[URGENT Legality Challenge] The International Culture Moveme

[Excidium Planetis]

Linky to Proposal
Linky to Drafting Thread

It's about to go to vote, it looks like. Half the approvals with over two days left in queue. Please act with all due haste, GenSec.

Adopted with permission from the Borderlands of Rhovunion:

We of the World Assembly create the International Culture Movement (ICM), a week-long festival filled with the art, music, theatre, and other forms of culture expressed by various artists from around the world to create a more peaceful environment for nations worldwide.

NOTING that conflicts now appear to come from one common source; different political, religious, and cultural views.

BELIEVING that individuality must be maintained among members of the WA to create a continuously expanding society.

CONCERNED of the idea that conflict is like a weed; if we continue to let it grow, it will affect more and more members of the WA until the word ‘peace’ will become almost non-existent.

FURTHER BELIEVING that an event such as this will help promote positive social interactions that can help end conflicts peacefully and without the need for more bloodshed.

WE HEREBY:

ESTABLISH the International Culture Movement to contradict the various forms of conflict that affect many nations.

INVITES any member of the WA to participate as they wish, whether by sending acclaimed artists to present to the international public or simply spectate the event to their own choosing.

CALLS UPON those in conflict to hold themselves to personal cease-fires to ensure the sanctity of the ICM among artists and designers who wish to present themselves and their culture.

EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that if passed, the ICM will slowly but surely and effectively lower the rate of conflict seen among members of the WA.

So says we, the World Assembly.

The premier violation seems to be Optionality. Strictly speaking, this proposal requires nations to do absolutely nothing. It only has four active clauses... maybe, the last one looks more like a preamble, except it concludes the proposal, as follows:

WE HEREBY:

ESTABLISH the International Culture Movement to contradict the various forms of conflict that affect many nations.

INVITES any member of the WA to participate as they wish, whether by sending acclaimed artists to present to the international public or simply spectate the event to their own choosing.

CALLS UPON those in conflict to hold themselves to personal cease-fires to ensure the sanctity of the ICM among artists and designers who wish to present themselves and their culture.

EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that if passed, the ICM will slowly but surely and effectively lower the rate of conflict seen among members of the WA.

The first active clause establishes an undefined "Culture Movement", but has no effect on member nations.

The second active clause merely "invites" member nations to participate "as they wish", which means all of them can do nothing.

The third clause merely "calls upon" member nations to hold themselves to ceasefires. One could argue that perhaps this does something, in which case I respond that if it does, this is a Category violation and should be Global Disarmament since the only thing it does is call for ceasefires.

The final clause is the WA expressing hope. I express my hope that I need not explain further why this clause is totally toothless.

---

Now then, I am not sure exactly how co-author and Branding rules work, but I would like the Council's opinion on whether the opening statement

Adopted with permission from the Borderlands of Rhovunion:

Counts as a Branding violation. It isn't a co-author acknowledgement, and its position at the start of the resolution makes it feel like a brand. But I can't confidently say I think it is a violation.

[Bears Armed]

Technically that is a Branding violation, yes. It would be legal if placed as a co-author credit at the end of the text instead, though.

You can't see this detail (Not yet, anyway, although there's talk of changing that...), but five members of the Secretariat have already marked it as Illegal for Optionality and/or Branding, so it won't be allowed to go to vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

Technically that is a Branding violation, yes. It would be legal if placed as a co-author credit at the end of the text instead, though.

You can't see this detail (Not yet, anyway, although there's talk of changing that...), but five members of the Secretariat have already marked it as Illegal for Optionality and/or Branding, so it won't be allowed to go to vote.

To jump in before there are riots, we're working out the last details of the procedure for it (this proposal didn't trip on that, we aren't acting unguided) before we roll it all out publicly.

I don't think it's Branding, but I'm a little more forgiving of the coauthor placement. I am, however, right on board with the Optionality violation.

[Bears Armed]

but five members of the Secretariat have already marked it as Illegal for Optionality and/or Branding

All six of us, now.

[Christian Democrats]

Yeah, this proposal should be held after it reaches quorum due to a new system that is being tested/rolled out.

[Christian Democrats]

but five members of the Secretariat have already marked it as Illegal for Optionality and/or Branding

All six of us, now.

To add some detail, here's what voting looks like right now:

Illegal for Branding (5) -- BA, CD, GR, SL, Scion
Illegal for Optionality (3) -- BA, SP, Scion

[Rhovunion]

*Walks past Secretariat's Conference and overhears objections to ICM*
...Ah crap. And I hoped it wouldn't end like that Gun Control Act that got stopped before me...Now I feel kinda foolish.

[Frisbeeteria]

Yeah, this proposal should be held after it reaches quorum due to a new system that is being tested/rolled out.

There have been some glitches in the WA code over the last couple of days. We're going to use this proposal as a live test to see if the Hold code works properly.

If it doesn't get Held, we still have the Mod-Discard button available. No matter the outcome, it's illegal and won't get voted in even if it wins the popular vote.

[Araraukar]

There have been some glitches in the WA code over the last couple of days. We're going to use this proposal as a live test to see if the Hold code works properly.

If it doesn't get Held, we still have the Mod-Discard button available. No matter the outcome, it's illegal and won't get voted in even if it wins the popular vote.

This is the kind of heads-up that I think that Wallenburg and I (and maybe some others) wanted, in the Q&A thread, so thank you for it.

[Tinfect]

Seems to be working for this and many other drafts. Well done guys, doubly so to whoever it is that writes the code for NS.

[Christian Democrats]

Seems to be working for this and many other drafts. Well done guys, doubly so to whoever it is that writes the code for NS.

We could manually discard the proposal now, but we might want to test whether or not the auto-discard works: if a proposal is held for seven days, it is automatically discarded, unless GenSec takes action to remove the hold.

[Rhovunion]

Seems to be working for this and many other drafts. Well done guys, doubly so to whoever it is that writes the code for NS.

We could manually discard the proposal now, but we might want to test whether or not the auto-discard works: if a proposal is held for seven days, it is automatically discarded, unless GenSec takes action to remove the hold.

I doubt you guys are going to change your mind on the ICM, so please just discard it now. I would appreciate it as I look through all the dumb mistakes I put into it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We could manually discard the proposal now, but we might want to test whether or not the auto-discard works: if a proposal is held for seven days, it is automatically discarded, unless GenSec takes action to remove the hold.

I doubt you guys are going to change your mind on the ICM, so please just discard it now. I would appreciate it as I look through all the dumb mistakes I put into it.

I hope you won't be discouraged from trying again once you've got a better sense of the legal requirements, and of what makes a proposal voters are likely to want. Your attitude has been great - many other first-time authors would be all, "Nuh-uh, it's good enough for me, and screw anyone who doesn't like it!" Hope to keep seeing you around.

[Rhovunion]

I doubt you guys are going to change your mind on the ICM, so please just discard it now. I would appreciate it as I look through all the dumb mistakes I put into it.

I hope you won't be discouraged from trying again once you've got a better sense of the legal requirements, and of what makes a proposal voters are likely to want. Your attitude has been great - many other first-time authors would be all, "Nuh-uh, it's good enough for me, and screw anyone who doesn't like it!" Hope to keep seeing you around.

I appreciate it a lot! If it doesn't get passed then I'll likely try again in the future, but I won't spam you guys like nations who submit two proposals at once cause that's just annoying for you I'm guessing. But also, on the Queue thread, Bears Armed made a point saying that he was open for placing co-author credit near the top if enough support is acquired, so do you think some of the other Secretariats might see and think this as well?

[Separatist Peoples]

I hope you won't be discouraged from trying again once you've got a better sense of the legal requirements, and of what makes a proposal voters are likely to want. Your attitude has been great - many other first-time authors would be all, "Nuh-uh, it's good enough for me, and screw anyone who doesn't like it!" Hope to keep seeing you around.

I appreciate it a lot! If it doesn't get passed then I'll likely try again in the future, but I won't spam you guys like nations who submit two proposals at once cause that's just annoying for you I'm guessing. But also, on the Queue thread, Bears Armed made a point saying that he was open for placing co-author credit near the top if enough support is acquired, so do you think some of the other Secretariats might see and think this as well?

I really don't have a problem with where one places a Co-Author, so I was willing to let it slide on that front. That said, the other illegality still stood.

[Rhovunion]

I appreciate it a lot! If it doesn't get passed then I'll likely try again in the future, but I won't spam you guys like nations who submit two proposals at once cause that's just annoying for you I'm guessing. But also, on the Queue thread, Bears Armed made a point saying that he was open for placing co-author credit near the top if enough support is acquired, so do you think some of the other Secretariats might see and think this as well?

I really don't have a problem with where one places a Co-Author, so I was willing to let it slide on that front. That said, the other illegality still stood.

That's too true, sadly. So as a possible option, could I re-mediate my proposal and re-submit it without the Optionality violation and possibly moving the co-author credit to the bottom? I'm asking because on the Guidelines you don't want spammed proposals and I'm not sure if this counts or if you'll consider it.

[Separatist Peoples]

I really don't have a problem with where one places a Co-Author, so I was willing to let it slide on that front. That said, the other illegality still stood.

That's too true, sadly. So as a possible option, could I re-mediate my proposal and re-submit it without the Optionality violation and possibly moving the co-author credit to the bottom? I'm asking because on the Guidelines you don't want spammed proposals and I'm not sure if this counts or if you'll consider it.

I can't answer that, because fixing the optionality violation isn't nearly as Yes/No as the coauthor credit issue. Its subjective enough that we'd have to see the end result first. But, provisionally, that sounds right. No illegalities = no problem.

[Rhovunion]

That's too true, sadly. So as a possible option, could I re-mediate my proposal and re-submit it without the Optionality violation and possibly moving the co-author credit to the bottom? I'm asking because on the Guidelines you don't want spammed proposals and I'm not sure if this counts or if you'll consider it.

I can't answer that, because fixing the optionality violation isn't nearly as Yes/No as the coauthor credit issue. Its subjective enough that we'd have to see the end result first. But, provisionally, that sounds right. No illegalities = no problem.

Like revising it and placing it back into the forum for a Secretariat review before submitting it, then? I can do that if you and the rest of the council agrees this is okay to do.

[Separatist Peoples]

I can't answer that, because fixing the optionality violation isn't nearly as Yes/No as the coauthor credit issue. Its subjective enough that we'd have to see the end result first. But, provisionally, that sounds right. No illegalities = no problem.

Like revising it and placing it back into the forum for a Secretariat review before submitting it, then? I can do that if you and the rest of the council agrees this is okay to do.

That's exactly what we want.

[Rhovunion]

Like revising it and placing it back into the forum for a Secretariat review before submitting it, then? I can do that if you and the rest of the council agrees this is okay to do.

That's exactly what we want.

Then I'll work on it to fix both issue before re-submitting it. Thanks for the opportunity to make these changes, it means a lot.

[Rhovunion]

Like revising it and placing it back into the forum for a Secretariat review before submitting it, then? I can do that if you and the rest of the council agrees this is okay to do.

That's exactly what we want.

Finished up that legal revision. I'd love some observations on it to ensure its legality.