[Legality Challenge] Repeal "The World Assembly"

[Libratus]

Libratus would like to formally challenge the 'Repeal "The World Assembly"', currently in the quorum round.

There does not appear to be an associated forum thread for this proposal, although it is similar in intent to "Repeal the World Assembly", which was dismissed by Frisbeeteria as a game mechanics violation.

Resolution text:

General Assembly Resolution #1 "The World Assembly" (Category: bookkeeping; Strength: Sweeping) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the great work this body has done to improve the world,

Noting that as a whole the World Assembly is a functional and well-orchestrated organization,

Concerned that the length of time each proposal gets to be voted on is much too long,

Hereby repeals GAR#1, "The World Assembly."

Selected category: Gambling
Legalize/Outlaw: Outlaw
Proposed by Cisairse

The rationale for the challenge issued by Libratus is as follows:

• Category violation: The resolution is clearly written as a repeal of GAR#1, yet is filed as a Gambling resolution.
• Game mechanics violation: In a similar spirit to the aforementioned forum topic, this proposal also aims to "change how the game works". An argument could be made that repealing GAR#1 would undermine the basic premise upon which all subsequent GARs are based.

I humbly ask the General Secretariat to consider this challenge, and seek enlightment from both the Secretariat and from Cisairse as to the intent and validity of the proposal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I really don't believe there is any need to challenge this proposal.

[Libratus]

In the sense that it's unlikely to pass anyway, you are correct. But I think it's important that the GenSec sets a precedent on the matter to discourage similar situations in the future. I'm confident both Imperium Anglorum and Libratus can agree that the proposal risks damaging the fabric of the WA -- and even the game itself. For Libratus to say nothing at all is at worst neglect, at best tacit approval. We as WA nations are not above helping the submitters of proposals understand what is and isn't acceptable, regardless of how ridiculous a proposal seems. It is my personal opinion that doing otherwise fosters the appearance of elitism, though I know full well that was not your intent in the slightest and understand you are optimizing for time and relevance. The more understanding proposal submitters have in the future, the less likely a similar situation is to arise.

[Phydios]

How does this proposal even exist? Wasn't GAR #1 specifically coded to be unrepealable? Even if you brought up a repeal form with some URL editing, the proposal wouldn't submit...

[Libratus]

It's because it was submitted as a new gambling proposal, rather than a repeal of GAR#1.

[Phydios]

It's because it was submitted as a new gambling proposal, rather than a repeal of GAR#1.

Oh. So it just breaks some very fundamental and unambiguous rules, such as the Category rule. With the right code, the site itself could rule this illegal without human control. What would compel the author to put a repeal attempt under Gambling?

[Aclion]

It's because it was submitted as a new gambling proposal, rather than a repeal of GAR#1.

Oh. So it just breaks some very fundamental and unambiguous rules, such as the Category rule. With the right code, the site itself could rule this illegal without human control. What would compel the author to put a repeal attempt under Gambling?

Clearly they're gambling the the mods won't take notice.

[Frisbeeteria]

Clearly they're gambling the the mods won't take notice.

Oh, we noticed. The funny thing is that it isn't a Mod problem. It's a simple category violation, and therefore belongs to GenSec.

I suppose you could make the case that it's Game Mechanics because GAR #1 isn't repealable, but I'm happy to let GenSec deal with it.

[Libratus]

Makes sense. The primary issue here appears to be the category violation; if it weren't violating category rules, it would not have been possible to submit in the first place. Which technically makes the game mechanics violation the secondary, minor issue here.

[Thyerata]

This has led to a question that's not unrelated. Namely, whether GenSec could rule on whether the "early" resolutions (e.g. GARs 1 and subsequent - i.e. those that were passed at the very beginning of the WA's existence) have passed into "jus cogens" - that is, they are so old that everyone accepts them as part of customary international law, and, relatedly, when Resolutions are generally accepted as such?

OOC: I'm going to have to dash off to a lecture, so I'll submit a brief on this a bit later

[Imperium Anglorum]

GenSec can rule on early resolutions. The issue with Repealing 1 GA is that it is impossible to do via the Repeal function, and impossible to do legally without having a repeal function.

[Thyerata]

GenSec can rule on early resolutions. The issue with Repealing 1 GA is that it is impossible to do via the Repeal function, and impossible to do legally without having a repeal function.

I accept what the issue is, but my question is more nuanced than that. It's normally the case that, insofar as the game mechanics are concerned, any Resolution passed subsequently to a Member's joining the WA becomes automatically binding. My question is whether, because of how international law has evolved, and based on the interpretation of previous resolutions and various rulings, previous resolutions that were passed before a member joined should be considered impliedly binding as soon as that member joins.

For example, I joined the WA while Repeal Open Internet Order is being voted on, and I accept that it will be binding on me because of the nature of WA membership. However, as part of my membership, do all the previous resolutions passed by the WA implicitly become binding on me too?

[Araraukar]

My question is whether, because of how international law has evolved, and based on the interpretation of previous resolutions and various rulings, previous resolutions that were passed before a member joined should be considered impliedly binding as soon as that member joins.

Yes. When you join the WA, you agree to obey all the existing and future resolutions. At least while you're on the GA forum. You can RP whatever you want on the other IC forums.

However, as part of my membership, do all the previous resolutions passed by the WA implicitly become binding on me too?

Again, yes.

As for GenSec ruling on the legality of previously passed resolutions, that's largely a moot point as "it's illegal" is not an acceptable repeal argument. All passed resolutions are considered legal.

[Excidium Planetis]

I will also add, wholly unnecessarily, to this challenge by asserting that the "repeal" in question is an Honest Mistake violation. The main (and only) argument is as follows:

Concerned that the length of time each proposal gets to be voted on is much too long,

As GA#1 sets no length of time for voting, the argument is not addressing GA#1 and thus is repealing GA#1 on a mistake.

[Separatist Peoples]

Its illegal in about a dozen ways. I hit Discard, as there is no possible way this could be seen as legal. It isn't even borderline.

[Bears Armed]

As for GenSec ruling on the legality of previously passed resolutions, that's largely a moot point as "it's illegal" is not an acceptable repeal argument. All passed resolutions are considered legal.

Although unless there was actually an official ruling that a particular resolution was legal before it passed that legality does not automatically make that resolution a valid precedent for the authors of later proposals to follow...

Its illegal in about a dozen ways. I hit Discard, as there is no possible way this could be seen as legal. It isn't even borderline.

Seconded.

[Araraukar]

that legality does not automatically make that resolution a valid precedent for the authors of later proposals to follow...

Very true, especially as the proposal rules themselves have changed over the years, not just how they're interpreted...