Advertisement
by Wrapper » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:43 am
by Araraukar » Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:11 pm
Wrapper wrote:*snip*
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sciongrad » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:08 pm
Araraukar wrote:Wrapper wrote:*snip*
But if mod precedent is valid, then reading the auto-stamped text as the repeal clause is a CHANGE OF RULES. If it's not valid, then it's just, like some GenSec peeps have tried to argue, a different point of view. That's why we're talking about it, and that's why it's both important and on topic.
by Araraukar » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:02 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Let's talk about the change rather than mod precedent, which has no binding influence at all on GenSec's legal decisions.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:42 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:10 pm
by Araraukar » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:13 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Does anyone have a serious argument against the new status quo, or are we cool?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Frisbeeteria » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:46 am
Araraukar wrote:Just add it in the rules
by Christian Democrats » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:59 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Bananaistan » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:08 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Frisbeeteria wrote:If this is generally acceptable, somebody please come up with appropriate phrasing and location. Brevity is important, as we like to keep the rules as simple as possible. Does it go under Format: Operative Clause, or somewhere else?
I don't think we need to add anything to the Rules. We're just (re)interpreting the Operative Clause Rule.
by Potted Plants United » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:09 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:Does it go under Format: Operative Clause, or somewhere else?
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Wrapper » Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:36 am
Adytus wrote:This sounds reasonable! Will it also apply to the Security Council, or does the ruling only impact the General Assembly?
by Wallenburg » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:21 am
Wrapper wrote:Adytus wrote:This sounds reasonable! Will it also apply to the Security Council, or does the ruling only impact the General Assembly?
GA only. The SC description field ("A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation") is just that, a description, and not an operative clause ("...shall be struck out and rendered null and void"). SC Rule 3 is still in effect.
by Wrapper » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:25 am
by Wallenburg » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:27 am
by Tzorsland » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:31 pm
Bears Armed wrote:Do the rest of you consider this reasonable, or are there objections?
by Wallenburg » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:16 pm
Tzorsland wrote:Bears Armed wrote:Do the rest of you consider this reasonable, or are there objections?
I haven't been keeping close tabs on the forums lately (it's another Camp NaNoWriMo) but I have to strongly approve of this idea and throw in some not really discussed points.
Repeals are not Resolutions. It's been a while since I was in the WA, so I can't look at the screens offhand, but IIRC, when you submit a request for a repeal, the large box where you enter your text specifically says "argument." So it's not really, technically a "resolution" and the text isn't a resolution text but a repeal argument. Therefore it should have absolutely no operative clauses at all, and if it does, it merely is describing in the argument what the operative clause (automatically generated) actually does.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:30 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Repeals are resolutions. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about.
Description: General Assembly Resolution #16 “Sexual Privacy Act” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: The World Assembly,
Acknowledging that WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act", mandates that all member nations legalise incest,
Understanding that children conceived by closely related persons can be in severe danger of inheriting congenital birth defects,
Believing that there is a compelling government interest in restricting incest,
Regretting that such action is illegal under WA law with the Sexual Privacy Act in place,
Resolves the situation by repealing WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act".
by Tzorsland » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:34 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:06 pm
Tzorsland wrote:I'm still seeing the Argument format in the General Resolutions ThreadRepeal "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #400
Proposed by: Helaw
Description: General Assembly Resolution #400 "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact" (Category: Health, Area of Effect: Research) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: The World Assembly,
Commending the principles outlined and adhered to by the target resolution,
Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge' as it omits specific medical cases, which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,
Bamboozled by technological research being discounted in the definition of 'medicinal knowledge', as this prevents innumerable medical technologies and biomedical advances from being archived by the WACMD (many of which are integral to having a full understanding of modern medicinal science),
Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined by the resolution, as the active clauses instead use the separate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency allowing member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,
Noting that the medical applications of technologies developed during the creation of biological weapons in the world's history would be discarded simply due to their initial place of origin,
Puzzled by the fact that the proposal both allows access to the WACMD database by 'all' - an ambiguous term - and exclusively to WA member nations; a notable contradiction that, depending on interpretation, may allow for dangerous and potentially malicious misuse of the database by non-member nations,
Appalled by the fact that the WACMD database exists solely online, restricting access to member nations that possess digital networks,
Displeased with the waste of World Assembly funds that the target resolution ultimately represents, as other resolutions such as GA #103, GA #78, and GA #31 already perform most - if not all - of the important functions that the target resolution details,
Bemused by the failure of the resolution to specify any form of curation in regards to submitted medical data, giving rise to potentially misleading information being added to the database,
Believing that the resolution is not fit to legislate in regards to the restriction and regulation of private medical research nor per-nation medical legislation and policy, and that it overstretches its focus by attempting to do so,
Hereby repeals GA #400, 'World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact'.
Votes For: 10 788 (60.1%)
Votes Against: 7 169 (39.9%)
Implemented Wed May 17 2017
[402 GA on NS] [Official Debate Topic]
by Araraukar » Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:58 am
Oldstesta Isle wrote:It's not a rule change. How many times does that need to be itterated? It is an interpretation and nothing more.
The Proposal Rules wrote:
- Format: Other universal standards for all General Assembly proposals.
- Operative Clause: Every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Bananaistan » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:00 am
Bears Armed wrote:There has been discussion in the past about whether the 'Description' line that the game automatically adds to any Repeal proposal constitutes an adequate operative clause, so that the author doesn't need to add a "Hereby repeals" line in their 'Argument' section as well.
During the period just before responsibility for policing the list of submitted proposals passed from the Mods to the Secretariat, at least one Mod was operating on the basis that that line is adequate.
The Secretariat has considered the matter, and currently supports that idea 5-0. After all, a Repeal only does one thing, so that one line of Description is a clear statement of its purpose.
Do the rest of you consider this reasonable, or are there objections?
by Araraukar » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:05 am
Bananaistan wrote:My emphasis. All repeals will still have an operative clause. They just won't have two of them anymore.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Excidium Planetis » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:10 am
Bears Armed wrote:The 'Description' line that the game automatically adds for any Repeal proposal constitutes enough of an operative clause that the author's doesn't have to include one in their 'Argument' as well for legality.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Bananaistan » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:17 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Simone Republic
Advertisement