NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:Take a law student and put him into a quasi-judicial position involving legal analysis and opinion writing, then complain when he uses legal terms...I ask you, what is this forum coming to?

I don't understand why people think Sep's statements are incomprehensible. Sep's statements here have been and continue to be quite clear and coherent. Claims otherwise, that he is deliberately being obfuscatory, seem to me immensely overstated.

Araraukar wrote:Violation: Contradiction

This...

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting citizens and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations at their own expense,

...violates GA #53, Epidemic Response Act clause 3) d., which says "STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following ... Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals"

No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

Araraukar wrote:GA #76, Standardised Passport Act second Affirms clause, which says "AFFIRMS that any national of a member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake, for reasons of medical quarantine, where there is reason to believe the terms of the visa are likely to be violated or if there is reason to believe the visa was obtained fraudulently" (relevant part underlined)

Again, I don't believe this qualifies either. Section 1 of the proposal addresses citizens leaving their home nation to seek care, not nations allowing entry for seeking medical care, whereas GA #76 speaks of "entry to a nation".

Araraukar wrote:as well as GA #389, Rights of the Quarantined, clause 4) b., which says "Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability ... move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location",

This is your strongest point of contention. "Requires... to the best of their capability" isn't a full-blown mandate, more like a strong urge, but you may be on to something here.

Separatist Peoples wrote:If I remember correctly, the author did not submit the most recent draft. Is that what happened?

The most recent draft was the version submitted.

Araraukar wrote:I don't know why others didn't submit one, I did it as soon as I noticed there being something wrong with it. I just hadn't paid it much attention and then it sneaked into the voting stage overnight.

For the record, on the 14th I clearly stated on the draft thread that, barring any issues with the language, I intended to submit it "in the next few days" (that was four days before submitting it, after receiving no further comment regarding issues with the language).

Wrapper wrote:Also,the author did not have the most recent draft in the OP until prompted to do so.

I will admit, that was an oversight on my part. Two pages on the most current drafting thread is too much to look through, I guess. I will try to remember to post the submitted version in the OP in the future.

New Waldensia wrote:No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

That's not how contradiction works.

For example, GA #378, Digital Network Defense merely encourages "nations which possess digital devices to assist in securing such devices against cyberattacks". If you tried to ban nations from doing that, it'd be contradiction. Same here.

Again, I don't believe this qualifies either. Section 1 of the proposal addresses citizens leaving their home nation to seek care, not nations allowing entry for seeking medical care, whereas GA #76 speaks of "entry to a nation".

If you're traveling to another nation, you are by necessity entering the other nation. Also, your proposal doesn't say anything about leaving a nation, it just bans any restrictions on "seeking healthcare".

This is your strongest point of contention. "Requires... to the best of their capability" isn't a full-blown mandate, more like a strong urge, but you may be on to something here.

"Requires" is a strong active clause, so it is a full-blown mandate, whether you like it or not.

Araraukar wrote:I don't know why others didn't submit one, I did it as soon as I noticed there being something wrong with it. I just hadn't paid it much attention and then it sneaked into the voting stage overnight.

For the record, on the 14th I clearly stated on the draft thread that, barring any issues with the language, I intended to submit it "in the next few days" (that was four days before submitting it, after receiving no further comment regarding issues with the language).

And like I said, I wasn't paying attention to your thread.

I will admit, that was an oversight on my part. Two pages on the most current drafting thread is too much to look through, I guess. I will try to remember to post the submitted version in the OP in the future.

It's not that it'd be a bother to look for it in two pages, but you don't know to look for it, if you don't know it exists. If there's the same thing in the OP that you know has already pointed out to be illegal, there's no reason to leave further comments on the thread, until the earlier ones have been incorporated into the draft.

---

Someone else raised a good point in the At Vote thread:

Bonto wrote:First, it appears that this resolution would allow an easy way out for people in judicial custody or other measures that limit their freedom: for example, somebody in jail gets any sickness---even a mild one---, leaves the country to get cured in another one with no or little police or control of their movements, gets out of jail free.

The main problem with the proposal is that it prohibits people from "seeking healthcare", rather than "seeking healthcare not available in their nation".

New Waldensia wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Also,the author did not have the most recent draft in the OP until prompted to do so.

I will admit, that was an oversight on my part. Two pages on the most current drafting thread is too much to look through, I guess. I will try to remember to post the submitted version in the OP in the future.

Apparently following forum custom is too much for you to attend, because the general custom is to update the first post with the draft. This way, people don't need to dig through debates which can get as many as 60 pages long. Since this is the custom, you can hardly blame the regulars here for looking to the first post.

Araraukar wrote:

New Waldensia wrote:No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

That's not how contradiction works.

For example, GA #378, Digital Network Defense merely encourages "nations which possess digital devices to assist in securing such devices against cyberattacks". If you tried to ban nations from doing that, it'd be contradiction. Same here.

This is how I view a mandates clause that does the opposite of what an urges clause does. While I feel that a mandates clause can go further in the same direction as an urges clause, I do not see how one can contradict the other without breaking the Contradiction rule. It's downright schizophrenic to urge a nation to do something it is then banned from doing.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

New Waldensia wrote:

I will admit, that was an oversight on my part. Two pages on the most current drafting thread is too much to look through, I guess. I will try to remember to post the submitted version in the OP in the future.

Apparently following forum custom is too much for you to attend, because the general custom is to update the first post with the draft. This way, people don't need to dig through debates which can get as many as 60 pages long. Since this is the custom, you can hardly blame the regulars here for looking to the first post.

Is it possible that a person who is not a regular of the forum might not be familiar with all of our customs?

Aclion wrote:Is it possible that a person who is not a regular of the forum might not be familiar with all of our customs?

Of course it's possible. Araraukar let the author know, and the author corrected it. No big deal. But, the resulting confusion is probably one of the contributing factors to this snafu, if indeed GenSec rules it illegal. Not that any of it matters really; it's always the author's responsibility, not the community's, and not GenSec's, to ensure their submission is legal.

New Waldensia, if it's ruled illegal, I hope you take this as a learning experience, and not as a failure. Your grasp of how things work around here is actually pretty good, and you do write well. I look forward to more of your work.

Aclion wrote:Is it possible that a person who is not a regular of the forum might not be familiar with all of our customs?

Wrapper wrote:. . .it's always the author's responsibility, not the community's, and not GenSec's, to ensure their submission is legal.

Emphasis added. The author isn't being penalized for their breach of protocol. Merely being admonished and pointed in the correct decision. That they are new does not exculpate them for the error.

Wrapper wrote:

Aclion wrote:Is it possible that a person who is not a regular of the forum might not be familiar with all of our customs?

Of course it's possible. Araraukar let the author know, and the author corrected it. No big deal. But, the resulting confusion is probably one of the contributing factors to this snafu, if indeed GenSec rules it illegal. Not that any of it matters really; it's always the author's responsibility, not the community's, and not GenSec's, to ensure their submission is legal.

I'm not saying the proposal should be held legal because of it, but that there's no reason to go beating the guy down over it. I'd like to see more new authors, and more people drafting proposals here. But that won't happen if we read people the riot act over taboos.

Wrapper wrote:New Waldensia, if it's ruled illegal, I hope you take this as a learning experience, and not as a failure. Your grasp of how things work around here is actually pretty good, and you do write well. I look forward to more of your work.

Seconded, addionally don't give up on this proposal. The alleged illegalities brought up here are not insurmountable, given a redraft and resubmission.

New Waldensia wrote:

Araraukar wrote:Violation: Contradiction

This...

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting citizens and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations at their own expense,

...violates GA #53, Epidemic Response Act clause 3) d., which says "STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following ... Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals"

No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

I agree on that point.

New Waldensia wrote:

Araraukar wrote:GA #76, Standardised Passport Act second Affirms clause, which says "AFFIRMS that any national of a member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake, for reasons of medical quarantine, where there is reason to believe the terms of the visa are likely to be violated or if there is reason to believe the visa was obtained fraudulently" (relevant part underlined)

Again, I don't believe this qualifies either. Section 1 of the proposal addresses citizens leaving their home nation to seek care, not nations allowing entry for seeking medical care, whereas GA #76 speaks of "entry to a nation".

Again, I agree.

New Waldensia wrote:

Araraukar wrote:as well as GA #389, Rights of the Quarantined, clause 4) b., which says "Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability ... move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location",

This is your strongest point of contention. "Requires... to the best of their capability" isn't a full-blown mandate, more like a strong urge, but you may be on to something here.

I'll think about this, but have literally only a few minutes left online today.

Aclion wrote:I'm not saying the proposal should be held legal because of it, but that there's no reason to go beating the guy down over it.

I don't think anyone's reading a riot act to anyone. On the proposal's thread, I pointed out that the first post ought to have the most current draft, the author added it there, case closed. On this thread, SP asked about why the illegality wasn't reacted to earlier, I gave my reasoning for it.

I'd like to see more new authors, and more people drafting proposals here. But that won't happen if we read people the riot act over taboos.

It also won't happen when they see regulars snapping at one another over the accounts' WA status. Just saying.

Wrapper wrote:New Waldensia, if it's ruled illegal, I hope you take this as a learning experience, and not as a failure. Your grasp of how things work around here is actually pretty good, and you do write well. I look forward to more of your work.

Seconded, addionally don't give up on this proposal. The alleged illegalities brought up here are not insurmountable, given a redraft and resubmission.

Thirded. And I'll promise to pay more attention to the thread this time.

---

Had a look through the proposal's thread and noticed that at least some of the problem points had been pointed out to the author here and here.

Araraukar wrote:

This is your strongest point of contention. "Requires... to the best of their capability" isn't a full-blown mandate, more like a strong urge, but you may be on to something here.

"Requires" is a strong active clause, so it is a full-blown mandate, whether you like it or not.

My point is that the modifier of "to the best of their capability" would seem, to me, to weaken the ordinary strength of "requires".

Example from the American Civil War battle of Gettysburg. Robert E. Lee's order of "take that hill [strong order], if practicable [weakening modifier]" would have meant "take that hill" to Stonewall Jackson, but it meant "sit and wait until morning" to Richard Ewell, at which point it wasn't practicable anymore.

Aclion wrote:Is it possible that a person who is not a regular of the forum might not be familiar with all of our customs?

Absolutely! Now that I look, I don't see a "drafting customs" post anywhere; that would be helpful to newer members. For example, none of the "rules and advice" threads mention editing your original draft post with the submitted version.

Wrapper wrote:New Waldensia, if it's ruled illegal, I hope you take this as a learning experience, and not as a failure. Your grasp of how things work around here is actually pretty good, and you do write well. I look forward to more of your work.

Thanks, I aim to take this constructively.

Aclion wrote:Seconded, addionally don't give up on this proposal. The alleged illegalities brought up here are not insurmountable, given a redraft and resubmission.

If struck down, I will redraft and resubmit, hopefully without any additional issues with the language, as this is overwhelmingly passing and thus seems to have widespread support.

New Waldensia wrote:My point is that the modifier of "to the best of their capability" would seem, to me, to weaken the ordinary strength of "requires".

Even if it was urges, contradiction would kick in.

Bears Armed wrote:

New Waldensia wrote:No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

I agree on that point.

Wait, so if a resolution urges X and a proposal requires X, it's contradiction, but if a resolution urges X and a proposal prohibits X, it's not contradiction?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:I agree on that point.

Wait, so if a resolution urges X and a proposal requires X, it's contradiction, but if a resolution urges X and a proposal prohibits X, it's not contradiction?

That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it works out for them.

Bears Armed wrote:

New Waldensia wrote:No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

I agree on that point.

Perhaps at risk of repeating SoG's point: 'Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense.'

New Waldensia wrote:

Wrapper wrote:New Waldensia, if it's ruled illegal, I hope you take this as a learning experience, and not as a failure. Your grasp of how things work around here is actually pretty good, and you do write well. I look forward to more of your work.

Thanks, I aim to take this constructively.

I just want to echo what others have said. The potential contradiction in your resolution was an oversight on many levels, and even members of GenSec didn't catch it at first. Things like this happen and it in no way reflects on your ability as an author or the level of success you'll have on this forum. I'm glad you're taking this constructively and I can't wait to vote for your next attempt.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Perhaps at risk of repeating SoG's point: 'Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense.'

Add me in for the collective jaw-drop as well.

Bears Armed wrote:

New Waldensia wrote:No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

I agree on that point.

Bears Armed wrote:

Inhumane Weapons Act

Illegal (1): Bears Armed
4 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Contradiction of existing legislation (GA Resolution #267 'Sensible Limits ion Hunting' only URGES member nations to ban "unnecessarily cruel" methods, so they could choose to allow weapons that you're classing as 'inhumane' here).[/b][/i]

Status: Lacking Support (requires 86 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 2 hours

Sorry, but there it is...

Make up your mind, you can't have both.

Just to confirm that 4 members of GenSec have agreed that the proposal is illegal on the initial contradiction point and it will be discarded at the close of voting.

I hope that the author will redraft as it should be reasonably easy to clear up the points of contention.

Bananaistan wrote:Just to confirm that 4 members of GenSec have agreed that the proposal is illegal on the initial contradiction point and it will be discarded at the close of voting.

I hope that the author will redraft as it should be reasonably easy to clear up the points of contention.

Perhaps that should be posted in the proposal's thread as well?

Bananaistan wrote:Just to confirm that 4 members of GenSec have agreed that the proposal is illegal on the initial contradiction point and it will be discarded at the close of voting.

Just for clarity, specifically what language is being struck down?

New Waldensia wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:Just to confirm that 4 members of GenSec have agreed that the proposal is illegal on the initial contradiction point and it will be discarded at the close of voting.

Just for clarity, specifically what language is being struck down?

I think they mean the Section 1 contradiction as challenged. Btw, nothing's stopping you from creating a new drafting thread for your proposal even before the voting finishes. You probably should do that anyway, since the current thread will eventually be archived.

Thread for drafting the new-improved-and-legal version.

We don't even know the reasoning yet. When that is released, I think you'll be able to get a good conception of where things can be problematic.

Bears Armed wrote:

New Waldensia wrote:No contradiction, as GA #53 urges, not requires.

I agree on that point.

This does not make sense, and not for the reasonings others have supplied. It does not make sense for an entirely different reason:

Suppose the WA already had an existing resolution urging nations to allow recreational drug use. A new proposal bans recreational drug use. New Waldensia and Bears Armed say that should be perfectly legal.

But imagine that instead of banning, the new proposal merely urged nations to not allow recreational drugs. This is simply a milder form of the proposal, but now it would be directly contradicting the earlier resolution, as it would make the WA simultaneously urge nations to allow and not allow recreational drugs. There is no way this is not contradiction, and yet you say the stronger version of it is not contradiction?

Put another way, what if a proposal said "DOES NOT URGE nations to allow recreational drugs"? Is this not a contradiction? And why should that be illegal but "BANS recreational drugs" is legal?