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
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:24 pm

Newplacelandia wrote:These are hypothetical questions, I'm just curious:

Does GenSec have any checks/balance besides the site moderators?
If so, what are they? And can any legislation be passed in the WA that adds/removes checks and balances for GenSec? Or can GenSec be written into a WA proposal at all?

No, none, no, and no.
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
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3156
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:57 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Newplacelandia wrote:These are hypothetical questions, I'm just curious:

Does GenSec have any checks/balance besides the site moderators?
If so, what are they? And can any legislation be passed in the WA that adds/removes checks and balances for GenSec? Or can GenSec be written into a WA proposal at all?

No, none, no, and no.


If we screw up, there will be a public outcry and moderator intervention. The rest would be a metagaming or possibly game mechanics violation (see proposal rules linked in my signature below)
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Newplacelandia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Aug 04, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Newplacelandia » Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:39 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:No, none, no, and no.


If we screw up, there will be a public outcry and moderator intervention. The rest would be a metagaming or possibly game mechanics violation (see proposal rules linked in my signature below)


Thanks! I was just looking around and couldn't find anything on those questions, so I got curious.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12524
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:32 am

In the GenSec rulings Google Doc that has a link to it in the first post of this thread, the Ban On Secret Treaties (the first attempt) has been marked as being ruled illegal for committee-only and joke proposal rules, yet the actual ruling says it's not illegal for the joke proposal rule, only the committee one.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:41 am

Araraukar wrote:In the GenSec rulings Google Doc that has a link to it in the first post of this thread, the Ban On Secret Treaties (the first attempt) has been marked as being ruled illegal for committee-only and joke proposal rules, yet the actual ruling says it's not illegal for the joke proposal rule, only the committee one.

Read the comment on the far right. It isn’t possible to sub-divide to the question level. The legality column is at large.

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
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12524
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:30 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Read the comment on the far right. It isn’t possible to sub-divide to the question level. The legality column is at large.

I thought that might've been it, but there were other, earlier challenges, where more challenges had been made than what was actually used to rule the thing illegal, and those didn't have the dismissed claims in that column.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:19 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Read the comment on the far right. It isn’t possible to sub-divide to the question level. The legality column is at large.

I thought that might've been it, but there were other, earlier challenges, where more challenges had been made than what was actually used to rule the thing illegal, and those didn't have the dismissed claims in that column.

The comments on the far right are supposed to be very short and only note decisive decisions. If you have any suggestions on how to improve them while keeping them short, I'd be happy to make modifications. (Namely, meaning proposing additional or replacement text.)
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:41 pm

Could the threads for

Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care"

Be released?

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
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:12 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Could the threads for

Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care"

Be released?

Requested.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5799
Founded: Antiquity
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:43 pm

Done.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue May 01, 2018 10:22 am

Could the threads for

Repeal "Protection of Biomedical Research", 2018-02-05
Promoting Research on Life in Foetuses and Embryos, 2018-03-08

be released?
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue May 01, 2018 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

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
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3156
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Tue May 01, 2018 7:41 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Could the threads for

Repeal "Protection of Biomedical Research", 2018-02-05
Promoting Research on Life in Foetuses and Embryos, 2018-03-08

be released?


The former thread was released this past Friday. I'll check on the latter shortly.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 5711
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Tue May 01, 2018 8:22 pm

They are both released now.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445.
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue May 01, 2018 8:24 pm

Thanks!

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
Monstrosities
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Mar 26, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Secretariat members

Postby Monstrosities » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:29 pm

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.




Why not just include another member, making 7 total in order to prevent ties?

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:14 pm

Why not spoil your post instead of posting a wall of text followed by a short question? But more topically, Mods break the tie so they don't happen.

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
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:02 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Why not spoil your post instead of posting a wall of text followed by a short question? But more topically, Mods break the tie so they don't happen.

In fairness, it would still be easier to just have a seventh member.
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
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13958
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:22 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Why not spoil your post instead of posting a wall of text followed by a short question? But more topically, Mods break the tie so they don't happen.

In fairness, it would still be easier to just have a seventh member.

Or not replace the next one who steps down and keep a team of 5.

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
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17807
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:20 am

You're assuming that the current members are all always active: In fact there are times when fewer can find the time in which to do much here, and of course there are cases on which one or another of us has to recuse themselves due to personal involvement in the proposal being discussed, so there are times when we effectively have an odd number of members voting anyway... and if we did change the "full" number to either seven or five then those same kinds of situations would lead to cases where we still have an even number of members voting...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:06 pm

Bears Armed wrote:You're assuming that the current members are all always active: In fact there are times when fewer can find the time in which to do much here, and of course there are cases on which one or another of us has to recuse themselves due to personal involvement in the proposal being discussed, so there are times when we effectively have an odd number of members voting anyway... and if we did change the "full" number to either seven or five then those same kinds of situations would lead to cases where we still have an even number of members voting...

Very true, and looking at the voting record IA has compiled, it would seem that GenSec has to rely on 5 opinions for one reason or another more often than not.
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
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 3925
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Corporate Police State

Postby Lord Dominator » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:16 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:You're assuming that the current members are all always active: In fact there are times when fewer can find the time in which to do much here, and of course there are cases on which one or another of us has to recuse themselves due to personal involvement in the proposal being discussed, so there are times when we effectively have an odd number of members voting anyway... and if we did change the "full" number to either seven or five then those same kinds of situations would lead to cases where we still have an even number of members voting...

Very true, and looking at the voting record IA has compiled, it would seem that GenSec has to rely on 5 opinions for one reason or another more often than not.

Oh so a mere 10/26 is a lot now? Poppycock :p
Osiris Vizier of WA AffairsDee Vytherov-SkollvaldrGameplay Ambassador of ForestLieutenant in The Black HawksRecruitment and Outreach Director of Lazarus

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:21 am

Can we get releases for

Administrative Compliance Act
Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

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
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:19 pm

Can we get releases for:

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" (ie [2018] GAS 9)
Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" (tomorrow)
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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
Battlion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 541
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:41 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Can we get releases for:

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


One day ;)

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:22 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Can we get releases for:

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

Bump.

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

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads