pretty a ridiculous thing to value. A big reason why WA culture prefers the absurdity over the more realistic non-compliance is rooted in a semi-ideological aversion to what it would be to actually fight against non-compliance-- international courts, sanctions, peacekeeping, etc. It's always been strange that creative compliance has been praised as the "right way to role-play non-compliance," when the reality is the UN and the WA after it just refused to actually value roleplaying noncompliance, because they were married to the idea that noncompliance wasn't allowed and thus neither were resolutions that established things like an International Court of Justice.

You make some great points! And along those lines, why not instead pursue something like the ICJ now that non-compliance *is* allowed?

[Sanctaria]

I include creative compliance because I think it would be disingenuous to exclude it as it is a RP'd reaction.

Non-compliance isn't "allowed". The GA simply now acknowledges that non-compliance happens, after 10 years of saying it never happened.

[Quintessence of Dust]

lol at all the people who've never given a shit about WA RP claiming non-compliance is some great inducement to serious RPing.

[Sandaoguo]

I include creative compliance because I think it would be disingenuous to exclude it as it is a RP'd reaction.

It's the distinction that's non-sensical. At the end of the day, non-compliance is non-compliance, no matter if you're using a loophole, being absurd, or just telling the WA you aren't going to follow the resolution and what are they going to do about it.

Non-compliance isn't "allowed". The GA simply now acknowledges that non-compliance happens, after 10 years of saying it never happened.

This makes me wonder if you've misunderstood my post. The only reason "creative compliance" ever existed in the first place is because it was illegal in the UN/WA to even suggest that member state could be in non-compliance with a resolution. Since 2016, the GA has been allowed to do that, though. So "creative compliance" is a useless distinction. Not complying because you've invented your own dictionary to make words mean something else, and not complying because you're fundamentally opposed to the resolution, are both bad faith non-compliance.

[Sanctaria]

Non-compliance isn't "allowed". The GA simply now acknowledges that non-compliance happens, after 10 years of saying it never happened.

This makes me wonder if you've misunderstood my post. The only reason "creative compliance" ever existed in the first place is because it was illegal in the UN/WA to even suggest that member state could be in non-compliance with a resolution. Since 2016, the GA has been allowed to do that, though. So "creative compliance" is a useless distinction. Not complying because you've invented your own dictionary to make words mean something else, and not complying because you're fundamentally opposed to the resolution, are both bad faith non-compliance.

Sorry, this portion of my post was in response to Hulldom's post.

[Bears Armed]

There's no good faith "creative compliance," because the entire point is to not comply. It's by definition an act of bad faith. Is it possibly more interesting than straight up saying "our nation is not bound by this resolution"? Maybe, that's up to the community to determine socially. Is it still non-compliance? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it done is bad faith, because the nation is purposefully avoiding complying with the plain meaning of the law? Of course it is.

Personally, I find it far more realistic for member states to straight up say they're not bound by a resolution they fundamentally disagree with. Take execution for example, a resolution that bans member states from implementing death as a punishment for crime. Is it better for a more authoritarian member state to say, "We're going to keep executing people anyways. Try and stop us, if you think you can." Versus the nation going, "Well we're defining 'death' as the cessation of life via any means other than firing squad" or "We aren't technically executing someone for a 'crime', but instead a 'transgression against the state', so we're technically in compliance!"

"Creative compliance" is the latter, and I've always found to be pretty a ridiculous thing to value. A big reason why WA culture prefers the absurdity over the more realistic non-compliance is rooted in a semi-ideological aversion to what it would be to actually fight against non-compliance-- international courts, sanctions, peacekeeping, etc. It's always been strange that creative compliance has been praised as the "right way to role-play non-compliance," when the reality is the UN and the WA after it just refused to actually value roleplaying noncompliance, because they were married to the idea that noncompliance wasn't allowed and thus neither were resolutions that established things like an International Court of Justice.

You misunderstand what the term "creative compliance" has actually meant, at least when it originated in NS-UN days and then still to some people active here who remember that body's traditions. It was/is not a matter of re-defining words as in your "death penalty" example: That has always been recognised as effectively being outright non-compliance, and was one of the things that 'reasonable nation theory ' said proposal authors didn't have to try & cover because no "reasonable" nation would redefine words like that for this purpose and the nations that did do so would just keep on doing so no matter what the author did to try blocking the possibilities. No, what the term 'creative compliance' originally meant was finding a genuine ambiguity or outright loophole in the author's words that could be exploited without needing to change any meanings: One classic example of this was the fact that due to a typo not being caught in time the original 'UN Landmine Ban' said that it applied not to "UN countries" but to "UN counties", so that in the absence of any legislation defining the member nations as "UN counties" it was considered reasonable for nations to say that as they weren't "UN counties" they did not have to comply... This fact was actually one of the main arguments used in the debate over the 'repeal' stage of its repeal-&-replace process. The difference between "true "creative compliance" and "non-compliance" was/is therefore analogous to that between 'tax avoidance' and 'tax evasion', and just as law-courts have agreed that nobody has a legal obligation to maximise the amount of tax that they pay, so it was agreed that no nation had a legal obligation to interpret [genuinely] ambiguous wording in a way that was to their perceived disadvantage.

[Sandaoguo]

[You misunderstand what the term "creative compliance" has actually meant, at least when it originated in NS-UN days and then still to some people active here who remember that body's traditions.

Hm, no, I don't think I have. I was in enough debates about the nature of compliance, non-compliance, and "creative compliance" to be an expert on the subject. Creative Compliance was practically spear-headed by the likes of Kenny, Yelda, etc., who often did it for comedic effect and absurdity. Second to that it's usually tech-wank, "we're sentient plants"-wank, or your basic definition-wank (which if it's not a term, is now). The whole point of the "creative" part is, by definition, to be unrealistic and absurd. Because it's entirely premised on the idea of manipulating, stretching, and butchering the words of a resolution in whatever way you needed to reach a result where the resolution no longer applied or had an impact, and there's only so much you can do that and remain within the realm of rational and reasonable. Even then, the practice itself never made any sense from a roleplaying perspective, because it relies on the notion that other members states will see your "creative compliance" and just go, "Oh well, what ever are we to do? They are technically in compliance!" Which is not realistic no matter how slice it. Either you comply with the law or you have good reason not to, and then manage the diplomatic fallout, but in no realistic world is "creative compliance" a thing.

Resolutions where there's genuine ambiguity in legal meaning don't require "creative compliance." That's just legal interpretation of vague or ambiguous wording. That's never been "creative compliance," not since I played the UN/GA game. There's nothing "creative" about that.

[Lord Dominator]

[You misunderstand what the term "creative compliance" has actually meant, at least when it originated in NS-UN days and then still to some people active here who remember that body's traditions.

Hm, no, I don't think I have. I was in enough debates about the nature of compliance, non-compliance, and "creative compliance" to be an expert on the subject. Creative Compliance was practically spear-headed by the likes of Kenny, Yelda, etc., who often did it for comedic effect and absurdity. Second to that it's usually tech-wank, "we're sentient plants"-wank, or your basic definition-wank (which if it's not a term, is now). The whole point of the "creative" part is, by definition, to be unrealistic and absurd. Because it's entirely premised on the idea of manipulating, stretching, and butchering the words of a resolution in whatever way you needed to reach a result where the resolution no longer applied or had an impact, and there's only so much you can do that and remain within the realm of rational and reasonable. Even then, the practice itself never made any sense from a roleplaying perspective, because it relies on the notion that other members states will see your "creative compliance" and just go, "Oh well, what ever are we to do? They are technically in compliance!" Which is not realistic no matter how slice it. Either you comply with the law or you have good reason not to, and then manage the diplomatic fallout, but in no realistic world is "creative compliance" a thing.

Perhaps if the assorted GA resolutions on compliance now effectively try to mandate that non-compliance results in economic devastation rp-side unless you’re either an autarky or trade primarily with non-WA nations, creative compliance would be more unreasonable in rp terms.

Edit: Hel, the same things arguably smack out at least the most blatant creative compliance in themself, even if those parts are probably paid less attention to in these discussions.

[Wallenburg]

[You misunderstand what the term "creative compliance" has actually meant, at least when it originated in NS-UN days and then still to some people active here who remember that body's traditions.

Hm, no, I don't think I have. I was in enough debates about the nature of compliance, non-compliance, and "creative compliance" to be an expert on the subject. Creative Compliance was practically spear-headed by the likes of Kenny, Yelda, etc., who often did it for comedic effect and absurdity. Second to that it's usually tech-wank, "we're sentient plants"-wank, or your basic definition-wank (which if it's not a term, is now).

"Tech-wank" and "species-wank" have nothing to do with creative compliance. Your memory of WA principles is rather insufficient, it seems, to properly describe what is and isn't creative compliance.

The whole point of the "creative" part is, by definition, to be unrealistic and absurd. Because it's entirely premised on the idea of manipulating, stretching, and butchering the words of a resolution in whatever way you needed to reach a result where the resolution no longer applied or had an impact, and there's only so much you can do that and remain within the realm of rational and reasonable.

That may have at some point been the predominant sense of creative compliance, but it has been a long time since that was the case, and the proposal here makes it quite clear that isn't the meaning of "creative compliance" for its purposes.

Even then, the practice itself never made any sense from a roleplaying perspective, because it relies on the notion that other members states will see your "creative compliance" and just go, "Oh well, what ever are we to do? They are technically in compliance!" Which is not realistic no matter how slice it. Either you comply with the law or you have good reason not to, and then manage the diplomatic fallout, but in no realistic world is "creative compliance" a thing.

Being technically in compliance with the law is complying with the law. The spirit of the law has no power.

Resolutions where there's genuine ambiguity in legal meaning don't require "creative compliance." That's just legal interpretation of vague or ambiguous wording. That's never been "creative compliance," not since I played the UN/GA game. There's nothing "creative" about that.

That's exactly what most people and this proposal mean by creative compliance.

[Sandaoguo]

Perhaps if the assorted GA resolutions on compliance now effectively try to mandate that non-compliance results in economic devastation rp-side unless you’re either an autarky or trade primarily with non-WA nations, creative compliance would be more unreasonable in rp terms.

Sanctions on non-compliant nations is exactly the kind of realistic response you'd expect in global politics. Whether sanctions work is debatable, and you'd have to work that out in your own role-plays (if they ever happen). But you're making a leap here that's pretty ridiculous, still. If a pariah state "creatively complies" with a human rights resolution, that means there's no actual impact on their nation. They're still violating the human rights the WA is trying to protect. Again, the whole point of creative compliance is to functionally not comply with a resolution.

Is the more realistic road here that because the pariah state employed "creative compliance," there's no longer an issue? They might still be mass murdering their people and disappearing their dissidents, but they said they found some loophole and that allows them to be 'compliance' with the human rights law... so, c'est la vie? That's why creative compliance has never made sense and it would be nonsensical to give official WA approval to it, no matter how "tsk-tsk" you are in doing so.

"Tech-wank" and "species-wank" have nothing to do with creative compliance. Your memory of WA principles is rather insufficient, it seems, to properly describe what is and isn't creative compliance.

I've been in debates about compliance for longer than you've been on NS altogether. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about.

Being technically in compliance with the law is complying with the law. The spirit of the law has no power.

Then why are you spending so much time writing them?

[Wallenburg]

"Tech-wank" and "species-wank" have nothing to do with creative compliance. Your memory of WA principles is rather insufficient, it seems, to properly describe what is and isn't creative compliance.

I've been in debates about compliance for longer than you've been on NS altogether. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about.

"I used to be involved years ago" doesn't seem to have carried any expertise over. I suggest you refresh your knowledge.

Being technically in compliance with the law is complying with the law. The spirit of the law has no power.

Then why are you spending so much time writing them?

What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?