[Dead] Ban on Fearmongering

[Kilimantonian]

Ban on Fear-mongering

Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Mild

The noble and worthy World Assembly,

REALIZING that non-WA nations outnumber WA nations by a significant margin, sometimes up to as much as 10 to 1

NOTING that there may be some groups of non-WA nations that mean harm to those involved in the WA

BELIEVING HOWEVER that these groups are the significant minority, and do not constitute an existential threat to the safety of WA nations,

SUGGESTING that the so-called "threat" of non-WA nations has been used to push many unjust resolutions through votes here in these halls,

HEREBY

DECLARES that henceforth the official WA policy shall be that no specific or general WA agenda or resolution specifically aimed towards combating non-WA nations is necessary without there being an obvious threat to the WA

RECOMMENDS that peaceful relations be established with all non-WA nations who wish to open said relations

ADVOCATES for the confirmation of a real and significant threat, and further for attempts at diplomatic resolutions, prior to the opening of hostilities with a non-WA nation

Well? Tell me more...

NOTE: I will be proposing this with Jiromania, my WA puppet nation, if it gets support

Edit 1: removed INSTITUTES clause, changed MANDATES clause to SUGGESTS and removed first WA, changed STATES clause to allow nations to still declare "war" if they want

Edit 2: Grammar, wording, etc.

Edit 3: DECLARES clause should be legal now. I finally decided to instate Losthaven's change from their first post .

Edit 4: Added Category and Strength, changed STATES clause to prevent contradiction with GAR 2, Section 3, Article 10.

Edit 4: Added a little to the ADVOCATES clause to specify non-WA nations.

Edit 5: DECLARES clause should no longer be an argumentation blocker. You can now mention non-WA nations as a danger in a resolution as a corollary, but suggesting " we should build nukes to fire them specifically at non-WA nations" will fall afoul of this proposal.

Edit 6: Clipped DECLARES clause to remove mention of "WA armament". Thanks Imperium Anglorum.

Edit 7: Added "resolution" to DECLARES clause, and tacked on a bit allowing a specific WA agenda/resolution to combat non-WA nations if there is an "obvious threat", changed "directly" to "specifically", allowing an agenda that is not 100% about combating non-WA members to be legal. Any further objections to content, legality, duplication or contradiction?

[Tinfect]

MANDATES that peaceful WA relations be established with all non-WA nations who wish to open said relations

STATES that no offensive action will be taken against non-WA nations without confirmation of a real and significant threat and attempts at diplomatic resolutions of conflict

"Absolutely unacceptable. The Imperium will not have its international policy dictated by the World Assembly."

[New Leppikania]

Ban on Fear-mongering

The noble and worthy World Assembly,

REALIZING that non-WA nations outnumber WA nations by a significant margin, sometimes up to as much as 10 to 1

NOTING that there may be some groups of non-WA nations that mean harm to those involved in the WA

BELIEVING HOWEVER that these groups are the significant minority, and do not constitute an existential threat to the safety of WA nations,

SUGGESTING that the so-called "threat" of non-WA nations has been used to push many unjust resolutions through votes here in these halls,

HEREBY

DECLARES that henceforth no WA proposal shall be put forward that suggests WA armament to provide “self-protection” against non-WA nations, or suggests the promotion of WA agenda to the detriment of non-WA nations

MANDATES that peaceful WA relations be established with all non-WA nations who wish to open said relations

STATES that no offensive action will be taken against non-WA nations without confirmation of a real and significant threat and attempts at diplomatic resolutions of conflict

INSTITUTES GAR #?, Ban on Fearmongering

Well? Tell me more...

NOTE: I will be proposing this with Jiromania, my WA puppet nation, if it gets support

This is a game mechanics violation; also, resolutions such as...?

[Tinfect]

This is a game mechanics violation; also, resolutions such as...?

OOC:
Not game-mechanics in the slightest, but he is referring to the argument used in Resolutions along the lines of Resolution 351, which contains the following line.

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations,

[Wrapper]

MANDATES that peaceful WA relations be established with all non-WA nations who wish to open said relations

STATES that no offensive action will be taken against non-WA nations without confirmation of a real and significant threat and attempts at diplomatic resolutions of conflict

"Absolutely unacceptable. The Imperium will not have its international policy dictated by the World Assembly."

Er... doesn't the Imperium, as well as all WA members, have their international policies, at least in part, already dictated by the World Assembly?

Nevertheless, we read this and it seems like a whole lot of illegal. Peaceful relations are a two-way street, which means that the MANDATES clause is legislating on non-WA nations, which resolutions cannot do.

Also, the word fearmongering? Are you sure that word means what you think it means?

[Tinfect]

Er... doesn't the Imperium, as well as all WA members, have their international policies, at least in part, already dictated by the World Assembly?

"To a certain degree, yes, but the extent proposed in this draft is complete madness."

[New Leppikania]

This is a game mechanics violation; also, resolutions such as...?

OOC:
Not game-mechanics in the slightest, but he is referring to the argument used in Resolutions along the lines of Resolution 351, which contains the following line.

Observing that there are more than six times more non-WA nations than member nations and believing that such protections are necessary for the security of member nations,

Well, that resolution (as I interpreted) was just "here is something that you have to repeal before banning nukes."

[Losthaven]

Would totally support this if it were legal. The DECLARES clause currently seems illegal for metagaming. You can't have a resolution that affects directly what member nations can and cannot "put forward" down the line (then again, doesn't every resolution do that to later proposals that conflict with or duplicate it?). I don't think this is a game mechanics issues - this doesn't seem to add or subtract game features or change the way the WA voting works.

Perhaps if you changed it to "DECLARES that henceforth the official WA policy shall be that no specific or general WA armament is necessary for self-protection against non-WA nations, and further that no specific or general WA agenda is necessary to combat a non-WA nation menace." Just a thought on how to un-illegal that.

If you changed the MANDATES clause to "ENCOURAGES" then you'd be in great shape, legality-wise. This would then likely fit into the Global Disarmament - Mild category. (you can probably remove the first "WA" in that clause as well, as it's superfluous and somewhat meaningless)

The last clause looks totally legal, though you're gonna get a lot of pushback from the evil WA nations who like to war. Then again, those are the same nations that are going to pushback against depriving them of their precious non-member boogieman, so you may find that you can't compromise with that lot anyway.

(Post heavily edited...)

[Tinfect]

The last clause looks totally legal, though you're gonna get a lot of pushback from the evil WA nations who like to war. Then again, those are the same nations that are going to pushback against depriving them of their precious non-member boogieman, so you may find that you can't compromise with that lot anyway.

OOC:
Actually, it reads like a ban on Imperialism, something that I feel would probably fall afoul of the Ideological Ban rule.

[Imperium Anglorum]

INSTITUTES GAR #?, Ban on Fearmongering

I have no idea why new people always want to include these 'ENACTS', 'INSTITUTES', etc. clauses. It must have something to do with how everyone looks at the 'Repeals' clauses or something. However it is, these clauses don't do anything, just like those 'CLARIFIES this isn't a blocker' clauses, and I am opposed to this proposal due to its inclusion.

[Atomic Utopia]

"Friends, Ambassadors, Gnomes, this evil snake intends to take away our right to speak out against the threats that face this august assembly and crucify us upon a cross of lies! Do not listen to him and his evil ban on fearmongering for it shall spell the ruin of the WA at the teeth of the vicious nonmember hoard! We must stand together in unity against this existential threat and through our righteous might cast the destructive powers that suggested this bill illegal for metagaming through the gates of hell!"

[The Doomed Planet of Tollana]

"Friends, Ambassadors, Gnomes, this evil snake intends to take away our right to speak out against the threats that face this august assembly and crucify us upon a cross of lies! Do not listen to him and his evil ban on fearmongering for it shall spell the ruin of the WA at the teeth of the vicious nonmember hoard! We must stand together in unity against this existential threat and through our righteous might cast the destructive powers that suggested this bill illegal for metagaming through the gates of hell!"

See, now that right there is the textbook definition of fearmongering. Bravo!

(OOC: Wrapper puppet, too lazy to erase, switch and repost.)

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

This is a game mechanics violation; also, resolutions such as...?

OOC:
Not game-mechanics in the slightest, but he is referring to the argument used in Resolutions along the lines of Resolution 351

Which is entirely appropriate in context, given the deterrent nature of nuclear weapons and the fact nonmembers would not be subject to any regulation on the possession or use of said weapons. It is the reason we cannot simply implement a disarmament resolution or a nonaggression agreement and be forever safe from nuclear war.

What this proposal does is remove that context in order to block proposals on the right to national defense by barring authors from mentioning the need for such a right.
OOC: It's meta-gaming

though maybe not meta-gaming meta-gaming

[Kilimantonian]

MANDATES that peaceful WA relations be established with all non-WA nations who wish to open said relations

STATES that no offensive action will be taken against non-WA nations without confirmation of a real and significant threat and attempts at diplomatic resolutions of conflict

"Absolutely unacceptable. The Imperium will not have its international policy dictated by the World Assembly."

In my opinion, this was the biggest and best argument put forward so far. Thanks. Fixed that and your the Imperialism ban.

[Wallenburg]

Is it legal to write new rules for WA proposals?

[Wrapper]

Is it legal to write new rules for WA proposals?

GAR#68, National Economic Freedoms, was intended to affect how certain proposals were written, but it really hasn't been enforced well. GAR#122, Read the Resolution Act, was written to force voters to read proposals prior to voting, and of course there's no way to enforce that either. Neither affects game mechanics, so they're both ostensibly legal.

Still doesn't mean this particular proposal is legal yet.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is it legal to write new rules for WA proposals?

GAR#68, National Economic Freedoms, was intended to affect how certain proposals were written

Aren't all resolutions? Duplication and contradiction...

[Kilimantonian]

OOC: Wow, there is a LOT of concern over the legality of this. How do I file a mod request?

[Excidium Planetis]

DECLARES that henceforth no WA proposal shall be put forward that suggests WA armament to provide “self-protection” against non-WA nations, or suggests the promotion of WA agenda to the detriment of non-WA nations

OOC: I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this clause is a Metagaming violation. You can't force people to not write a certain phrase in proposals.

RECOMMENDS that peaceful relations be established with all non-WA nations who wish to open said relations

STATES that the WA will not sanction any offensive action will be taken against non-WA nations without confirmation of a real and significant threat and attempts at diplomatic resolutions of conflict

"Absolutely not. There are many dictatorships, Warmongers, and civil-rights abusing racist xenophobes that would absolutely love to continue their reigns of terror and conquest while Excidium Planetis is forced to maintain peaceful relationships with them, but we will not give up our right to attack them. Completely AGAINST."

[Wrapper]

GAR#68, National Economic Freedoms, was intended to affect how certain proposals were written

Aren't all resolutions? Duplication and contradiction...

Any other resolution has an intent other than its effect on other resolutions, e.g. bans something, promotes something. GAR#68 does not; its intent is to alter the proposal process.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Aren't all resolutions? Duplication and contradiction...

Any other resolution has an intent other than its effect on other resolutions, e.g. bans something, promotes something. GAR#68 does not; its intent is to alter the proposal process.

Napa's intent is to alter the proposal process as well, by introducing a de facto unrepealable rule against the banning of nuclear weapon possession. Such is the same with On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms, which have both introduced de facto rules against the restriction of abortions...

---

DECLARES that henceforth no WA proposal shall be put forward that suggests WA armament to provide “self-protection” against non-WA nations, or suggests the promotion of WA agenda to the detriment of non-WA nations

OOC: I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this clause is a Metagaming violation. You can't force people to not write a certain phrase in proposals.

Spot on. That is a metagaming violation.

[Atomic Utopia]

See, now that right there is the textbook definition of fearmongering. Bravo!

(OOC: Wrapper puppet, too lazy to erase, switch and repost.)

I couldn't help it.

[Kilimantonian]

I swear, metagaming is the most unclear, minimally defined legality parameter there is.

[The Two Jerseys]

OOC: I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this clause is a Metagaming violation. You can't force people to not write a certain phrase in proposals.

Spot on. That is a metagaming violation.

I'd say it's more game mechanics, given its similarity to the "requiring 'proper' spelling/grammar" example in the rulebook.

Either way, it's a whole heap of illegal.

I swear, metagaming is the most unclear, minimally defined legality parameter there is.

Probably the easiest way to define it is that if it treats the game as being a game instead of a real international organization, it's metagaming.

[Wallenburg]

I swear, metagaming is the most unclear, minimally defined legality parameter there is.

Meta-Gaming

Meta-gaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself.

Examples of meta-gaming:

• Requiring the Security Council to take certain action
• Forcing WA legislation on non-member nations
• Mandating actions to be taken by regions
• Requiring Moderators to perform specific actions
• Mandating actions on the forums

Mmm-hmm. Sure it is.

Also, don't smile-spam.