Repeal Standardized Passport Act

[Urgench]

"Now again,, why on earth should the rules be bent for you to do that?"

The rules aren't being bent here. My first repeal was declared illegal and subsequently deleted. If this repeal is illegal, it too will be deleted, but it hasn't yet. I asked the moderators to highlight all of the clauses of my resolution that violated the rules. Without even trying to re-word those clauses and risk further violation, I simply deleted them. Thus, I deleted anything that the moderators said created a violation and I am making a good faith effort to stay within the rules. Unless this repeal is declared illegal, I ask that no one accuse me of breaking or even bending any rules. It is simply not true.

I looked at the civil HQ of one region whose delegate supports this repeal. It turns out that he did not realize the GESTAPO acronym when he originally voted for the resolution. It is for reasons such as this that the repeal should be allowed to come to a vote - the facts surrounding the resolution have changed. And as for the continuing argument that GESTAPO should not be considered offensive, that's fine -- from YOUR point of view. Clearly, a lot of people/nations are of a different opinion. And who is to say that they are wrong? Who is to say that they cannot find GESTAPO offensive? I refuse to believe that this rests with you, or any one nation. A nation is free to cast its own vote for the reasons it sees fit. I say, let them see this repeal, and cast their vote likewise. If I am wrong, the result will show that. But don't kill a resolution or a repeal because you refuse to acknowledge one nation's beliefs and interpretations - it is not democratic and it is not consistent with the purpose of the World Assembly.

Please don't take my failure to address anyone in character as an insult. I just think it is a distraction that gets in the way of debating this issue.

OOC- you're making two separate arguments which don't relate to one another. Firstly you make a false argument in the actual text of the repeal which claims that Cob's resolution does something which it patently does not do. To pretend that it does is deceitful, and illegal.

You compound this deceit by admitting that your reasons for trying to get this repeal to vote have nothing to do with the reasons stated within the text of your repeal. You want the resolution repealed because it contains an acronym you object to because it offends you even though that is not a legal grounds for having it repealed. So you have pretended the statute does something it does not, and remained within a hair's breadth of illegality so that you can actually repeal the resolution on an illegal basis.

Again, the resolution has been debated, the WA made its opinion clear, we all had our chance to put our case, why should the WA debate the resolution again on a totally spurious basis just to allow you to get it repealed by stealth for an illegal reason?

[Cobdenia]

If you're just dead set on expressing your righteous indignation you could always condemn this nation.

OoC: or indeed, me!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC- you're making two separate arguments which don't relate to one another. Firstly you make a false argument in the actual text of the repeal which claims that Cob's resolution does something which it patently does not do. To pretend that it does is deceitful, and illegal.

You compound this deceit by admitting that your reasons for trying to get this repeal to vote have nothing to do with the reasons stated within the text of your repeal. You want the resolution repealed because it contains an acronym you object to because it offends you even though that is not a legal grounds for having it repealed. So you have pretended the statute does something it does not, and remained within a hair's breadth of illegality so that you can actually repeal the resolution on an illegal basis.

I'm not even convinced that spelling out the acronym as currently expressed would be legal, because the acronym -- not spelled out in the original resolution -- is still an RL reference, and illegal.

[The Walden Estates]

If anyone is bending the rules its Cobdenia who inserted a RL reference in the Passport Act. That's part of the justification for this appeal.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

OOC- you're making two separate arguments which don't relate to one another. Firstly you make a false argument in the actual text of the repeal which claims that Cob's resolution does something which it patently does not do. To pretend that it does is deceitful, and illegal.

You compound this deceit by admitting that your reasons for trying to get this repeal to vote have nothing to do with the reasons stated within the text of your repeal. You want the resolution repealed because it contains an acronym you object to because it offends you even though that is not a legal grounds for having it repealed. So you have pretended the statute does something it does not, and remained within a hair's breadth of illegality so that you can actually repeal the resolution on an illegal basis.

I'm not even convinced that spelling out the acronym as currently expressed would be legal, because the acronym -- not spelled out in the original resolution -- is still an RL reference, and illegal.

That would be my interpretation. Since the acronym doesn't appear in "Standardized Passport Act", the use of Gestapo in the repeal is an RL reference.

[Cobdenia]

OOC- you're making two separate arguments which don't relate to one another. Firstly you make a false argument in the actual text of the repeal which claims that Cob's resolution does something which it patently does not do. To pretend that it does is deceitful, and illegal.

You compound this deceit by admitting that your reasons for trying to get this repeal to vote have nothing to do with the reasons stated within the text of your repeal. You want the resolution repealed because it contains an acronym you object to because it offends you even though that is not a legal grounds for having it repealed. So you have pretended the statute does something it does not, and remained within a hair's breadth of illegality so that you can actually repeal the resolution on an illegal basis.

I'm not even convinced that spelling out the acronym as currently expressed would be legal, because the acronym -- not spelled out in the original resolution -- is still an RL reference, and illegal.

OoC: IMO I think it's a grey area. Spelling it out could concievably be okay, as GESTAPO could be considered to now something whithin the WA vocabulary due to people using it to describe the organisation in question, meaning something completely different to what it otherwise could mean. Spelling it out and saying it's bad, or making the inference that it's bad, would, IMO, be crossing the line into RL violation. However, with the spelling out, it could go either way

[The Casadian Empire]

If you're just dead set on expressing your righteous indignation you could always condemn this nation.

OoC: or indeed, me!

I don't believe it is apppropriate to condemn Cobdenia for his proposal. Every nation has the right to propose resolutions and repeals and have it voted on, first by the delegates, and if it passes, to the whole WA. He is entitled to his beliefs and his interpretation of the resolution, just as I am entited to the same. His beliefs led to him writing his resolution, and my beliefs and interpretation led me to write my repeal. It is as simple as that. No rules have been broken, neither proposal is illegal, and both should be considered fully. Am I asking too much? Is it too much to ask of a democratic institution that it respect the opinions and proposals of its members? Perhaps you think I am, but I disagree and until this debate is resolved I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right. You will not convince me that I am wrong, or the nations who voted against your proposal and support this repeal that they are wrong, so let it play out and stop this unwarranted harrassment.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

If anyone is bending the rules its Cobdenia who inserted a RL reference in the Passport Act. That's part of the justification for this appeal.

Where is the RL reference? Show it to me or shut up.

[Bears Armed]

I looked at the civil HQ of one region whose delegate supports this repeal. It turns out that he did not realize the GESTAPO acronym when he originally voted for the resolution. It is for reasons such as this that the repeal should be allowed to come to a vote - the facts surrounding the resolution have changed.

OOC: Then perhaps that delegate should have read the proposal more carefully before voting, or the measure's opponents should have done a better job of TGing delegates to advise them of this? We can't re-take votes every time that somebody notices something after a resolution passes that they'd missed beforehand...
... And if we did then we'd logically have to re-vote on every passed resolution whenever any nation joins or leaves the WA or who holds any region's delegateship changes, too, because of the effects that those changes could have had on voting patterns if they'd happened earlier.
Do you see the problem?

[Krioval]

OOC: Another problem is that this repeal cannot possibly be based on in-character reasoning, nor can the debate be held IC. Another strike against the repeal, IMO. Anyway...

Krioval,

On page 8 of the forum debating the original resolution, the following statements appear:

"In my books, the Holocaust never happened! the Germans did not mean to kill the Jews, they were trying to make the world a better place, but the Jews got in their way!"

Two posts below that, the same nation hurls the insult "self-centered Jew cow." It was my mistake for misquoting that as "fat Jew cow." "self-centered Jew cow" was the correct quotation. I would also point out that the target of this insult uses a flag with the Star of David. Unless someone is going to argue that the Jewish religion does not exist in Nation States, I think this is a terribly offensive insult.

Fair enough. In that case, it is the ranting of a single trollish nation that was reported by the resolution's supporters. It is also irrelevant next to the legislation itself - it has nothing to do with anything but a RL reading of an acronym, which is OOC and off-topic.

Also, in response to an above argument, the resolution does not state the acronym GESTAPO, but that is clearly the intention of the author. The "A" in "And" is even capitalized, which is evidence of this intent. Moreover, as pointed out several times, the original acronym was SWASTICA, and the author stated on the same forum that he wished he could find a word that began with "K" so he could create an acronym with the correct spelling. I understand that these are "real world" references to you, but they are references that all nations in the debate understood relative to their effect on NAtion States. For example, people posted pictures of Gestapo uniforms and the Gestapo from the movie "Schindler's List." If different rules apply to the forums than to resolutions, so be it - but let the nations of the WA make that decision for themselves, rather than making false arguments and hurling insults at the nations who oppose this resolution. The WA is a democratic institution - let them read the Resolution and the Repeal and decide by a majority whose argument is the stronger. I will accept that result if only you would accept that my repeal is based on more than "lies."

I'm aware of the intent of the author, considering that he is my region's WA delegate, and this legislation has been drafted by him for months. Shindler's List is not relevant to this debate because the resolution had nothing to do with Nazism. That's the point here - any repeal of this resolution would need to have an in-character justification, and that leaves out all the hand-wringing over "GESTAPO". Those are the rules of proposal writing.

I think the illogical cherry-picking of what real world facts come into Nation States is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Saying that Nazis exist but none of the terrible things they did is paradoxical. Certainly, if I was to pass a resolution entitled "Jim Crow laws", everyone would understand that I was taking the name of laws used in the American South to segregate and discriminate against black Americans, even though in Nation States there was no civil rights movement or even a United States in which these atrocities occurred. I would also point out that the United Nations, the predecessor of the World Assembly, was created in 1945, after WWII and the holocaust. You may consider this irrelevant but I think it is something to consider.

It would honestly depend on what your proposal would seek to do. That said, I can't conceive of a proposal that would benefit from that name, and I can't conceive of a way to slip in such a reference without being ridiculous. Considering that there are nations and regions founded on the principles of Nazism, an innocuous reference buried in a WA resolution just can't get me worked up. If you passed the "Jim Crow laws" proposal, I might want to repeal it, but I would have to find an IC justification for it, and if it did nothing offensive, it would be an uphill battle. This is a similar situation in which you find yourself.

All I ask is that we have a reasoned and balanced debate on these issues. If my repeal is as empty as some of you say, then surely it will not get enough delegate support or if it does, will not pass the WA. If you really think that your arguments are the winning ones, then let it come to a vote. You can then have a majority of WA nations tell me that I am wrong and you are right.

It's not exactly the most difficult process to get delegate approvals, and plenty of crappy resolutions pass. I don't think that "Standardised Passport Act" is one of those. And we're not saying that a repeal can't be debated, but it must have in-character justification. That leaves the furor over "GESTAPO" right out.

[The Walden Estates]

If anyone is bending the rules its Cobdenia who inserted a RL reference in the Passport Act. That's part of the justification for this appeal.

Where is the RL reference? Show it to me or shut up.

I think you know quite well where the reference is. An organization doesn't end up having the acronym GESTAPO by chance, anyways.

[Kryozerkia]

If anyone is bending the rules its Cobdenia who inserted a RL reference in the Passport Act. That's part of the justification for this appeal.

Where is the RL reference? Show it to me or shut up.

Cobdenia didn't violate the rule pertaining to the use of real life references. The use in the original repeal did.

Oh and because quotes are fun, here is a relevant quote:

Add to that, for many NS nations, the RW event World War II didn't happen. There never were Gestapo. For their citizens, the word "Gestapo" means nothing, except that it's an acronym for a WA body. So a legal repeal would have to somehow convey the impression that the acronym is massively offensive without referring to any RW events as the reason for the offence. Otherwise it's illegal because of metagaming.

[Travancore-Cochin]

OOC

I think you know quite well where the reference is. An organization doesn't end up having the acronym GESTAPO by chance, anyways.

Does it say in the original resolution that the acronym is G-E-S-T-A-P-O?

But that's just the start. A volley of questions follow:
Where does it state that the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation had its name inspired by a German word?
Where does it state that the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation is named after the RL Nazi Gestapo?
Where does it state that the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation functions just as the RL Nazi Gestapo did?

[The Walden Estates]

Be careful about establishing a precedent. What if someone successfully created an institution through approved legislation whose acronym was the n word or CHINK, or JEWS ARE PIGS? These equally offensive acronymed organizations would have to be accepted as part of the NatationStates universe even though they border on hate speech. I don't think the WA would want to establish that kind of a precedence. Seems to me someones opening a Pandoras box.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

If anyone is bending the rules its Cobdenia who inserted a RL reference in the Passport Act. That's part of the justification for this appeal.

Where is the RL reference? Show it to me or shut up.

I think you know quite well where the reference is. An organization doesn't end up having the acronym GESTAPO by chance, anyways.

Nice try. The resolution mentions a Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation. It doesn't mention a GESTAPO.

[Philimbesi]

Speaking of quotes, this one has been banging through my head...

I was never crazy about Hitler...If you stand on a soapbox and trade rhetoric with a dictator you never win...That's what they do so well: they seduce people. But if you ridicule them, bring them down with laughter, they can't win. You show how crazy they are. ~ Mel Brooks.

Then again what does he know about mocking Nazi's.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

If you're just dead set on expressing your righteous indignation you could always condemn this nation.

OoC: or indeed, me!

I submitted a Condemn Cobdenia once. It looked like this:

The World Assembly,

ASSERTING that The Raj of Cobdenia is a land of gin-swilling pommies;

APPALLED that the government of Cobdenia recently had the temerity to denounce and condemn Fine Yeldan Furniture (namely, a chair), the player seated upon said furniture, and the United States of America all in the same proposal;

NOTING that there is no “u” in the word “color”;

DEMANDING that the next James Bond be played by Owen Wilson;

AGHAST that there exists such a thing as rag pudding;

PRONOUNCING Tottenham “totten ham”;

HEREBY CONDEMNS the Raj of Cobdenia and requires its WA Ambassador, Sir Cyril Gordon Muffplaster Radionov Casaba O'Mahoney Askalan DeDerrier von Holsterman Wyznyjytski Ungern-Sturmberg Banerjee Svenssen M'Beki Vicenzo MacLehose-Strangways-Jones III, KCRC, LOG, to wear a baseball cap at all official WA functions.

edit: I think I'll submit it again.

[Kryozerkia]

Be careful about establishing a precedent. What if someone successfully created an institution through approved legislation whose acronym was the n word or CHINK, or JEWS ARE PIGS? These equally offensive acronymed organizations would have to be accepted as part of the NatationStates universe even though they border on hate speech. I don't think the WA would want to establish that kind of a precedence. Seems to me someones opening a Pandoras box.

You forgot about the one tool the W.A. gnomes have: discretion, which permits them to judge each proposal on a case by case basis.

The difference between the examples you've given and the one in the resolution is that those retain their actual meaning while GESTAPO doesn't; it retains the meaning established in the resolution. In the roleplay context, it doesn't have the same meaning, since the real world events associated with it do not exist in W.A.'s universe.

[The divided]

So, the main question is: Is it legal to mention gestapo in the repeal when the original resolution doesn't contain the acronym?

I don't think we've received a clear answer on this yet.

[Philimbesi]

I think we did when the original repeal was deleted because of the RL reference.

[The Walden Estates]

Be careful about establishing a precedent. What if someone successfully created an institution through approved legislation whose acronym was the n word or CHINK, or JEWS ARE PIGS? These equally offensive acronymed organizations would have to be accepted as part of the NatationStates universe even though they border on hate speech. I don't think the WA would want to establish that kind of a precedence. Seems to me someones opening a Pandoras box.

You forgot about the one tool the W.A. gnomes have: discretion, which permits them to judge each proposal on a case by case basis.

The difference between the examples you've given and the one in the resolution is that those retain their actual meaning while GESTAPO doesn't; it retains the meaning established in the resolution. In the roleplay context, it doesn't have the same meaning, since the real world events associated with it do not exist in W.A.'s universe.

So if a resolution was passed that established the Nation Interest in Geriatric Government Entertainment Rehabilitation (sorry, I'm not as creative as Cobdenia) that was defined by the resolution as an organization dedicated to rehabilitate ailing heads of state through entertainment, nobody would care that the acronym of the organization was NIGGER? I can't believe that, even though I have read some pretty heartless posts in these forums.

[Mousebumples]

So, the main question is: Is it legal to mention gestapo in the repeal when the original resolution doesn't contain the acronym?

I don't think we've received a clear answer on this yet.

I believe (and I'm sure that someone will correct me shortly, if I'm wrong) that in order to get a ruling on "legality" you need to trek over to the hallowed moderation forum on this board. The mods could make a decision here, but - from what I've seen as of late - proposal (or repeal) authors looking for a mod call on what is and what is not illegal have headed over in that direction.

[Urgench]

If you're just dead set on expressing your righteous indignation you could always condemn this nation.

OoC: or indeed, me!

I don't believe it is apppropriate to condemn Cobdenia for his proposal. Every nation has the right to propose resolutions and repeals and have it voted on, first by the delegates, and if it passes, to the whole WA. He is entitled to his beliefs and his interpretation of the resolution, just as I am entited to the same. His beliefs led to him writing his resolution, and my beliefs and interpretation led me to write my repeal. It is as simple as that. No rules have been broken, neither proposal is illegal, and both should be considered fully. Am I asking too much? Is it too much to ask of a democratic institution that it respect the opinions and proposals of its members? Perhaps you think I am, but I disagree and until this debate is resolved I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right. You will not convince me that I am wrong, or the nations who voted against your proposal and support this repeal that they are wrong, so let it play out and stop this unwarranted harrassment.

OOC "unwarranted harassment" ? Seriously? I notice you have totally side stepped my point that the repeal you're actually submitting is totally deceitful and is merely a cover for you to try and get the resolution repealed on an illegal basis. Clearly you don't dissent from that characterisation ?

[Mousebumples]

Be careful about establishing a precedent. What if someone successfully created an institution through approved legislation whose acronym was the n word or CHINK, or JEWS ARE PIGS? These equally offensive acronymed organizations would have to be accepted as part of the NatationStates universe even though they border on hate speech. I don't think the WA would want to establish that kind of a precedence. Seems to me someones opening a Pandoras box.

You forgot about the one tool the W.A. gnomes have: discretion, which permits them to judge each proposal on a case by case basis.

The difference between the examples you've given and the one in the resolution is that those retain their actual meaning while GESTAPO doesn't; it retains the meaning established in the resolution. In the roleplay context, it doesn't have the same meaning, since the real world events associated with it do not exist in W.A.'s universe.

So if a resolution was passed that established the Nation Interest in Geriatric Government Entertainment Rehabilitation (sorry, I'm not as creative as Cobdenia) that was defined by the resolution as an organization dedicated to rehabilitate ailing heads of state through entertainment, nobody would care that the acronym of the organization was NIGGER? I can't believe that, even though I have read some pretty heartless posts in these forums.

I don't know that trading hypotheticals is terribly productive. The mods can and will make decision on - as mentioned above - a case by case basis. If you want to determine if that committee name would be legal or not, draft a proposal and find out.

[The Walden Estates]

Be careful about establishing a precedent. What if someone successfully created an institution through approved legislation whose acronym was the n word or CHINK, or JEWS ARE PIGS? These equally offensive acronymed organizations would have to be accepted as part of the NatationStates universe even though they border on hate speech. I don't think the WA would want to establish that kind of a precedence. Seems to me someones opening a Pandoras box.

You forgot about the one tool the W.A. gnomes have: discretion, which permits them to judge each proposal on a case by case basis.

The difference between the examples you've given and the one in the resolution is that those retain their actual meaning while GESTAPO doesn't; it retains the meaning established in the resolution. In the roleplay context, it doesn't have the same meaning, since the real world events associated with it do not exist in W.A.'s universe.

So if a resolution was passed that established the Nation Interest in Geriatric Government Entertainment Rehabilitation (sorry, I'm not as creative as Cobdenia) that was defined by the resolution as an organization dedicated to rehabilitate ailing heads of state through entertainment, nobody would care that the acronym of the organization was NIGGER? I can't believe that, even though I have read some pretty heartless posts in these forums.

I don't know that trading hypotheticals is terribly productive. The mods can and will make decision on - as mentioned above - a case by case basis. If you want to determine if that committee name would be legal or not, draft a proposal and find out.

It is productive. Because I am arguing that the precedence the WA establishes here will open up a whole serious of this sort of thing in WA legislation.