[Very Rough Draft]Definitons of Death Act

[Canton Empire]

"We are talking about GA #355 which has already been accepted into the halls of WA law, Ambassador."

"Ah. Well, in that case, your interpretation carries far less weight. Wallenburg will be more reasonable, and interpret it as intended by its author."

"Intentions do not matter in legalese. Words do. What is intended and what is written can mean two different things."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I'm amazed nobody spotted it in the drafting process as an issue."

OOC: Considering how tired and bored everyone is after the obligatory 5+ pages of time-wasting legality challenges, nobody has any effort left for actual drafting. And also considering how those 5+ pages interrupt and destroy any way to talking about a draft, I regret to inform you that we do not draft things on this forum anymore.

Remember how "Isn't this forced roleplay?", "Doesn't this duplicate CoCR? The mods ruled that CoCR covers non-humans", and "Protection of Sapient Rights was Significant. Why is this Strong?" had to be included in a fucking FAQ?

EDIT: Re-reading the resolution thread, it actually wasn't legality challenges. Those legality challenges were deal with in 8+ pages on the last version of the proposal! This time, it was species-wank on top of species-wank on top of species-wank.

[Wallenburg]

"Ah. Well, in that case, your interpretation carries far less weight. Wallenburg will be more reasonable, and interpret it as intended by its author."

"Intentions do not matter in legalese. Words do. What is intended and what is written can mean two different things."

"Ambassador, the only reason I considered your interpretation at all was because I was under the impression that you had authored the statement in question, and therefore might rewrite it into something more clearly aligned with that interpretation. Since that is not the case, I will resort to my own interpretation, which happens to align with the intentions of the author."

[Excidium Planetis]

Except don't you need to have some proof of brain activity or capability of independent thought to be sapient? Something that sets us apart from rocks and water and dirt and politicians and so on?

No, because of the way the clause is worded. The "regardless of biological status" part means that if you can prove it was sapient, it is still considered alive, regardless of being what we would consider dead

"I wholeheartedly support a repeal on these grounds." Blackbourne replies to the Cantonese Ambassador.

OOC:
Sapient beings are recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living. Formerly sapient beings are not.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ah. Well, in that case, your interpretation carries far less weight. Wallenburg will be more reasonable, and interpret it as intended by its author."

"Intentions do not matter in legalese. Words do. What is intended and what is written can mean two different things."

"That is a bloody lie. Intent of the law is necessary in interpreting the letter of the law."

OOC: That is untrue and demonstrates a lack of awareness of how the law works. Intent of the law is absolutely critical in interpreting the letter of the law.

[Calladan]

"Intentions do not matter in legalese. Words do. What is intended and what is written can mean two different things."

"That is a bloody lie. Intent of the law is necessary in interpreting the letter of the law."

OOC: That is untrue and demonstrates a lack of awareness of how the law works. Intent of the law is absolutely critical in interpreting the letter of the law.

(ooc - I am not entirely sure that is true. There was a case in the UK this week where the letter of the law prevented the intent of the law from being pursued in the courts - a view that most people think was utter nonsense, complete bollocks and somewhat of a travesty of justice. And when I say most people, I mean "I think most people" )

[Separatist Peoples]

"That is a bloody lie. Intent of the law is necessary in interpreting the letter of the law."

OOC: That is untrue and demonstrates a lack of awareness of how the law works. Intent of the law is absolutely critical in interpreting the letter of the law.

(ooc - I am not entirely sure that is true. There was a case in the UK this week where the letter of the law prevented the intent of the law from being pursued in the courts - a view that most people think was utter nonsense, complete bollocks and somewhat of a travesty of justice. And when I say most people, I mean "I think most people" )

OOC: Thats an extreme case. Its rare that the letter of the law is ever so divorced from the intent that it gets in the way so significantly. That's like banning discrimination with a law that says "except for black people, who shouldn't be able to vote." In this case, the intent of the sapience law is not at odds with its letter.

Moreover, GenSec considers intent when making legality considerations, so even if it wasn't the case in the real world, the GA will weigh intent. It isn't dispositive, but it impacts interpretation.

[Aclion]

"Ah. Well, in that case, your interpretation carries far less weight. Wallenburg will be more reasonable, and interpret it as intended by its author."

"Intentions do not matter in legalese. Words do. What is intended and what is written can mean two different things."

OOC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Intentions do not matter in legalese. Words do. What is intended and what is written can mean two different things."

OOC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

OOC: The WA actually follows something called strict textualism.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

OOC: The WA actually follows something called strict textualism.

OOC:
I disagree that this is the case. See: "Mandatory Donations".

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The WA actually follows something called strict textualism.

OOC:
I disagree that this is the case. See: "Mandatory Donations".

Well, the entire reason people disagree about 17 GA is a dictionary fight, which would still be something relevant given strict textualism.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
I disagree that this is the case. See: "Mandatory Donations".

Well, the entire reason people disagree about 17 GA is a dictionary fight, which would still be something relevant given strict textualism.

OOC: this is fascinating, but it is getting off topic. I would love to participate...in another thread.

[Canton Empire]

Well, the entire reason people disagree about 17 GA is a dictionary fight, which would still be something relevant given strict textualism.

OOC: this is fascinating, but it is getting off topic. I would love to participate...in another thread.

Can we get a secretariat ruling on the meaning of the last clause in GA #355

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: this is fascinating, but it is getting off topic. I would love to participate...in another thread.

Can we get a secretariat ruling on the meaning of the last clause in GA #355

OOC
The best way to do that would be to write a repeal using one interpretation, then make a Legality Challenge against your own repeal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Can we get a secretariat ruling on the meaning of the last clause in GA #355

OOC
The best way to do that would be to write a repeal using one interpretation, then make a Legality Challenge against your own repeal.

OOC: Please don't do this.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC
The best way to do that would be to write a repeal using one interpretation, then make a Legality Challenge against your own repeal.

OOC: Please don't do this.

Why not?
1) This was exactly what Gruenberg did.
2) Apparently we are expected to make challenges against our own proposals before submitting them now, especially when they are at risk of falling afoul of the rules (like Honest Mistake)
3) Better to do that than get dinged for Honest Mistake.

[Bears Armed]

2) Apparently we are expected to make challenges against our own proposals before submitting them now, especially when they are at risk of falling afoul of the rules (like Honest Mistake)
3) Better to do that than get dinged for Honest Mistake.

OOC:
1/. It isn't "make a legality challenge", it's "request a legality ruling"... and the possibility for raising such queries about specific details within proposals (rather than just asking the Mods "is this whole proposal legal?) -- by GHR, or by posting in Moderation which was probably the more effective method -- has already existed for quite a while anyway. In fact, I've used the 'Request via Moderation forum' approach myself, to preemptively settle potential challenges to some of my own proposals, several times.
2/. If it's genuinely an Honest Mistake then you generally don't get "dinged": the proposal is deleted from the list, but no 'warning' ensues.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why not?
1) This was exactly what Gruenberg did.
2) Apparently we are expected to make challenges against our own proposals before submitting them now, especially when they are at risk of falling afoul of the rules (like Honest Mistake)
3) Better to do that than get dinged for Honest Mistake.

1. Gruen put us in a bind. We are in no such bind here, and we don't want to be forced into ruling on a hypothetical again. Please, don't do this.
2. Its that or let somebody else do it. Or let GenSec do it. This is easier all around.
3. Honest Mistake violations have no punitive penalty.

[Excidium Planetis]

Why not?
1) This was exactly what Gruenberg did.
2) Apparently we are expected to make challenges against our own proposals before submitting them now, especially when they are at risk of falling afoul of the rules (like Honest Mistake)
3) Better to do that than get dinged for Honest Mistake.

1. Gruen put us in a bind. We are in no such bind here, and we don't want to be forced into ruling on a hypothetical again. Please, don't do this.
2. Its that or let somebody else do it. Or let GenSec do it. This is easier all around.

First you say "don't do it", then you say "this is easier all the way around". I'm getting conflicting messages from you. Should we not request a Legality ruling on our own repeals, or is it easier all the way around to do so?

3. Honest Mistake violations have no punitive penalty.

2/. If it's genuinely an Honest Mistake then you generally don't get "dinged": the proposal is deleted from the list, but no 'warning' ensues.

How do you know this? This isn't in the rules. The rules just say that you get warned for illegal proposals.

[States of Glory WA Office]

3. Honest Mistake violations have no punitive penalty.

2/. If it's genuinely an Honest Mistake then you generally don't get "dinged": the proposal is deleted from the list, but no 'warning' ensues.

How do you know this? This isn't in the rules. The rules just say that you get warned for illegal proposals.

OOC: Seriously? You think that the Mods haven't briefed them on the fine details regarding the rules?

[Excidium Planetis]

How do you know this? This isn't in the rules. The rules just say that you get warned for illegal proposals.

OOC: Seriously? You think that the Mods haven't briefed them on the fine details regarding the rules?

Fine details concerning the rules? Why should there be such things? The rules are supposed to be publicly accessible, there aren't supposed to be hidden "fine details" that only the mods and those they have chosen to brief on such know.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Seriously? You think that the Mods haven't briefed them on the fine details regarding the rules?

Fine details concerning the rules? Why should there be such things? The rules are supposed to be publicly accessible, there aren't supposed to be hidden "fine details" that only the mods and those they have chosen to brief on such know.

OOC: Regarding both of these. Of course not. The Mods don't even know what the rules mean... because they're so unclear, nobody knows exactly what they mean.