[On Hold] Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly

[Fachumonn]

1. Link to original resolution on NS: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2
2. On Forums: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7503&start=350#p39211450
3. Original Proposal Thread + Feedback: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=507060&p=38789356&hilit=Recognition+of+the+General+Assembly#p38789356
4. Previous Repeal Attempt + Feedback: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=507632&p=38828326&hilit=Recognition+of+the+General+Assembly#p38828326
5. Post (Context): viewtopic.php?p=39648605#p39648605

Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly

Category: Repeal | Nominee: SC#359 | Author: Fachumonn

The World Assembly Security Council,

Perceiving that SC#359 had noble intentions in conferring official recognition to the WA General Assembly, as originally the SC was created to preserve the community of the GA,

Questioning the purpose for this resolution, as GA resolutions have already been mentioned in numerous commends and condemnations, including SC#394 and SC#319,

Noting that some GA ambassadors have been downright hostile to the Security Council chamber since its inception, and recognizing them and the GA itself will only bring more pain to this very council,

Realizing that this resolution really missed its mark, as it was supposed to recognize the General Assembly, but it tells us very little about the General Assembly in doing so,

Recognizing that there are multiple flaws within clause 5 of the resolution, such as:

• "Full Consequences" is vague, as it does not tell us anything about what those consequences are or how they will be given out, and does not realize that compliance matters should be for the Compliance Commission, not an SC declaration,
  
• Clause 5 could be used to argue against commending or condemning a perfectly deserving nation, just due to their "non-compliance" within the GA,

Resolving that the resolution [resolution=SC#359]”Recognition of the General Assembly”[/resolution] shall no longer stand among others inside this august body due to its flaws, so;

Hereby repeals “Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly”.

[Fachumonn]

[This is a reserved post]


Respiratory for old drafts and contributions.

Contributions:
Thanks to Fhaengshia, Honeydewistania, Maowi, Comfed, Zuckchiva, Refuge Isle, Giovanniland, Unibot III, Morover,
RiderSyl, Tinhampton, The North Polish Union, Bhang Bhang Duc and more!

Drafts:

The World Assembly Security Council,

Perceiving that that SC#359 had noble intentions in conferring official recognition to the WA General Assembly,

Noting that some GA ambassadors have been downright hostile to the Security Council chamber since its inception, and recognizing them and the GA itself will only bring more pain to this very council,

Noticing that all the second clause of the resolution does is just repeat the General Assembly's mission statement, giving nothing that nations cannot already find out themselves,

Believing that this resolution really missed its mark, and instead could have been a detailed historical record of the General Assembly, but instead is nothing of the such,

Questioning the purpose for this resolution, as GA resolutions have already been mentioned in numerous commends and condemnations, and already recognizing the General Assembly as a body through these resolutions, which nullify the point of the resolution,

Resolving that the resolution [resolution=SC#359]”Recognition of the General Assembly”[/resolution] shall no longer stand among others inside this august body due to its flaws, so;

Hereby repeals “Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly”.

The World Assembly Security Council,

Believing in the noble intentions of this resolution in explicitly recognizing the General Assembly through the lens of this council,

However reasoning there are many fatal flaws within this resolution that make it nonviable, including the recommendations that it gives to this council, many of which can easily be found to have loopholes within them, such as:

1. The 2nd clause of the resolution, which is impractical to the purpose of the resolution, as all it does is just repeat the General Assembly's mission statement, giving nothing that nations cannot already find out themselves,
   
2. Clause 3 where the writing regrettably reveals a flaw, and that being that it doesn’t take into account the fact that it is a painfully hard task to keep each chamber at exactly the same writing standard and desirability despite doing completely different things, and doesn’t think about how that might badly affect each chamber's jobs and actions, especially when it overlooks how each chamber’s legislature is passed and drafted,
3. The burdensome claim that the usage of influence for each chamber is similar, which is completely and utterly negligent of the fact that each chamber's influence and politics are separate and distinct,

Noting that GA ambassadors have been downright hostile to the Security Council chamber since these two chambers have split apart, and recognizing them and the GA itself will only bring more pain to this very council, as well as understanding that a repeal would be fitting, due to their failure to recognize this very council,

Resolving that the resolution [resolution=SC#359]”Recognition of the General Assembly”[/resolution] shall no longer stand among others inside this august body due to its flaws, so;

Hereby Repeals SC#359 “Recognition of the General Assembly”.

The World Assembly Security Council,

Believing in the noble intentions of this resolution in explicitly recognizing the General Assembly through the lens of this council,

However reasoning there are many fatal flaws within this resolution that make it nonviable, including the recommendations that it gives to this council, many of which can easily be found to have loopholes within them, such as:

1. The 2nd clause of the resolution, which is impractical to the purpose of the resolution, as all it does is just repeat the General Assembly's mission statement, giving nothing that nations cannot already find out themselves,
2. Clause 3 where the writing regrettably reveals numerous flaws, mainly:
   
   1. It doesn’t take into account the fact that it is a painfully hard task to keep each chamber at exactly the same writing standard and desirability despite doing completely different things, and doesn’t think about how that might badly affect each chamber's jobs and actions, especially when it disregards how each chamber’s legislature is passed and drafted,
   2. Knowing that the language in clause 3 fabricates that both of the chambers are among a single entity, the World Assembly, which rationally cannot be true as clause 1 seeks the 2 councils to be adjacent,
3. The burdensome claim that the usage of influence for each chamber is the same, which is completely and utterly negligent of the fact that each chamber's influence and politics are separate and distinct,

Noting that GA ambassadors have been downright hostile to the Security Council chamber since these two chambers have split apart, and recognizing them and the GA itself will only bring more pain to this very council,

Resolving that the resolution [resolution=SC#359]”Recognition of the General Assembly”[/resolution] shall no longer stand among others inside this august body due to its unreasonable clauses and fatal flaws, so;

Hereby Repeals SC#359 “Recognition of the General Assembly”.

The World Assembly Security Council,

Believing in the intentions of this resolution to try to make both councils equitable and equal,

However thinking there are many fatal flaws within this resolution that make it almost completely useless,

1. The recommendations that it gives to the SC, many of which can easily be found to have loopholes within them:
   
   • Seeing many problems within clause 3 of the resolution, where the intentions have many poor side effects such as:
     
     1. It doesn’t take into account the fact that it is a painfully hard task to keep each chamber at exactly the same influence, and doesn’t think about how that might badly affect each chamber's jobs and actions, especially when it disregards how each chamber’s influence is dispersed,
     2. Knowing that each chamber’s field of power is different, one affecting how international issues and their effects will be resolved, and the other affecting and protecting many regions as well as handing out honors, and believing that comparing these two is subjective, and the SC should not have an official stance on that,
   • Recognizing the main problem in clause 5 is that the resolution does not elucidate what consequences shall be made for disavowment in either chamber and suggests that there will be consequences without letting the SC decide by themselves if there should be,
2. Noting that the General Assembly is obligated not to mention the Security Council, essentially making this resolution useless as there can be no communication between ambassadors who focus on the GA and ambassadors who focus on the SC,

While it may have good intentions, [resolution=SC#359]”Recognition of the General Assembly”[/resolution] has many fatal flaws that make the entire resolution essentially useless,

Feeling that such a resolution shall no longer be able to stand among others inside this august body, so;

Hereby Repeals SC#359 “Recognition of the General Assembly”.

Manual Campaign.
735 delivered.
30 no such nation.
265 blocked by category.
12 class members.
Blocked Total: 289
Total Sent: 1042.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Ambassador, my only complaint is your argument against clause 5 of the target. From what I know so far, it is not typical for a declaration or any other SC resolution to specify and enforce consequences, so this argument seems to be invalid. Rather, the GA sets more guidelines than the SC, since the SC’s primary role is to condemn/commend regions of nations and declare viewpoints on certain subjects. The GA is more so responsible for presenting solutions and guidance regarding multiversal issues.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Fachumonn]

“From what I know so far, it is not typical for a declaration or any other SC resolution to specify and enforce consequences, so this argument seems to be invalid.

"There is no reason a declaration cannot specify what consequences shall be made. I never ever implied in this proposal that it was enforcing anything. Rather, merely suggesting it, as declarations are supposed to do. This is invalid."

"Rather, the GA sets more guidelines than the SC, since the SC’s primary role is to condemn/commend regions of nations and declare viewpoints on certain subjects."

"I, again, do not get this viewpoint. The GA cannot mention the SC. The main point of declarations IS to set guidelines. Also, the main point of the SC and GA does not matter to this proposal. Invalid."

"The GA is more so responsible for presenting solutions and guidance regarding multiversal issues.”

"Why would I care what the GA is more responsible for? And why does that matter to this repeal proposal? I'm sorry, your arguments make no sense, and even if they did, the GA can't do this, so I don't know what you're trying to imply here. Invalid."

OOC: You also completely disregard the second half of the clause.

[Refuge Isle]

Against, as there's relatively no argument being made.

The declaration essentially recognises the chambers to be co-equal in power and influence, but exercised in different capacities. It is reasonable enough to interpret, for example, a liberation to remove a region's password as a powerful and influential move that will generate fourteen pages of angry complaints. Just as any Cretox resolution which destroys everyone's income equality stat may do the same.

The verbiage in 2 is not a statement of fact. Ambassadors cannot, themselves, exist in a GA proposal due to branding and so are only in the GA's drafting/RP threads. There is nothing then that stops them from appearing here in IC, as some have, just as there's nothing that stops you from doing your IC posting here and then moving over to their board to do the same.

If you insist on having third level bullet points, at least consider a 1 a(i) format. At the moment, you have a 1 Seeing(i) format.

[Fachumonn]

Against, as there's relatively no argument being made.

There definitely is an argument being made. I could add my clause 4 back to make it more of an argument, but it was relatively weak so I dropped it. (A pre-post draft had it)

The declaration essentially recognises the chambers to be co-equal in power and influence, but exercised in different capacities. It is reasonable enough to interpret, for example, a liberation to remove a region's password as a powerful and influential move that will generate fourteen pages of angry complaints. Just as any Cretox resolution which destroys everyone's income equality stat may do the same.

That's not the point. Judging them is subjective, and the SC should not have a stance on it, no matter what it is.

The verbiage in 2 is not a statement of fact. Ambassadors cannot, themselves, exist in a GA proposal due to branding and so are only in the GA's drafting/RP threads. There is nothing then that stops them from appearing here in IC, as some have, just as there's nothing that stops you from doing your IC posting here and then moving over to their board to do the same.

Ok, I'll fix the GA ambassador thing.
Consider it done.

If you insist on having third level bullet points, at least consider a 1 a(i) format. At the moment, you have a 1 Seeing(i) format.

No reason to. I like this format. (May change in the future if people really want to be like that)

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Poorly written, the format is horrible and it really doesn’t make a decent argument for repeal. While I’m not a fan of the Declaration, I’m even less of a fan of this draft,

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“From what I know so far, it is not typical for a declaration or any other SC resolution to specify and enforce consequences, so this argument seems to be invalid.

"There is no reason a declaration cannot specify what consequences shall be made. I never ever implied in this proposal that it was enforcing anything. Rather, merely suggesting it, as declarations are supposed to do. This is invalid."

"Rather, the GA sets more guidelines than the SC, since the SC’s primary role is to condemn/commend regions of nations and declare viewpoints on certain subjects."

"I, again, do not get this viewpoint. The GA cannot mention the SC. The main point of declarations IS to set guidelines. Also, the main point of the SC and GA does not matter to this proposal. Invalid."

"The GA is more so responsible for presenting solutions and guidance regarding multiversal issues.”

"Why would I care what the GA is more responsible for? And why does that matter to this repeal proposal? I'm sorry, your arguments make no sense, and even if they did, the GA can't do this, so I don't know what you're trying to imply here. Invalid."

OOC: You also completely disregard the second half of the clause.

“To clarify things, I had to mention the roles of the SC and GA to further justify why you should not argue against the target using the reason of lacking a list of consequences. But thank you for clarifying that you were only suggesting it. Also, I cannot help but notice the irony you created by turning the whole invalid word against me . Overall, that was my only complaint, and seeing as that complaint has been clarified, I guess the Clevesian people can support this repeal until further notice.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Fachumonn]

Poorly written, the format is horrible and it really doesn’t make a decent argument for repeal. While I’m not a fan of the Declaration, I’m even less of a fan of this draft,

Care to explain anything? I will change the format because you and Luca are pedantic. It has no value to the content of the argument.
How is this a bad draft? The arguments are perfectly fine IMO.

"I guess the Clevesian people can support this repeal until further notice.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"Thank you."

[Zukchiva]

As of now I am against. You need to find some better arguments, in my opinion. The ones you present are coming from a wrong angle or don't really make sense. I do appreciate the attempt, though!
***********

You arguments against clause 3 are difficult to judge because you're coming from the viewpoint that the Security Council is ordering both chambers to be treated equally, when in reality the Security Council is saying that as a fact, both chambers are equal in influence. Similar to how we can say water exists. So I'd recommend trying to approach clause 3 from a different perspective whilst keeping that in mind.

[*]...suggests that there will be consequences without letting the SC decide by themselves if there should be, [/list]

I'm also not sure what you mean here - the Security Council has already decided there will be consequences because it passed the resolution saying so.

I think the only argument that can be made against Clause 5 is that it doesn't exactly list what consequences exist and how they shall be wrought.

[*]Noting that the General Assembly is obligated not to mention the Security Council, making this resolution illogical as there can be no communication between the chamber of the GA and the chamber of the SC through formal legislation, [/list]

While this is a good point, you fail to recognize there may be other uses for recognizing the GA. Primarily that it simply makes sense for the Security Council to pass a precedent-setting declaration to officially recognize its sister chamber that it spends so much time dealing with. Thereby, this resolution isn't really illogical but common sense.

[The Orwell Society]

Support, but I do agree that your argument should be worked on a bit more.

[Fachumonn]

You arguments against clause 3 are difficult to judge because you're coming from the viewpoint that the Security Council is ordering both chambers to be treated equally, when in reality the Security Council is saying that as a fact, both chambers are equal in influence. Similar to how we can say water exists. So I'd recommend trying to approach clause 3 from a different perspective whilst keeping that in mind.

Sure, I will change that soon!

[*]...suggests that there will be consequences without letting the SC decide by themselves if there should be, [/list]

I'm also not sure what you mean here - the Security Council has already decided there will be consequences because it passed the resolution saying so.
I think the only argument that can be made against Clause 5 is that it doesn't exactly list what consequences exist and how they shall be wrought.

It's saying that it did not let the SC decide by themselves the consequences of their actions. I can reword that if you want.
That's what I said in the first part of the clause, didn't I? This part is just a continuation I added.

[*]Noting that the General Assembly is obligated not to mention the Security Council, making this resolution illogical as there can be no communication between the chamber of the GA and the chamber of the SC through formal legislation, [/list]

While this is a good point, you fail to recognize there may be other uses for recognizing the GA. Primarily that it simply makes sense for the Security Council to pass a precedent-setting declaration to officially recognize its sister chamber that it spends so much time dealing with. Thereby, this resolution isn't really illogical but common sense.

So I'll remove the illogical part?
Consider it done.

[Fachumonn]

Support, but I do agree that your argument should be worked on a bit more.

It will be.

This will be used as an update post too - once I edit it.

-Removed illogical wording in 2.
-Changed 1b wording to get more to the point about what is bad about it.
-Updated 2. ii. to better fit what the resolution states. (major change)

[Comfed]

Your arguments are nonsensical. Just because the SC and the GA are declared to be equal in status does not mean that the resolution has to ignore differences in their functions.

[Fachumonn]

Just because the SC and the GA are declared to be equal in status does not mean that the resolution has to ignore differences in their functions.

That's not what the resolution does, it never mentions their functions.

[Comfed]

Just because the SC and the GA are declared to be equal in status does not mean that the resolution has to ignore differences in their functions.

That's not what the resolution does, it never mentions their functions.

Actually, yes it does.

ii. The General Assembly is responsible for the passage of international legislation affecting all members of the World Assembly, to be voted on and debated by these members in its entirety;
iii. As an entity, the General Assembly and the Security Council remain equal in their overall power and influence, regardless of the way that this influence is disbursed or otherwise utilized;

(emphasis mine)

[Fachumonn]

That's not what the resolution does, it never mentions their functions.

Actually, yes it does.

ii. The General Assembly is responsible for the passage of international legislation affecting all members of the World Assembly, to be voted on and debated by these members in its entirety;
iii. As an entity, the General Assembly and the Security Council remain equal in their overall power and influence, regardless of the way that this influence is disbursed or otherwise utilized;

(emphasis mine)

Ok, yeah I finally get your point after re-reading it about 10 times lol!

So, this may not make sense, since the text of my repeal is probably different, but in my head, the problem with it is that it declares that their influence is the same, despite them doing completely different things, and saying that they have equal influence despite doing different things in the SC is subjective and probably should not be in a resolution.

I will reword this to make my thoughts clearer.

[Fachumonn]

-It should be much clearer now as I finally understand Luca, Zuk, Comfed, and BBD's points.

Any thoughts?

[Fhaengshia]

Wow the target is almost a year old, anyway here's some feedback

Believing in the intentions of this resolution to try to make both councils equitable and equal,

I don't believe this is the goal of SC359, It's titled "Recognition..." not "Equality..." or something similar, and merely recognises the shared history of the two chambers. Clause iii isn't the best but I think it's a stretch to say that it extends to trying to "make both councils ... equal" as you argue.

However thinking there are many fatal flaws within this resolution that make it almost completely impractical, that begin piling up as it goes along, including:

This is a bit over the top, clauses iii and v definitely have flaws in my opinion, you could convince me they are "fatal", but not completely impractical, and two flaws hardly make a pile.

The recommendations that it gives to the SC, many of which can easily be found to have loopholes within them:

This could easily be moved into the previous line which would make this a whole lot neater and strengthen your arguments.

Seeing many problems within clause 3 of the resolution, where the intentions have many poor side effects such as:

1. It doesn’t take into account the fact that it is a painfully hard task to keep each chamber at exactly the same influence despite doing completely different things, and doesn’t think about how that might badly affect each chamber's jobs and actions, especially when it disregards how each chamber’s influence is dispersed,
2. Knowing that each chamber’s field of power is different, one affecting how international issues and their effects will be resolved, and the other affecting and protecting many regions as well as handing out honors, and that stating these two have the same influence despite being very contrasting is subjective, and the SC should not have an official stance on that,

For i, 359 doesn't try to maintain influence levels between the chambers, I see influence in the resolution as a metaphor for how desirable it is to affect/author/etc resolutions within each chamber. iii could certainly be written clearer and more powerfully to reflect this, your angle misses mark for me.

For ii, I think a better angle would be writing about how the different chambers behave (through drafting threads and power-blocs, etc), the SC is a lot more political and gameplay alignment is almost an inescapable aspect. Also how the GA is structured in a way to make any reciprocation impossible, and how that the SC may likewise not be suited for such an overture.

Recognizing the main problem in clause 5 is that the resolution does not elucidate what consequences shall be made for disavowment in either chamber and believing this is a major flaw that simply cannot be ignored,

Obviously declarations cannot legislate so any consequences written within would be pointless, there are better points to argue against this clause, non-compliance of GA proposals comes to mind.

Noting that the General Assembly is obligated not to mention the Security Council, as there can be no communication between the chamber of the GA and the chamber of the SC through formal legislation,

This should be folded into arguing the differences of the chambers and how the target misses them completely.


As you haven't kept a record of your earlier drafts I can't really comment on how this draft compares, though given some of the comments maybe I at least avoided the worst of it A repeal is possible but this has a long way to go.

[Fachumonn]

If I got this right, you think Influence is like a "writing standard".

Anyways, If I got that right then I have fixed everything except ii.

[Fachumonn]

So, I don't think I will change ii. the way you wanted to (Fhaengshia), because I already sort of did that with 2, however, I have changed the influence wording.

The draft is updated, and if anybody wants to see my old draft I'll post that too for contrast.
I'm sure there are some needed improvements still though.

[Giovanniland]

I support the idea of repealing SC#359, but this repeal needs work on the arguments.

I notably recall many GA authors being outright hostile to the SC's very existence since the separation, which is even seen on SC#359's drafting thread, so that could be the basis of an argument. So would be the non-compliance clause, which is really out of place, and only serves as a way for people to oppose resolutions arbitrarily in most cases (excluding GA-related nominees, of course).

[Fachumonn]

I support the idea of repealing SC#359, but this repeal needs work on the arguments.

I notably recall many GA authors being outright hostile to the SC's very existence since the separation, which is even seen on SC#359's drafting thread, so that could be the basis of an argument. So would be the non-compliance clause, which is really out of place, and only serves as a way for people to oppose resolutions arbitrarily in most cases.

I have a non-compliance argument.

Yes, I'm working on it.

Will be updated soon.

[Comfed]

I am opposed on principle to a repeal of the target, btw

[Fachumonn]

I am opposed on principle to a repeal of the target, btw

Cool. I'm still rewriting it and don't think it's ready to post yet.