[Challenge] Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes

[Imperium Anglorum]

You should know well enough that this is not correct.

It is you that are wrong. Issues have nothing to do with the GA. And the ability to commit genocide is not a human right. 'Interpreting' the rules are you attempt to do here, would be equivalent to denying the present passed resolution realities.

[Separatist Peoples]

What Issues do is irrelevant. Issues do not govern GA Rules.

A law that seeks to empower the legal vindication of human rights by removing barriers to that vindication itself furthers those human rights.

In NS, being allowed to kill lots of people is a human right.
Being protected from being killed by the free will of other people is not a human right in NS.

What Issues do is irrelevant. Issues do not govern GA Rules.

You should know well enough that this is not correct.

You're just flat wrong. Issues and GA Rules are connected only by a common statistical coding base. The issues affect gameside stats, and so do GA resolutions. They don't do so in the same degree. That is the end of the comparison. Gameside stats are secret, and therefore cannot be the exclusive basis for GA rules. Additionally, it would make it impossible to integrate the GA and Issues when Issues and their options are made available without regard for player-submitted GA Resolutions.

You're just flat out wrong.

[Auralia]

In my view, the category and strength of a resolution are a function of its anticipated average effect. I don't really see a better approach, since a resolution's "actual" effect can change all the time, depending on a variety of factors. The "actual" strength of Foreign Copyright Recognition will change depending on the number of copyrighted works in existence, for example. The only difference in the case of the resolution at vote is that the "actual" strength is also a function of World Assembly action, but I don't see how that is fundamentally different.

The resolution at vote is clearly targeted towards violations of human rights laws, specifically "crimes against humanity", "crimes against peace", and "war crimes". The World Assembly does have the power to define what precisely those laws are, thereby changing the resolution's "actual" effect. However, its anticipated average effect remains roughly the same -- the World Assembly will create human rights laws defining such and such acts as the aforementioned crimes, and member states will not be permitted to impose statutes of limitations for those crimes. This justifies a category of Human Rights and a strength of mild, as I think the World Assembly can be expected to define these terms reasonably.

[Ziotah and Riverside]

As a previous victim of heinous war crimes committed by several countries that went unpunished, Ziotah and Riverside strongly support this measure in the hopes that future perpetrators of heinous acts will face justice.

[Frisbeeteria]

You should know well enough that this is not correct.

Your challenge has been rejected by the game organization authorized to make that call. The response to the Getting Help Request that you filed made it quite clear that your claims were rejected by game moderators. Issues are officially irrelevant to the World Assembly, as it is impossible to tie permanently coded staff-written content to an ever-changing system of player-written content.

Whether you agree with the outcome or not, this matter is closed. I see no reason to continue to discuss it.