Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

[Merni]

How these two resolutions been ruled legal, not by one, but by TWO members of GenSec?
(snip)
Has there been some change in the rules that wasn't mentioned?

Which rule do you think they're breaking? Both are badly written, sure, but don't seem to actually break any of the rules to me.

[WayNeacTia]

How these two resolutions been ruled legal, not by one, but by TWO members of GenSec?
(snip)
Has there been some change in the rules that wasn't mentioned?

Which rule do you think they're breaking? Both are badly written, sure, but don't seem to actually break any of the rules to me.

Honest Mistake: Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Which rule do you think they're breaking? Both are badly written, sure, but don't seem to actually break any of the rules to me.

Honest Mistake: Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

They make policy arguments that are more than just a negation. They're shitty policy arguments, but not illegal.

That said, there is a Proposal Basics issue with both.

[Wallenburg]

Sciongrad has been inactive for 8 months. Are they expected to return to their office or do they need to be replaced?

[Separatist Peoples]

Sciongrad has been inactive for 8 months. Are they expected to return to their office or do they need to be replaced?

Right now, they are expected to return. Scion hasn't been active here but has been more active on the Discord where he has kept in touch. We've kept an eye on the situation and will keep doing so, no worries!

[Jedinsto]

Is any of GenSec going to make a ruling on this? I know there are some people waiting for a ruling before submitting a legality challenge, so I'm just wondering whether GenSec will rule or not and if so what that ruling will be.

[Bears Armed]

Is any of GenSec going to make a ruling on this? I know there are some people waiting for a ruling before submitting a legality challenge, so I'm just wondering whether GenSec will rule or not and if so what that ruling will be.

As I have already said in its drafting thread, I have been refraining from ruling on it because of my involvement in the early stages of the drafting process (including advice given to the author by TG before they opened that thread).

[Fachumonn]

Has Grays Harbor kept in touch with you all?

They ceased to exist like 8 days ago.

[Separatist Peoples]

Has Grays Harbor kept in touch with you all?

They ceased to exist like 8 days ago.

Yes.

[States of Glory WA Office]

So I know that this is an odd question, but is there anything preventing someone from filing a legality challenge against a resolution that's already passed? I know that GenSec can't really do anything about it once it's enshrined into law barring a repeal, but a ruling on a passed resolution could still set a precedent for any future resolutions.

[Wallenburg]

So I know that this is an odd question, but is there anything preventing someone from filing a legality challenge against a resolution that's already passed? I know that GenSec can't really do anything about it once it's enshrined into law barring a repeal, but a ruling on a passed resolution could still set a precedent for any future resolutions.

All passed resolutions are necessarily legal. The challenge process exists specifically for proposals and, by convention, at-Vote resolutions. As fun as it is to publish official ramblings about WA law, we will not hear challenges simply for the sake of setting precedent.

[States of Glory WA Office]

That's fair enough, but I do have a follow-up to ask:

All passed resolutions are necessarily legal.

It's possible that convention has changed since I was last active here, but it was my understanding that the mere fact that a resolution has passed does not therefore mean that it constitutes precedent for legality. Is that still the case?

[Imperium Anglorum]

All passed resolutions are necessarily legal.

It's possible that convention has changed since I was last active here, but it was my understanding that the mere fact that a resolution has passed does not therefore mean that it constitutes precedent for legality. Is that still the case?

This is still the case; a passed resolution cannot be challenged on legality grounds. It also has no precedential value.

[States of Glory WA Office]

It's possible that convention has changed since I was last active here, but it was my understanding that the mere fact that a resolution has passed does not therefore mean that it constitutes precedent for legality. Is that still the case?

This is still the case; a passed resolution cannot be challenged on legality grounds. It also has no precedential value.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Refuge Isle]

There are fourteen proposals currently submitted to the General Assembly. Of them, three are in queue and three of them are over eight days old. Only the oldest has received a legality vote, and only by one member of the Secretariat (Wallenburg).

Given that the GenSec info page already over-promises its population, as Sierra Lyricalia appears to have quit at some point, can World Assembly members expect the Secretariat will add or reform its membership to provide coverage for General Assembly proposals?

[Republic of Mesque]

There are fourteen proposals currently submitted to the General Assembly. Of them, three are in queue and three of them are over eight days old. Only the oldest has received a legality vote, and only by one member of the Secretariat (Wallenburg).

Not surprising. The GenSec system of legality check is a complete failure and cracks were going to start showing up (and will do so) at any point.

Why does the General Assembly need a GenSec anyway? There are several instances in these forums of GenSec members flexing on GA authors; GenSec can propose, vote on and bar resolutions - they already propose repeals with a passion whenever there is a resolution they find unworthy or a target of their disdain; GenSec has failed to renovate and clarify the GA rules, even when this issue has been directly discussed in forum topics.

Get rid of rules and GenSec. Open up the queue for every resolution proposal and reduce the number of days of a resolution at vote. Let the GA oligarchic community decide what they like or dislike - at least one member of GenSec has hundreds of votes they can use anyway.

What is wrong with ending this charade? Passing resolutions is pandering to voters - its "benign politicking" as it has been previously described. Better enlarge a benign tumor than have a necrotic malignancy corroding this already failed institution.

[Isabella van der Feltz]

Not surprising. The GenSec system of legality check is a complete failure

Hello, according to?

Why does the General Assembly need a GenSec anyway?

If you've watched the current Forum since 2009 you'd know that the introduction of GenSec has helped enriched the IC scene of - and contributed OOC to - the WA and this forum

There are several instances in these forums of GenSec members flexing on GA authors [ ... ] they already propose repeals with a passion whenever there is a resolution they find unworthy or a target of their disdain

Thread/post links?

Get rid of rules and GenSec. Open up the queue for every resolution proposal

Um I don't think it's April Fool's Day ahaha

at least one member of GenSec has hundreds of votes they can use anyway.

Um I'm not sure how that is relevant to your argument that the GenSec system has been a total "failure" - Imperium Anglorum was not, in fact, one of the founding members of GenSec. There's nothing wrong with him having delegate votes in Europe

What is wrong with ending this charade?

If you've watched the WA since 2008 - then its split to GA and SC - you would've known that the GenSec system is not, in dact, a "charade" - for instance, when they were GenSec, Grays Harbor used to disagree with their colleagues. Before Imperium Anglorum was GenSec, IA used to disagree with then GenSec members Christiam Democrat, Separatist People, etc. in relation to some things too

Passing resolutions is pandering to voters - its "benign politicking" as it has been previously described.

Welcome to the "world's governing body"

Better enlarge a benign tumor

What

this already failed institution.

According to?

[Honeydewistania]

There are fourteen proposals currently submitted to the General Assembly. Of them, three are in queue and three of them are over eight days old. Only the oldest has received a legality vote, and only by one member of the Secretariat (Wallenburg).

Not surprising. The GenSec system of legality check is a complete failure and cracks were going to start showing up (and will do so) at any point.

Why does the General Assembly need a GenSec anyway? There are several instances in these forums of GenSec members flexing on GA authors; GenSec can propose, vote on and bar resolutions - they already propose repeals with a passion whenever there is a resolution they find unworthy or a target of their disdain; GenSec has failed to renovate and clarify the GA rules, even when this issue has been directly discussed in forum topics.

Get rid of rules and GenSec. Open up the queue for every resolution proposal and reduce the number of days of a resolution at vote. Let the GA oligarchic community decide what they like or dislike - at least one member of GenSec has hundreds of votes they can use anyway.

What is wrong with ending this charade? Passing resolutions is pandering to voters - its "benign politicking" as it has been previously described. Better enlarge a benign tumor than have a necrotic malignancy corroding this already failed institution.

I don't understand this. Do you believe that GenSec members shouldn't be allowed to play the game like everyone else? Proposing and voting on repeals is a right that should apply to all WA members. Removing the rules would also be catastrophic.

There are fourteen proposals currently submitted to the General Assembly. Of them, three are in queue and three of them are over eight days old. Only the oldest has received a legality vote, and only by one member of the Secretariat (Wallenburg).

Given that the GenSec info page already over-promises its population, as Sierra Lyricalia appears to have quit at some point, can World Assembly members expect the Secretariat will add or reform its membership to provide coverage for General Assembly proposals?

I second this question.

[Republic of Mesque]

I don't understand this. Do you believe that GenSec members shouldn't be allowed to play the game like everyone else? Proposing and voting on repeals is a right that should apply to all WA members. Removing the rules would also be catastrophic.

Granting the responsibilities and power of GenSec to 4-6 members is a mistake. People in the forums love to quote historicity as arguments, which, in this case, would serve to justify a system with severe power imbalances that depends on the time and good will of 4-6 people. Who chose GenSec? Doesn’t the World Assembly proclaim itself a democracy? Why don’t we get all GA Resolution Authors involved in the process of legality votes, without a top-down system? Elections and term limits? Nah, nation X is a GenSec since 20XX BCE, so why change?
Removing the rules would not be catastrophic - the worst resolutions that manage to dodge the rules are voted down. Several “poorly written” or “outdated” resolutions are repealed by authors. What this community could do to minimally improve is decentralize the verification of contradictions. If a resolution contradicts another, then enlarge the pool of members that can input a check and vote on a contradiction (GA authors with passed resolutions?). Finally, let more resolutions be voted, by reducing the time at vote. Most of the other rules are meant to maintain a closed-doors status quo, some of which were failed to be clarified, or consist in dark room legality decisions. All of this to keep this current that is unbothered to be changed, in code and in reception of new authors.

[Wallenburg]

There are fourteen proposals currently submitted to the General Assembly. Of them, three are in queue and three of them are over eight days old. Only the oldest has received a legality vote, and only by one member of the Secretariat (Wallenburg).

Given that the GenSec info page already over-promises its population, as Sierra Lyricalia appears to have quit at some point, can World Assembly members expect the Secretariat will add or reform its membership to provide coverage for General Assembly proposals?

Thank you for the prodding, it's helped get us proceeding through the replacement process. I've opened a nominations thread here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=541861

[Refuge Isle]

Ty Wally

[The Pacific Northwest]

I hope I'm posting this in the right place, I wasn't sure whether or not to ask here or in the Q&A thread.

I noticed the passed resolutions thread has not been updated in a month, and the past four resolutions that have passed have not been added yet. I don't stalk that thread so I'm actually not sure if it's typically updated regularly or not, and recently passed resolutions are not difficult to find since they're all on the last page of the WA list so in the grand scheme it's not a bug deal.

I was just wondering how often the thread is typically updated because I'm not sure if it's unusual for it to take a bit, and because the activity of GenSec has waned a bit recently.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I hope I'm posting this in the right place, I wasn't sure whether or not to ask here or in the Q&A thread.

I noticed the passed resolutions thread has not been updated in a month, and the past four resolutions that have passed have not been added yet. I don't stalk that thread so I'm actually not sure if it's typically updated regularly or not, and recently passed resolutions are not difficult to find since they're all on the last page of the WA list so in the grand scheme it's not a bug deal.

I was just wondering how often the thread is typically updated because I'm not sure if it's unusual for it to take a bit, and because the activity of GenSec has waned a bit recently.

It's updated every two months or so, usually. I have developed tools that make doing it less labour intensive.

[The Pacific Northwest]

I hope I'm posting this in the right place, I wasn't sure whether or not to ask here or in the Q&A thread.

I noticed the passed resolutions thread has not been updated in a month, and the past four resolutions that have passed have not been added yet. I don't stalk that thread so I'm actually not sure if it's typically updated regularly or not, and recently passed resolutions are not difficult to find since they're all on the last page of the WA list so in the grand scheme it's not a bug deal.

I was just wondering how often the thread is typically updated because I'm not sure if it's unusual for it to take a bit, and because the activity of GenSec has waned a bit recently.

It's updated every two months or so, usually. I have developed tools that make doing it less labour intensive.

That makes sense. Thank you, I was just wondering if that was typical or not. I know now that it is.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Pursuant to general agreement in the private forum to update and clarify language, I've made a number of changes to the procedures thread. Language may be reverted if any member of the Secretariat objects pending further discussion. The pre-edit language was as follows.

Comprehensive List of GenSec Decisions

1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized 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 [Legality 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 don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality 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 Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, 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 the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/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

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.

b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

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. If the General Secretariat decline to grant a question a review, each member that voted not to grant the question a review shall provide their reasoning publicly and promptly.

8. General Assembly 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 February 17, 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on March 1, 2017.
Section 6 added on May 14, 2017.
Section 6 header bolded on June 23, 2017.
Section 7 added on June 29, 2017.
Section 8 added on March 4, 2018.
Section 8 corrected for style on March 15, 2018.