[Draft] Preventing Nuclear Armament by Global Threats

[Viraemia]

Observing that there has recently been an influx of proposed bills (and subsequent repeals) designed to prevent the possession of nuclear weapons by "global threats"

Noting that the reason for the failing of these bills is the lack of a definition of such global threats

Recognizing the civilian casualties that can come from the unchecked use of nuclear arms

Hereby defines these global threats as nations whom:

Have used chemical or biological weapon attacks on largely populated civilian areas
Have carried out executions of large numbers of civilians under the order of higher office
Have been engaged in unprovoked warfare within the past 10 years

And proposes that the World Assembly shall prevent the securing of nuclear material and research of nuclear weaponry by any nation who falls under the aforementioned guidelines and is a member of the WA.

[Bakhton]

"It's simply not going to happen. No nuclear themed bill proposal is going to pass for awhile."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It's simply not going to happen. No nuclear themed bill proposal is going to pass for awhile."

"Certainly nothing that limits nuclear weapon ownership or use. And thank Odin for that."

[Araraukar]

Observing that there has recently been an influx of proposed bills (and subsequent repeals) designed to prevent the possession of nuclear weapons by "global threats"

OOC: This should not be in the proposal text. You're in essence referring to game events with the "other submitted proposals" thing, so it might be against the proposal rules for metagaming. Otherwise might be a mild case of house-of-cards.

Noting that the reason for the failing of these bills is the lack of a definition of such global threats

Same as above.

And proposes that the World Assembly shall prevent the securing of nuclear material and research of nuclear weaponry by any nation who falls under the aforementioned guidelines and is a member of the WA.

This would need to be rewritten as a mandate, not a suggestion.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: We would like to enquire about this proposal's Category and Strength.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Observing that there has recently been an influx of proposed bills (and subsequent repeals) designed to prevent the possession of nuclear weapons by "global threats"

OOC: This should not be in the proposal text. You're in essence referring to game events with the "other submitted proposals" thing, so it might be against the proposal rules for metagaming. Otherwise might be a mild case of house-of-cards.

Noting that the reason for the failing of these bills is the lack of a definition of such global threats

Same as above.

OOC: (incredulously) How? He isn't referring to a game event. He's referring to the activity which has taken place in-character in this very chamber. Unless the entire GA is going to roleplay that we don't actually vote on anything, it's clearly within the realm of the fourth wall. One can also believe that legislation failed for some reason, and therefore, attempt to correct it.

Instead of the common-sense rule of 'if it can be interpreted in a fashion which is legal, it should be interpreted in that fashion', it appears that you go out of your way to trail-blaze a new conception of the rules designed to overwhelm anyone entering the forum with arcane 'legality' nonsense and shut down any and all proposals. It says 'forum'? Must be the NS forum! It has a mild strength? Too mild! Not mild enough! It has to do with the exact thing which this entire Assembly does, from an in-character and inside-fourth-wall perspective? Must be referring to the game!

[Araraukar]

OOC: (incredulously) How? He isn't referring to a game event. He's referring to the activity which has taken place in-character in this very chamber.

OOC: Many of the ones that were submitted, never got threads and instead ended up in the Illegals thread.

Instead of the common-sense rule of 'if it can be interpreted in a fashion which is legal, it should be interpreted in that fashion'

I've never really understood why that should be the rule? Surely for international standards it should be "if it can be interpreted to break the rules, it should be improved"?

it appears that you go out of your way to trail-blaze a new conception of the rules designed to overwhelm anyone entering the forum with arcane 'legality' nonsense and shut down any and all proposals

http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/index.php?p=1054

[Bakhton]

I've never really understood why that should be the rule? Surely for international standards it should be "if it can be interpreted to break the rules, it should be improved"?

Well, actually -- aaaaAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
falls down slippery slope

[Wallenburg]

"Why the ten-year standard, Ambassador? That is a highly arbitrary number."

[Araraukar]

Well, actually -- aaaaAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
falls down slippery slope

OOC: Just relax and come on down, all the fun people are here at the bottom of the slope!

IA, you too, I know you can do fun.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Instead of the common-sense rule of 'if it can be interpreted in a fashion which is legal, it should be interpreted in that fashion'

I've never really understood why that should be the rule? Surely for international standards it should be "if it can be interpreted to break the rules, it should be improved"?

1. This creates overly restrictive conditions on what can be legislated upon in the World Assembly. Also, the adoption of such a stance will lead to dragging practically everything into a pile of mindnumbingly boring legal crap about eight years and 169 resolutions worth of precedent.
   
   1. Causes all drafting and legislation to effectively be taken over by a small clique of people who have already learnt what is necessary to avoid having any issues. The fact that the GA learning curve is so large is a significant part of why it has such low participation (especially vis-à-vis contradiction and duplication, which require basically total recall of some 169 extant resolutions.
      
   2. Considering that the WA is running out of topics which are (1) not yet legislated upon and (2) interesting enough to engender opinions on way or the other, creation of more restrictive rules by massively broad interpretation harms the GA community and its ability to simply be able to propose legislation.
      
   3. Overly broad application makes a massive number of things illegal. First, overly narrow conceptions of category makes a great deal of things illegal (for example: no WAHQ, General Fund, most jokes about the GA)... Second, it makes talking about utterly normal things, like a forum for communication or the only thing which the GA actually does, into dumb arguments about breaking the fourth wall when no such thing has happened.
2. If it is the case, as you imply in the post above, that you care about 'fun' and things like that ... the reason we play this part of the game has much more to do with writing resolutions than it does with constantly composing and arguing legality challenges. I've constantly criticised the over-ligitatory environment which has emerged from the fact that making arguments for why something ought not be proposed is so much easier than it is to argue to a massive audience for why it ought not be passed. If you are in the GA to play Judge Judy, we have some very different perspectives on what the GA ought be.
   
   
3. I don't see bending the GA ruleset as any issue or problem. The GA ruleset controls what texts can be proposed. All that needs to do is operate in line with the spirit of what the GA is, an international organisation, not a meta-tribunal on the question of whether proposal is proper or not. Improvement of legislation has to do with the implications of the text, the writing of the proposal, how well the proposal has been thought out. It ought not have to do with ruleset matters in which most people aren't able to adequately litigate.

http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/index.php?p=1054

So you're basically creating problems which you can then swoop in to solve? Excellent. What a fantastic way to run the GA. This is how we're going to boost activity. Talk ourselves into corners just to talk ourselves back out of them! Perfect!

IA, you too, I know you can do fun.

You know what really isn't fun? Ruleset discussions. You know what is even worse? Letting blatantly self-destructive ideas about and interpretations of the ruleset stand without rebuttal. If 'fun' (by the way, what a great band back in 2008, what a throwback) must sacrifice itself to drag this conception of the ruleset into the oblivion it crawled out of, it is the duty of every person to fight.

[Araraukar]

http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/index.php?p=1054

So you're basically creating problems which you can then swoop in to solve? Excellent. What a fantastic way to run the GA. This is how we're going to boost activity. Talk ourselves into corners just to talk ourselves back out of them! Perfect!

OOC: I'm really not going to get into explaining a page of Gunnekrigg Court to you in the middle of a GA post, but you quite missed the point... (Though I would definitely suggest reading the webcomic, excellent story.)

You know what really isn't fun? Ruleset discussions.

That was what the subforum was for, when we still had it. Wish we still had it.

You know what is even worse? Letting blatantly self-destructive ideas about and interpretations of the ruleset stand without rebuttal.

What were we talking about again? Our different views of what counts as a game event versus a RP event and whether either/both are usable in a resolution's text? What's so self-destructive about disagreeing? Especially as the bits in the poor proposal whose thread we've managed to hijack, were in the preamble and thus easily altered anyway.

[Viraemia]

"Why the ten-year standard, Ambassador? That is a highly arbitrary number."

I believed ten years would be long enough to attempt to dissipate the chances of such an attack happening again, while not so long that it becomes overly restrictive.

[Viraemia]

So you're basically creating problems which you can then swoop in to solve? Excellent. What a fantastic way to run the GA. This is how we're going to boost activity. Talk ourselves into corners just to talk ourselves back out of them! Perfect!

OOC: I'm really not going to get into explaining a page of Gunnekrigg Court to you in the middle of a GA post, but you quite missed the point... (Though I would definitely suggest reading the webcomic, excellent story.)

You know what really isn't fun? Ruleset discussions.

That was what the subforum was for, when we still had it. Wish we still had it.

You know what is even worse? Letting blatantly self-destructive ideas about and interpretations of the ruleset stand without rebuttal.

What were we talking about again? Our different views of what counts as a game event versus a RP event and whether either/both are usable in a resolution's text? What's so self-destructive about disagreeing? Especially as the bits in the poor proposal whose thread we've managed to hijack, were in the preamble and thus easily altered anyway.

What suggestion are you making in terms of editing it?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: How exactly do you expect the World Assembly to prevent rogue states from researching nuclear weapons? Also, why should nations who utilise nuclear material for peaceful purposes not be able to secure it on the sole basis that they participated in an unprovoked conflict nine-and-a-half years ago, even if there has since been a change in regime?

Causes all drafting and legislation to effectively be taken over by a small clique of people who have already learnt what is necessary to avoid having any issues.

Avoid any issues? Have you even seen all the Legality Challenges being flung about lately? I'd have thought that you did, considering the fact that you complain about them all the time.

If you are in the GA to play Judge Judy, we have some very different perspectives on what the GA ought be.

I agree completely. Judge Rinder is clearly superior.

[Wallenburg]

"Why the ten-year standard, Ambassador? That is a highly arbitrary number."

I believed ten years would be long enough to attempt to dissipate the chances of such an attack happening again, while not so long that it becomes overly restrictive.

"How did you make that assessment? It stands quite contrary to the body of evidence I have. My world's history is completely full with plenty of nations that have let thirty, forty, even eighty years pass before invading their neighbors once again. Hell, even my nation's War of 1938 only began nearly 40 years after the Revolution of 1899. This ten year standard makes absolutely no sense."

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

Wont pass because Resolution 10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act is in place and allows any nation too possess Nuclear Armaments.

[The Atlae Isles]

Trying to root out "rogue" nations by setting standards has been a slippery slope.

That's why GA #391 was repealed right after it passed; it had no standards on what was a "dastardly menace."

[Araraukar]

OOC: The author has not been back to this in 12 days, so bumping it with additional comments was unnecessary.