SC Rules discussion

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Personally I’m still against dropping the duplication rule, but I know a fait accompli when it hits me between the eyes.

[Sedgistan]

I think the only edge-case here that's worth re-iterating here is Lord Dominator's.

While there's no appetite in the community to suddenly start passing duplicate C/C's for the hell of it, the existing rules around staff C/C's (especially for Issues Editors) change the ball-game. Now, suddenly, you can't mention any of someone's modern contributions due to a staff appointment, and you have to rely on their old ones? Duplicate C/C's are the only way that we'll see Editors holding double C/C's.

I absolutely don't think this will be commonplace, because double C/C's are vanishingly rare for a reason, but this is a direct outcome that will eventually happen - high-profile or highly-active staff (I suspect the primary candidate would be CWA, who's written or edited close to 350 issues since their current commend, none of which are C/C'able) receiving duplicate C/C's because any non-duplicating contributions are covered by 3a. Is double-badging staff via wink-wink-nudge-nudge "yeah this is the same as the old one but we all know they've done more since then" commends a desirable outcome?

I'm a bad person to ask on that, as I was the one against Issues Editors being able to be recognised for issues-work at all, even from before joining the team

But I don't think you actually have a rules question there, it's one for the community?

[Sedgistan]

Personally I’m still against dropping the duplication rule, but I know a fait accompli when it hits me between the eyes.

It's highly probable the change will happen. But not everything we float as potential changes here does happen.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Personally I’m still against dropping the duplication rule, but I know a fait accompli when it hits me between the eyes.

It's highly probable the change will happen. But not everything we float as potential changes here does happen.

Yeah, I know. While I will happily admit to being a grumpy old git (ask my wife), it doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the work you and CG and others have done in simplifying the SC rules. 99% of the time I’ve agreed with them, this is just the 1% where I think it lowers the bar too much.

I’ll just have to sharpen the snark (within the rules, of course) for those taking advantage of the change (if it happens).

[Lord Dominator]

I think the only edge-case here that's worth re-iterating here is Lord Dominator's.

While there's no appetite in the community to suddenly start passing duplicate C/C's for the hell of it, the existing rules around staff C/C's (especially for Issues Editors) change the ball-game. Now, suddenly, you can't mention any of someone's modern contributions due to a staff appointment, and you have to rely on their old ones? Duplicate C/C's are the only way that we'll see Editors holding double C/C's.

I absolutely don't think this will be commonplace, because double C/C's are vanishingly rare for a reason, but this is a direct outcome that will eventually happen - high-profile or highly-active staff (I suspect the primary candidate would be CWA, who's written or edited close to 350 issues since their current commend, none of which are C/C'able) receiving duplicate C/C's because any non-duplicating contributions are covered by 3a. Is double-badging staff via wink-wink-nudge-nudge "yeah this is the same as the old one but we all know they've done more since then" commends a desirable outcome?

I'm a bad person to ask on that, as I was the one against Issues Editors being able to be recognised for issues-work at all, even from before joining the team

But I don't think you actually have a rules question there, it's one for the community?

I do believe the question was more so if moderation considered that an acceptable outcome from dropping the rule - in so far as currently we commend IEs using whatever issues they wrote pre-IE no matter the number and in this hypothetical we might be commending them twice for the same small number of issues.

[Sedgistan]

I don't view it as any more of a problem than the "nudge nudge, wink wink" C/Cs already passed for staff members.

[SherpDaWerp]

I mean, my disagreement is that the current policy means you become an Editor, you (may) get a C/C, but then that C/C draws a line in the sand, and your continued contributions are now viewed just as part of the job. I don't think there's special harm in recognising that someone's had an outsize contribution to the community - even as staff. Not every active editor has a commend, but all of us who do have engaged substantially with the community, often outside GI. The line has to be somewhere, and continuing to pass the same commends for someone's new work is, I feel, a decent place to put that line.

Like, at least with a non-duplicate C/C we can pretend it's legitimate. Badges that directly reference the exact same events don't even have that veneer of legitimacy - a new player who's unfamiliar with the site culture or the particular circumstances seeing a staff member with two identical commends reflects exponentially worse than just seeing one. Especially when it's something that - as you say - we're unlikely to see in other cases. When players have one, or maybe, rarely two talking about different things or further contributions, but staff have two talking about the same events, it's blatantly just an attempt to badge up staff just for being staff.

IMO, it's more of a rules question because it's tied to 3a - if you removed 3a, I suspect we would very rapidly start seeing stuff like "Commend Testlandia for keeping international infrastructure running". That doesn't mean the existence of 3a should be a community question on acceptability - the real question is whether the arbiters of the rules/of the site want to allow that practice.

[Wallenburg]

I would not want my work or that of my colleagues as members of GenSec included in a C/C. Yes, those acting in the capacity of staff often perform outstanding community service or meritorious accomplishment. However, by joining staff you take on a responsibility to a degree of service, and the point at which that service goes from expected to exceptional is not possible to determine. It is far simpler to disqualify actions that necessarily enter into someone's staff responsibilities, rather than risk further degrading the C/C process by simply awarding people for having gotten raised to mod or IE or GenSec.

[The Ice States]

I am strongly opposed to removing Rule 3a; I do strongly support, however, changing the rule so as to not disallow C/C's for Issues published while someone is an Editor. I would prefer to keep the status quo vis-a-vis Duplication.

[Sedgistan]

The rule on Duplication (formerly 1c) has been removed. That means the old 1d and 1e are now 1c and 1d respectively, which will confuse us all for a while.

There are no changes to Rule 3a, or intention to change it.

[Eternal Algerstonia]

This is where the fun begins.

[Bisofeyr]

I filed a GHR against this proposal (which made a comment on "Slavery And Its Violence") for violating 3b, specifically the section which notes "[i]f something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration." I was advised that if I wanted to have a discussion regarding this, to post here, and so I'm doing so in case there is any disagreement pertaining to the enforcement of this rule and for posterity's sake, as this (maybe) is precedent for what is or is not allowed in declarations.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I filed a GHR against this proposal (which made a comment on "Slavery And Its Violence") for violating 3b, specifically the section which notes "[i]f something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration." I was advised that if I wanted to have a discussion regarding this, to post here, and so I'm doing so in case there is any disagreement pertaining to the enforcement of this rule and for posterity's sake, as this (maybe) is precedent for what is or is not allowed in declarations.

Seems fair enough to me.

[Kenmoria]

I filed a GHR against this proposal (which made a comment on "Slavery And Its Violence") for violating 3b, specifically the section which notes "[i]f something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration." I was advised that if I wanted to have a discussion regarding this, to post here, and so I'm doing so in case there is any disagreement pertaining to the enforcement of this rule and for posterity's sake, as this (maybe) is precedent for what is or is not allowed in declarations.

This seems logical. “If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those.” As evidenced by GA #023, the GA can address slavery within its categories. Hence, prima facie, the instant proposal is illegal in the SC.

If the instant proposal were addressing the use of slavery in a particular roleplay, or in the theming of a certain region, for example, that would be impossible to address without violating the Metagaming Rule in the GA. Such a hypothetical proposal would appear legal in the SC. The instant proposal, however, has no such inherent problem with the GA, so it is illegal in the SC.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

The proposal in question to me seems primarily about the SC condemning slaver nations... I'm a little unclear how that's GA business.

Declarations exist to declare an opinion on affairs within the NationStates multiverse;

Applauding this august body for previously condemning nations practicing slavery such as in SCR#20, SCR#61, and SCR#104,

Imploring that this illustrious body continues to condemn nations for employing the practice of slavery,

The key clauses near the end focus on celebrating prior condemnations of slaver nations and declaring that they should continue. It would not be within the GAs purview to say that the SC should issue Condemnations of slavers, and it would seem to me that the proposal is mainly expressing an opinion on affairs of the SC. The proposal does not try to ban slavery in WA nations (that would be GA scope for sure), it tries to take the stance that the SC should condemn unrepentant slavers. Which fundamentally is not something the GA can do.

Over-policing that line would, I think, severely limit the scope of declarations by nitpicking into illegality most anything that's not purely meta-with-set-dressing (i.e. backpats over the existence of IRL holidays and April fools games and the three walled bar).

[Bisofeyr]

The proposal in question to me seems primarily about the SC condemning slaver nations... I'm a little unclear how that's GA business.

Declarations exist to declare an opinion on affairs within the NationStates multiverse;

Applauding this august body for previously condemning nations practicing slavery such as in SCR#20, SCR#61, and SCR#104,

Imploring that this illustrious body continues to condemn nations for employing the practice of slavery,

The key clauses near the end focus on celebrating prior condemnations of slaver nations and declaring that they should continue. It would not be within the GAs purview to say that the SC should issue Condemnations of slavers, and it would seem to me that the proposal is mainly expressing an opinion on affairs of the SC. The proposal does not try to ban slavery in WA nations (that would be GA scope for sure), it tries to take the stance that the SC should condemn unrepentant slavers. Which fundamentally is not something the GA can do.

Over-policing that line would, I think, severely limit the scope of declarations by nitpicking into illegality most anything that's not purely meta-with-set-dressing (i.e. backpats over the existence of IRL holidays and April fools games and the three walled bar).

Emphasis mine. I don't think that that's an accurate characterization of the stance the proposal took; it merely states a "position against slavery." This is superfluous to the point of being essentially meaningless, and thus is a broad statement on a policy position, which is very similar to the General Assembly. If that operative clause said something to the effect of "Hereby declares that the Security Council ought to condemn nations that use slavery", I think that could reasonably be legal. That's simply not what the proposal did and your post is a mischaracterization of it.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

The proposal in question to me seems primarily about the SC condemning slaver nations... I'm a little unclear how that's GA business.





The key clauses near the end focus on celebrating prior condemnations of slaver nations and declaring that they should continue. It would not be within the GAs purview to say that the SC should issue Condemnations of slavers, and it would seem to me that the proposal is mainly expressing an opinion on affairs of the SC. The proposal does not try to ban slavery in WA nations (that would be GA scope for sure), it tries to take the stance that the SC should condemn unrepentant slavers. Which fundamentally is not something the GA can do.

Over-policing that line would, I think, severely limit the scope of declarations by nitpicking into illegality most anything that's not purely meta-with-set-dressing (i.e. backpats over the existence of IRL holidays and April fools games and the three walled bar).

Emphasis mine. I don't think that that's an accurate characterization of the stance the proposal took; it merely states a "position against slavery." This is superfluous to the point of being essentially meaningless, and thus is a broad statement on a policy position, which is very similar to the General Assembly. If that operative clause said something to the effect of "Hereby declares that the Security Council ought to condemn nations that use slavery", I think that could reasonably be legal. That's simply not what the proposal did and your post is a mischaracterization of it.

All declarations, probably Commends and Condemns, more arguably the SC as a whole, are "entirely meaningless" if you want to put it that way ;p

I quoted the proposal, where it argues the SC should continue to condemn slavers. On the whole, it says 'slavery bad, condemning slavers in the SC good, we should formalize these stances." The actual actions declared are taking that cumulative stance, that condemnations should continue because slavery is bad. The stance taken/action suggested is not a ban (which again would be GA territory) but a general opposition effected via Condemnations in the SC. The operative clause chose to focus on the "stance against" part, sure, but the rest of the proposal makes very clear that the envisioned "enforcement" of that stance is via encouraging condemnations, and that that is the suggested scope of the declaration - which again, seems to me entirely in line with declarations being inclusive of opinions on the SC meta. It's fundamentally identical to a declaration stating that the SC should strive to liberate raided regions.

What do you think is an "mischaracterization" there?

Do you hold the opinion that if the last two lines were merely swapped so that it specifically mentioned condemnations in the last line, that would change the legality?

[Bisofeyr]

Emphasis mine. I don't think that that's an accurate characterization of the stance the proposal took; it merely states a "position against slavery." This is superfluous to the point of being essentially meaningless, and thus is a broad statement on a policy position, which is very similar to the General Assembly. If that operative clause said something to the effect of "Hereby declares that the Security Council ought to condemn nations that use slavery", I think that could reasonably be legal. That's simply not what the proposal did and your post is a mischaracterization of it.

All declarations, probably Commends and Condemns, more arguably the SC as a whole, are "entirely meaningless" if you want to put it that way ;p

I quoted the proposal, where it argues the SC should continue to condemn slavers. On the whole, it says 'slavery bad, condemning slavers in the SC good, we should formalize these stances." The actual actions declared are taking that cumulative stance, that condemnations should continue because slavery is bad. The stance taken/action suggested is not a ban (which again would be GA territory) but a general opposition effected via Condemnations in the SC. The operative clause chose to focus on the "stance against" part, sure, but the rest of the proposal makes very clear that the envisioned "enforcement" of that stance is via encouraging condemnations, and that that is the suggested scope of the declaration - which again, seems to me entirely in line with declarations being inclusive of opinions on the SC meta. It's fundamentally identical to a declaration stating that the SC should strive to liberate raided regions.

What do you think is an "mischaracterization" there?

Do you hold the opinion that if the last two lines were merely swapped so that it specifically mentioned condemnations in the last line, that would change the legality?

The "imploring" clause, to me, reads as wholly preambulatory, which may hint at intention but fails to (in my view) meet the burden laid out by the rules. Maybe, if this clause was the actual operative clause (i.e. the one that comes after "hereby"), that would be sufficient, but right now I believe that all the concerned clause is doing is using its imploration (is that a word?) as a justification to take the stance that it does in the "Declares" clause. It's admittedly ambiguous, but to me (barring the fact that the GA cannot refer to the SC via their rules), if you changed the last clause to "Hereby bans slavery", or even more aptly, "Hereby encourages nations not to use slavery" (so as to be non-binding), it would be exactly as a GA resolution does. Because the operative clause in its current state is so superfluous, making those substitutions is not completely uncouth.

I hope that my phrasing of it being a "mischaracterization" did not come across as overly harsh; reading it back, it sounded more accusatory than I intended it to.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I mean, it seems to me there that you're acknowledging it fundamentally lacks content it would need to be GA business, and contains content that actively prevents it from being GA business, no?

The SC *forces* the use of Roleplay terms in general, you can't say 'this player rps as a good villain' or 'this player has world-record-worst freedom stats,' you are required to say that 'this nation is an evil slaver and we declare them bad for that.' That, essentially, is a big part of why I think this is overzealous policing. It's functionally established SC culture that slavery is bad, and several resolutions (cited by this proposal) use that as evidence for condemnations; therefore, it seems odd to me that a Declaration affirming the SC views slavery as bad is illegal as GA business.

Were this declaration voted on and passed, it could then be used as evidence/support for future condemnations that want to include saying someone's slaver RP nation is bad.

...and again, this was raised as 3b violation. I'm inclined to take that as it *passes* the 2c test:

Declarations are an expression of opinion, often presented in the form of guidelines the SC would like nations/regions to follow. A Declaration must express an opinion of some sort.

...by expressing an opinion that Slavery is Bad and the SC should Condemnation it going forwards

If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

...and again reiterating that the GA fundamentally cannot declare that the SC thinks Slavers Are Bad and Should Condemn Them.

Applauding this august body for previously condemning nations practicing slavery such as in SCR#20, SCR#61, and SCR#104,

Imploring that this illustrious body continues to condemn nations for employing the practice of slavery,

Hereby declares the Security Council’s position against slavery.

What is the "position" in question in the final line, if *not* the preceding line the implores the condemnations to continue??? (A position that the GA cannot take, because its purview does not include Condemnations)

[Bisofeyr]

I mean, it seems to me there that you're acknowledging it fundamentally lacks content it would need to be GA business, and contains content that actively prevents it from being GA business, no?

Not quite what I was getting at; rather, the GA legislates on specific policy areas. Some of these are binding, some are not. To me, the point of 3b is to say that declarations are not designed to create broad opinions on these IC policy areas, unless the operative clause performs some sort of other action. This is, loosely speaking, the argument I brought forth in my GHR, but obviously only the mods can say whether this is the precise interpretation of 3b that they utilized.

The SC *forces* the use of Roleplay terms in general, you can't say 'this player rps as a good villain' or 'this player has world-record-worst freedom stats,' you are required to say that 'this nation is an evil slaver and we declare them bad for that.' That, essentially, is a big part of why I think this is overzealous policing. It's functionally established SC culture that slavery is bad, and several resolutions (cited by this proposal) use that as evidence for condemnations; therefore, it seems odd to me that a Declaration affirming the SC views slavery as bad is illegal as GA business.

Were this declaration voted on and passed, it could then be used as evidence/support for future condemnations that want to include saying someone's slaver RP nation is bad.

...and again, this was raised as 3b violation. I'm inclined to take that as it *passes* the 2c test:

Declarations are an expression of opinion, often presented in the form of guidelines the SC would like nations/regions to follow. A Declaration must express an opinion of some sort.

...by expressing an opinion that Slavery is Bad and the SC should Condemnation it going forwards

If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

...and again reiterating that the GA fundamentally cannot declare that the SC thinks Slavers Are Bad and Should Condemn Them.

Applauding this august body for previously condemning nations practicing slavery such as in SCR#20, SCR#61, and SCR#104,

Imploring that this illustrious body continues to condemn nations for employing the practice of slavery,

Hereby declares the Security Council’s position against slavery.

Sure, but again, that's not what this proposal actually declares. It cites these cases and the fact that it is imploring the SC to condemn slavers, to then declare (the actual action of the proposal) a position against slavery. My point is that the only action actually taken by the proposal is the establishment of the stance against slavery, and the "Imploring" clause is a justification used for that. They are fundamentally different actions.

In short, the declaration does not declare that the SC should condemn slavers, it declares that it believes slavery is bad; one of the points of justification for this is that it has condemns slavers in the past and believes it should continue to do so. It is a small difference, but a difference nonetheless.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Taking that at face value - why is taking a generic position against something which the SC has used to condemn nations prior, exclusively GA business?

I can acknowledge where it becomes a grey area, but it still doesn't try to do anything that is clearly GA territory, like issue a ban, or require members in good standing to enforce this legislation in their nations. That strongest argument I'm seeing is that a generic "against slavery" position *could* be part of a resolution by either body, and that 3b is vague enough to say that "can" be part of a GA category then it "should" be, which to me still rings as overzealously enforced here, not uniformly, and to the detriment of Declarations as a whole. It also requires ignoring that the operative clause is about the *SC's* stance on slavery, and not a requirement upon members.

As long as condemnations are requires to use IC coded language, I think the SC should be able to declare that the SC sees bad things as bad. I also think the benefit of the doubt should be afforded to a declaration whose overall intent clearly revolves around Condemnations, and clearly doesn't include anything that would be obviously GA territory (again like trying to ban it in member nations).

In short, I feel this represents a very firm hand interpreting the grey area against the intent of the proposal which I really just don't think is necessary. If it included anything that was very clearly GA business, that would be fair. But it doesn't, and it does instead discuss SC exclusive business of Condemnations. Looking at it as a whole, I think the operative clause is being nitpicked in favor of illegality in a way that is not broadly typical of SC resolutions.

[Bisofeyr]

Taking that at face value - why is taking a generic position against something which the SC has used to condemn nations prior, exclusively GA business?

I can acknowledge where it becomes a grey area, but it still doesn't try to do anything that is clearly GA territory, like issue a ban, or require members in good standing to enforce this legislation in their nations. That strongest argument I'm seeing is that a generic "against slavery" position *could* be part of a resolution by either body, and that 3b is vague enough to say that "can" be part of a GA category then it "should" be, which to me still rings as overzealously enforced here, not uniformly, and to the detriment of Declarations as a whole. It also requires ignoring that the operative clause is about the *SC's* stance on slavery, and not a requirement upon members.

As long as condemnations are requires to use IC coded language, I think the SC should be able to declare that the SC sees bad things as bad. I also think the benefit of the doubt should be afforded to a declaration whose overall intent clearly revolves around Condemnations, and clearly doesn't include anything that would be obviously GA territory (again like trying to ban it in member nations).

In short, I feel this represents a very firm hand interpreting the grey area against the intent of the proposal which I really just don't think is necessary. If it included anything that was very clearly GA business, that would be fair. But it doesn't, and it does instead discuss SC exclusive business of Condemnations. Looking at it as a whole, I think the operative clause is being nitpicked in favor of illegality in a way that is not broadly typical of SC resolutions.

I can accept some of this, which is why I hoped to get some discussion on it. As-is, the way that 3b is written seems to be lightly ambiguous. My reading of it (and something which I believe to be reasonable, though I acknowledge that that's not an objective fact) is that any superfluous stance against a policy area ought to be handled by the GA, in the same way there is a divide between the UN GA and SC (though with some notable and obvious differences). Hopefully some clarification can be added to the rules.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Absolutely.

For some additional thoughts -

You've said several times that you consider the last line to be the operative and that's what you think is weak and violates 3b.

Proposals must contain an operative clause that states what the proposal is actually doing - e.g. Hereby Condemns Sedgistan. Declarations are an expression of opinion, often presented in the form of guidelines the SC would like nations/regions to follow. A Declaration must express an opinion of some sort.

...

The action that a resolution does (Condemning, Commending, Liberating, Injuncting or Repealing) does not have to be attributed to any body - however, if it is, it must be attributed to an appropriate authority - ie. the World Assembly or The Security Council.

This gets a little fuzzy for Declarations, since the operative is not a strict commend, condemn, lib, injunct. The Operative is not required to be the last line. It doesn't say that a declaration must "declare," though this one chooses to do so. I think you could choose to read the penultimate line "Imploring that this illustrious body continues to condemn nations for employing the practice of slavery" as an operative line if you wanted to.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2
Along these lines, The Three Walled Bar declaration doesn't have a single operative clause at all at the end, but rather a series of bullets that includes three different Hereby Expresses.

What prevents this one from also judging "Imploring?"

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

Statement on conflict also has a multiple-operative declaration, where one line is:

In addition, the World Assembly in the strongest possible terms censures all attacks on civilian life and property by all forces in the war.

This is essentially creating the same structure here: it's censuring civilian damage as part of saying the SC should condemn a conflict. It also says the SC's stance is

All parties currently involved in said conflict are strongly urged to hold diplomatic negotiations so as to halt any related conflicts and prevent armed conflict relating to this matter from resuming.

and

Concerned parties can also assist in mitigating the war by rendering humanitarian or military self-defense aid to nations subject to invasion

as part of the operative. If part of the operative being GA business makes a Declaration Illegal, is this also illegal?

---

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

The Security Council (hereafter, “we” or "our") hereby declares and urges all member nations (hereafter "members", "nations" or "you") to bring joy to themselves and in turn to their citizens during Christmas:

Is an operative clause that encourages the celebration of a holiday by member nations not perhaps more overlapping GA business than this Slavery is?

---

The operative clause of the exnations card declaration https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2 is also another multi-parter, that if read textually and without the context of the rest of the resolution as you are arguing should be done with Slavery (i.e. ignoring the clear context about imploring condemnations), only operatively discusses the preservation of artwork, which could be construed as a GA topic. Of course, this is the IC cutout being used to discuss Cards, but that's where I say, of course Slavery is saying it support condemns. You *could* write a GA proposal about the preservation of artwork, so-

---

HEREBY declares the potato the official food of the World Assembly.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

Need I say more? This is clearly some sort of agriculture promotion or regulation, if we just look at the operative clause. GA business, illegal.

---

I can keep going.

---

That, in a nutshell, is why I think this enforcement is unique and out of pattern with the history of declarations - why I think this is a nitpicked illegality that is unfair and out of line, out of family with the entire history of declaration in the SC. In past cases, when the option exists to read a proposal in it's full context of promoting SC actions (i.e. Condemning slavers), or when proposals are solidly in the grey area, they have been legal and passed. What makes this case different? Why do you insist we must ignore the "Imploring" line's existence when judging the scope, when a large number of prior declarations have multiple-part operatives?

[Nova Vinelandia]

The proposal in question to me seems primarily about the SC condemning slaver nations... I'm a little unclear how that's GA business.

Declarations exist to declare an opinion on affairs within the NationStates multiverse;

Applauding this august body for previously condemning nations practicing slavery such as in SCR#20, SCR#61, and SCR#104,

Imploring that this illustrious body continues to condemn nations for employing the practice of slavery,

The key clauses near the end focus on celebrating prior condemnations of slaver nations and declaring that they should continue. It would not be within the GAs purview to say that the SC should issue Condemnations of slavers, and it would seem to me that the proposal is mainly expressing an opinion on affairs of the SC. The proposal does not try to ban slavery in WA nations (that would be GA scope for sure), it tries to take the stance that the SC should condemn unrepentant slavers. Which fundamentally is not something the GA can do.

Over-policing that line would, I think, severely limit the scope of declarations by nitpicking into illegality most anything that's not purely meta-with-set-dressing (i.e. backpats over the existence of IRL holidays and April fools games and the three walled bar).

Just chiming in here to second Souls on this matter. The scope of On Slavery is to encourage condemnations of nations practicing slavery. Condemnations, are the SC's business. Nations have been condemned for this before, as cited by the proposals in the resolution text. With regards to how 3b is written, especially in the expanded details:

Declarations exist to declare an opinion on affairs within the NationStates [...] If you're looking to do something else with a proposal, you shouldn't be.

This proposal isn't looking to do anything other then declare an opinion. My interpretation of this is that, as long as the SC Declaration does not try to impose any legislation, the declaration can declare anything it wants. This would be consistent with opinions I was given during On The Supremacy of the Potato, wherein I believed that resolution was also a 3b overreach, but was told it was actually completely fine, for this reason. If it is genuinely the opinion of moderation that declarations cannot express an opinion on anything that can be legislated through the GA, and that is how 3b is supposed to be read, it's not clear at all, and in my opinion, 3b needs a rewrite for clarity on this matter.

[Bisofeyr]

-snip-

I would agree that the operative is not required to be the last line: I have an active draft which has its first line as its operative clause. The issue with the concerned proposal (and I think we can agree that this specific proposal is not the primary issue at hand, but rather the platform on which we are discussing the interpretation/enforcement of the rule as a whole) is that the "imploring" clause is inherently a participial phrase, and as such ought not be considered an operative clause.

To address your examples:

1. The 3WB Declaration does not treat any participial phrases as an operative clause: one would not assert that either of the "Noting" clauses are the action which the WA is doing. It is clear what the operative clauses are, here.
2. The Varathron Declaration once again does not rely on a participial phrase being considered operative. The operative clause is "Declares", and then notes several thing within that declaration.
3. The Christmas Declaration admittedly could be comparable (not in the area of operative clause, but in the area of subject matter) but would be distinct enough from a specific policy area so as not to run afoul. Slavery is inherently a policy area that would be traditionally ruled on by the GA, Christmas joy is not (though if I were the Supreme Overlord I would label it as a fourth-wall break running afoul of Rule 2, and the question of a 3b violation would be valid and warrant further consideration, but it would not be as clear-cut as this one. Alas, I am not the Supreme Overlord).
4. For the ex-nation card Declaration, the same argument applies as the first two examples given. Those are both clearly part of the operative clause. A comparable argument to the concerned resolution is if you were to claim that the "Awed" clause is the opinion being taken by the SC: that part of the operative is exhibiting awe at how vast collections are. I see this as a statement supporting the "Declares", "Encourages", and "[D]iscourages" clauses, which are clearly labelled as operative.
5. The potato Declaration is once again ambiguous, but addresses an argument other than what the operative clause is. I think this is once again more abstract than the slavery policy area, as this clearly states an opinion more nuanced than "We stand against slavery". I think this is a fair precedent/comparison to utilize in the assessment of the line drawn as to what is and is not "material for the GA", but doesn't change the fact that I don't see the "Imploring" clause of this proposal as non-operative.

In short, I think there is a fundamental grammatical difference between the precedents regarding operative clauses you've shown and the proposal in question. There is some interesting material for the extent to which 3b ought to be enforced, but I am unconvinced that the "Imploring" clause ought to be utilized in the assessment of whether or not the concerned proposal runs afoul of 3b; I am convinced that the sole operative clause of this declaration is "Hereby declares the Security Council’s position against slavery. [sic]", and the line we should be determining is whether or not such a statement is or is not legal.

This proposal isn't looking to do anything other then declare an opinion. My interpretation of this is that, as long as the SC Declaration does not try to impose any legislation, the declaration can declare anything it wants. This would be consistent with opinions I was given during On The Supremacy of the Potato, wherein I believed that resolution was also a 3b overreach, but was told it was actually completely fine, for this reason. If it is genuinely the opinion of moderation that declarations cannot express an opinion on anything that can be legislated through the GA, and that is how 3b is supposed to be read, it's not clear at all, and in my opinion, 3b needs a rewrite for clarity on this matter.

I believe the intention (and my desired enforcement) of 3b is that Declarations cannot be used to give broad statements in support or against specific policy areas that the GA would legislate on, which is all the concerned proposal does. I think something such as "The Security Council hereby recommends the General Assembly outlaw slavery" would be similarly illegal, in my view, as it's a broad statement. I explain above why I don't think that given the grammatical structure of the proposal lends itself to the "imploring" clause actually creating an opinion as to the SC's condemnation of slavers, but if such a clause was operative (which I, once again, maintain that it is not), that would likely not run afoul of 3b.