NationStates

Araraukar wrote:

New Min wrote:OOC: EDIT: I know there is a separate "Outlaw Recreation Drugs" category, but, as far as I know, this can only be used for completely.. outlawing drugs.

OOC: To my knowledge it can also be used for restrictions. It's basically just badly named.

GA compendium wrote:Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, ... "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs,

(OOC: The compendium appears to suggest the outlaw subcategory can only outlaw drugs, not restrict them)

Kenmoria wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: To my knowledge it can also be used for restrictions. It's basically just badly named.

GA compendium wrote:Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, ... "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs,

(OOC: The compendium appears to suggest the outlaw subcategory can only outlaw drugs, not restrict them)

OOC: Unfortunately, Game Moderators and GenSec members use different definitions (apparently?) and the proposal currently considered illegal. It has a lot of approvals already, so I hope that some of the members of the GenSec will change their mind, or give some further explanation.

New Min wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:
(OOC: The compendium appears to suggest the outlaw subcategory can only outlaw drugs, not restrict them)

OOC: Unfortunately, Game Moderators and GenSec members use different definitions (apparently?) and the proposal currently considered illegal. It has a lot of approvals already, so I hope that some of the members of the GenSec will change their mind, or give some further explanation.

(OOC: Not necessarily, it could be that neither "recreational drug use - outlaw" nor "moral decency - significant" fit the proposal. The former wouldn't work because this restricts rather than bans drugs, but the latter wouldn't work because this proposal, although it restricts civil rights, does so in the name of health rather than moral decency. However, I can't find a category that works better than the options above at present.)

Now a 3rd member of the GenSec voted for illegal, but he/she considers the category to be right, but the strength not. Which strength​ should I have used instead?

I mean, I know this is a game, but the fact that staff members have completely different view regarding the rules than other staff, really annoys me. Also, this proposal has been on this forum for 3 weeks and no-one even talked about the category, including a GenSec member who made various comments.

OOC

Regardless of Category, there's also the clash with GA Resolution #299's clause 4:

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

My apologies about not pointing this out earlier, but somehow this thread slipped past my attention...

Bears Armed wrote:OOC

Regardless of Category, there's also the clash with GA Resolution #299's clause 4:

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

My apologies about not pointing this out earlier, but somehow this thread slipped past my attention...

OOC: I always thought that meant age limits (or mental capacity) and that's why using "minors (or mental equivalent)" was allowed? But if reading your way as a total ban for any further limiting by WA, then that makes that the biggest loophole in history, thanks to the "including but not limited to" in the clause. Totally makes me not needing to worry an iota about Araraukar not being totally compliant with stuff, if I can just set whatever tresholds on whatever actions or activities... And also means that the gambling legalization proposal is in trouble.

New Min wrote:Now a 3rd member of the GenSec voted for illegal, but he/she considers the category to be right, but the strength not. Which strength​ should I have used instead?

I mean, I know this is a game, but the fact that staff members have completely different view regarding the rules than other staff, really annoys me. Also, this proposal has been on this forum for 3 weeks and no-one even talked about the category, including a GenSec member who made various comments.

1. GenSec is not a hivemind. We all have different readings of the rules.

2. GenSec doesn't have an affirmative duty to weigh in on drafting threads to pick through legality issues. Many of us have very busy real lives to balance against active site work.

3. There are three strengths for a category: Mild, Significant, and Strong. If it isn't Significant, and it definitely isn't Strong...well, you do the deduction.

In my view, outlawing recreational drugs for minors is a form of outlawing recreational drugs. And behold: we have a category and subcategory precisely fitting this circumstance.

Separatist Peoples wrote:l
1. GenSec is not a hivemind. We all have different readings of the rules.

2. GenSec doesn't have an affirmative duty to weigh in on drafting threads to pick through legality issues. Many of us have very busy real lives to balance against active site work.

3. There are three strengths for a category: Mild, Significant, and Strong. If it isn't Significant, and it definitely isn't Strong...well, you do the deduction.

OOC:
1. How are new members supposed to understand the rules if there are different readings of the rules?
2. I never said so.
3. Ok.

New Min wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:l
1. GenSec is not a hivemind. We all have different readings of the rules.

2. GenSec doesn't have an affirmative duty to weigh in on drafting threads to pick through legality issues. Many of us have very busy real lives to balance against active site work.

3. There are three strengths for a category: Mild, Significant, and Strong. If it isn't Significant, and it definitely isn't Strong...well, you do the deduction.

OOC:
1. How are new members supposed to understand the rules if there are different readings of the rules?
2. I never said so.
3. Ok.

Reading them gets you the basics. But its impossible to have a subjective standard like strength codified. We consider impact, but there isn't an objective point where a mild proposal becomes significant or a significant one becomes strong, since policy cannot be reduced to numeric values.

GenSec is pretty good at assessing those differences, but it's always possible to have dissent in the ranks. That's why there are six of us.

OOC: Yeah, not a hivemind. I've tended to a certain degree of hard-assedness with regard to category, but this one is less simple IMO. Since the "Outlaw Rec. Drugs" category flat-out prohibits drugs, full stop, but this proposal only enforces controls for minors, I think the category is reasonable.

I agree the strength is wrong as submitted - keeping children from using psychoactive substances is not an inherently draconian or unexpected interest for a state or international body to advance, so Mild would be best. And I don't agree that #299 can be read so expansively as to stop the WA from being able to effectively legislate as B.A. alleged.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Since the "Outlaw Rec. Drugs" category flat-out prohibits drugs, full stop

OOC: Does it, though? Or does it just hit the Pineapple Fondness Rating statistic? Like, if a resolution passes in that AoE, does that literally drop that stat to zero, no matter how high a nation might have it at? If it doesn't, then it's not a true ban but a restriction.

I know I'm not from GenSec, but like with the guns category, instead of Outlaw/Legalize, it should be something like Restrict/Unrestrict.

Araraukar wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Since the "Outlaw Rec. Drugs" category flat-out prohibits drugs, full stop

OOC: Does it, though? Or does it just hit the Pineapple Fondness Rating statistic? Like, if a resolution passes in that AoE, does that literally drop that stat to zero, no matter how high a nation might have it at? If it doesn't, then it's not a true ban but a restriction.

I know I'm not from GenSec, but like with the guns category, instead of Outlaw/Legalize, it should be something like Restrict/Unrestrict.

Should be but isn't. Gambling is the same way.

Aclion wrote:Should be but isn't. Gambling is the same way.

OOC: Do you know the stat effect it has?

Araraukar wrote:

Aclion wrote:Should be but isn't. Gambling is the same way.

OOC: Do you know the stat effect it has?

My understanding is that they change a policy(gambling/drug use is legal/illegal) and that carries on to stat change. So it depends where the nation is to begin with.

Aclion wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do you know the stat effect it has?

My understanding is that they change a policy(gambling/drug use is legal/illegal) and that carries on to stat change. So it depends where the nation is to begin with.

OOC: Well yeah, but is it an actual ban (aka the recreational drug use stat goes to zero) or just a restriction (it drops, probably certain percentage)?

Araraukar wrote:

Aclion wrote:My understanding is that they change a policy(gambling/drug use is legal/illegal) and that carries on to stat change. So it depends where the nation is to begin with.

OOC: Well yeah, but is it an actual ban (aka the recreational drug use stat goes to zero) or just a restriction (it drops, probably certain percentage)?

It's an actual ban, but i'm not sure if that means recreational drug use goes to zero or just to a number that reflects the now illegal drug use. I know if you ban gambling that doesn't mean your gambling industry is locked at zero.

Aclion wrote:It's an actual ban, but i'm not sure if that means recreational drug use goes to zero or just to a number that reflects the now illegal drug use.

OOC: It's only an actual total outlawing ban (like proposal rules describe the category) if it actually kills the stat entirely. If it's just a percentage drop, then it's just a restriction, like all the other categories, and can be used for things that don't completely ban it.

Araraukar wrote:

Aclion wrote:It's an actual ban, but i'm not sure if that means recreational drug use goes to zero or just to a number that reflects the now illegal drug use.

OOC: It's only an actual total outlawing ban (like proposal rules describe the category) if it actually kills the stat entirely. If it's just a percentage drop, then it's just a restriction, like all the other categories, and can be used for things that don't completely ban it.

OOC: There are freedoms issues that IMO are dire enough to warrant MD/Mild if only children are being stopped from using drugs. If adults were being prohibited or even just broadly restricted, I would insist on RD/Outlaw. Here, they are not.

Restrictions on Child Labor wrote:Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation.

Minors and Recreational Drugs wrote:Defines a 'minor' as a sapient being under the legal age of majority as defined by in their nation for the purpose of this resolution.

Well, ain't that something!

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There are freedoms issues that IMO are dire enough to warrant MD/Mild if only children are being stopped from using drugs. If adults were being prohibited or even just broadly restricted, I would insist on RD/Outlaw. Here, they are not.

OOC: That's besides the point. The point was, "Can you use RD/Outlaw to restrict drug use rather than completely ban it?"

Araraukar wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There are freedoms issues that IMO are dire enough to warrant MD/Mild if only children are being stopped from using drugs. If adults were being prohibited or even just broadly restricted, I would insist on RD/Outlaw. Here, they are not.

OOC: That's besides the point. The point was, "Can you use RD/Outlaw to restrict drug use rather than completely ban it?"

Ooc: not based on the text of the category description. A shame, really. It's not a terribly flexible category.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not based on the text of the category description. A shame, really. It's not a terribly flexible category.

OOC: Could you guys contact the Admins about it? You got the Mild and Strong added to Environmental. (Though they still need to be added to the proposal rules.)

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not based on the text of the category description. A shame, really. It's not a terribly flexible category.

OOC: Could you guys contact the Admins about it? You got the Mild and Strong added to Environmental. (Though they still need to be added to the proposal rules.)

Ooc: we are looking at adjusting some categories, but we have bad schedules. You know how the vacation months are. Doubly so when GenSec, Editors, and Admins are scattered all over the globe! And tripley so when you move at the glacial pace of GenSec to debate every facet. We really are looking into it!