[Draft] Liberation Limit - Freedom Of Choice

[AaronScythe]

Liberation Limit - Freedom Of Choice

As of late, WA-SC resolutions have been nothing short of abusing the WA, to further ideological motives.

Horrified at the use of WA liberation to enable raiding of closed regions.
Disgusted at the use of pure hearsay to justify these actions.
Dismayed at the success of these campaigns into forcing nations to reform their respective regions elsewhere.
Outraged that the WA sanctioned raiders find themselves morally justified in their actions.
Abhorred with the global effect to loss of political discussion.

Citing the Rules of Proposals, Ideological Ban: "Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies.
And believing these liberations to be a direct violation of said rule, where regions are being targeted on ideological grounds.

Hereby calls for the enactment of Three simple tenets:
1. Regions shall not be targeted by WA liberation, for their choice of political system.
2. Regions shall not be targeted by WA liberation, for baseless accusations.
3. Regions shall not be targeted by WA liberation, for trying to recruit new members.

It is the hope of this proposal, that Nations may thereafter freely discuss political ideologies without fear of invasion.
That Nations may freely try to recruit, without being attacked for it.
And that Nations are once again secure behind their own Regional Delegate imposed borders, given the position of not breaking further laws.

This is my first ever attempt at a proposal, and I have attempted to base it off previous proposals.
The intent is to stop punishing players for choosing to play as a certain political system, through use of illegal resolutions based on the cited rules of proposals.
If there's anything tangible as a reason such as another raid, then this would not apply.
Of course, this has to be made so as to not break the 4th wall - I hope I've done so.
I am open to changes, and hoping a more experienced legislator may assist in ensuring the wording is legal.
And also hoping for some advice in regards to only having my own regional delegate as an endorsement - I'm more than willing to let someone else spearhead this.

Lets get this game back to being a political simulator for fun, not a place where we see real world politically motivated idiots spreading hatred because someone chooses to play an evil despot.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This is irredeemably illegal. For one, it violates the Metagaming rule, which requires proposals be In Character in the GA, and that they cannot reference the game as a game. Referencing the rules is not allowed, since those are part of the game. For another, it seeks to affect Game Mechanics by limiting the scope of liberations. Proposals cannot change the coding effects. Finally, that is not really how the Ideological Ban rule works.

I'm sorry to say, but this is utterly irredeemable, since there is no construction that would render it legal. You should read through the Rules and Passed Proposals lists stickied at the top of the forum to get a better idea of how things work here.

Welcome to the GA forum!

[Liberimery]

OOC: Also the SC is a different deliberative body. We could no more tell them what to do than The House of Representatives can tell the Senate what to do in the U.S. That said there could be a good IC way to handle nations that wish to not comply with GA resolutions is to refer them to SC for consideration for condemnation. That would be IC though and off topic.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Also the SC is a different deliberative body. We could no more tell them what to do than The House of Representatives can tell the Senate what to do in the U.S. That said there could be a good IC way to handle nations that wish to not comply with GA resolutions is to refer them to SC for consideration for condemnation. That would be IC though and off topic.

OOC
Nope. Under the current interpretation of the rules,even mentioning the SC in a GA proposal counts as illegal for Meta-gaming.

[AaronScythe]

I can't accept that this is "irredeemably illegal".
The goals of it can be set into motion, and that is why I've asked for help. That is why it's a draft.

It does not affect game mechanics in the slightest, it merely sets forth an attitude for future appraisal. Not a single bit of code will be affected.
The scope of liberations is not what is in question, it is the abuse of such to be used as out of character resolutions. Out of character by definition, is not within the IC scope.
As I have stated, "If there's anything tangible as a reason such as another raid, then this would not apply."
Meaning to act with reason, not blatantly baseless accusations.
And has already been covered otherwise, in "And that Nations are once again secure behind their own Regional Delegate imposed borders, given the position of not breaking further laws."
It means absolutely no limits for attacking raider nations, nor for any region that by definition goes against a WA resolution.
Which would include those targeted in current resolutions.
However, it directly sets the stage for less personal incredulity in the forming of new proposals.

One resolution here, sets the groundwork for future WA-SC condemnations as Liberimy has stated.
It is not an attempt to break the meta-gaming rule, it is not forcing any specific actions. It is ensuring the IC gameplay remains IC.
And if anything, it's a limitation. That is not a specific action. Perhaps a tad specific, but that's the point. Language is to be specific, or it will be torn apart.

I'm asking for assistance in specific language to work towards this goal.
Referencing the rules in and of itself is IC as those who endorse a proposal, are seen as an overhead governing body. It is akin to the UN member states voting.
But of course, this is not the only way to allude to this while staying IC. That is the challenge.

A region reforming can easily be explained as refugees forced to rebuild their nation elsewhere.
For all others, the regional delegate has been referenced plenty of times, as has WA, WA-SC, and the term "raiders", and "raider nations" for that matter.

So I ask again, I am " hoping a more experienced legislator may assist in ensuring the wording is legal."

As for Bears Armed's post... I apologize but I find that a completely nonsensical interpretation. I cannot see how mentioning an IC governing body (WA-SC) is explicitly illegal, nor can I see where it states as such.
However that is another argument entirely, perhaps best served with a GenSec legality challenge thread?

[Frisbeeteria]

I can't accept that this is "irredeemably illegal".
The goals of it can be set into motion, and that is why I've asked for help.

You're wrong. The goals cannot be set into motion. It's pure metagaming.

Not a single bit of code will be affected.

If you don't change the code, then you're asking the moderators to police the proposal queue and declare illegal anything that doesn't meet your guidelines.

So I ask again, I am " hoping a more experienced legislator may assist in ensuring the wording is legal."

You've now heard from two members of GenSec and a moderator, all of whom have successfully passed legislation. Your proposal is DOA. Accept it.

[Separatist Peoples]

I can't accept that this is "irredeemably illegal".
The goals of it can be set into motion, and that is why I've asked for help. That is why it's a draft.

OOC: You have to. The rules don't permit limits on liberations in GA resolutions. Any submission contrary to the rules gets removed.

It does not affect game mechanics in the slightest, it merely sets forth an attitude for future appraisal. Not a single bit of code will be affected.

OOC: It either affects gameside powers, specifically the mechanics of liberations, or it places a limit on what players can draft on the forums, which affects forumside activity. Game Mechanics or Metagaming.

The scope of liberations is not what is in question, it is the abuse of such to be used as out of character resolutions. Out of character by definition, is not within the IC scope.

OOC: That isn't how it works.

It is not an attempt to break the meta-gaming rule, it is not forcing any specific actions. It is ensuring the IC gameplay remains IC.

OOC: Intent is irrelevant. You can't do this.

I'm asking for assistance in specific language to work towards this goal.

OOC: No language can accomplish what you want to see on this site.

Referencing the rules in and of itself is IC as those who endorse a proposal, are seen as an overhead governing body. It is akin to the UN member states voting.

OOC: No, the rules of the GA forum are OOC limits that don't necessarily exist ICly. THey can be referenced ICly to avoid dropping character, but they are OOC creations with OOC enforcement.

So I ask again, I am " hoping a more experienced legislator may assist in ensuring the wording is legal."

OOC: It isn't possible.

As for Bears Armed's post... I apologize but I find that a completely nonsensical interpretation. I cannot see how mentioning an IC governing body (WA-SC) is explicitly illegal, nor can I see where it states as such.

OOC: This was GenSec's first ruling. I wrote the opinion. We ruled that mentioning the SC is itself a metagaming violation because the SC is an inherently OOC entity insofar as it deals with regional gameplay, raiding, and defending.

However that is another argument entirely, perhaps best served with a GenSec legality challenge thread?

OOC: Its been done. I wrote the opinion.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

It is different and difficult to condemn liberation without breaking the rules anything referenced Security Council or neoliberations is what separatist people said

[AaronScythe]

Thank you for the more extended breakdown.

I'd like to make a reminder there is a difference between being curt, and being condescending.

And on that note, a final word:
When dictionary definitions are dictated as a dichotomy, the dictator's decision will be deprecated. To expect less is foolish.

Lock it.