[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Ban on Secret Treaties

[Thyerata]

Also, it seems clear to me that moderator precedent isn't on the Soggers' side, it's on mine.

OOC: Pfft, you know mod precedent is waved off (apparently, not that I agree) these days as a relic of the past that shouldn't be relied on.

Not that I didn't also agree to your proposal being a complete committee-only violation without clause 3... Now it perhaps skates through on the thinnest ice possible.

*sigh* I'll say it, but in all likelihood everyone will just ignore it. This quoted extract shows why a definitive ruling on the status of moderator precedent as it relates to GenSec is now essential

[Wrapper]

You have the answer in your post. They aren't binding. That said, we often defer to them.

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

[Separatist Peoples]

Does GenSec have that authority?

In the GA, GenSec is God. A dysfunctional, unpredictable, and malevolent god, but a god nonetheless.

We appreciate you, too.

*sigh* I'll say it, but in all likelihood everyone will just ignore it. This quoted extract shows why a definitive ruling on the status of moderator precedent as it relates to GenSec is now essential

You have the answer in your post. They aren't binding. That said, we often defer to them.

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

Whaddam I? Chopped liver?

Aside from GenSec's authority to interpret "war crimes" as "vanilla custard" if it wants to, they can ask the mods to change proposal rules. Since the mods mostly don't care one way or another, they could make that happen.

In a rare double-whammy decision, we're probably going to also rule that eggplant is a crime against humanity. *nods*

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Does GenSec have that authority?

In the GA, GenSec is God. A dysfunctional, unpredictable, and malevolent god, but a god nonetheless.

Is there another kind?

In a rare double-whammy decision, we're probably going to also rule that eggplant is a crime against humanity. *nods*

Fight me.

.

.

...sorry, what was that about "dysfunctional" again?

---

I was about to do a whole song and dance about how this doesn't violate the committee rule, but honestly I can't see a loophole for it here. Members are not forbidden from invoking secret treaties, they're forbidden from invoking treaties not registered with the committee. Members are not required to publish the text of treaties, they are required to register them with the committee. Minus the committee, this does nothing.

There are two ways out, here. One, the proposal could simply add a requirement for all treaties to be published in the nation's legislative review or by general press release or something. This would actually justify the category.

Two, GenSec could (with the advice and consent of the community) declare the committee rule itself null and void. I would use this proposal itself as an example of why that would be a bad idea, as it makes the game itself less faithful to the way things work IRL. As Tzorsland pointed out, there can be virtually no effect on political freedom from having laws and treaties published in whatever obscure publication an international committee would release to its governmental and other very specialized subscribers. Only once said treaties filter down to the nation's paper of record would the vast majority of people gain access. Releasing any text directly to said papers (which necessarily spend more reporter time on national press releases than on international laws) would be the only way to see any measurable difference in political freedoms. You could call that a strength violation if you want (though that would mean we have to set a floor on how much effect a "mild" resolution must have to be considered as doing anything at all); I think it's easier and more concise to just keep the committee rule.

/$0.02

[Tzorsland]

So it's a Category/Strength violation, simple. If nothing but a committee fails to have a stat effect, why can that not be covered under the Category and Strength rules? Why do we need a whole separate and useless rule for Committees?

"Oh not this again ...'"

If you want to make the argument (I'm estimating at least every other week) that any "function" of the committee can never actually produce a stat effect on any member nation state (because committee funding comes from a separate source and is not forced by every member nation) then be my guest.

The notion of "Why have a rule when it's 'intuitively obvious to the casual observer' that the rule follows from another rule," is silly because KISS demands that no one should have to have a master's degree in Resolution legalities in order to write resolutions.

[Araraukar]

In a rare double-whammy decision, we're probably going to also rule that eggplant is a crime against humanity. *nods*

Please do, and also include zucchini.

Two, GenSec could (with the advice and consent of the community) declare the committee rule itself null and void.

Only if you can get the admins to add the Bookkeeping category.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We need to know the status of moderator rulings!
> They're unbinding and persuasive.

We need to know the status of moderator rulings!
> Look above.

We need to know the status of moderator rulings!
> Come on.

We need to know the status of moderator rulings!
> Seriously?

We need to know the status of moderator rulings!
> They're unbinding and persuasive.

We need to know the status of moderator rulings!
> Has anything changed since last time?

[Wrapper]

In a rare double-whammy decision, we're probably going to also rule that eggplant is a crime against humanity. *nods*

Please do, and also include zucchini.

And chopped liver. Oh... no offense, SP.

Two, GenSec could (with the advice and consent of the community) declare the committee rule itself null and void.

Only if you can get the admins to add the Bookkeeping category.

Indeed; can't eliminate the rule entirely, because nations have to do something that would correlate to a change in stats, whether it's related to a committee or not. A Bookkeeping category, where no stats are changed, is an option, but that would require site staff buy-in.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Oh not this again ...'"

If you want to make the argument (I'm estimating at least every other week) that any "function" of the committee can never actually produce a stat effect on any member nation state (because committee funding comes from a separate source and is not forced by every member nation) then be my guest.

I'm not making that argument. I'm making the argument that if the justification for the committee rule is that committees and nothing else have no effect, why is that not just a Strength violation? A resolution with no stat effect is a Strength violation.

The notion of "Why have a rule when it's 'intuitively obvious to the casual observer' that the rule follows from another rule," is silly because KISS demands that no one should have to have a master's degree in Resolution legalities in order to write resolutions.

No needs to have one. It's real simple, proposals must have an effect in member nations. No need for Committee nonsense.

[Bananaistan]

1. There shall be formed a committee of the Compliance Commission, styled the 'Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission', to oversee the publication of all laws, treaties, and international agreements, and those other tasks that may be assigned to it from time to time.
   
   
2. All treaties and international agreements with the force of law, entered into by member nations, shall be registered with the Judicial Committee of Compliance Commission, which shall promptly publish in full those treaties and international agreements.
   
   
3. Member nations may not invoke treaties or international agreements that have not been so registered in pursuance with the second section to this resolution. Provisions relating to mandates for secrecy or non-disclosure of the text or existence of past treaties and international agreements shall cease to have effect as if those provisions did not exist upon passage.

I note that the proposal has not been declared complete or ready for submission but in its current version, I'm also struggling to see how this is not a committee only violation if we are to hold to current precedent. Stripping out the committee leaves no operative clause active on member states independent of the committee. All three clauses in the current version of the proposal fail the test outlined in Ardchoille's Widget example cited in the OP.

Leaving aside precedent, the current rule states that "committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal." No doubt we could have a long drawn out discussion on just how clause 3 fits in with this and I could envisage reasonable arguments on both sides arguing that the committee is and is not the sole purpose of the proposal. And no doubt we could have loads of future arguments on similar proposals if GenSec was to now accept that in this case clause 3 requires just enough of member states that the committee is not the sole purpose of this proposal.

But I would not advise such a course of action. IMO, even though it was based on the old version of the committee rule, the widget test is a reasonable clarification of the current rule. It is obvious to all players exactly what is required, IE an operative clause completely independent of the committee. I would not agree with overturning this without the agreement of the community to effectively muddy up the rules like so. If there was general agreement to a new rule as outlined by Auralia in the second post ("there should be nothing wrong with a proposal that merely establishes and describes member state interactions with a committee, so long as the likely effect of the resulting member state and committee activities corresponds to the category and strength of the proposal."), I'd be happy enough so long as players were happy to proceed despite this being a move to make the rules (and rulings) which authors must comply with less clear than they presently stand.

Regarding the stat effects, I'm inclined to agree with Auralia et al, that there's just enough here of an indirect impact on what a member state must or mustn't do to justify the category, strength and stat effects of same were the committee rule not an issue.

[Araraukar]

A Bookkeeping category, where no stats are changed, is an option, but that would require site staff buy-in.

Oi now, I didn't say no stats would be changed - at least not in my model of it - because if it was truly no-stat category, we'd be drowning in useless committees sooner rather than later.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Whatever it is, I'm of the opinion that (1) past precedent has changed and (2) that change now implies a difference between bureaucratic agencies and committees, where committees are defined by rule-making and non-legislative powers. Thus, the committees rule simply doesn't apply in the slightest.

[Tzorsland]

I'm not making that argument. I'm making the argument that if the justification for the committee rule is that committees and nothing else have no effect, why is that not just a Strength violation? A resolution with no stat effect is a Strength violation.

If everyone understood that the resolution had to have an effect in the member nation, then the point is valid. But people will say that it will have a major effect within the committee and everything is fine. Players don't always think that the purpose of all resolutions is to mess personally with their nation. You can't have a resolution that saves the world. You need to have a resolution that messes with your nation and possibly saves the world on the side. But the primary purpose is to mess with your nation (either in a good or bad way).

Very few people write resolutions that way.

[Excidium Planetis]

If everyone understood that the resolution had to have an effect in the member nation, then the point is valid. But people will say that it will have a major effect within the committee and everything is fine. Players don't always think that the purpose of all resolutions is to mess personally with their nation. You can't have a resolution that saves the world. You need to have a resolution that messes with your nation and possibly saves the world on the side. But the primary purpose is to mess with your nation (either in a good or bad way).

Very few people write resolutions that way.

From the current rules:

Strength: This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant.

It seems clear that proposals must have an effect on national policy, even if only a mild one.

If necessary, we can have GenSec rewrite the Strength rule to state that proposals must have an effect on member nations.

[Fauxia]

Does GenSec have that authority?

Aside from GenSec's authority to interpret "war crimes" as "vanilla custard" if it wants to, they can ask the mods to change proposal rules. Since the mods mostly don't care one way or another, they could make that happen.

Well in that case, the rule should be scrapped

[Sierra Lyricalia]

*** NOTICE ***

As mentioned in the proposal thread, GenSec is examining the questions raised in this challenge. If you have points to make that have not yet been raised, please do so.

In particular I'd like to ask IA to elaborate on this point:

Whatever it is, I'm of the opinion that (1) past precedent has changed and (2) that change now implies a difference between bureaucratic agencies and committees, where committees are defined by rule-making and non-legislative powers. Thus, the committees rule simply doesn't apply in the slightest.

What is the "difference between bureaucratic agencies and committees?" What is the distinction here, when some of the oldest WA committees appear to me no different than "bureaucratic agencies" as you seem to use the term here? In particular, the WHA (Res. #31) and the WAFDRA (#64) appear to have had such "agency" powers since their inception. What makes new committees different?

[Imperium Anglorum]

See here. viewtopic.php?p=32252566#p32252566

[Bananaistan]

Relevant.

In light of this new information, should we still be looking at the difference between a committee and this rather peculiar bureaucratic agency beast, and if so, what in your opinion is the difference; what basis has this difference in past precedent expressed in official, unwithdrawn rulings, or the rules; and why is it relevant to the question at hand?

[Wrapper]

See here. viewtopic.php?p=32252566#p32252566

Fris retracted that ruling. You're welcome.

[Imperium Anglorum]

See here. viewtopic.php?p=32252566#p32252566

Fris retracted that ruling. You're welcome.

Where?

[Bananaistan]

See my post just above Wrapper's.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I honestly don't care about what the ruling is, rather, that there is a ruling. From there, I'd prefer a ruling that increases the kinds of legislation that can be passed. Tradition is no excuse for implementing a policy which makes it harder for people to participate in the game and reduces player choice. When I get to a computer, I can write all the relevant meta-GA drivel.

There is also the committee + liaison paradigm and the committee + other drivel as well.

[Araraukar]

From there, I'd prefer a ruling that increases the kinds of legislation that can be passed.

I'm sure you would, but that requires a rules change. (What happened to that discussion thread on the subject?)

Tradition is no excuse for implementing a policy which makes it harder for people to participate in the game and reduces player choice.

But it was implemented (put into practice/brought about/carried out) years and years ago? To my knowledge it's "always been that way", which puts it at earlier than 2009...

[Wrapper]

So nobody wants to try and tackle the "just a joke" side of things? Hmmmmmm.... I may post a challenge on that aspect of it tomorrow, just for fun.

[States of Glory WA Office]

So nobody wants to try and tackle the "just a joke" side of things? Hmmmmmm.... I may post a challenge on that aspect of it tomorrow, just for fun.

So you'll jokingly be challenging this proposal as a joke?