NationStates

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

Battlion wrote:

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?

Waynewhite 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.

The Secretary-General shall provide and direct the staff required by the General Assembly and any committees or subsidiary organs which it may establish.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Waynewhite wrote:The Secretary-General shall provide and direct the staff required by the General Assembly and any committees or subsidiary organs which it may establish.

Nope.

La xinga wrote:Now that BA ceased to exist, what will be with the GA Ss?

La xinga wrote:Now that BA ceased to exist, what will be with the GA Ss?

Graintfjall wrote:I noticed this thread in moderation.

Setting aside the answer to the question of whether a proposal with an illegal campaign should be discarded, is that a question we can ask for an opinion on? It seems to fall into a gray area because the Pink Power Rangers presumably aren't privy to the details of campaigning, which is only known to mods.

Solar System Meritocratic Federation wrote:It is legal to propose resolution which repeals old one,but on the same times estabilish new regulatory regime on the same issue?

General Assembly Proposal
ID: ingeniam_vi_1611855379

Repeal: “Death Penalty Ban”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#535

Proposed by: Ingeniam VI

General Assembly Resolution #535 “Death Penalty Ban” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

It makes it impossible for criminals to do bad things over and over again. Executing someone permanently stops the worst criminals and means we can all feel safer, as they can't commit any more crimes. If they were in prison they might escape, or be let out for good behavior. It is a surefire way to keep our nations safe from these criminals' antics!

Approvals: 12 (Foreignaid, Moonkey Gang, The Palentine, Valucol, Vlux, Kingdom of Englands, Ravko, Hyperico, Stremia, Sfr Creeptopia, Gatchina, Anspach)

GenSec Status: LEGAL
Info
Legal (2): Bananaistan, Sierra Lyricalia

88 minutes ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Legal
17 hours ago: Bananaistan: Legal
Status: Lacking Support (requires 46 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days 1 hour

General Assembly Proposal
ID: sirsparksalot_1611883278

Repeal: “Death Penalty Ban”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#535

Proposed by: Sirsparksalot

General Assembly Resolution #535 “Death Penalty Ban” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The death penalty gives victims' families a sense of justice. It protects the victim's natural inherent right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Criminals who commit the most heinous crimes have to pay a price for the violation of the victim's human rights. Society should not be forced to house, care and feed for the criminal. The evilest among us must be culled.

Approvals: 8 (Anspach, Vlux, Kingdom of Englands, Ravko, Stremia, Foreignaid, Sfr Creeptopia, Gatchina)

GenSec Status: LEGAL
Info
Legal (2): Bananaistan, Sierra Lyricalia

86 minutes ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Legal
17 hours ago: Bananaistan: Legal
Status: Lacking Support (requires 50 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days 1 hour