[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] AT VOTE - Ocean Noise Reduction

[Araraukar]

Because IA won't be completely happy unless I challenge his proposal somehow... and because I really want a ruling on this particular thing, too.

Drafting thread here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=419382

Ocean Noise Reduction

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business

Whereas significant increases in the level of ocean noise have occurred over the last century due to the increasing use of oceanic sea routes, the expansion of navies, and fossil fuel exploration:

And whereas the oceans are international territory, meaning that protection thereof is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue which can only be solved by collective regulation:

And whereas it is the case that such noise,

1. massively reduces fish populations, thereby reducing catches, putting strain on fisheries and threatening many coastal fishing industries,
2. even when ambient, drowns out sonic communication, making it difficult for marine life to communicate food sources and locations, breed, etc. creating problems in survivability of adult specimens all whilst limiting marine life habitats,
3. can rupture swim bladders and kill zooplankton larvae, threatening the food sources of other populations along the food chain:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Member nations shall require that all maritime propulsion systems built or retrofitted after the passage of this resolution (a) include the addition of sound mufflers and (b) comply with international regulations on marine propulsion noise. Ships possessing propulsion systems which do not comply to these requirements shall be assessed a fine, consistent with their noise output, to be included in docking fees.
   
2. The World Assembly Nautical Commission shall keep records of data gathered from seismic airburst surveys of the ocean floor. Where necessary to avoid 'free rider' issues, member nations are permitted to grant time-limited exclusive drilling rights to areas in which firms explore in exchange (amongst other things) for data recovered from such surveys. It may also make regulations referenced in section 1, cognisant of trade-offs between economic feasibility and associated reductions in ocean noise.
   
3. Member nations shall prohibit blast fishing and the oceanic testing of weapons of mass destruction.
   
4. Member nations are encouraged to:
   
   1. refrain from the use of active military sonar outside of wartime,
   2. reduce the geographic distribution of shipping lanes and take actions to reduce the geographic spread of shipping so as to increase the area of marine life habitats, and
   3. take further actions to reduce the level of ocean noise.

Rules violation: Metagaming

More particularly, the wording "Delegates and Members" in the long chapter that could've been replaced with "Hereby". If it was just "delegates", then I'd accept it was talking about the IC ambassadors assembled, but it specifically says "Delegates and Members", so how else to read that but as "regional delegates and non-delegate WA members"?

The Category/AoE also seems wrong, since all the justifications for the need of the proposal are fish/fishing/marine foodchain -related, but the active clauses are half GD, half transportation; but as I know GenSec will dismiss the complaint rather than deal with it, no official challenge on that part. (Oh and we really need the AoE "transportation", in general, rather than "automotive"...)

And before SP complains of why I didn't raise this issue before, it's because based on past experience IA won't change anything I complain about.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why the hell did you wait until it was at vote?!

[Araraukar]

Why the hell did you wait until it was at vote?!

Because it went into vote while I was dealing with health problems in Real Life! When I post here when I'm in serious pain I'm even less compromising and nice than usually and I'd really rather not collect any more official WARNings.

[Old Frontier]

Why the hell did you wait until it was at vote?!

Because it went into vote while I was dealing with health problems in Real Life! When I post here when I'm in serious pain I'm even less compromising and nice than usually and I'd really rather not collect any more official WARNings.

You walk it off, dadgummit! Put real life above the WA one more time and see what happens!

[Araraukar]

You walk it off, dadgummit! Put real life above the WA one more time and see what happens!

Don't make me want to hurt you.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So where was the challenge for Ban on Secret Treaties? The enacting clause is exactly identical.

[Araraukar]

So where was the challenge for Ban on Secret Treaties? The enacting clause is exactly identical.

viewtopic.php?p=32242183#p32242183

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not seeing either part of your complaint.

Delegates isn't being used in a way that necessarily comes across as referring to the game. We have ambassadorial delegations, the members of which are delegates. Besides, there's now precedent.

Also, this doesn't seem to deal with GD at all. It seems to deal with any business that relies on commercial shipping. That spans a lot, and while I agree on getting a Transportation area of effect, I still see this as ideal for an issue of environmental consideration.

Not seeing it.

[Araraukar]

We have ambassadorial delegations, the members of which are delegates.

Yes, and if it had mentioned just delegates or just members, I'd agree with you. But it specifically says delegates and members.

And if you re-read the first post, you'll specifically see that I didn't make an official challenge about the category/AoE, I was just grumbling about it.

EDIT: Although, could I get official GenSec opinions on whether the AoE of "automotive" only refers to cars or all kinds of vehicles?

[Tzorsland]

Yes, and if it had mentioned just delegates or just members, I'd agree with you. But it specifically says delegates and members.

Isn't that implying that "and" is somehow exclusive? That the use of "and" implies that no one on the right side is also on the left side? Redundant terms can always be linked together with "and" without implying exclusivity. A person can be a delegate for his nation and a member of this body at the same time.

[Separatist Peoples]

We have ambassadorial delegations, the members of which are delegates.

Yes, and if it had mentioned just delegates or just members, I'd agree with you. But it specifically says delegates and members.

I would give those different meanings so as to avoid surplusage if we were assuming a substantive interpretation, but this is just a pedantic introduction. There's really no need to take the interpretation that will certainly make this illegal when there is an otherwise reasonable and valid interpretation that it refers to Member States (as a whole) and also their ambassadorial staff (delegates).

And if you re-read the first post, you'll specifically see that I didn't make an official challenge about the category/AoE, I was just grumbling about it.

I know. I was still addressing it for posterity's sake.

EDIT: Although, could I get official GenSec opinions on whether the AoE of "automotive" only refers to cars or all kinds of vehicles?

Automotive: of or pertaining to the design, operation, manufacture, or sale of automobiles.

I'd love to take a more broad description of "automotive" to include all self-propelling vehicles, but I'm not sure I could stretch that definition much beyond trains without truly torturing the meaning. I'm in favor, but I'm not going to ignore the precedent "automobile manufacturing" without a mod saying that that's what was intended.

Even if that did happen, I am unwilling to declare the resolution illegal for an interpretation that was both previously unintelligible and not clarified by mods prior to submission.

That is my official stance on the issue.

[Bananaistan]

We have ambassadorial delegations, the members of which are delegates.

Yes, and if it had mentioned just delegates or just members, I'd agree with you. But it specifically says delegates and members.

More particularly, the wording "Delegates and Members" in the long chapter that could've been replaced with "Hereby". If it was just "delegates", then I'd accept it was talking about the IC ambassadors assembled, but it specifically says "Delegates and Members", so how else to read that but as "regional delegates and non-delegate WA members"?

I read the "offending" phrase as referring to the individuals making up any member nation's delegation to the WA and the member nations themselves and, therefore, I don't see an issue under the metagaming rule.

[Sciongrad]

Yes, and if it had mentioned just delegates or just members, I'd agree with you. But it specifically says delegates and members.

I read the "offending" phrase as referring to the individuals making up any member nation's delegation to the WA and the member nations themselves and, therefore, I don't see an issue under the metagaming rule.

This is also how I read it.

[Thyerata]

I agree with Ara, that this is a metagaming violation, but my reasons are different, so this is essentially a separate challenge. If you were just referring to the WA membership, you would only use the word "delegates" (referring to national delegations to the WA) or "members" (those who are members of the WA). Instead, you're using the two words together. Since it would be redundant for them both to mean the same thing. I construe the word "delegates" in this context to refer to the gameside mechanism of "regional delegate".

[Separatist Peoples]

I agree with Ara, that this is a metagaming violation, but my reasons are different, so this is essentially a separate challenge. If you were just referring to the WA membership, you would only use the word "delegates" (referring to national delegations to the WA) or "members" (those who are members of the WA). Instead, you're using the two words together. Since it would be redundant for them both to mean the same thing. I construe the word "delegates" in this context to refer to the gameside mechanism of "regional delegate".

Except there is a legal interpretation of the term delegate that doesn't involve a Discard. Why would we go looking for something to be illegal when there is a legal interpretation? That's absurd.

[Bears Armed]

Yes, and if it had mentioned just delegates or just members, I'd agree with you. But it specifically says delegates and members.

I would give those different meanings so as to avoid surplusage if we were assuming a substantive interpretation, but this is just a pedantic introduction. There's really no need to take the interpretation that will certainly make this illegal when there is an otherwise reasonable and valid interpretation that it refers to Member States (as a whole) and also their ambassadorial staff (delegates).

Agreed.

Although, could I get official GenSec opinions on whether the AoE of "automotive" only refers to cars or all kinds of vehicles?

Automotive: of or pertaining to the design, operation, manufacture, or sale of automobiles.

I'd love to take a more broad description of "automotive" to include all self-propelling vehicles, but I'm not sure I could stretch that definition much beyond trains without truly torturing the meaning. I'm in favor, but I'm not going to ignore the precedent "automobile manufacturing" without a mod saying that that's what was intended.

I seem to recall previous Modly willingness to consider the broader application, but can't say where & when that was (and suspect that it's lost to us with the Jolt forum). If it comes down to a vote on policy for how that 'industry' should be interpreted in future, rather than to discussion for a legality challenge now, then I'd vote in favour of accepting the broader interpretation.

[Aclion]

I agree with Ara, that this is a metagaming violation, but my reasons are different, so this is essentially a separate challenge. If you were just referring to the WA membership, you would only use the word "delegates" (referring to national delegations to the WA) or "members" (those who are members of the WA). Instead, you're using the two words together. Since it would be redundant for them both to mean the same thing. I construe the word "delegates" in this context to refer to the gameside mechanism of "regional delegate".

Except there is a legal interpretation of the term delegate that doesn't involve a Discard. Why would we go looking for something to be illegal when there is a legal interpretation? That's absurd.

I agree with Thyerta on this.
If delegates were meant ICly, as the member's delegations, then it would say just delegates, or just members. The fact that it treats them as separate entities means that it must be speaking of the game mechanic, as this is the only time when there's a distinction between a delegates general membership. The "Legal interpretation" is not supported by the text.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This is ambiguous enough that I wouldn't support a Discard of the resolution at vote. Certainly the "he must mean Game Region Delegates!!!1!!!" interpretation isn't without merit, but neither is the "Delegates and Members just means the ordinary participants of the GA and their countries" one. We try to err on the side of interpreting things as legal where we can, and I don't agree that the first interpretation conclusively blows the other one out of the water. Therefore I have to maintain that this is legal.

[Sciongrad]

Except there is a legal interpretation of the term delegate that doesn't involve a Discard. Why would we go looking for something to be illegal when there is a legal interpretation? That's absurd.

I agree with Thyerta on this.
If delegates were meant ICly, as the member's delegations, then it would say just delegates, or just members. The fact that it treats them as separate entities means that it must be speaking of the game mechanic, as this is the only time when there's a distinction between a delegates general membership. The "Legal interpretation" is not supported by the text.

Or maybe it meant delegations, as in the human representatives, and members, as in the states themselves. That seems actually very obvious and I see no reason to rule this illegal when there's a viable legal interpretation.

[Excidium Planetis]

EDIT: Although, could I get official GenSec opinions on whether the AoE of "automotive" only refers to cars or all kinds of vehicles?

Automotive: of or pertaining to the design, operation, manufacture, or sale of automobiles.

But automobile basically just means "self mobile", and some definitions (including Merriam-Webster's online dictionary) don't even specify ground vehicles. I would say automotive could be any self propelled vehicle.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Will a decision be written on this after the expiration of the vote, or will it simply be noted that the GAS will not take up this question? I would certainly like to see some kind of codification that the main standard is that all interpretations must be rules-violating for a proposal to be found illegal.

[Bananaistan]

Further to section 7 of the Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat, no member of GenSec has proposed hearing the question.

[Sciongrad]

Further to section 7 of the Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat, no member of GenSec has proposed hearing the question.

Additionally, I am not prepared to extend this consensus to the honest mistake rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

Automotive: of or pertaining to the design, operation, manufacture, or sale of automobiles.

But automobile basically just means "self mobile", and some definitions (including Merriam-Webster's online dictionary) don't even specify ground vehicles. I would say automotive could be any self propelled vehicle.

It came from the automobile manufacturing AoE, so I tailor it to include that. If the Mods step in and say that they intended it to extend to all self-propelled vehicles, then I will happily reverse this. Otherwise, I have to be fairly conservative with my interpretation for fear of overreach.

Further to section 7 of the Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat, no member of GenSec has proposed hearing the question.

Yeah, that got a big No from me. This didn't seem to be necessary to rule on.