NATION

PASSWORD

[CHALLENGE] Administrative Compliance Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18782
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

[CHALLENGE] Administrative Compliance Act

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:29 pm

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for not getting to this sooner. I hope that, despite filing this challenge far later than expected, I have not caused any substantial delay to the author's plans, nor caused any difficulties for GenSec. I'd like to see this proposal passed after it is edited to fit within the rules, but the author and I have disagreement over the application of the ruleset.

RULE BROKEN: Committees Rule
EXPLANATION: "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." No person can deny that 80% of the proposal's active text consists of committees and their functions. Any argument that this does not violate the committees rule depends on the few short mandates following the bureaucracy it establishes. In order to determine the legality of this proposal before the committees rule, we can look to two tests that GenSec has applied in other challenges.

The first, and older, test to determine legality before the committee rule is to remove the committee or committees from a resolution and see what remains. In this proposal each of the active clauses depends on one of the committees, committee hearings, or committee fines. When we apply this test, nothing remains of the active clauses. The first three articles disappear entirely. Of the fourth article, the first clause becomes meaningless, as it blocks member states from preventing cooperation with a nonexistent entity. The second clause becomes meaningless, as it establishes rights at hearings that will not be held. The third and fourth clauses become meaningless, as they legislate on sanctions that will never be applied. By this first test, the proposal violates the committees rule.

The second test, more affectionately known as the doomsday asteroids test, changes the mandates of the committee to something entirely unrelated, and checks for a category violation. So, if the ES, IAO, and the GAO were tasked with, say, providing interplanetary defense against doomsday asteroids, the test asks if the resolution still qualifies as a Human Rights proposal. If we so repurpose the committees, we then look to the other active clauses. Article four now prevents member states from preventing cooperation with committees that defend against doomsday asteroids. It entitles member states to representation at meetings on how to defend against doomsday asteroids. And it requires member states to levy sanctions against member states that do not allow these committees to defend against doomsday asteroids, to the extent that such sanctions do not threaten the survival of that member state's population. Certainly, this doomsday asteroid proposal does not belong in the Human Rights category, as it does nothing to guarantee human rights. By this second test, the proposal violates the committees rule.

By the precedent established in the majority opinion on "Ban on Secret Treaties", and by the tests it presents as valid methods for determining legality against the committees rule, this proposal is illegal.


RULE BROKEN: Strength Rule
EXPLANATION: A resolution that affects "a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way" falls into the Strong subcategory. This proposal legislates on the narrow area of compliance, and based on the category choice of Human Rights, focuses on an even narrower area of compliance with human rights mandates.

Compliance is already mandatory by the nature of the World Assembly, and the Compliance Commission already investigates instances of noncompliance and compiles information about noncompliance. With these factors to consider, the proposal "Administrative Compliance Act" simply does not have a dramatic enough effect. The Enforcement Sub-Commission duplicates the Compliance Commission within itself, and the rest of the resolution provides for hearings and fines for noncompliance. These effects are more incremental than dramatic.

Considering that this proposal neither acts on a broad area of policy, nor does so in a dramatic way, the resolution belongs in the Significant subcategory.

Administrative Compliance Act
Human Rights | Strong
By: Separatist Peoples | Coauthored by: Imperium Anglorum



Understanding that many nations purposefully contravene international laws to gain an unfair advantage over their neighbors;

Noting that many others do so to oppress their citizens, extract revenues from governmental institutions and operations, discredit their opponents, and secure their tenuous bases of power;

Haunted by the suffering bred by noncompliance, and resolutely determined to succor its victims and hold their oppressors to account;

Observing that the World Assembly has already taken steps in combatting these transgressions against international law by passing GAR#390, ‘Compliance Commission’; and

Giving credence to the body of damning evidence that has been assembled by the WACC;

Hereby enacts the following:

Article I. Compliance Commission

The Enforcement Sub-Commission (ES), a subset of the WA Compliance Commission (WACC), is created and directed to:

    Review investigations regarding member noncompliance;

    Accept reports of noncompliance from both member states and individual and sub-national entities, subject to ES discretion;

    File a complaint, containing evidence and all applicable law, to the Independent Adjudicative Office and accordingly prosecute that complaint;

    Communicate with those member states which are the subject of the complaint and inform them of any available steps that might prevent filing of a complaint;

    Maintain discretion over which compliance violations to pursue.

Article II. Independent Adjudicative Office

The Independent Adjudicative Office (IAO) is created and directed to:

    Hold fair and independent evidentiary hearings for claims brought by the WACC, overseen by a panel of independent adjudicators;

    Decide on the merits of the claims and arguments as to whether a fine is appropriate;

    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 assessments must be based on:
        a. the veracity and severity of the actions,
        b. the state’s history of noncompliance,
        c. whether the state has committed wilful negligence in noncompliance,
        d. force majeure preventing the state from fulfilling its obligations, and
        e. other mitigating circumstances;

    Remain entirely independent from the WACC and any subparts, except for essential coordination to ensure procedural due process for all involved parties;

    Ensure no ex parte communications occur between itself and any involved parties, and to enforce appropriate remedies if such communications do occur;

    Promulgate and follow procedure for hearings in a manner consistent with the principles of justice, fairness, and due process;

    Record and make publicly available all hearing records, excepting those involving privileged individual information, proprietary commercial data, or material necessary for national security.

Art. III WA General Accounting Office

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

Art. IV. Member State Rights and Duties

Member states may not prevent or discourage individuals or entities from cooperating with the ES.

Member states are entitled to have a representative and legal counsel present at IAO hearings to act in their defense.

Member states are obligated to enforce the strongest measures of economic sanction available against those member states which refuse to pay IAO fines, subject to the limitations of extant law.

Member states' sanctions will not include supplies strictly essential to the target population's survival.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13244
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:52 am

All I know is my gut says maybe.

My arguments in the draft thread stand. The key difference between this and the past precedent is that here, the onus of action is on states. The "committee lumpectomy" test is hamfisted and ignores the complexity of the issue.

Further, the entire point of the rule is to ensure statistical changes are backed up textually. If the onus of action is on the member state and merely directed by a committee, then the requirement is satisfied.

GenSec was wrong last time. Let's fix that error.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13244
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:59 am

Also, i know the rule was up for modification. If y'all don't want to take this challenge because of that, I'll live.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17046
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:27 am

I'll admit that I haven't been following the drafting thread involved. My personal feeling is that -- as was the case for years -- the GA simply shouldn't acknowledge the possibility of deliberate noncompliance, so I probably couldn't have added any constructive comments there. So now, or at least when i can find the time, I do have to wade through it? That's wonderful... NOT!
:(
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11840
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:51 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:GenSec was wrong last time. Let's fix that error.

So GenSec deciding X is A was wrong because it would, by precedent, have to also rule X is A on your proposal, and in this case that would mean your proposal was illegal?

For what it's worth, I'm agreeing with Wallenburg here; going by both tests for committee-only/category, the proposal is illegal.

And I also agree with Bears that outright noncompliance shouldn't be mentioned as a possibility in the resolutions, since actual noncompliance is impossible for any nation that remainds a WA member when a resolution passes.
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5360
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:04 am

So nobody's going to say anything about the obvious House of Cards violation? And no, the previous ruling isn't precedent, that proposal did not deal with an active resolution.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11840
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:13 am

Wrapper wrote:So nobody's going to say anything about the obvious House of Cards violation?

It being a proposal by IA and a GenSec member? Waste of time trying to get either them or the other GenSec peeps to stick to using the rules that they're trying to change. You're welcome to add it to the challenge, of course, if you want a go at that uphill battle again. (And no, I'm not happy with that being the case, I just know that if I said what I really thought about it, you'd have to break out the warning code...)
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5360
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:16 am

Araraukar wrote:It being a proposal by IA and a GenSec member? Waste of time trying to get either them or the other GenSec peeps to stick to using the rules that they're trying to change. You're welcome to add it to the challenge, of course, if you want a go at that uphill battle again.

Who am I to back off of an uphill battle? I'll write something up later.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13244
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:37 am

Wrapper wrote:So nobody's going to say anything about the obvious House of Cards violation? And no, the previous ruling isn't precedent, that proposal did not deal with an active resolution.

The ruling is applicable to this situation.

Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:GenSec was wrong last time. Let's fix that error.

So GenSec deciding X is A was wrong because it would, by precedent, have to also rule X is A on your proposal, and in this case that would mean your proposal was illegal?

For what it's worth, I'm agreeing with Wallenburg here; going by both tests for committee-only/category, the proposal is illegal.

And I also agree with Bears that outright noncompliance shouldn't be mentioned as a possibility in the resolutions, since actual noncompliance is impossible for any nation that remains a WA member when a resolution passes.


The past ruling was wrong. I don't expect it will be overturned, but I can make a solid argument for why it should be and why this is different from the precedential ruling. And I already have. Besides, if I get a narrower ruling, its easier to make a minor tweak.

Noncompliance was already mentioned in the past. That ship done sailed.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18782
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:51 am

Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:GenSec was wrong last time. Let's fix that error.

So GenSec deciding X is A was wrong because it would, by precedent, have to also rule X is A on your proposal, and in this case that would mean your proposal was illegal?

For the record, SP dissented in the ruling setting precedent. This isn't exactly hypocritical of him, even if he has a vested interest in this proposal's legality.
Wrapper wrote:So nobody's going to say anything about the obvious House of Cards violation? And no, the previous ruling isn't precedent, that proposal did not deal with an active resolution.

I'd rather limit the damage done by the ruling on Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, rather than giving GenSec an excuse to solidify their interpretation even more. You're free to issue another challenge, though.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2946
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:35 am

Wallenburg wrote:I'd rather limit the damage done by the ruling on Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, rather than giving GenSec an excuse to solidify their interpretation even more. You're free to issue another challenge, though.

The language of the ruling was not narrow, and was not limited to mentioned repealed resolutions. It explicitly stated "we cannot see reliance arising from reference in a prefatory introduction." I'm fairly confident we wouldn't hear a challenge against a reference to an extant resolution in the preamble, or if we did, we would simply issue a memorandum opinion referencing our ruling in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials. I think this train has left the station.

Re: committee. I disagreed strongly with the original ruling, but that was the ruling, and we're bound by precedent, so I'm inclined to side with Wally here. I'll need to think a little more, though.

Re: strength. Not seeing it.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11840
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:37 am

Wallenburg wrote:For the record, SP dissented in the ruling setting precedent. This isn't exactly hypocritical of him, even if he has a vested interest in this proposal's legality.

Fair enough, and my apologies to SP. I didn't have time to check things when I last posted (surprise inspections of water taps shouldn't happen so close to Xmas! been working like crazy to get this pigsty to a state where I'm not too embarrassed to let strangers in!).

Still, as I've been told more than once, precedent is precedent and overturning a ruling that was made on an extant resolution is very unlikely. It'll appear to be hypocritical/cronyism to override precedent and find legal a proposal that was written by a GenSec member and a person who might be considered to have been "wronged" by a precedent-setting ruling.
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13244
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:42 am

Araraukar wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:For the record, SP dissented in the ruling setting precedent. This isn't exactly hypocritical of him, even if he has a vested interest in this proposal's legality.

Fair enough, and my apologies to SP. I didn't have time to check things when I last posted (surprise inspections of water taps shouldn't happen so close to Xmas! been working like crazy to get this pigsty to a state where I'm not too embarrassed to let strangers in!).

Still, as I've been told more than once, precedent is precedent and overturning a ruling that was made on an extant resolution is very unlikely. It'll appear to be hypocritical/cronyism to override precedent and find legal a proposal that was written by a GenSec member and a person who might be considered to have been "wronged" by a precedent-setting ruling.

I'm totally ok with that, because the rule may yet be changed anyway. If I can get GenSec to rule that it's illegal, then there's no chance of the rule being changed by ruling and not by rulemaking. Personally, I was willing to wait to see if the rule would change before entertaining a challenge, but Wally brought it (in a timely fashion, which I really do appreciate). So its a win-win from my view.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11840
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:48 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:So its a win-win from my view.

Fair enough. Here, have some kittens. :hug:
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5360
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:02 am

Sciongrad wrote:The language of the ruling was not narrow, and was not limited to mentioned repealed resolutions. It explicitly stated "we cannot see reliance arising from reference in a prefatory introduction." I'm fairly confident we wouldn't hear a challenge against a reference to an extant resolution in the preamble, or if we did, we would simply issue a memorandum opinion referencing our ruling in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials. I think this train has left the station.

What?

Answer me one question, please. What is the purpose of a preamble? Is it not to support the argument that something needs to be done? Doesn't it form the "base" of the active clauses? Keep in mind, the original House of Cards rule, and the way it's been interpreted for years now, is that verbiage like "RECALLING Resolution #XX, YY and ZZ" is illegal under the rule, and language like that certainly won't be found in an active clause.

Holding that your ruling extends to preambles in every conceivable situation totally guts the HoC rule, as anything in an active clause that relies on an existing resolution would likely break the amendment rule anyway.

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2946
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:13 am

Wrapper wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:The language of the ruling was not narrow, and was not limited to mentioned repealed resolutions. It explicitly stated "we cannot see reliance arising from reference in a prefatory introduction." I'm fairly confident we wouldn't hear a challenge against a reference to an extant resolution in the preamble, or if we did, we would simply issue a memorandum opinion referencing our ruling in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials. I think this train has left the station.

What?

Answer me one question, please. What is the purpose of a preamble? Is it not to support the argument that something needs to be done? Doesn't it form the "base" of the active clauses? Keep in mind, the original House of Cards rule, and the way it's been interpreted for years now, is that verbiage like "RECALLING Resolution #XX, YY and ZZ" is illegal under the rule, and language like that certainly won't be found in an active clause.

Holding that your ruling extends to preambles in every conceivable situation totally guts the HoC rule, as anything in an active clause that relies on an existing resolution would likely break the amendment rule anyway.

We've explained our reasoning very thoroughly in the challenge thread, but to simplify: a resolution can only violate the HoC rule if some operative function of that resolution depends on a previous resolution. That might mean relying on a definition or creating punishment regimes that depend on regulations established in a previous resolution or something along those lines. The preamble, ipso facto, doesn't have any effect and therefore can't violate the HoC rule. And even so, simply "recalling" a past resolution doesn't violate the HoC rule because the act of recalling is not affected by the repeal of a resolution. If you're arguing that the WA has a history of protecting the poor, then you can recall any relevant resolution because whether or not they are repealed doesn't change the fact that they were passed at some point.

We haven't gutted the HoC rule, we've only limited it to instances where there are actual houses of cards.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11840
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:14 am

Sciongrad wrote:We haven't gutted the HoC rule, we've only limited it to instances where there are actual houses of cards.

Aka you've gutted it. Like the Ideology Ban rule.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2946
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:16 am

Araraukar wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:We haven't gutted the HoC rule, we've only limited it to instances where there are actual houses of cards.

Aka you've gutted it. Like the Ideology Ban rule.

Aka we haven't gutted it, we've made the rule do what it's supposed to do. Mentioning a resolution in a preambulatory clause does not create a house of cards. Wrapper is right that there is extensive mod precedent that supports his argument. What he neglects to mention is that all of the mod precedent was based on a previous rule that was revised following the compendium.

EDIT: I'm also not sure why it is a good thing to have very strict rules that serve no purpose? GenSec's responsibility first and foremost is the interpret the rules, but it is also to make sure the game runs smoothly. How does having a broad rule with no clear benefit the game?

EDIT 2: wow terrible typing.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5360
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:18 am

Sciongrad wrote:The preamble, ipso facto, doesn't have any effect and therefore can't violate the HoC rule. And even so, simply "recalling" a past resolution doesn't violate the HoC rule because the act of recalling is not affected by the repeal of a resolution....

We haven't gutted the HoC rule, we've only limited it to instances where there are actual houses of cards.

I respectfully disagree, as what you are stating above has been cited as an HoC violation countless times in the past, and won't be anymore. If that isn't the gutting of the rule then I don't know what is. So be it, I suppose you're right, that ship has sailed, unless GenSec is willing to rethink its position (I know, fat chance).

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2946
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:20 am

Wrapper wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:The preamble, ipso facto, doesn't have any effect and therefore can't violate the HoC rule. And even so, simply "recalling" a past resolution doesn't violate the HoC rule because the act of recalling is not affected by the repeal of a resolution....

We haven't gutted the HoC rule, we've only limited it to instances where there are actual houses of cards.

I respectfully disagree, as what you are stating above has been cited as an HoC violation countless times in the past, and won't be anymore. If that isn't the gutting of the rule then I don't know what is. So be it, I suppose you're right, that ship has sailed, unless GenSec is willing to rethink its position (I know, fat chance).

You're right, it has. But two important points to note. First, every single instance of moderator precedent that supports your argument relied on a previous version of the HoC rule that explicitly prohibited mentioning resolutions in the preamble. But secondly, and less relevant in this instance, mod precedent is not binding, it is only persuasive.

But as I mentioned, this does not gut the rule. Repeating that it has doesn't change the fact that we can (and probably will) rule proposals illegal for violating the HoC rule in the future.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5360
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:29 am

Sciongrad wrote:But two important points to note. First, every single instance of moderator precedent that supports your argument relied on a previous version of the HoC rule that explicitly prohibited mentioning resolutions in the preamble. But secondly, and less relevant in this instance, mod precedent is not binding, it is only persuasive.

Can't argue either of those points. Consider the matter dropped.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11840
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:04 pm

Sciongrad wrote:doesn't change the fact that we can (and probably will) rule proposals illegal for violating the HoC rule in the future.

How? How would it be possible, after you've ruled and decided that it's not punishable anymore?

And like I keep repeating, the current rule has the wording "Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent." It doesn't say "but you can use them to support the arguments", which is what the preamble is for. This is why I keep saying you should change the way the rule is worded if you want to interprete it the way you do and claim it's not a change of precedent.

Like, change the fucking rule to agree with you and I'll drop this argument happily, but don't say it can't be read the way I read it, because that's just not plain true.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13244
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:18 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:doesn't change the fact that we can (and probably will) rule proposals illegal for violating the HoC rule in the future.

How? How would it be possible, after you've ruled and decided that it's not punishable anymore?

And like I keep repeating, the current rule has the wording "Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent." It doesn't say "but you can use them to support the arguments", which is what the preamble is for. This is why I keep saying you should change the way the rule is worded if you want to interprete it the way you do and claim it's not a change of precedent.

Like, change the fucking rule to agree with you and I'll drop this argument happily, but don't say it can't be read the way I read it, because that's just not plain true.


Sure, we can do that.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 499
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:41 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Araraukar wrote:How? How would it be possible, after you've ruled and decided that it's not punishable anymore?

And like I keep repeating, the current rule has the wording "Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent." It doesn't say "but you can use them to support the arguments", which is what the preamble is for. This is why I keep saying you should change the way the rule is worded if you want to interprete it the way you do and claim it's not a change of precedent.

Like, change the fucking rule to agree with you and I'll drop this argument happily, but don't say it can't be read the way I read it, because that's just not plain true.


Sure, we can do that.
I'm happy that you agree with the points raised in the last challenge concerning HoC that the rules need to be changed to have the interpretation that is currently in use. If all proposals can reference resolutions, you can also delete the line specifically exempting repeals from the HoC rule.
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13244
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:50 pm

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Sure, we can do that.
I'm happy that you agree with the points raised in the last challenge concerning HoC that the rules need to be changed to have the interpretation that is currently in use. If all proposals can reference resolutions, you can also delete the line specifically exempting repeals from the HoC rule.


Not really. Rule changes can be enacted to procure clarity without altering substance. No substantive change is required.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

Next

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aquavian, Minoa, Munstenheim

Remove ads