NationStates

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:04 pm**

Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

Whereas the sterilisation of minors or incompetent persons is not prohibited by the legislation of this most excellent Assembly :

And whereas it would be most safe to entrust the authority to make such a determination to independent medical authorities :

Be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—

1. It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

2. The WACC may make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:04 pm**

Vide viewtopic.php?p=36213370#p36213370 , pro historia.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:45 pm**

OOC: If this is legal, then by all means, pass it separately if the resolution at vote does not get redrafted!

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 pm**

“Full support. However, your first clause prohibits nations to ‘sterilise, in any way’, which is far more broad than the current legislation at-vote, which bans only permanent sterilisation. Was this intentional?”

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:25 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—

As per Bananas ruling here "Metagaming ("bicameral nature of the World Assembly" and "Delegates" appear to be references to the Security Council and WA delegates - these cannot be mentioned in proposals)".

Therefore illegal.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:37 am**

There is also this little gem which states:

"Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:

i. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,

ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,

iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,

iv. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;"

I highlighted the relevant parts for you. Forced sterilization of a child is already illegal as it would cause excessive harm to the child.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:09 am**

OOC: 1. Don't double post. Edit the first and add the additional info there.

2. The ruling you referred to is specific to that proposal and the surrounding context in that proposal. The particular phrase used here is allowable.

3. It is entirely conceivable that there may be valid medical reasons for the sterilisation of children and thus it would be carried out without malicious intent. This proposal does not duplicate GAR#222.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:32 am**

Bananaistan wrote:2. The ruling you referred to is specific to that proposal and the surrounding context in that proposal. The particular phrase used here is allowable.

Really?

"BE IT KNOWN; that this Proposal shall be submitted for the consideration of all Delegates, present in membership of the General Chamber of the World Assembly on this day SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2019, and shall henceforth be entitled as follows; “THE SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITATIONS ACT”."

"Be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—"

Show me the difference. Both reference delegates. As your ruling clearly states "Metagaming ("bicameral nature of the World Assembly" and "Delegates" appear to be references to the Security Council and WA delegates - these cannot be mentioned in proposals)".

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:40 am**

OOC: What's with the completely unnecessary large text? It's incredibly annoying.

I'm sure you can see that one states "submitted for the consideration of all delegates". The other doesn't. Two different sentences altogether.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:49 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Ad viewtopic.php?p=36213370#p36213370

Whereas the sterilisation of minors or incompetent persons is not prohibited by the legislation of this most excellent Assembly :

And whereas it would be most safe to entrust the authority to make such a determination to independent medical authorities :

Be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—

1. It shall be unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, any person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of the procedure for the long-term health of that person.

2. The WACC shall, by regulations, have power enforce the provisions of this resolution.

"Its a bit short but I cant see how we can expand upon it. Clause 2 is redundant so I suggest you remove it."

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:52 am**

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: What's with the completely unnecessary large text? It's incredibly annoying.

Just to ensure you are actually reading the statement.

Bananaistan wrote:I'm sure you can see that one states "submitted for the consideration of all delegates". The other doesn't. Two different sentences altogether.

That's semantics and you know it. For instance Investments and Securities states "for the consideration of all Delegates, present in membership", and this one states "by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled". It is just a different way of phrasing the exact same thing.

"2. The WACC shall, by regulations, have power enforce the provisions of this resolution."

Compliance Commission is already mandated to enforce the provisions of this resolution, by the very nature of their existence in GAR #390. As the resolution is only two lines long, this should equal out to 50% duplication.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:54 am**

Wayneactia wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:I'm sure you can see that one states "submitted for the consideration of all delegates". The other doesn't. Two different sentences altogether.

That's semantics and you know it. For instance Investments and Securities states "for the consideration of all Delegates, present in membership", and this one states "by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled". It is just a different way of phrasing the exact same thing.

OOC: I dont understand how the term "Delegate" is metagaming. Cant delegates exist in an IC world? Also, Bananas ruling isn't official Gensec ruling afaik.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:57 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:

That's semantics and you know it. For instance Investments and Securities states "for the consideration of all Delegates, present in membership", and this one states "by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled". It is just a different way of phrasing the exact same thing.

OOC: I dont understand how the term "Delegate" is metagaming. Cant delegates exist in an IC world? Also, Bananas ruling isn't official Gensec ruling afaik.

Yep it is. It was used by all of GenSec to declare Investments and Securities illegal.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:59 am**

Wayneactia wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I dont understand how the term "Delegate" is metagaming. Cant delegates exist in an IC world? Also, Bananas ruling isn't official Gensec ruling afaik.

Yep it is. It was used by all of GenSec to declare Investments and Securities illegal.

OOC: An official Gensec ruling involves a legality challenge and a discussion. The secretariat then uses the bolded green text to announce the ruling. Feel free to challenge the legality or illegality of this.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:08 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:
Yep it is. It was used by all of GenSec to declare Investments and Securities illegal.

OOC: An official Gensec ruling involves a legality challenge and a discussion. The secretariat then uses the bolded green text to announce the ruling. Feel free to challenge the legality or illegality of this.

I am familiar with the process. When they use a ruling game side to rule something illegal, it is an official ruling. Either way, this looks alarmingly like a case of "double standard" being applied. The fact that it is being brought up in the drafting thread of the actual proposal where it belongs, that really should suffice. If I have to do the song and dance of creating a whole separate thread just to challenge the legality of it, why have the drafting thread in the first place?

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:09 am**

Wayneactia wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: What's with the completely unnecessary large text? It's incredibly annoying.

Just to ensure you are actually reading the statement.

Bananaistan wrote:I'm sure you can see that one states "submitted for the consideration of all delegates". The other doesn't. Two different sentences altogether.

That's semantics and you know it. For instance Investments and Securities states "for the consideration of all Delegates, present in membership", and this one states "by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled". It is just a different way of phrasing the exact same thing.

OOC: Ofc it's semantics. That's what we do here. You seem to brush over the word "submission". That indicates to me that the talk in the other proposal is referring to WA delegates because of the nature of the game and how proposals are submitted to the queue and considered by WA delegates for approvals.

Also our control panel rulings do not form binding precedent even when we all agree on a point of illegality. Such rulings generally reflect existing precedent but only rulings arising from challenges where we take time to discuss the issues with the community and among ourselves can be taken to be precedent.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:15 am**

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Ofc it's semantics. That's what we do here. You seem to brush over the word "submission". That indicates to me that the talk in the other proposal is referring to WA delegates because of the nature of the game and how proposals are submitted to the queue and considered by WA delegates for approvals.

Pedantry by the very definition. When the President seeks the advice and consent of the Senate, he submits it to them. Potatoe, potato.

Bananaistan wrote:Also our control panel rulings do not form binding precedent even when we all agree on a point of illegality. Such rulings generally reflect existing precedent but only rulings arising from challenges where we take time to discuss the issues with the community and among ourselves can be taken to be precedent.

My, my my. Is it really that fulfilling playing God? One person has their proposal declared illegal on what is obviously a rule that was pulled out of thin air, yet someone else gets away with it? I much prefer the old system, where the mods were in charge of this. They made some pretty pitiful decisions, but at least they tried to be consistent. Your attempt to justify this is beyond pathetic.

Edit: Further to that, from an RP point, their are no regional delegates to the WA, because the GA doesn't acknowledge the existence of regions. So on those grounds alone both should be illegal for metagaming. I.A. is clearly referencing the regional delegates and not member delegations, or they would have said that.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:12 am**

Wayneactia wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Ofc it's semantics. That's what we do here. You seem to brush over the word "submission". That indicates to me that the talk in the other proposal is referring to WA delegates because of the nature of the game and how proposals are submitted to the queue and considered by WA delegates for approvals.

Pedantry by the very definition. When the President seeks the advice and consent of the Senate, he submits it to them. Potatoe, potato.

Bananaistan wrote:Also our control panel rulings do not form binding precedent even when we all agree on a point of illegality. Such rulings generally reflect existing precedent but only rulings arising from challenges where we take time to discuss the issues with the community and among ourselves can be taken to be precedent.

My, my my. Is it really that fulfilling playing God? One person has their proposal declared illegal on what is obviously a rule that was pulled out of thin air, yet someone else gets away with it? I much prefer the old system, where the mods were in charge of this. They made some pretty pitiful decisions, but at least they tried to be consistent. Your attempt to justify this is beyond pathetic.

Edit: Further to that, from an RP point, their are no regional delegates to the WA, because the GA doesn't acknowledge the existence of regions. So on those grounds alone both should be illegal for metagaming. I.A. is clearly referencing the regional delegates and not member delegations, or they would have said that.

OOC: the previous proposal was illegal regardless of how you feel about "Delegates" because "bicameral" is Metagaming no matter how you slice it. That ruling therefore doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this proposal.

As for "delegates" I would stand by this statement. Meanwhile, the control panel wording was as broad as possible to make sure the author understood that if they were referring to regional delegates, please not to on redrafting.

There are no inconsistencies here. Let's let the actual draft discussion take place.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:43 am**

Wayneactia wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Ofc it's semantics. That's what we do here. You seem to brush over the word "submission". That indicates to me that the talk in the other proposal is referring to WA delegates because of the nature of the game and how proposals are submitted to the queue and considered by WA delegates for approvals.

Pedantry by the very definition. When the President seeks the advice and consent of the Senate, he submits it to them. Potatoe, potato.

Bananaistan wrote:Also our control panel rulings do not form binding precedent even when we all agree on a point of illegality. Such rulings generally reflect existing precedent but only rulings arising from challenges where we take time to discuss the issues with the community and among ourselves can be taken to be precedent.

My, my my. Is it really that fulfilling playing God? One person has their proposal declared illegal on what is obviously a rule that was pulled out of thin air, yet someone else gets away with it? I much prefer the old system, where the mods were in charge of this. They made some pretty pitiful decisions, but at least they tried to be consistent. Your attempt to justify this is beyond pathetic.

Edit: Further to that, from an RP point, their are no regional delegates to the WA, because the GA doesn't acknowledge the existence of regions. So on those grounds alone both should be illegal for metagaming. I.A. is clearly referencing the regional delegates and not member delegations, or they would have said that.

OOC: Well I'm sorry you feel that way but in defence of the current system, you couldn't have had this discussion under the old system when moderators removed proposals from the queue with no discussion of the reasons whatsoever. I also think that you are perhaps over-egging this pudding somewhat considering that this delegates issue was only one of three illegalities in the proposal you refer to. Although if you look at the illegal proposals thread and the thread SL just linked to, you'll see that there has been some discussion of the use of the word delegate in proposals. And you know, having this discussion and plenty more like it that GenSec regularly engages in, is not at all like playing God, which I think is hyperbolic and not becoming of reasoned debate.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:09 am**

Wayneactia wrote:
My, my my. Is it really that fulfilling playing God? One person has their proposal declared illegal on what is obviously a rule that was pulled out of thin air, yet someone else gets away with it? I much prefer the old system, where the mods were in charge of this. They made some pretty pitiful decisions, but at least they tried to be consistent. Your attempt to justify this is beyond pathetic.

Edit: Further to that, from an RP point, their are no regional delegates to the WA, because the GA doesn't acknowledge the existence of regions. So on those grounds alone both should be illegal for metagaming. I.A. is clearly referencing the regional delegates and not member delegations, or they would have said that.

If you want to nix GenSec, take it up in Technical.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:26 am**

Wayneactia wrote:My, my my. Is it really that fulfilling playing God? One person has their proposal declared illegal on what is obviously a rule that was pulled out of thin air, yet someone else gets away with it? I much prefer the old system, where the mods were in charge of this. They made some pretty pitiful decisions, but at least they tried to be consistent. Your attempt to justify this is beyond pathetic.

Nah gensec is fucking trash, but i'm reasonably sure that if someone submitted CP they'd rule it illegal, that makes them at least better then mods.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:17 pm**

Re: Delegates. search.php?keywords=be+it+enacted+delegates&t=30&sf=msgonly.

Re: Compliance Commission, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_a ... egislation.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:30 pm**

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Well I'm sorry you feel that way but in defence of the current system, you couldn't have had this discussion under the old system when moderators removed proposals from the queue with no discussion of the reasons whatsoever.

This is true, and you do bring up a valid point.

Bananaistan wrote:I also think that you are perhaps over-egging this pudding somewhat considering that this delegates issue was only one of three illegalities in the proposal you refer to.

I am not arguing the other proposal was not illegal. It was. It just annoys me that the delegate issue was used there to justify an illegality, yet it is okay here. I go out of my way to maintain common sense. I also look at the available evidence, and what that evidence, as it is laid out shows that a new author gets dinged for something, yet an accomplished author is scot free. If I am wrong, prove me wrong.

Bananaistan wrote:Although if you look at the illegal proposals thread and the thread SL just linked to, you'll see that there has been some discussion of the use of the word delegate in proposals. And you know, having this discussion and plenty more like it that GenSec regularly engages in, is not at all like playing God, which I think is hyperbolic and not becoming of reasoned debate.

Hyperbolic? This is not exaggerated. The evidence doesn't lie. If you guys want to discuss it, fine. Discuss it out in the open. Don't punish one person, and let someone else get away, all while claiming you need to have secret discussions, because that is playing god.

Separatist Peoples wrote:If you want to nix GenSec, take it up in Technical.

I have far better things to do with my time, than bash my head off of an impervious brick wall thanks. You guys have it in your power to fix things yourselves. Whether you choose to do it or not is up to you.

Aclion wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:My, my my. Is it really that fulfilling playing God? One person has their proposal declared illegal on what is obviously a rule that was pulled out of thin air, yet someone else gets away with it? I much prefer the old system, where the mods were in charge of this. They made some pretty pitiful decisions, but at least they tried to be consistent. Your attempt to justify this is beyond pathetic.

Nah gensec is fucking trash, but i'm reasonably sure that if someone submitted CP they'd rule it illegal, that makes them at least better then mods.

Let's not shall we. It is obvious they do somewhat try. They have made some decent decisions in the past, which is more than can be said about the mods. The problem seems to be the same one that plagued the mods: consistency.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Re: Delegates. search.php?keywords=be+it+enacted+delegates&t=30&sf=msgonly.

Coincidental that every one of those resoultions is yours, yet another person gets smacked for it?

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:42 pm**

Re Delegates. I hold the position that the use of the word in the context of 'there exist Delegates who have more votes than normal WA members' is not metagaming.

Posted: **Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:48 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Re Delegates. I hold the position that the use of the word in the context of 'there exist Delegates who have more votes than normal WA members' is not metagaming.

That is the definition of metagaming, as that would require the recognition of regions.

NationStates

[PASSED] Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc

[PASSED] Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc