[PASSED] Administrative Compliance Act

[Auralia]

We reiterate our prior condition for our support: punishments for non-compliance must be proportionate to the violation.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

We reiterate our prior condition for our support: punishments for non-compliance must be proportionate to the violation.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"This delegation has not forgotten, ambassador."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: I have a question: Does this proposal empower the World Assembly to write strongly-worded letters of complaint to non-compliant member states?

[Kenmoria]

"For the 'giving credence' clause, 'damning' is slightly informal for a law. Perhaps 'incriminating' would be a better word choice."

[Port Solent]

First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?

[Separatist Peoples]

First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?

Not per the current reading of the rule. See the ongoing challenge.

"For the 'giving credence' clause, 'damning' is slightly informal for a law. Perhaps 'incriminating' would be a better word choice."

Damning, in this context, is actually pretty formal. "Damn" might not be, but "damning" is an old synonym for "condemning," really.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?

Actually, no. The rules for Committees:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

viewtopic.php?p=8133407#p8133407

Emphasis mine.

[Port Solent]

First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?

Not per the current reading of the rule. See the ongoing challenge.

I actually took the current challenge into account - that's why I said "not because GAR390 is mentioned" but it doesn't matter here now anyway because

Actually, no. The rules for Committees:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

viewtopic.php?p=8133407#p8133407

Emphasis mine.

Thanks, I missed this - I've been trying to familiarize myself with the rules & existing GARs before contributing. But this obviously slipped through.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bumpity

[Greater Gilead]

I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

[Separatist Peoples]

I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I don't understand your point. This hasn't passed, so of course there have been no consequences. Frankly, your protest means nothing to me."

[Greater Gilead]

I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I don't understand your point. This hasn't passed, so of course there have been no consequences. Frankly, your protest means nothing to me."

Currently there are no consequences. If there were, I might be a bit more creative than blatant non-compliance.
That's what I meant.

[Stoskavanya]

Currently there are no consequences. If there were, I might be a bit more creative than blatant non-compliance.
That's what I meant.

Is that good or bad?

[Liagolas]

"It is the pleasure of the Dominion to report that it sees no glaring problems in the draft's content," the Mouth says. "It seems legal, and it looks effective. It does, however, offer the following grammatical feedback.

"The first sentence (the preambulatory clauses) lacks a subject. The proposal ought either to start with 'The World Assembly' or some other like nominative, or the 'Hereby enacts' clause ought to include such at the beginning.

"Additionally, in Article II, the third clause ('Coordinate...') ends with a period instead of a semicolon. As the Dominion understands it, there ought to be a semicolon, as otherwise the fourth clause ('Remain...') demarcates a new sentence that now lacks a subject. However, it is the concession of the Dominion that list under the third clause may be introducing some grammatical nuance it is unfamiliar with. If so, the Dominion asks that its error be forgiven.

"The very last clause ('No member...') is missing an apostrophe and should read 'No member states' sanction of any kind...'

"Finally, as a stylistic point, the Dominion would be interested in seeing the use of either 'Article' or 'Art' made consistent across the entire draft. As it is, half the articles read 'Article [X]' and half read 'Art. [X]', and it is the confusion of the Dominion as to why."

"That aside, however, the Dominion sees no other error. It finds this legislation rather interesting and it is the thought of the Dominion that it is a worthy aim. Thus, the Dominion offers its moral support."

"Of course, the Dominion argues that there are soft-power incentives for compliance regardless, but that is neither here nor there, and evidently has not been true for all member states."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Liagolas, the reason for the issues is that this is a Frankenstein's monster of multiple proposals. XD

Will correct later!

[Kenmoria]

I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

(OOC: I was a bit unsure whether this post was IC or OOC, but I've answered in IC)

"On the subject of the draft, the character limit for proposals is something this delegation believes to be 3500, however your draft currently clocks in at 3,687."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is the pleasure of the Dominion to report that it sees no glaring problems in the draft's content," the Mouth says. "It seems legal, and it looks effective. It does, however, offer the following grammatical feedback.

"The first sentence (the preambulatory clauses) lacks a subject. The proposal ought either to start with 'The World Assembly' or some other like nominative, or the 'Hereby enacts' clause ought to include such at the beginning.
"Additionally, in Article II, the third clause ('Coordinate...') ends with a period instead of a semicolon. As the Dominion understands it, there ought to be a semicolon, as otherwise the fourth clause ('Remain...') demarcates a new sentence that now lacks a subject. However, it is the concession of the Dominion that list under the third clause may be introducing some grammatical nuance it is unfamiliar with. If so, the Dominion asks that its error be forgiven.

"The very last clause ('No member...') is missing an apostrophe and should read 'No member states' sanction of any kind...'

"Finally, as a stylistic point, the Dominion would be interested in seeing the use of either 'Article' or 'Art' made consistent across the entire draft. As it is, half the articles read 'Article [X]' and half read 'Art. [X]', and it is the confusion of the Dominion as to why."

"That aside, however, the Dominion sees no other error. It finds this legislation rather interesting and it is the thought of the Dominion that it is a worthy aim. Thus, the Dominion offers its moral support."

"Of course, the Dominion argues that there are soft-power incentives for compliance regardless, but that is neither here nor there, and evidently has not been true for all member states."

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

(OOC: I was a bit unsure whether this post was IC or OOC, but I've answered in IC)

"On the subject of the draft, the character limit for proposals is something this delegation believes to be 3500, however your draft currently clocks in at 3,687."

"We have addressed your concerns."

[Greater Gilead]

I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.

[Attempted Socialism]

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.

"You already lost that pathetic argument. Your particular religious beliefs ought to be not just restricted, but made entirely illegal to act upon. Your 'freedom of religion' arguments are illogical, inconsistent and inhuman. Just like your home nation, your arguments are complete failures."

[Aclion]

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.

If a person has a religious objection to abortion they can just not get one.

[Wallenburg]

"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."

One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.

"Does either resolution require those with religious objections to abortion to have their pregnancies aborted?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Section (b)(u)(1)(1) requires it, yes.

[Liagolas]

OOC:

I have a concern with the draft.

The draft imposes fines on non-compliant nations. I've been aware of this, and up to this point I've been fine with it. The way I saw it, a nation could continue to be non-compliant with legislation it disagreed with; it would just become incredibly expensive to do so.

The reason I now have a concern is that I have re-read this clause:

Coordinate with the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) to assess and levy a fine and schedule calculated proportionately to the violation but in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from member states;

The committee is instructed to levy fines that will coerce compliance. And the committee is staffed by that so lovable conceit, the gnomes, which means they are incorruptible and highly efficient at doing their jobs well. Or, to use less silly terminology, it is presumed that the committee does what the legislation tells it to do.

My concern is that this inevitably clashes with the RP of some of GA's players. Players RPing non-compliance to reflect their nation's disagreement with GA legislation and their willingness to refuse to comply based on such disagreement will probably continue to do so. That would suggest the gnomes have failed at their job, as the fine they have levied failed to coerce the nation. But that means that the gnomes are insufficiently efficient. And because the gnomes are sufficiently efficient to do that the legislation tells them to do, the nation must have been fined sufficiently to coerce compliance. So they can't possibly be non-complaint. Except they are. Even though supposedly they can't.

I get that this is a bit weird. But if the committee is being instructed to levy fines that will reasonably coerce compliance, and the committee is supposed to be capable of doing what it's told to do, but players want to roleplay their nations as being so fundamentally opposed to WA laws that they're willing to refuse to comply while also so utterly dedicated to membership that they don't wish to exit, then we're left with either

1. A situation in which the committee isn't actually capable of doing what it's told to do, which would be some kind of exception from or contradiction with what we generally assume about GA committees; or
2. A justification within the game to tell people "Your roleplay is wrong, you can't be non-compliant" which hardly seems like it would end well.

The proposal both acknowledges and thus to some degree legitimizes deliberate non-compliance while simultaneously trying to make it so that you can say no, you can't not comply, and by so doing it inadvertently makes this bizarre tension between assumptions about committees in legislation and the way in which some persons play the game. This feels... weird.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
A justification within the game to tell people "Your roleplay is wrong, you can't be non-compliant" which hardly seems like it would end well.

OOC: this is the goal. Non-compliant roleplay is used almost exclusively in a way to denigrate the work of authors. "Your resolution is terrible, so we're not gonna listen." The OOC motivation here is to make such arguments ICly impossible and provide OOC justification to ignore it.

It is true that there is roleplay of noncompliance which does not deliberately denigrate authors or participants in the shared illusion of the game. I use a little bit of it (arguing a prolonged series of legal disputes), and players like Auralia often manage to roleplay noncompliance without harming the group experience. I don't see this as incompatible with the presumptive competence of WA committees.

There are many actions taken by competent experts and organizations that are intended to bring about a behavior that nonetheless fail. As Captain Picard once said, it is possible to make no mistakes and still fail. Assuming this passes, a player could theoretically roleplay a nation who remains non-compliant at the cost of the serious penalties imposed. After all, there are ways to evade sanctions, and WA members are the minority in the world. To be realistic, however, I suspect such nations would have to roleplay the serious impacts of those sanctions.

So, tl;dr, I don't think that the possibility of the committee failing to accomplish a specific goal upset the presumption of effectiveness and competency. I do think it seriously affects non-compliant roleply, and that is the goal.

The proposal both acknowledges and thus to some degree legitimizes deliberate non-compliance while simultaneously trying to make it so that you can say no, you can't not comply, and by so doing it inadvertently makes this bizarre tension between assumptions about committees in legislation and the way in which some persons play the game. This feels... weird.

There is a legal defense to criminal (and certain civil) charges of necessity. Noncompliance from a situation where it simply isn't possible to comply is not a new concept, and since the committee is specifically directed to consider it, is reasonably applicable.

A good example comes from the law of not passing the double yellow line on a road. If you are driving at night in a storm and have suddenly swerve around a disabled vehicle in the road, and you are for some reason charged, you can argue that it was impossible for you to not cross the line, as you had insufficient room to stop, despite driving appropriately in the conditions, and not hit the disabled vehicle.

So, too, could nations defend. A nation that fails to offer adequate sanitation under GAR#288 because they were the subject of an aggressive military invasion, catastrophic earthquake, or economic emergency argue that it was literally impossible to comply, or was so impractical as to be impossible. The committee is authorized to consider a variety of factors, such as intent and ability to comply. Since the law is designed to operate in the real world and not the kind of theoretical plane where engineering exercises exist, I don't see a conflict.

[Araraukar]

OOC: So, if this passes, SP, your nation will actually start paying its mandatory donations to the General Fund?