Repeal Standardized Passport Act

[Philimbesi]

Also as the author of the SPA has said several times that the acronym was used to tongue in cheek to disparage the Nazis and turn their feared tool of oppression into a bunch of Gnomes sitting around talking about Passports.

The use of NIGGER simply to be able to point at it and say hey look at how cool I am wouldn't quite be an equal case.

[Mousebumples]

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.

A few points ...

(1) I think that the mods are a little smarter than you give them credit for. They do read the boards - and IIRC, what the acronym spelled out was clear from discussion on the proposal/draft. You are not the first individual to notice what the acronym of the organization was.

(2) They have been playing this game A LOT longer than you have. You may have had other nations in this game, but your WA nation (and the nation you are currently using) is, per the forum, less than a month old. This doesn't, by any means, invalidate your position. However, you do not have the same experience with this game (and its players) that the mods have, over many years of work. I have not regularly been active on the WA (and previously UN) boards, but I wouldn't doubt if there were previous issues with committee name acronyms.

(3) Just because they determined that Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation was legal in this situation does not mean that they will always determine that other organizations with similar name/acronym 'issues' will be legal. That is the meaning of making decisions on a case by case basis. Precedence is not law in the WA - the mod's decision is.

[Kryozerkia]

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.

Perhaps you didn't notice the bit about discretion? Go back, read it, memorize it. Good.

Even if you seem to think it establishes a precedent, the mods can still look at it, and determine if it is acceptable or not. Which brings us back to DISCRETION.

Determining Individual Situations Concerning Respective Entries and Terminating Inflammatory Offensive Nouns

See? Even mods can make up random acronyms in order to address a situation.

[The Walden Estates]

Yes... assuming you mods will catch it since you have seemed to fail to catch this one. But I understand, you don't think it is a problem. Anyways, I'm done arguing...

[Joshuahood]

I'm voting for the repeal

[The divided]

Yes... assuming you mods will catch it since you have seemed to fail to catch this one. But I understand, you don't think it is a problem. Anyways, I'm done arguing...

OOC: For what its worth, it doesn't seem like the mods "failed to catch" the previous resolution. Just look at the thread, mods made several statements.

[Kryozerkia]

Yes... assuming you mods will catch it since you have seemed to fail to catch this one. But I understand, you don't think it is a problem. Anyways, I'm done arguing...

We didn't "fail" to catch anything. There was time to review it. If it was an issue, appropriate action would have been taken. The fact that we didn't does not equate to failure on our part.

[Dungeyland]

The Kingdom of Dungeyland supports this act, as long as it is followed by a revision of the Standardized Passport Act, which removes the references to the GESTAPO and limits powers.

(OOC: Not sure if its possible to revise WA acts; is it?)

[Kryozerkia]

The Kingdom of Dungeyland supports this act, as long as it is followed by a revision of the Standardized Passport Act, which removes the references to the GESTAPO and limits powers.

(OOC: Not sure if its possible to revise WA acts; is it?)

No, amendments are illegal. The original resolution would have to first be repealed.

[Philimbesi]

and limits powers.

How can you limit the power of an utterly powerless organization?

[Serrland]

BELIEVING that this resolution empowers GESTAPO to gather information pertaining to individuals and passports, but fails to define limitations on this power, thus creating an unreasonably high potential for abuse and discriminatory enforcement;

What a terrible repeal! Unreasonably high potential, if taken as an acronym, is UHP: Unios Hermanos Proletarios. A Spanish political party which enabled Republicans to commit various criminal acts during the Spanish Civil War. Coincidence? I think not! The author of the repeal is clearly attempt to push forth an altogether unbecoming agenda!

[Discoveria]

My WA nation votes IC rather than IC; as it happens, it actually abstained this time around -- despite approving of the resolution in general -- because its population includes one small group whose (human) ancestors arrived in Bears Armed (c.1940) as refugees from persecution by Nazis and a member of that group -- working, as established in a previous RP, in a senior position at our government's ministry for foreign affairs -- managed to persuade the minister that voting "for" would be wrong because of this apparent reference.
I personally can see that the acronym's inclusion was meant as a joke rather than as a glorification of Nazism, but considering how quite a few other people (such as noobs & other newcomers here, teachers in charge of 'class regions', or parents vetting their children's online activities...) seem likely to take it if they read the resolution carefully enough to notice this detail I think that its inclusion in the submitted draft was an (unusual) error of judgement on the part of a player whom I respect.

Having said which, if you want to repeal it then you need an argument that works IC rather than one that only works OOC...

Here is my suggestion for turning the clearly OOC argument into IC. IC, my nation exists somewhere in RL earth in the present day; its citizens are well aware of the significance of the word Gestapo. IC, it voted against the Passport Standardisation Act on the basis that the author intended the acronym to be GESTAPO (even if the resolution did not explicitly state this, it is clear from the capitalisation of "And", a point that has been made several times and surely holds weight by virtue of the conventions of written English). A majority of my nation's citizens find this reference to events in their collective memory, offensive. Are they to be barred from opposing the acronym because somehow, they are not allowed to be aware of RL because they exist IC?

So perhaps something like:

NOTING that the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation has the unfortunate acronym "GESTAPO";

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

BELIEVING that the Standardised Passport Act does not require an organisation with the precise name that is specified in the Act;

HOPING that a more acceptable Act can be submitted;

HEREBY repeals the Standardized Passport Act.

[Philimbesi]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

[Discoveria]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

Well, no-one will know unless the repeal goes to vote, will they?

If the repeal gained enough approvals, that would suggest that that clause had a grain of truth, right?

I'm afraid I have no better response than that

[Serrland]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

Well, no-one will know unless the repeal goes to vote, will they?

If the repeal gained enough approvals, that would suggest that that clause had a grain of truth, right?

I'm afraid I have no better response than that

I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

[Shazbotdom]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

Well, no-one will know unless the repeal goes to vote, will they?

If the repeal gained enough approvals, that would suggest that that clause had a grain of truth, right?

I'm afraid I have no better response than that

There were only 4 or 5 people that got hell-bent on the acronym (that doesn't even appear in the proposal. Wishing to repeal it over a word of an organization that has no real basis in game is illegal.

[Discoveria]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

Well, no-one will know unless the repeal goes to vote, will they?

If the repeal gained enough approvals, that would suggest that that clause had a grain of truth, right?

I'm afraid I have no better response than that

I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

Okay, to be completely serious, there's no way to tell a priori because it's all a matter of IC; it depends on the voting nations of the WA being, on average, receptive to the argument. If the repeal gained enough votes, or for that matter if it passed, then that clause will have been proved correct a posteriori. However, at the point where we are now, where we don't know if it is true, I cannot persuade you that it is - and I am fully aware that the argument is not very strong, hence the humorous response.

EDIT: I don't think there's anything wrong with that though - proposal writers routinely submit proposals, and the strength of their arguments is eventually determined by how the vote comes out...

[Almaniania]

We would like to point out to all the monkies on the thread that it has been changed.

Read it again. Now shut up over the whole Holocaust arguement.
And you call yourself Nation States!

[The Casadian Empire]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

Great point. Let's find out. Only way to do that is to vote on the repeal.

An earlier post here responded to my argument that this repeal deserves a vote by saying that the delegates and nations who voted on the original resolution should have been more careful in reading it. Fair enough. But taking that argument to its logical conclusions would do away with all repeals. If hindsight is not a justification for a repeal, then there is no repeal, because then democracy is a one-shot deal and there is no way to remedy the mistakes of the past.

Of course, we all know that this is why we have repeals in the first place - to remedy past mistakes. Democracy is not a one-shot deal, and nations are entitled to the benefit of hindsight, together with their own individual opinions and interpretations, in casting their votes. In my opinion, shared by many nations (and clearly opposed by many other nations), this resolution was a mistake. It is wrong, and should be repealed. Therefore, if a nation submits a repeal that is within the rules, it should have the opportunity to be considered by the delegates, and if it has enough support, come to the WA floor for a vote. That's it.

All this effort spent to try and make this repeal into something it isn't is little more than a smokescreen to cover up the fact that those who support this resolution are concerned that the repeal might pass when nations realize that the resolution establishes a GESTAPO. It's not a real-world reference; it comes from the acronym of the organization itself, which is obviously not a coincidence, as I previously stated. The real-world references only began when people started talking about the "real world" Gestapo in the other forum, posting actual pictures of Nazis and the Gestapo from Schindler's List (yes, it's a movie in the real world and i just cited it in a forum, get over it). If Cobdenia had actually acknowledged that no real-world references were intended, this would be a different story.

But he didn't. He stated that this was intended to reference the Nazi Gestapo, though with a different purpose (see the resolution's forum). It was Cobdenia who injected the real world into this debate, not myself. I'm just trying to play the game on a level field - if Cobdenia's intention is to reference the Nazi Gestapo, responsible for the Holocaust, without actually stating that in his resolution, then I should at least be allowed to reference his own use of GESTAPO in my repeal. Any other result is illogical and unfair.

And that is why this repeal is not illegal, should not be declared illegal, and should be considered on its merits by the delegates and nations of the WA.

[Discoveria]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

Well, no-one will know unless the repeal goes to vote, will they?

If the repeal gained enough approvals, that would suggest that that clause had a grain of truth, right?

I'm afraid I have no better response than that

There were only 4 or 5 people that got hell-bent on the acronym (that doesn't even appear in the proposal. Wishing to repeal it over a word of an organization that has no real basis in game is illegal.

But we hear of the Delegate Mikeswill, and of another region mentioned earlier, in which the attitude towards the Act changed because they did not realise the acronym until afterwards. And my suggestion would repeal the Act over an acronym which IC populations find objectionable for whatever reason, not necessarily a RL one, sweeping the RL reference under the carpet, so to speak.

[Cobdenia]

OoC: If Gestapo is such an offensive word, then why are people using it so freely? Surely if it is likely to offend so many people, one shouldn't be using it in at all? That's where the argument falls down - it clearly isn't offensive. I bet Philembesi had to think pretty hard before using a term (the "N" word) that is widely considered offensive in what is even a demonstrative sense. The fact that those who claim to be offended by it are using it so freely seems to point, pretty clearly, to it not being an offensive term

[Shazbotdom]

RECOGNISING that a large proportion of the population of many WA states object to this acronym,

Really? How large a portion?

Well, no-one will know unless the repeal goes to vote, will they?

If the repeal gained enough approvals, that would suggest that that clause had a grain of truth, right?

I'm afraid I have no better response than that

There were only 4 or 5 people that got hell-bent on the acronym (that doesn't even appear in the proposal. Wishing to repeal it over a word of an organization that has no real basis in game is illegal.

But we hear of the Delegate Mikeswill, and of another region mentioned earlier, in which the attitude towards the Act changed because they did not realise the acronym until afterwards. And my suggestion would repeal the Act over an acronym which IC populations find objectionable for whatever reason, not necessarily a RL one, sweeping the RL reference under the carpet, so to speak.

Which would still be illegal under the rules for UN Proposals. Especially since said acronym isn't spelled out within the resolution at all and it won by a 2 to 1 ratio. And with how his repeal is worded, even if it gets Queued, it won't get anywhere near passing.

[The Walden Estates]

Oh... this argument is making me all yawny! Yes... the word Gestapo is not offensive in itself. It is only offensive because of its association with the Shoa. And we realize you were trying to be funny and meant no harm by it... but this still does not mitigate the fact that we don't want an organization named GESTAPO messing around with passports, whether their gnomes or members of the Aryan Brotherhood.

[Shazbotdom]

Oh... this argument is making me all yawny! Yes... the word Gestapo is not offensive in itself. It is only offensive because of its association with the Shoa. And we realize you were trying to be funny and meant no harm by it... but this still does not mitigate the fact that we don't want an organization named GESTAPO messing around with passports, whether their gnomes or members of the Aryan Brotherhood.

And yet they are not gathering information at all, they are setting the standard that nations need to gether their own information for the passports. How difficult is that to understand?

[Discoveria]

OoC: If Gestapo is such an offensive word, then why are people using it so freely? Surely if it is likely to offend so many people, one shouldn't be using it in at all? That's where the argument falls down - it clearly isn't offensive. I bet Philembesi had to think pretty hard before using a term (the "N" word) that is widely considered offensive in what is even a demonstrative sense. The fact that those who claim to be offended by it are using it so freely seems to point, pretty clearly, to it not being an offensive term

This is a trivial objection...clearly, for the sake of convenience, we are using it here for the purposes of brevity and clarity. The debate could just as easily progress if we all used "the G-word" whenever we wanted to use it.