[CHALLENGE] Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"

[Bananaistan]

Ongoing discussions in public challenge thread.

To keep the form correct, I vote we hear the challenge.

Edit again: Voting ends in 3 days, 6 hours so haste is important here.

[Bears Armed]

Ongoing discussions in public challenge thread.

To keep the form correct, I vote we hear the challenge.

Seconded.

[Grays Harbor]

Agreed. Hear the challenge.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In hearing it then, Banana summed up my thinking on the "freely" Honest Mistake question here quite well.

There is something to the "ban" question, though. Is it useful to describe "You may under no circumstances do X unless you jump through hoops P, Q, and R" as a "ban" on X? As Banana also said, this semantic issue is bound to get awfully pedantic. The real question is can we take it that barring the casual or unreviewed act of X as a ban on X, such that claiming there is no ban is unreasonable despite the target giving conditions under which X may take place?

In a vacuum, academically, I don't mind this kind of wankery, but when it has consequences I despise it.

[Sciongrad]

I think it's an honest mistake violation on point 1 and 2, unsure about 3, but if there's sufficient agreement that it's illegal for either of the first two points, I don't think we need to address the more complicated question presented in 3.

[Bananaistan]

Atm I'm definite legal on 2.

Re: 1. I'm leaning legal but could yet be persuaded otherwise. I think it's an how long is a piece of string type question but I'm conscious that just because I don't want us to weigh up the question of whether a ban can be partial or complete or only complete isn't sufficient reason for us not to do so.

I'm also leaning legal on 3 but could also be persuaded otherwise.

Would there a consistency to "linking" 2 and 3? IE if you think it's a nonsense that WACC can freely create regulations without consultation ... then it's also a nonsense that this false notion could be a precedent to be feared?

[Bears Armed]

Would there a consistency to "linking" 2 and 3? IE if you think it's a nonsense that WACC can freely create regulations without consultation ... then it's also a nonsense that this false notion could be a precedent to be feared?

Yes.

[Separatist Peoples]

Honest Mistake on 2 and 3 for sure.

By a quick count, thats a majority that 2 is illegal and a smattering of opinions on 1 and 3.

To that effect, I suggest that the body of the ruling be on #2 and people can dissent or concur on 1 and 3 as they see fit to avoid confusion on what is plurality opinion and what is majority opinion in the future.

[Bananaistan]

Ftr, I'm legal on all counts.

On the "ban" issue, I can see both POVs and would say let the voters decide were it otherwise illegal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I hate this practice of arbitrary application of numbers to statements not numbered by the author, but that is neither here nor there.

As for "ban," I would say morphine is banned in the United States (even though hospitals can use it or variants of it, by jumping through certain hoops). Honest Mistake, illegal.

As for "freely," I would say the target's wording is open-ended enough to permit that interpretation. Legal.

As for "legislation," I would say that it's entirely plausible that a WA committee might indeed create regulations beyond the scope of what WA ambassadors imagined it might, especially if given open-ended wording of the type alleged here. Legal.

[Separatist Peoples]

...if we keep this up, this is going to be another round of pluralities. That isn't going to work.

The Freely clause cannot be legal. That just isn't how administrative power works.

[Bananaistan]

I hate this practice of arbitrary application of numbers to statements not numbered by the author, but that is neither here nor there.

The first point that the challenger made is somewhat clunky compared to 1.

...if we keep this up, this is going to be another round of pluralities. That isn't going to work.

The Freely clause cannot be legal. That just isn't how administrative power works.

It would be a dull world if we all agreed on everything all the time.

In any case, we could do with formal votes by BA, GH and Scion sooner rather than later. There's less than 19 hours to go.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...if we keep this up, this is going to be another round of pluralities. That isn't going to work.

The Freely clause cannot be legal. That just isn't how administrative power works.

If it were simple enforcement, I would agree with this. But the target says, "The WACC may make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution." This is explicitly an interpretive power, which as far as I'm aware goes beyond the usual scope of WA committee actions, and which lends itself to the gradual expansion of executive (committee) power contemplated by the repeal text.

[Sciongrad]

Illegal on counts 1 and 2. Still unsure on 3.

[Bananaistan]

So atm:

Ban: one legal (Banana), two illegal (SL & Scion)
Freely: two legal (SL & Banana), two illegal (Sep & Scion)
Legislation: two legal (SL & Banana), one illegal (Sep)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

So atm:

Ban: one legal (Banana), two illegal (SL & Scion)
Freely: two legal (SL & Banana), two illegal (Sep & Scion)
Legislation: two legal (SL & Banana), one illegal (Sep)

Here, just put your opinions in the linked sheet, and if any number at the end gets to 4 or higher, we yank the repeal.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... p=drivesdk

[Separatist Peoples]

No edits allowed? I'm saying illegal all around.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

No edits allowed? I'm saying illegal all around.

Fixed.

[Sciongrad]

FWIW, Bears has not formally said anything here, but he did note in the challenge thread that he buys the "freely" argument.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

FWIW, Bears has not formally said anything here, but he did note in the challenge thread that he buys the "freely" argument.

Given this later post, I'm inclined to await a more formal answer.

[Ransium]

Does this need to be mod withdrawn?

[Grays Harbor]

Ban: illegal
Freely: illegal
Legislation: legal


(Sorry. Thought I had posted earlier. Apparently I was mistaken. Oops)

[Bananaistan]

That's 4 illegal then. I'll post accordingly.

Does this need to be mod withdrawn?

Yes.

Edit: Initial notification of our decision in the public challenge thread and same in the proposal's debate thread.

[Bears Armed]

FWIW, Bears has not formally said anything here, but he did note in the challenge thread that he buys the "freely" argument.

Given this later post, I'm inclined to await a more formal answer.

Definitely illegal on the "Freely" clause. I'll go back and look at the others.

[Bananaistan]

Given the fairly detailed public debate we should be able to get the opinions out on this fairly quickly. Any takers?

I should also update the ruling post with the vote totals but that could wait for a day or two. We've all voted on point 2, waiting on BA for point 1, and BA and Scion on point 3.