[Challenge] Repeal "Pesticide Regulations"

[Sciongrad]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=410614

Illegal, I think. Reasonable nations would not behave in the way the repeal suggests, which IA knows. He's arguing that his claim is not that the WA believes those things, but that it believes Ara said them. That's not totally accurate because the verb "agreeing" suggests that the WA does, in fact, believe those things. The verb use here is dispositive.

Other opinions?

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think this requires a ruling to be removed. I don't believe that a player should be identified in a resolution text as Ara was and have their opinions, which were expressed outside the proposal itself, mischaractarized. Resolutions are immortalized once passed, and that alone is enough reason to prevent memorializing slung mud. I don't have a GA rule it breaks, so I think a mod should come in and remove it as Trolling.

The way I see it, it isn't actionable as a post, but in something like a proposal, much like a signature, there isn't any way to respond to it.

[Sciongrad]

I don't think this requires a ruling to be removed. I don't believe that a player should be identified in a resolution text as Ara was and have their opinions, which were expressed outside the proposal itself, mischaractarized. Resolutions are immortalized once passed, and that alone is enough reason to prevent memorializing slung mud. I don't have a GA rule it breaks, so I think a mod should come in and remove it as Trolling.

The way I see it, it isn't actionable as a post, but in something like a proposal, much like a signature, there isn't any way to respond to it.

I don't think that's fair, seeing as other resolution cite authors. I think the least controversial way to adjudicate this is by the honest mistake rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think this requires a ruling to be removed. I don't believe that a player should be identified in a resolution text as Ara was and have their opinions, which were expressed outside the proposal itself, mischaractarized. Resolutions are immortalized once passed, and that alone is enough reason to prevent memorializing slung mud. I don't have a GA rule it breaks, so I think a mod should come in and remove it as Trolling.

The way I see it, it isn't actionable as a post, but in something like a proposal, much like a signature, there isn't any way to respond to it.

I don't think that's fair, seeing as other resolution cite authors. I think the least controversial way to adjudicate this is by the honest mistake rule.

They citethe authors intent in the resolution, not their expressed opinions from the thread. IA is memorializing slung mud, and the degree of attention that gets should be higher when it can't be responded to like it can on the forum.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If it's illegitimate to put claims about players in proposals, we need to 1) agree to that right now; 2) argue the case for making that change (for change it be) to the community in the same fashion and with the same moral clarity as the mods did with the updated personal information rule following the DLN/Sextgate/Reppy's Facebook situation. I'm not for a minute suggesting IA's claims about other players are on par with outing someone's real life personal information, but the parallel is there in that we are responding in time-sensitive manner to a problem that nobody figured would exist (or at least that nobody imagined it would manifest the way it did), that requires a change in the actual rules or their wording.

---

Regardless of that thornier question, the claims in the first section are a clear Honest Mistake violation. Rational nations simply do not always (or even mostly) act in their own rational interest, especially when it comes to the environment.

First, rational nations may rationally seek to maximize economic output, population growth, financial supremacy, technological superiority, or other strengths, all at the expense of the environment, and still be broadly speaking​ "rational."

Second, rational nations may have internal elements or strong sub-national departments, factions, anarchy (in the anarchist sense), chaos, or corruption that prevents them from carrying out rational acts without external stimulus (e.g. war, natural disasters, or WA mandate).

Third, even if the above conditions don't apply, a rational nation might find itself in a budget crunch and put off taking the (no longer required) measures "until next year" and whaddaya know, next year it's the same story. Wash, rinse, repeat. Yet they are quite diligent about meeting and enforcing all active WA mandates.

Therefore it is impossible for a resolution to be written as (or an author to stipulate that it is) an unnecessary law. The repeal violates the Honest Mistake rule, since no interpretation of the text could possibly hold the text itself to be unnecessary.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the repeal argues that there is in fact no need whatsoever for international law, full stop. After all, rational nations already do what is in their best interests, so assuming truly heinous acts like genocide and piracy would be met with massive retaliation, no nation will ever do those things and we no longer need the World Assembly. Even the most cranked-up national sovereigntists don't go that far (and if they do, well, the door's on the left - don't let it hit you on the way out).

I therefore find that this repeal not only violates the Honest Mistake rule, but also contradicts GA Resolution #1, and is illegal as submitted.

[Bears Armed]

Honest Mistake, agreed.

And I agree that putting claims about other players into proposals shouldn't be allowed, too.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It goes against basic decorum for resolutions (incl repeals) to talk about individual authors in the body of the text, and I can't really see any other reading of that first clause. The whole of the repeal seems to be based on accepting as a fact the alleged statements of a single player, and my gut is telling me that's just not how any of this works. Repeals are based on the text of the target resolution, not on what a co-author may or may not have said in debate threads. The target resolution doesn't say anything about "rational nations" taking precautions on their own.

The Honest Mistake rule is a bit of misnomer here, but it does say that "repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting." So, yeah, I agree with the others that this is an Honest Mistake violation.

As far as the "case" for not allowing this... The World Assembly is a global intergovernmental institution, not a debate club. The international laws promulgated by the World Assembly aren't the laws of individual nations or the representatives and lawyers they send to draft them. So when proposing a repeal, you're not proposing to repeal Ara's resolution. You're proposing to repeal one of the World Assembly's laws. It's basic decorum.

[Sciongrad]

I agree that this is an honest mistake violation, but IA also approached me to discuss the draft before he submitted it, so I'm going to recuse myself.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I agree that this is an honest mistake violation, but IA also approached me to discuss the draft before he submitted it, so I'm going to recuse myself.

He approached me also, but since I didn't actually read it prior to submission, I see no need to recuse.

[Wrapper]

Hey guys, I'm a bit behind the times here. Is discarding a proposal at vote part of your toolbox or do you need mod intervention? Voting ends in five hours.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

With Scion recusing, three is a majority. Please Discard the resolution at vote (as you correctly note, we do not have that power). I will post publicly, and if anyone has any additions to the draft I wrote above, I'll make the changes when I edit it into shape for publication.

[Wrapper]

I'll see if I can wake up a game mod in the lair.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'll see if I can wake up a game mod in the lair.

Seconds ago: The Blaatschapen set the floor vote in General Assembly as marked to be discarded at the end of the voting period.

[Sciongrad]

I'll see if I can wake up a game mod in the lair.

Seconds ago: The Blaatschapen set the floor vote in General Assembly as marked to be discarded at the end of the voting period.

You're a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks!

[The Blaatschapen]

Seconds ago: The Blaatschapen set the floor vote in General Assembly as marked to be discarded at the end of the voting period.

You're a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks!

I'm not a scholar

And you're welcome. Thank Wrapper the most, they alerted me.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

DRAFT OPINION

We are asked to determine the legality of the resolution at vote, "Repeal 'Pesticide Regulations.'" We do not rule at this time on the questionable practice of making claims about other WA players in the text of a repeal, to be permanently engraved in international law. Rather, on the narrow basis of a violation of existing rules, we find it illegal as submitted.

The claims in the first section are a clear Honest Mistake violation. Rational nations simply do not always (or even mostly) act in their own rational interest, especially when it comes to the environment.

First, rational nations may rationally seek to maximize economic output, population growth, financial supremacy, technological superiority, or other strengths, all at the expense of the environment, and still be broadly speaking​ "rational."

Second, rational nations may have internal elements or strong sub-national departments, factions, anarchy (in the anarchist sense), chaos, or corruption that prevents them from carrying out rational acts without external stimulus (e.g. war, natural disasters, or WA mandate).

Third, even if the above conditions don't apply, a rational nation might find itself in a budget crunch and put off taking the (no longer required) measures "until next year;" and by happenstance (whether accidental or deliberate), next year it's the same story. Wash, rinse, repeat, indefinitely putting off taking rational measures they know are necessary because their priorities dictate they must. Yet they may be quite diligent about meeting and enforcing all active WA mandates; thus rationality plus compliance would still not yield the repeal's asserted state of affairs.

Therefore it is impossible for a resolution to be written as (or an author to stipulate that it is) an unnecessary law. The repeal violates the Honest Mistake rule, since no interpretation of the text could possibly hold the text itself to be unnecessary.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the repeal argues that there is in fact no need whatsoever for international law, full stop. After all, rational nations already do what is in their best interests. So assuming truly heinous acts like genocide and piracy would be met with retaliation, no nation will ever do those things as their "interest" would lay in not doing them. In that state of affairs, every WA resolution is pointless; and therefore the very World Assembly is without purpose and should be abolished. We deny that line of thinking - the monstrous bastard child of the most demented National Sovereigntism given license to kill and entire bank vaults full of powerful drugs the complete denial of the WA game itself - entirely.

We therefore find that this repeal violates the Honest Mistake rule, and is illegal as submitted.

Repeal 'Pesticide Regulations'
Category: Repeal

---

The World Assembly,

Agreeing with the co-author of the original resolution, that rational nations take reasonable precautions, and therefore, without World Assembly mandate, will:

1. monitor pesticide use and environmental effects,
2. provide information and enforce regulations to prevent environmental contamination that could kill thousands of people if exposed to toxic levels,
3. establish effective product controls which provide enough information to pesticide buyers,
4. inform other nations of possible pesticide contamination of their territories, and
5. encourage the use of non-pesticide pest controls;

Perplexed that the co-author would support legislation which does nothing more than codify what nations have long already done, meaning it is not an international issue,

Pleased that the self-resolution of this issue means that there is no real need for this legislation to stay on the books and that any flaw is therefore justification for repeal, and

Concerned that the requirement in clause four to prevent pesticide runoff with such things as buffer zones, selective application, and avoidance of irrigation is fundamentally flawed, as:

1. sapient lives are better saved and protected through the eradication of disease-bearing pests which serve as a vector for person-to-person transmission,
2. eradication campaigns of insects will necessarily require large-scale and large-area administration of pesticides or run the risk of leaving a reservoir population,
3. making it harder for poor nations to cheaply pursue eradication campaigns is principally unjust, since the people affected on the cost margins are the most disadvantaged and those which the world community has the foremost obligation to protect, and
4. these restrictions greatly increases the difficulty of pest eradication, thereby preventing nations from reducing the incidence of pest-borne diseases like malaria, costing lives, implicitly killing people, and violating the principles upon which this Assembly was founded, while
5. it massively increases the chance of disease-bearing pests developing resistance to common pesticides, allowing surviving generations to adapt to exposure, making future eradication campaigns ever more difficult and costly, costing yet more lives; and

Believing that the multitude of different nations in the World Assembly means that the only fair way to balance between the lives saved from pesticide usage and its inherent chemical dangers is to allow nations to make that decision themselves, hereby

Repeals 376 GA Pesticide Regulations.

[Separatist Peoples]

Because my rationale isn't grounded in legality, but the OSRS rules, I'll sign on to that rather than make a stink.

[Bears Armed]

I'll sign on to that, but in my case please replace the "Taken to its logical conclusion" paragraph with

The argument that "Rational governments would be doing rational things anyway, so this is unnecessary", because it could potentially be used against so many resolutions, fails to be enough -- like NatSov-only repeal attempts -- under the rule that repeals must address the contents of the specific resolutions being targeted.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'll sign on to that, but in my case please replace the "Taken to its logical conclusion" paragraph with

The argument that "Rational governments would be doing rational things anyway, so this is unnecessary", because it could potentially be used against so many resolutions, fails to be enough -- like NatSov-only repeal attempts -- under the rule that repeals must address the contents of the specific resolutions being targeted.

But it does address the target resolution in the last section, I think. That's explicitly why I didn't make the analogy to a natsov-only repeal - because it does actually make a real argument later on. It's just that that first section baldly claims things that no author would agree to outside of an interrogation chamber, and that are clearly false, and that are at odds with both the target resolution and every other possible resolution.

If you're adamant, though, I'll insert this paragraph as a brief concurrence.

[Bears Armed]

I'll sign on to that, but in my case please replace the "Taken to its logical conclusion" paragraph with

The argument that "Rational governments would be doing rational things anyway, so this is unnecessary", because it could potentially be used against so many resolutions, fails to be enough -- like NatSov-only repeal attempts -- under the rule that repeals must address the contents of the specific resolutions being targeted.

But it does address the target resolution in the last section, I think. That's explicitly why I didn't make the analogy to a natsov-only repeal - because it does actually make a real argument later on. It's just that that first section baldly claims things that no author would agree to outside of an interrogation chamber, and that are clearly false, and that are at odds with both the target resolution and every other possible resolution.

If you're adamant, though, I'll insert this paragraph as a brief concurrence.

No, that's a fair point. just list me as signing up to everything except that last paragraph.

Do the rest of you agree that a repeal based entirely on the "Rational governments would act rationally and do this anyway, so that resolution is unnecessary" would be illegal for the reason that i suggested, though? If so, then maybe we should consider adding that detail to the posted rules at some point.

[Christian Democrats]

Reading the draft opinion, it seems to me there's a better argument for invoking the NatSov rule. "Rational nations don't need to be told to do X, so the resolution that requires X is needless" appears to be an argument that could conceivably be used to repeal any resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump

[Bears Armed]

Reading the draft opinion, it seems to me there's a better argument for invoking the NatSov rule. "Rational nations don't need to be told to do X, so the resolution that requires X is needless" appears to be an argument that could conceivably be used to repeal any resolution.

Agreed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I still think we need to take a hard stance against talking about other players in resolution texts, in any context. It's not behavior we should condone, and saying we're not going to do anything about it is condoning it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Reading the draft opinion, it seems to me there's a better argument for invoking the NatSov rule. "Rational nations don't need to be told to do X, so the resolution that requires X is needless" appears to be an argument that could conceivably be used to repeal any resolution.

Agreed.

If this is the case, then you ought to hold this repeal as legal, because the NatSov arguments rule only prohibits repeals whose only argument is national sovereignty. This one actually addressed its target in the second section. The Honest Mistake was in imagining any resolution or author could agree that rational nations don't need the resolution to exist in order to comply with its precepts.