a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organised legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.
b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [CHALLENGE] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged.
GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses.
These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you do not have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in challenge threads.
c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. After reaching a majority, GenSec will post a ruling and take action in the control panel or otherwise notify the moderators for discard. Rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.
d. A full opinion will be released after the ruling. The controlling opinion will be released promptly after a majority of members exists and a reasonable effort to secure members' participation has been made. Concurring or dissenting opinions will be released and added to the official record as they are completed.
2. Sua sponte review
a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. GenSec will not initiate a sua sponte review against any proposal before it is submitted for delegate approval.
b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). GenSec will create a separate [CHALLENGE] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.
c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.
3. Recusal
a. GenSec members may not participate in GenSec deliberations on proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes repeals of a member's resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.
b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against a proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. Past expressed opinions on rule interpretations do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.
4. Ties
In the event of a tie of those voting, GenSec must attempt to secure the participation of any member that has not yet voted. If the tie persists for more than three days, the proposal will be ruled legal without a precedential opinion. Concurring and dissenting opinions may be released.
5. Internal and administrative procedure
a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.
b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.
6. Discarding proposals in queue
This section applies to proposals in the queue and not to resolutions at vote on the floor.
a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one or more of the following circumstances exists:
- The proposal is obviously illegal and the proposal cannot be transformed in a straightforward manner into a legal proposal or
- A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal and it has published a ruling on the General Assembly forum to that effect.
7. Discretion over the docket
The General Secretariat shall have discretion over which questions it hears. The General Secretariat shall grant a question a review with the approval of at least two members.
8. GA rule changes
GenSec is responsible for making changes to the General Assembly Rules for Proposals. GenSec will draft the wording of the new or altered rule. The draft will be published in the GA forum for a two-week public comment period after which GenSec will finalise the rules change and request the moderators to update the General Assembly Rules for Proposals.
This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.
Section 1 subsection d added on 17 February 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on 1 March 2017.
Section 6 added on 14 May 2017.
Section 6 header bolded on 23 June 2017.
Section 7 added on 29 June 2017.
Section 8 added on 4 March 2018.
Section 8 corrected for style on 15 March 2018.
Reworking of §§ 1–7. 12 December 2023.