A Sanctions Resolution [Discussion & Draft]

[Community Property]

This is a working thread for an as-of-yet unwritten resolution authorizing the World Assembly to impose sanctions on nations which have been condemned. As of yet, nothing has been written; the goal of this thread is to come up with the basic framework for a resolution, which will then be written and debated before being submitted the the Regional Delegates in an effort to reach queue.

Several obstacles exist to such a resolution, but it is our belief that these obstacles are not insurmountable. Among them are the following:

• Resolutions must be non-discriminatory. This means that they cannot have a greater impact on the condemned than the World Assembly at large. As a matter of fact, we should expect that they will have a smaller effect on the condemned than on the membership as a whole, especially in so far as the latter can escape any effects by simply quitting the World Assembly (assuming that they were a member in the first place).
  
  It is our belief that this problem can be overcome by focusing entirely on the impact that sanctions would have on the membership of the World Assembly and ignoring (both for game purposes and within the body of the resolution itself) any effect that such sanctions would have on the condemned.
  
  As a secondary point, since the condemned isn’t going to suffer as a consequence of sanctions, we should make sure that the effects of imposing them are either positive for the membership or mild in impact – otherwise, sanctions will effectively be tantamount to “cutting off our noses to spite our faces.”
  
  
• There is no category for sanctions per se. Consequently, we need to identify the single greatest effect that such sanctions would have and write the resolution to match the relevant category. Other effects can be included in the resolution, but these must be minimized in impact so that they do not lead to a legal challenge based on improper categorization.
  
  
• We must avoid metagaming issues. This will be tricky, because there will be some who argue that any sanctions proposal must raise metagaming issues; indeed, in a current II OOC debate thread, it’s effectively being argued that current WA resolutions recognizing the existence of international waters violate metagaming rules. We reject this notion, as it would imply that any resolution with international impact violates the rule against metagaming at the same exact moment as many nations argue that the World Assembly should only be passing resolutions that address international issues – a pair of positions which, if embraced simultaneously, would effectively eliminate our ability to do anything at all.

With that, we’ll open this up to discussion by other nations while chewing over some of our own ideas about how such a resolution might be constructed, clarifying them before finally posting.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I'm not sure about this honoured ambassador, but this might be the matter of a suggestion for an addition a new feature to the Security Council. Besides, all member states automatically come into compliance when each resolution passes, full stop.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You might start by explaining how your resolution would differ from this catastrophe (and respond specifically to the lengthy legality ruling that killed it). As for me, I'm still trying to figure out how imposing sanctions based upon a badge handed out by a metagaming body isn't metagaming in and of itself.

[Grays Harbor]

Not this again? Sometimes I wonder why I leave my office to come out here to the GA floor at all.

[Community Property]

Not this again? Sometimes I wonder why I leave my office to come out here to the GA floor at all.

Because there are clearly people who want one, just as there are people who don’t. We’d rather see the matter resolved by a vote than by a parliamentary ruling - although if we become convinced that there is no possible way to do this legally, then we’ll be satisfied.

You might start by explaining how your resolution would differ from this catastrophe (and respond specifically to the lengthy legality ruling that killed it). As for me, I'm still trying to figure out how imposing sanctions based upon a badge handed out by a metagaming body isn't metagaming in and of itself.

Reread Ardchoille’s ruling carefully, especially these parts:

It's because GA proposals can affect SC proposals, but SC proposals can't affect GA proposals.

GA proposals have to be written to apply to all WA nations. The GA cannot make resolutions that apply only to a specific nation. So the GA can't respond to an SC resolution (unless a general application can be deduced and a new proposal written).

DON'T anyone try quoting that part of the ruling back at me to justify other proposals here or in the SC. I've asked Hack to, er, hack it, since he has a talent for saying things simply, but it's not canon yet.

Aside from the fact that the second statement undermines the certainty of the bolded words, there’s a sliver of an opening in the reasons Ardchoille gives for rejecting the proposal: The proposed resolution seems to try to exert a greater impact on the sanctioned nation than the WA community as a whole.

Hence, the first bullet point in laying out the design approach: Non-discrimination. The proposal must not attempt to exert a greater impact on targeted nations than on the general membership of the WA as a whole.

Now, it may turn out that this goal is essentially impossible; if that’s the case, then the esteemed representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny is correct: No condemnation-based sanctions proposal can work, and we will have to proceed to some kind of automatic sanctions regime or scrap the entire idea altogether. Before we give up completely on the concept, however, we would like to say we gave it a good try.

Killerustan’s proposal was not the best possible try; it was better than what might have been tossed out onto the floor without our input (we were asked to assist in its writing and did), but it failed for many of the same reasons most such proposals do: They don’t write to the rules. In this particular case, Killerustan had some definite effects in mind and these had to be shoe-horned into some category, when in fact no proper category exists. As Hack is fond of saying, that’s a bad way to write a proposal: You want to write to the category, not write first and then try to make changes to fit a category.

For these reasons, we’re not yet convinced that this is a complete dead letter. Maybe we will become convinced, but currently we’re not there now.

I'm not sure about this honoured ambassador, but this might be the matter of a suggestion for an addition a new feature to the Security Council. Besides, all member states automatically come into compliance when each resolution passes, full stop.

We are aware of the latter point, but it’s not directly relevant to what we’re trying to do. As for the first suggestion, we don’t feel that waiting for a new category to be created is likely to achieve results (partly because we doubt that any such category will ever be added).

[Philimbesi]

OCC: So potentially one nation loses what amounts to an overblown popularity contest and our trade statistics take a hit for it? Yea... no.

[Grays Harbor]

Just because there are a few people who want something does not make it either legal or necessary.

We want free premium ice cream served to all ambassadors while debating issues, but we do not believe a resolution for it is the answer.

OOC - This type proposal has been declared illegal by multiple mods, and has been argued out by many many delegates who have considerable experience with proposals, and it has been shown repeatedly to be something which cannot be done within the game rules and mechanics. Continuing to argue for one on the basis "some people want it" is not showing perserverance, just stubberness and a refusal to accept reality.

[Community Property]

We thank the representative from Grays Harbor for his kind opinion and gentle comments. We will await other opinions before requesting the lock he so helpfully recommends.