NationStates

SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.

Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.

Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.

Actually, Sierra Lyricalia wrote we should replace the purpose of the committee with something else and see if it still fits the category. I refuse to comment on the category beyond stating that the actual effect of the mandate should be to decrease economic prosperity across the WA. However, if I change all references to compliance with, say, "mandatory vaccination" or "defending against doomsday asteroids" the final clause still has the exact same effect (wrecking people's economies in my opinion) albeit for slightly more absurd reasons.

It is also worth pointing out that I previously argued that the real test needs to reside in whether the proposal can justify a stat change by what it requires STATES to do. A mandate that a state do SOMETHING even if in response to the committee was enough to save "Mandatory Vaccination Act", was seemingly sufficient to allow that proposal to go to a vote (where it mercifully failed for other reasons).

That said, I do feel like that argument for "Mandatory Vaccination Act" was stretching the limits of the rule to a level that no good statutory regime should be comfortable doing regularly. I also feel like this proposal is a step too far for that argument. In "Mandatory Vaccination Act" the mandate that saved it was a literal mandate to accomplish the actual purpose of the resolution (mandatory comprehensive vaccination). I am not sure economic warfare bears quite the same degree of association with policing compliance of WA resolutions. I would rather see the Committee Only rule meet the amendment axe into a less cumbersome form.

________

As a side note: SP, would you be open to amending the economic sanction mandate to exempt "essential goods" on the order of food, medical supplies, and the like? I would rather not RP my people dying of measles because my drug dealer decided to not pay a fine requiring me to embargo him.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.

Actually, Sierra Lyricalia wrote we should replace the purpose of the committee with something else and see if it still fits the category. I refuse to comment on the category beyond stating that the actual effect of the mandate should be to decrease economic prosperity across the WA. However, if I change all references to compliance with, say, "mandatory vaccination" or "defending against doomsday asteroids" the final clause still has the exact same effect (wrecking people's economies in my opinion) albeit for slightly more absurd reasons.

It is also worth pointing out that I previously argued that the real test needs to reside in whether the proposal can justify a stat change by what it requires STATES to do. A mandate that a state do SOMETHING even if in response to the committee was enough to save "Mandatory Vaccination Act", was seemingly sufficient to allow that proposal to go to a vote (where it mercifully failed for other reasons).

That said, I do feel like that argument for "Mandatory Vaccination Act" was stretching the limits of the rule to a level that no good statutory regime should be comfortable doing regularly. I also feel like this proposal is a step too far for that argument. In "Mandatory Vaccination Act" the mandate that saved it was a literal mandate to accomplish the actual purpose of the resolution (mandatory comprehensive vaccination). I am not sure economic warfare bears quite the same degree of association with policing compliance of WA resolutions. I would rather see the Committee Only rule meet the amendment axe into a less cumbersome form.

The limits of the fine include assessing extremely minor violations where the state takes good faith efforts to combat them. I think this is an unlikely scenario.

As a side note: SP, would you be open to amending the economic sanction mandate to exempt "essential goods" on the order of food, medical supplies, and the like? I would rather not RP my people dying of measles because my drug dealer decided to not pay a fine requiring me to embargo him.

I think there are extant laws that deal with those products. Certainly, medical and humanitarian supplies are protected from interdiction or seizure.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Again, this clause does not merely mention a committee. The mandate depends on the committee to function within the scope of the proposal. Replace the IAO with a judiciary board to rule on unauthorized transportation of saltwater taffy, and you no longer have a Furtherment of Democracy clause.

1) I am not aware of any such ruling.
2) How is full compliance "insufficient action"?

That is not what I take issue with. The problem here is that the committee and its actions, as described in its implementation, are inseparable from the mandate.

Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.

That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee, and if you follow the requirements of the doomsday asteroids test, you are left with an unquestionable category violation.

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.

That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee, and if you follow the requirements of the doomsday asteroids test, you are left with an unquestionable category violation.

I'll take my chances with a challenge. There is no special difference between this and the Mandatory Vaccination Act. I suppose I could add a useless requirement for, say, reporting economic acts taken. Or explicitly bar states from enacting sanctions for essentials. If I structure that as it's own clause, I can skate by the onus on states without having to alter the committee.

In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.

That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...

OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.

Separatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Which would make for a category violation, since this is FoD, not Human Rights.

Sciongrad wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...

OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule.

The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.

Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.

My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.

Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.

OOC: Why? Why is that a good thing?

My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.

OOC: We get it, you don't like how we've interpreted the ideological ban rule. You've got to get over this at some point.

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Which would make for a category violation, since this is FoD, not Human Rights.

OOC: Not under SL's interpretation of the clauses that don't have a committee action. The added operative clause at the end compels nations take an action in line with HR.

Obviously, I would change it. I'm hardly wedded to the category.

Sciongrad wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.

OOC: Why? Why is that a good thing?

If you don't like the rule, chage it. I never said the committee rule is good.

My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.

OOC: We get it, you don't like how we've interpreted the ideological ban rule. You've got to get over this at some point.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Wallenburg wrote:Which would make for a category violation, since this is FoD, not Human Rights.

No, it isn't. A resolution has to justify the category it is in, not not be comparatively better suited for another category.

Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.

I mean, if that was the real purpose of the rule, i.e. to prohibit committees that don't have a statistical effect, then we wouldn't need a committee rule – the strength rule would be enough to force committees to conform to their statistics. Of course, it seems most everyone else is too buried under tradition to consider a category rule that actually makes sense, i.e. its non-existence (the committee staffing portions neatly fall under Mechanics).

Sciongrad wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...

OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.

OOC: I'll be honest, I'd be hella more comfortable if we did that first, before this gets submitted (SP mentioned somewhere this would be in drafting for a while, I think?). I don't know that it violates the committee rule as we currently enforce it, but at the very least it comes awfully close. I don't think anyone is wedded to a strong committee rule; it shouldn't be hard to find language that makes most prospective authors happy.

Teran Saber: "No support at this current time due to other blatantly hostile legislation currently being drafted. We will consider supporting this when the threatening proposal, 'Regulation of Decentralized Currencies', has been shut down."

Sciongrad wrote:---snips---
I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.

PLEASE. If for no other reason than saving the cognitive dissonance that comes from trying to torture proposals into complying with some version of the current rule.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I'll be honest, I'd be hella more comfortable if we did that first, before this gets submitted (SP mentioned somewhere this would be in drafting for a while, I think?). I don't know that it violates the committee rule as we currently enforce it, but at the very least it comes awfully close. I don't think anyone is wedded to a strong committee rule; it shouldn't be hard to find language that makes most prospective authors happy.

At the rate SP drafts, it could take a year, and still get out before this gets submitted (NOT THAT THAT'S A BAD THING SP!).

Seperatist Peoples wrote:I think there are extant laws that deal with those products. Certainly, medical and humanitarian supplies are protected from interdiction or seizure.

You added the clarification anyway, so I will spare us all commentary on the current resolutions on the books, because just reading them qualified as torture.

Seperatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.

Also, please do not put too much faith in my argumentation. My argumentation was politics (and dissatisfaction with the obvious reading of the current rule) more than me actually believing that is how the currently drafted rule ought to be interpreted.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:At the rate SP drafts, it could take a year, and still get out before this gets submitted (NOT THAT THAT'S A BAD THING SP!).

OOC: I am a cautious soul.

Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.

Painfully. We're looking into it.

Also, please do not put too much faith in my argumentation. My argumentation was politics (and dissatisfaction with the obvious reading of the current rule) more than me actually believing that is how the currently drafted rule ought to be interpreted.

SL's majority opinion there deals more with category than with committee, and I think it provides no small amount of credence to the category of HR.

Opposed. Though love the idea that the GAO is to collect said fines when it has no power or ability to do so. So, it would still be business as usual even if this passes for many nations not wishing to be in compliance with poor thought out resolutions.

Jarish Inyo wrote:Opposed. Though love the idea that the GAO is to collect said fines when it has no power or ability to do so. So, it would still be business as usual even if this passes for many nations not wishing to be in compliance with poor thought out resolutions.

You know what I'm going to say. Why bother posting?

Your interpretations are not legally defensible. Your position isn't going to convince me. I don't care to have your input. Knowing that, why are you bothering?

Article 3 seems a little cumbersome (clumsy?)

The GAO is tasked to ensure that all collected fines are collected and applied to reduce the contribution amount from members found compliant during that assessment period.

Might I suggest dropping one of the "collected"?
I must also echo others in saying I believe this runs afoul the Committee Only rule, as well as the HoC rule (though I understand your argument in regards to that one). While I would support a tweaking of the committee rule, or at the least a clarification, I worry that doing away with it will lead to lazy resolutions. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a single clause that compels action by the state without any relation to a committee.

Finally, why did you create a sub-commission and not just task the WA Compliance Commission directly?

Cardoness wrote:Article 3 seems a little cumbersome (clumsy?)

The GAO is tasked to ensure that all collected fines are collected and applied to reduce the contribution amount from members found compliant during that assessment period.

Might I suggest dropping one of the "collected"?

Will do.

I must also echo others in saying I believe this runs afoul the Committee Only rule, as well as the HoC rule (though I understand your argument in regards to that one). While I would support a tweaking of the committee rule, or at the least a clarification, I worry that doing away with it will lead to lazy resolutions. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a single clause that compels action by the state without any relation to a committee.

I strongly suspect I would win a challenge on the committee rule, but I'm happy to wait until after it's changed. I'm equally confident that the HoC violation will see a challenge before I submit this, which will resolve it one way or another. I believe IA has chosen to pick that bone.

Finally, why did you create a sub-commission and not just task the WA Compliance Commission directly?

Separation of powers and public image. If the Compliance Commission is doing surveys of member state violations, vesting their investigative individuals with prosecutorial powers would make members unwilling to cooperate and potentially creates conflicts of interests. A discrete prosecutorial element separate from investigation adds a degree of separation.

Questions: this may have already been answered, but I'm not sure how exactly the punishment process would work? Would there be some kind of automatic process of sanctions, etc., like with how the CC automatically changes your laws and policies? And also why there is a need for this, because, from what I understand the CC automatically brings you into compliance.

Please correct me if any of what I'm saying is not true or is unclear.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.

OOC: Part of why I think that opening the Bookkeeping category up to the public might not be the worst idea.
Dons Kermit costume and sips tea

Whovian Tardisia wrote:

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.

OOC: Part of why I think that opening the Bookkeeping category up to the public might not be the worst idea.
Dons Kermit costume and sips tea

OOC: Hear, hear!

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Whovian Tardisia wrote:
OOC: Part of why I think that opening the Bookkeeping category up to the public might not be the worst idea.
Dons Kermit costume and sips tea

OOC: Hear, hear!

OOC: Based on SL's majority opinion in Mandatory Vaccinations, I don't think it will be necessary.