[CHALLENGE (Sua Sponte)] "Repeal 'Ban on Secret Treaties'"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In accordance with Clause 2(b) of the GenSec Rules and Procedures, this thread is being opened for GenSec's sua sponte review of the resolution at vote. Because the resolution is already at vote, we deliberated immediately. We find that the proposal is illegal for an Honest Mistake violation. Sierra Lyricalia wrote the majority opinion, which is unanimous.

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***

The proposal at vote, "Repeal: 'Ban on Secret Treaties'," contains an Honest Mistake violation and GenSec should not have permitted it to come to vote. The repeal alleges:

...that GAR#408 concentrates only on "secret diplomacy" taking place during wartime.

But this is false. Only in two preamble clauses does the target mention war specifically, and nowhere does it limit its effects to military alliances; nor to treaties negotiated during wartime. We note that but for the word "only," the allegation would be reasonable; but with it the allegation is simply false, in violation of the Honest Mistake rule. The resolution will therefore be Discarded should the voters fail to reject it.

[Wallenburg]

Nice and brief. Thanks for the quick delivery.

[Kranostav]

Short and Sweet. Glad you made well on a not-so-obvious flaw in a proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Remarkable.

Yet Repeal: Freedom of Expression was ruled completely legal and not in violation of the honest mistake rule, even though the original resolution makes no references to tobacco companies, or smoking at all?

This was ruled legal by four members of GenSec? Would 3 of those members just happen to be from the IDU? What I find amusing is the fact that Imperium Anglorum is able to pass a repeal, that was blatantly an honest mistake, yet when someone tries to repeal one of his resolutions, it is ruled illegal because of a single word?

Not making accusations here, just a general amusing observation.

I'm not sure what being in the IDU has to do with anything. None of us interact in the same regional events. I RP on the IDU site (minimally at that), Scion isn't active, and Bears hangs out on the RMB. This is a common "observation" that shows the observer doesn't pay enough attention to know the details of what they're talking about.

Our rational is routinely posted as part of our rulings. So, too, do we release our private discussions after a reasonable amount of time. You know, for transparency. To prove that exactly what you're hinting at (poorly) doesn't happen.

Tuck it back in the deck.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not sure what being in the IDU has to do with anything. None of us interact in the same regional events. I RP on the IDU site (minimally at that), Scion isn't active, and Bears hangs out on the RMB. This is a common "observation" that shows the observer doesn't pay enough attention to know the details of what they're talking about.

Our rational is routinely posted as part of our rulings. So, too, do we release our private discussions after a reasonable amount of time. You know, for transparency. To prove that exactly what you're hinting at (poorly) doesn't happen.

Tuck it back in the deck.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact you all happen to be UNOG members, or just happen to be members of WALL? Like I said, I wasn't making accusations, just an amusing observation, but since you decided to cut "the deck", lets see how the cards play shall we?

Do you have a three? No? Go fish.

Join the WALL Discord. See how active I am. Or scion is. Or how BA isn't even on Discord. Or get yourself onto UNOG and see how dead the forum there is. By all means.

Gin. Or something. What are we doing with this metaphor?

[Wallenburg]

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact you all happen to be UNOG members, or just happen to be members of WALL? Like I said, I wasn't making accusations, just an amusing observation, but since you decided to cut "the deck", lets see how the cards play shall we?

Do you have a three? No? Go fish.

"Ur old, their4 u can't be trusted."

[Araraukar]

I do this as a hobby to kill time and nothing more.

As do we all, but pedantry is part of how the game's played.

[Separatist Peoples]

Join the WALL Discord. See how active I am. Or scion is. Or how BA isn't even on Discord. Or get yourself onto UNOG and see how dead the forum there is. By all means.

Gin. Or something. What are we doing with this metaphor?

I have very little time for that pedantry. I do this as a hobby to kill time and nothing more. As I said, an amusing observation. You could have let it pass and I would have dropped it, but you took the hook, so now we see how it plays out. If it was a honest screw up then fine, it was an honest screw up. Shit happens. Good on you for catching it I suppose. We all have real lives. I am merely pointing out that a set of circumstances just happens to fit.

This particular conspiracy has been beaten more than a particularly punchable deceased equine. It has never once borne fruit. Since rumors like to abound, I'm not willing to let it be said in this forum without pointing out it's falsity.

As for the metaphor? I don't know, you created it, so how do you want to play it?

...Baccarat.

[Wallenburg]

"Ur old, their4 u can't be trusted."

Coming from the "PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC"? As I told you earlier, "pot meet kettle Sir".

Look, on a more serious note, I am often characterized as some contrarian out for GenSec blood. When someone like that is not only telling you that GenSec got this right, but is laughing at your conspiratorial comments, maybe you don't have things quite right.

[Sciongrad]

Yet GenSec tells you a definition is illegal, and you hold pat? Seems kind of contradictory to me. Flip-flopping is for the weak my good man.

Wally's definition was not illegal. I said that using definitions in a certain way was illegal, but Wally's didn't do that, as far as I'm concerned. I won't dignify the conspiracy theories with a response, especially the UNOG one, which is literally the oldest conspiracy theory on this form (though I'm loving this new IDU one), but I will say that our reasoning here is unimpeachable. We were wrong to miss the violation in the first place, but if you can show me the repeal doesn't have an honest mistake violation, I swear to you I will resign on the spot.

On the other hand, the repeal of GAR#30 didn't have an honest mistake violation. If you think a resolution must specify explicitly each and every one of its implications in order for a repeal to address them, then you fundamentally misunderstand the honest mistake rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

The IDU one isn't really new.

No, pedantry is how the General Assembly is played. Reading back through past resoultions, it seems humor was a big part of this place at one time. Now it is a bunch of lawyers. Sad really? I see why it is so hard to get into this part of the game. If you don't have a law degree, or are not apt in the long lost art of spinning bullshit you are pretty much screwed.

Can't handle the intellectual heat? Stay out of the law kitchen.

Really? I don't have time to read through thousands of threads, so I will take you on your word. But now that you say that, does this happen often enough that I am not the only one that noticed it? Is IA really that untouchable, where he can pass a clearly illegal resolution, yet when one of his is about to be repealed, it gets dinged for stupidity?

They aren't easy to find. It's really just the upset newbies who dislike that we've found against them. Or players like Bitely, who jump at the shadow of anybody who's been here longer than they have.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm untouchable? That's news to me. Now, where is the original version of Ban on Secret Treaties? Or Bolding Banning Box Bombs (something like that)? Or PROLIFE? Because I'm really pro this PROLIFE. Or Repeal "Pesticide Regulations"? Badly researched assertions are still badly researched.

I can assure you that no more than three (maybe four, if you include some people no longer active) of the regulars are lawyers or law students. But if you really want to bark up that tree, you might also consider that experience matters. Perhaps it might be the case that experienced authors who are familiar with the ruleset and have passed lots of resolutions . . . know how the rules work and are able to make their proposals fit into those rules?

Or there's just a massive conspiracy run through like eight different regional and interregional organisations that has never been leaked to anybody. And not only that, the people running the conspiracy are stupid enough to create large flashy-sounding names like IDU and WALL for those conspiracies to be identified . . . instead of just running the conspiracy through a no-name private Discord chat? This premise is stupid.

---

However that is, you should understand what the Honest Mistake rule does. It prohibits unreasonable interpretations of the target resolution in repeals. Whether that is what it's name should be? I dunno. Probably not. But that's the name we've got.

Saying that a BoST only applies to wartime treaties is objectively false. Objectively false claims are necessarily unreasonable interpretations. Thus, a repeal with that claim is illegal.

Saying that FoE used to apply to commercial speech isn't. Nor is it an unreasonable interpretation: not only are corporations juridicial persons, which falls into the guise of people, according to – say – the US Supreme Court, this is an interpretation which has been taken up by the Secretariat themselves. Whether that extends to tobacco advertisements is simply an example of that in action. Illustrative examples of factual points which are derived from not-unreasonable interpretations has never been illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The fact is you did make an unreasonable interpretation.

This is objectively false.

And you still don't seem to understand the Honest Mistake rule, which lays out a pretty clear standard for what counts as a violation. If you are unwilling or unable to understand that standard, neither I (nor anyone else here) can help you.

Making false statements, then trying to justify it by making a fish hook metaphor is one of the oldest in the book. You got caught. Stop trying to make it appear as though this was your whole plan the entire time.

[Separatist Peoples]

Uh huh. Once again, I am not a lawyer, and never wanted to be one. I could give a rats ass about SCOTUS rulings, as they DON'T APPLY HERE. The fact is you did make an unreasonable interpretation. You focused on one little nugget of that particular resolution and used that as the base to dismantle it. You said nothing else about it in your repeal. Yet a small miswording of this one, causes a calamity?

There isn't anything illegal in the ruleset about using a small flaw as a base for repealing a resolution. There is something illegal in the ruleset about claiming a resolution does something that cannot be supported by any reading of the text.

[Separatist Peoples]

So how do you derive "Honest Mistake" from that? And just how was not banning tobacco companies from advertising a flaw? By that reasoning we could repeal just about anything on whimsical reasoning, including everyone one of your resoultions, based on the fact the character count isn't enough to cover every possible conceivably. Nor would anyone want to read a book, or have to read the damn dictionary before voting on something.

You sure can repeal my resolutions based on basically anything relevant to the resolution, so long as it involves a colorable interpretation of the resolution. Which IA's did. You can totally use the character count argument, provided you do it ICly.

GenSec doesn't enforce quality of resolutions, just legality. If a repeal is legal but bad, it's still legal. If it's good but illegal, it gets yanked. Full stop.

[Separatist Peoples]

You sure can repeal my resolutions based on basically anything relevant to the resolution, so long as it involves a colorable interpretation of the resolution. Which IA's did. You can totally use the character count argument, provided you do it ICly.

GenSec doesn't enforce quality of resolutions, just legality. If a repeal is legal but bad, it's still legal. If it's good but illegal, it gets yanked. Full stop.

So you are saying that IA made a "apparently valid, but actually specious" interpretation in his repeal, so it was legal? That is the definition. If people want to be lawyers, I will pull out the dictionary.

Call this a jihad on bullshit if you will. *John Cadogan*

GenSec isn't willing to be arbiters of factual accuracy. If the argument is colorable, we leave it to voters to decide if they buy the argument. If the argument is textually impossible, or too strained for reason, we don't let it get to voters.

You keep saying disparaging things about attorneys, but since I'm most of the way through my JD, I'm just seeing the need for legal literacy as a good thing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I remember a certain someone who used to love using the word bullshit a lot. And especially in respect to repeals and GA resolutions. He's not here anymore. Or at least, the last three times he came back, he got deleted pretty damn fast.

Anyway, it seems you don't know how the rules work. Nor do you understand how the Assembly works or how the meaning of hypocrisy. "If you have some mind reading powers then please, enlighten the rest of us." My repeal of FoE is quite defensible. The resolution was repealed for blocking future legislation, something which was noted in the original debate thread. And after its application against Traditional Medicine, more than about time. If you don't want to trace the history of the resolution to Separatist Peoples' original repeal draft, then wallow in your ignorance.

However that is, I agree with Sep. We do need more legal education. I think an understanding of financial markets and economics should be added to that too. Not knowing how the law works, how the rules work, or how certain policies affect certain markets, is less an excuse, more of a challenge to learn. You have the materials. Both on the subject of the GA ruleset and on all manner of legislative projects. Or you can decide to keep on with your "jihad on bullshit" and continue making ill-asserted foolish claims on conspiracies which do not exist and where your ignorance of how we do things here in the GA shows most plainly.

[Separatist Peoples]

GenSec isn't willing to be arbiters of factual accuracy. If the argument is colorable, we leave it to voters to decide if they buy the argument. If the argument is textually impossible, or too strained for reason, we don't let it get to voters.

You keep saying disparaging things about attorneys, but since I'm most of the way through my JD, I'm just seeing the need for legal literacy as a good thing.

What are you using as definition of colorable? "Apparently correct or justified"? You say you aren't willing to be the arbiters of factual accuracy, yet this one is ruled illegal on a "factual inaccuracy"? The two contradict each other.

Not really. We aren't going to weigh on on a proposal that mandates a Universal Basic Income to reduce poverty on the grounds of Honest Mistake because the challenger argues a UBI doesn't reduce poverty. That's a factual determination we aren't willing to weigh in on. I suppose a more accurate statement is that we don't weigh on on questions of political fact, merely textual error. Much the same way that an appellate court will usually analyze application of law but not disturb the factual findings. I think I see the meat of the dispute here.

am not disparaging lawyers. They are a needed profession *unfortunately*. Legal literacy is one thing, but not everyone is a damn lawyer. As I said, 13 year old's play this game. If this is how it is, then what chance do they stand? How about "reasonable accuracy"? Would that not be better? It was a small miswording, and someone who got it to vote gets punished? When the mods handled this, were they this pedantic? Oh and good on ya for going to a career. It is refreshing to see young people actually wanting to be better.

I'm not sure why we should dumb it down for 13 year olds. This part of the game is not easy. If you can't pay at the same level as the rest of the forum, we don't have, and shouldn't have, an obligation to oversimplify things.

It was a small miswording that was nonetheless inconsistant with the rules. We apply those without mercy.

The mods were just as pedantic. Arguably moreso. Have you read some of Ard's old rulings?

I'm not sure how much of a young person I am. I've got a wife and plenty of gray hairs in my beard...though I don't suppose the hairs are a question of age as much as stress.

[Wallenburg]

I remember a certain someone who used to love using the word bullshit a lot. And especially in respect to repeals and GA resolutions. He's not here anymore. Or at least, the last three times he came back, he got deleted pretty damn fast.

Anyway, it seems you don't know how the rules work. Nor do you understand how the Assembly works or how the meaning of hypocrisy. "If you have some mind reading powers then please, enlighten the rest of us." My repeal of FoE is quite defensible. The resolution was repealed for blocking future legislation, something which was noted in the original debate thread. And after its application against Traditional Medicine, more than about time. If you don't want to trace the history of the resolution to Separatist Peoples' original repeal draft, then wallow in your ignorance.

However that is, I agree with Sep. We do need more legal education. I think an understanding of financial markets and economics should be added to that too. Not knowing how the law works, how the rules work, or how certain policies affect certain markets, is less an excuse, more of a challenge to learn. You have the materials. Both on the subject of the GA ruleset and on all manner of legislative projects. Or you can decide to keep on with your "jihad on bullshit" and continue making ill-asserted foolish claims on conspiracies which do not exist and where your ignorance of how we do things here in the GA shows most plainly.

Bullshit is a pretty common thing. I know lots of car salesmen. My brother is one in fact, and not very good at it. As for the rules? I have read them. You on the other hand bend them to your will, and get away with it. You repealed it on an unreasonable interpretation. You can defend it all you like, it was still wrong, as I have proven. Do we really need the game to become an online course in economics and law? Pretty sure Max Barry didn't intend, nor want that. I made one amusing observation, and you have latched onto that as your only defense. If this is above your head, maybe you should stop while you are ahead? Feel free to dispute my claims all you like. I will continue to rebuff you until hell freezes solid. It is pretty enjoyable. If you have to resort to strawmen, then have it it. Like I said I have lots of matches.

Your attitude in this thread has been lower than deplorable.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Lies repeated over and over again do not make them true. However that is, I don't think engaging with DOS players who clearly failed at suing NationStates (Maybe we do need more legal education!) is a good use of my time.

[Hiram Land]

Lies repeated over and over again do not make them true. However that is, I don't think engaging with DOS players who clearly failed at suing NationStates (Maybe we do need more legal education!) is a good use of my time.

Honestly, it would be HILARIOUS to have someone sue NationStates. They haven't broken the law, nor have they promoted breaking the law. I believe that angry anti-NationStates gamers who want NationStates dead would sue the game.

Shorter version:

[Araraukar]

*snip*

To be fair, you tend to make proposals just to force the GenSec to make rulings, since they refuse to rule on hypotheticals.

EDIT: I was wondering what everyone was responding to, until I realized that when a DOS player's nation is swatted, their posts get vanished too...

[Imperium Anglorum]

To be fair, you tend to make proposals just to force the GenSec to make rulings, since they refuse to rule on hypotheticals.

To be fair, I have literally never done that. Every single proposal I have submitted to the queue, in my view, should be legal. And to be even more 'fair', you're the person with the most GenSec challenges anyway. This is the frequency distribution.

Code: Select all

Araraukar                           6
Gruenberg                           2
Wallenburg                          2
Excidium Planetis                   2
Umeria                              1
sua sponte                          1
Thyerata                            1
Auralia                             1
Christian Democrats                 1
Sciongrad                           1
Calladan                            1
sua sponte (Christian Democrats)    1
States of Glory WA Office           1
Tinfect                             1
A Bright Future                     1
New Waldensia                       1

[Wallenburg]

To be fair, you tend to make proposals just to force the GenSec to make rulings, since they refuse to rule on hypotheticals.

To be fair, I have literally never done that. Every single proposal I have submitted to the queue, in my view, should be legal. And to be even more 'fair', you're the person with the most GenSec challenges anyway. This is the frequency distribution.

Code: Select all

Araraukar                           6
Gruenberg                           2
Wallenburg                          2
Excidium Planetis                   2
Umeria                              1
sua sponte                          1
Thyerata                            1
Auralia                             1
Christian Democrats                 1
Sciongrad                           1
Calladan                            1
sua sponte (Christian Democrats)    1
States of Glory WA Office           1
Tinfect                             1
A Bright Future                     1
New Waldensia                       1

search.php?keywords=challenge&terms=all&author=imperium+anglorum&fid%5B%5D=9&sc=1&sf=titleonly&sr=topics&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

[Imperium Anglorum]

viewtopic.php?p=31531854#p31531854