NATION

PASSWORD

Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8427
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:10 pm

Current policy is to release archived discussion threads after one month. viewtopic.php?p=31921245#p31921245. Two cases need to be released:

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" (ie [2018] GAS 9)
Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Blueflarst
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 144
Founded: Aug 25, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Blueflarst » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:58 am

Sciongrad wrote: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.


Sincirely you are insulting all the communnity of players letting anglorum to have a proposal full drafter and declared legal with a ONE FUCKING LINE

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13742
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:04 am

Blueflarst wrote:
Sciongrad wrote: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.


Sincirely you are insulting all the communnity of players letting anglorum to have a proposal full drafter and declared legal with a ONE FUCKING LINE

Name one rule it violates.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Blueflarst
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 144
Founded: Aug 25, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Blueflarst » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:12 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:
Sincirely you are insulting all the communnity of players letting anglorum to have a proposal full drafter and declared legal with a ONE FUCKING LINE

Name one rule it violates.
Thewre is no justification to let a proposal with a line legal i had some proposals with paragraphs declared illegal for being short

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13742
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:16 am

Blueflarst wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Name one rule it violates.
Thewre is no justification to let a proposal with a line legal i had some proposals with paragraphs declared illegal for being short

There is no rule specifying length. Try again.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19490
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:15 am

Blueflarst wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Name one rule it violates.
Thewre is no justification to let a proposal with a line legal i had some proposals with paragraphs declared illegal for being short

Image
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Durzan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Dec 18, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Durzan » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:13 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Blueflarst wrote: Thewre is no justification to let a proposal with a line legal i had some proposals with paragraphs declared illegal for being short

There is no rule specifying length. Try again.


The law is vauge and unspecific because of how short it is. The resolution is practically unenforceable as written. Therefore, I assert that it is incomplete legislation and should be declared illegal upon those grounds.
Last edited by Durzan on Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
Come at me Bro.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8427
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:31 am

It's not vague and it's highly specific. It's definitely enforceable by the existing mechanisms, and if you believe in the stats, it is impossible for it not to be enforced. Even if that is the case, there is no rule about incomplete-ness.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5727
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:36 am

Durzan wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:There is no rule specifying length. Try again.

The law is vauge and unspecific because of how short it is. The resolution is practically unenforceable as written. Therefore, I assert that it is incomplete legislation and should be declared illegal upon those grounds.

That’s a reason to vote against, not a reason to declare it illegal. There’s absolutely nothing in the rules that would make this illegal.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13742
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:45 pm

Durzan wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:There is no rule specifying length. Try again.


The law is vauge and unspecific because of how short it is. The resolution is practically unenforceable as written. Therefore, I assert that it is incomplete legislation and should be declared illegal upon those grounds.


Point to the rule that requires proposals be specific.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Battlion
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 486
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:28 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Current policy is to release archived discussion threads after one month. viewtopic.php?p=31921245#p31921245. Two cases need to be released:

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" (ie [2018] GAS 9)
Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"


Anything on this GenSec? :p
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authortarian: -2.21

Senator Euàn Welder - (Former Minister of Commerce & Industry/Deputy Prime Minister/Chief Whip of Democratic Left)
Justice Valeria Eshendert - (Supreme Court Justice)
The Tea Admin (Seriously, I'm an Admin - TG me for anything)

NSGS Democratic Left - The party for Justice, Equality, Liberty, and the People!
"Least worst member of the Progress Coalition" - Belmaria

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arasi Luvasa, Australian rePublic, Fedele, Greater Puperino, Kenmoria, Maowi, Pax Aurea

Advertisement

Remove ads