[DRAFT] Repeal "Rights and Duties..."

[WayNeacTia]

Re supra—

From SL's opinion which was the plurality:

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

OOC
Have you forgotten? The creation of a WA Police was actually illegal under the basic proposal-writing rules until the last major re-write.

Precisely. Under the basic rules. That rule doesn't exist any longer. So what is preventing the creation of such a force, other than a very broad interpretation of the words "police actions"? In fact Glen brought up a very legitimate point. When even GenSec can't come to a majority on the interpretation of Article 10, perhaps it is time to narrow the scope of those particular words.

Two whole words have been used as a bludgeon since the passage to Rights and Duties to systemically squash any attempt to create a WA Police Force, on the grounds that it would seem to force the R&D element of gameplay on nations (it doesn't), or it would force roleplay. Reproductive Freedoms does just that. It is forcing nations which take a strong stance against abortion to roleplay non-compliance.

[Kenmoria]

OOC
Have you forgotten? The creation of a WA Police was actually illegal under the basic proposal-writing rules until the last major re-write.

Precisely. Under the basic rules. That rule doesn't exist any longer. So what is preventing the creation of such a force, other than a very broad interpretation of the words "police actions"? In fact Glen brought up a very legitimate point. When even GenSec can't come to a majority on the interpretation of Article 10, perhaps it is time to narrow the scope of those particular words.

(OOC: ‘Police actions’ seems to be quite clearly referring to actions of a police force, including the creation thereof. Although I can see that your interpretation could be reasonable based solely on the text, the context of prior rules and precedent very strongly implies a broader reading. That said, I don’t think using the common meaning of the terms counts as being massively broad, merely not as restrictive as you are saying.

Two whole words have been used as a bludgeon since the passage to Rights and Duties to systemically squash any attempt to create a WA Police Force, on the grounds that it would seem to force the R&D element of gameplay on nations (it doesn't), or it would force roleplay. Reproductive Freedoms does just that. It is forcing nations which take a strong stance against abortion to roleplay non-compliance.

There’s a clear difference between ‘forcing’ nations to role play legislation, which is the entire purpose of the General Assembly in the first place, and staging an entire invasion that could easily take up a few International Incidents threads. Personally I am in favour of both, which is one of the reasons why I support this proposal.)

[WayNeacTia]

Precisely. Under the basic rules. That rule doesn't exist any longer. So what is preventing the creation of such a force, other than a very broad interpretation of the words "police actions"? In fact Glen brought up a very legitimate point. When even GenSec can't come to a majority on the interpretation of Article 10, perhaps it is time to narrow the scope of those particular words.

(OOC: ‘Police actions’ seems to be quite clearly referring to actions of a police force, including the creation thereof. Although I can see that your interpretation could be reasonable based solely on the text, the context of prior rules and precedent very strongly implies a broader reading. That said, I don’t think using the common meaning of the terms counts as being massively broad, merely not as restrictive as you are saying.

Let's examine that shall we? "Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner." I've underlined the key point here.

IF we take a look words that immediately proceed and follow the words police actions, they are military solely in scope. So someone is going to tell me that in the middle of two definitions which can only be military in nature, the words Police Actions are now referencing a civilian police force? If that is the case (it isn't) Fris better get in here and explain that little oopsie-daisy, and clarify exactly what he meant.

There’s a clear difference between ‘forcing’ nations to role play legislation, which is the entire purpose of the General Assembly in the first place, and staging an entire invasion that could easily take up a few International Incidents threads.

Not really. Do we roleplay the Compliance Commission? How about ITSC? Hell do we even roleplay GenSec? Do we roleplay any of these committees in II, or even the the WA? No, we do not. So what would be the difference? The WA Police would be nothing more than a committee, which is staffed by gnomes.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Dispute over a legal interpretation generally leads to a Challenge. It strikes me that making a challenge would be more productive than derailing the drafting process when its clear the author and the opposing theory are at loggerheads. Legality discussions in drafting threads are fine, but when they take over without progress, its best to move onto a challenge.

/$.02.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You challenge the proposal for honest mistake here while no money is spent or time wasted and we will all have a drink together when all is said and done.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Dispute over a legal interpretation generally leads to a Challenge. It strikes me that making a challenge would be more productive than derailing the drafting process when its clear the author and the opposing theory are at loggerheads. Legality discussions in drafting threads are fine, but when they take over without progress, its best to move onto a challenge.

/$.02.

A legality challenge? It's already been made one post above yours. Do we really need a separate thread for that? All that's going to going to do is confuse people trying to follow both threads when things get quoted back and forth. So why?

It's pretty clear those words are still being interpreted as if the no WA military rule was still in effect, in particular by GenSec. All those two words, and massive over interpretation of them are doing is stifling creation. Was it not you and I that were having a discussion about challenge and creativity? So magical compliance couldn't possibly be a thing, yet two words can by magic mean something other than intended?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Dispute over a legal interpretation generally leads to a Challenge. It strikes me that making a challenge would be more productive than derailing the drafting process when its clear the author and the opposing theory are at loggerheads. Legality discussions in drafting threads are fine, but when they take over without progress, its best to move onto a challenge.

/$.02.

A legality challenge? It's already been made one post above yours. Do we really need a separate thread for that? All that's going to going to do is confuse people trying to follow both threads when things get quoted back and forth. So why?

It's pretty clear those words are still being interpreted as if the no WA military rule was still in effect, in particular by GenSec. All those two words, and massive over interpretation of them are doing is stifling creation. Was it not you and I that were having a discussion about challenge and creativity? So magical compliance couldn't possibly be a thing, yet two words can by magic mean something other than intended?

Yes, you do need a separate thread. It cuts down on spam in the draft thread.

The question of compliance isn't germane to the legality question. You should follow the instructions in our procedure if you want to make a challenge.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's right there: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=401599

[WayNeacTia]

A legality challenge? It's already been made one post above yours. Do we really need a separate thread for that? All that's going to going to do is confuse people trying to follow both threads when things get quoted back and forth. So why?

It's pretty clear those words are still being interpreted as if the no WA military rule was still in effect, in particular by GenSec. All those two words, and massive over interpretation of them are doing is stifling creation. Was it not you and I that were having a discussion about challenge and creativity? So magical compliance couldn't possibly be a thing, yet two words can by magic mean something other than intended?

Yes, you do need a separate thread. It cuts down on spam in the draft thread.

The question of compliance isn't germane to the legality question. You should follow the instructions in our procedure if you want to make a challenge.

Fair enough, I do suppose I was being a tad unreasonable there. Is it mine or IA's challenge to make?

[Separatist Peoples]

Yes, you do need a separate thread. It cuts down on spam in the draft thread.

The question of compliance isn't germane to the legality question. You should follow the instructions in our procedure if you want to make a challenge.

Fair enough, I do suppose I was being a tad unreasonable there. Is it mine or IA's challenge to make?

Either works, but historically the author hasn't initiated the challenge.

[WayNeacTia]

Fair enough, I do suppose I was being a tad unreasonable there. Is it mine or IA's challenge to make?

Either works, but historically the author hasn't initiated the challenge.

The problem being, we really aren't challenging a proposal here, we are challenging the interpretation of two words of one clause of one of the oldest resoultions there is, based upon a rule that was overturned. Even if I were challenging this proposal, I would be arguing in favor or its legality.

How do you recommend I proceed?

[Separatist Peoples]

Either works, but historically the author hasn't initiated the challenge.

The problem being, we really aren't challenging a proposal here, we are challenging the interpretation of two words of one clause of one of the oldest resoultions there is, based upon a rule that was overturned. Even if I were challenging this proposal, I would be arguing in favor or its legality.

How do you recommend I proceed?

Technically, that could be the basis of an Honest Mistake challenge. If you think the proposal makes a misrepresentation of the target resolution, HM is the appropriate rule to challenge under. Otherwise, no challenge, I guess.

[WayNeacTia]

The problem being, we really aren't challenging a proposal here, we are challenging the interpretation of two words of one clause of one of the oldest resoultions there is, based upon a rule that was overturned. Even if I were challenging this proposal, I would be arguing in favor or its legality.

How do you recommend I proceed?

Technically, that could be the basis of an Honest Mistake challenge. If you think the proposal makes a misrepresentation of the target resolution, HM is the appropriate rule to challenge under. Otherwise, no challenge, I guess.

What honest mistake? Its not a misrepresentation. The author himself states he believes article 10 is what is keeping the WA from forming a police force. It was Losthaven who brought up a counter point. So what is there to challenge? It seems more like an appeal of GenSec's very broad over interpretation of two words "police actions", is what were looking for here.

[Separatist Peoples]

Technically, that could be the basis of an Honest Mistake challenge. If you think the proposal makes a misrepresentation of the target resolution, HM is the appropriate rule to challenge under. Otherwise, no challenge, I guess.

What honest mistake? Its not a misrepresentation. The author himself states he believes article 10 is what is keeping the WA from forming a police force. It was Losthaven who brought up a counter point. So what is there to challenge? It seems more like an appeal of GenSec's very broad over interpretation of two words "police actions", is what were looking for here.

That would still be appropriate for an Honest Mistake. Misrepresentations of the meaning, intentional or accidental, are Honest Mistakes.

GenSec does not accept appeals.

[WayNeacTia]

What honest mistake? Its not a misrepresentation. The author himself states he believes article 10 is what is keeping the WA from forming a police force. It was Losthaven who brought up a counter point. So what is there to challenge? It seems more like an appeal of GenSec's very broad over interpretation of two words "police actions", is what were looking for here.

That would still be appropriate for an Honest Mistake. Misrepresentations of the meaning, intentional or accidental, are Honest Mistakes.

GenSec does not accept appeals.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=472649

[Losthaven]

Rights and Duties came into existence at a time when the RP community and the GA community were a bit better connected. Defining war as a consensual acts between two nations served to recognize a brute fact about this role-playing game: that ultimately it took two nations agreeing to play together and have a "war." That provision of R&D reflects the prevailing norm that a nation cannot be forced to role play a war in which it was involved, and that no one should be allowed to role play a war involving a nation if that nation did not want to be a part of that.

Put differently, R&D simply recognizes that, as a matter of fact, I cannot run to the II forum right now and start a "war" between Losthaven and Imperium Anglorum. The participation of your nation in such a game requires your consent. It takes two to tango or, in this case, war.

I'm aware of the provenance of the definition. That doesn't change the fact that war is very rarely 'consensual'.

I was simply trying to clear up the "puzzle." If you're not in fact puzzled by that definition you might consider reframing to focus on the problem directly: "Noting that the target resolution defines war as "consensual," despite the fact that wars are often forced on defending nations against their will by greedy or aggressive nations." Or something like that.

I'm under the impression that Rights and Duties prohibits the WA from establishing a WA police force, which is what is reflected in the text. If you think it doesn't in fact do that, that would an interesting development.

I never thought Rights and Duties did that. I suppose it depends on your definition of "police force." The WA has, on occasion, established organizations to investigate crime under a WA banner. I imagine a WA prison system, if anyone wanted to pursue that, would probably be lawful. But certain aspects of how police can operate get dangerously close to how a military can operate; when talking about international relations it's probably going to be difficult to skirt that line between legitimate law enforcement activities and what is de facto a WA military.

As per [2016] GAS 1, the SC doesn't exist.

Hmm... that's an odd decision as it clearly does exist but, okay I guess.