[Legality Challenge] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of..."

[Wallenburg]

Does the challenged resolution argue it can? No. Very cool. Resolution is legal.

I'm sorry, you must be using the Wallenberger definition of parameter. I'm using the English one ("a limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity"). If the question is whether there are parameters limiting the agency's rule-making discretion, the answer is categorically yes. If there are parameters on the subject-matter which the agency is able to regulate, then the claim that the target resolution "freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly" is false.

It is only false if you force an interpretation in which "create further regulations" means "create further regulations OF ANY NATURE OR DEGREE, REGARDLESS OF RELEVANCE TO THIS RESOLUTION", and decide that any different interpretation is unreasonable.

[Sciongrad]

I'm sorry, you must be using the Wallenberger definition of parameter. I'm using the English one ("a limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity"). If the question is whether there are parameters limiting the agency's rule-making discretion, the answer is categorically yes. If there are parameters on the subject-matter which the agency is able to regulate, then the claim that the target resolution "freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly" is false.

It is only false if you force an interpretation in which "create further regulations" means "create further regulations OF ANY NATURE OR DEGREE, REGARDLESS OF RELEVANCE TO THIS RESOLUTION", and decide that any different interpretation is unreasonable.

That seems to be reasonably implied by "freely," i.e., "without restriction or interference." I don't think you've made any argument regarding the reasonable interpretation of the word "ban," but if you are narrowly interpreting "freely" so that it doesn't imply absoluteness, that would seem to commit you to a narrow interpretation of "ban," which if anything is less categorical than "freely" in its ordinary usage. Yet a narrow interpretation of ban would leave you with an honest mistake as well.

Of course, I think the correct position is that an ordinary person would infer absoluteness from "freely" but would not from "ban," and so both provisions are honest mistake violations.

[East Meranopirus]

When it's used in a title, that's exactly what it conveys. Every passed resolution with the word "ban" in the title conveys that meaning.

That is an interesting point, but again, the determinative question here is what a reasonable reader would gather from the word. Most players do not form their understanding of probably any term by careful analysis of past usage in resolution titles. I do not, that's for certain, and I guarantee you I am probably much more familiar with past resolutions than most players. So I doubt past usage in resolutions is really very useful for honest mistake analysis, at least in general.

The use of the word in passed resolutions is indicative of what the authors believe it would convey to the players. It's clear in every instance that the word is used to convey an absolute ban, because the authors know that it's the way most players would interpret the word.

[Wallenburg]

It is only false if you force an interpretation in which "create further regulations" means "create further regulations OF ANY NATURE OR DEGREE, REGARDLESS OF RELEVANCE TO THIS RESOLUTION", and decide that any different interpretation is unreasonable.

That seems to be reasonably implied by "freely," i.e., "without restriction or interference." I don't think you've made any argument regarding the reasonable interpretation of the word "ban," but if you are narrowly interpreting "freely" so that it doesn't imply absoluteness, that would seem to commit you to a narrow interpretation of "ban," which if anything is less categorical than "freely" in its ordinary usage. Yet a narrow interpretation of ban would leave you with an honest mistake as well.

Of course, I think the correct position is that an ordinary person would infer absoluteness from "freely" but would not from "ban," and so both provisions are honest mistake violations.

1) Your arbitrary assignments of what interpretations are "narrow" really don't make any sense here. There is no requirement here that, regardless of interpretive choice, either one or the other, but not both, challenges are valid.
2) If a "narrow" interpretation of this resolution's word usage makes the use of "freely" legal and "ban" illegal, how does your supposedly non-"narrow" interpretation make both cases illegal?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

The use of the word in passed resolutions is indicative of what the authors believe it would convey to the players. It's clear in every instance that the word is used to convey an absolute ban, because the authors know that it's the way most players would interpret the word.

This contention is demonstrably false, at even a cursory reading of not less than 6 resolutions that contain the word "ban" in their title which fail to be a blanket ban on the purported evil. To wit:

• Ban on Ritual Sacrifice -- Does not, in fact, ban ritual sacrifice. In fact, it only addresses what one must assume is the most minority of positions in regards to ritual sacrifice (the sacrifice of sapient beings), while leaving entirely untouched the more common forms of sacrifice of animals and plants;
• Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes -- Addresses exactly 3 things. I can assure you, I consider far more crimes to be "heinous" (and some considerably more heinous) than those within the resolution and yet they remain outside the resolution's ambit;
• Ban on Conversion Therapy -- flatly does not ban conversion therapy for huge numbers of people. It prohibits certain practices on minors, and prohibits the government from engaging in practices, but leaves the private sector entirely free to do so. Also, considering the definitions, it may well be possible for "conversion therap[ies]" to exist that would not fall afoul of the resolution;
• Ban on Slavery and Trafficking -- Explicitly excepts from its definitions that considerably numbers of persons, possibly even majorities in some instances, flat out considered slavery/forced labour
• Ban Profits on Workers' Death -- does not, in fact prohibit a company from profiting from a worker's death. It requires the employee's consent to list the employer as a life insurance beneficiary, but does not prohibit doing so. Nor does it prohibit any other way a company might profit from a worker's death;
• Child Pornography Ban -- Despite the strong consensus on the subject, significant avenues remain open for filming or depicting children engaging in sexual acts, including, possibly. For instance, (and I would NOT countenance this), the resolution does not prohibited XXX rated animated cartoons, paintings, or drawings featuring pre-pubescent children as characters;

If we include the joke "Ban on Secret Treaties" that would make a 7th (I did not count it, because it DOES actually prohibit what any sane person would understand to be a secret treaty, but since it defines secret treaty as weapons and cats, it does not, in fact, ban those things either).

I don't think you've made any argument regarding the reasonable interpretation of the word "ban," but if you are narrowly interpreting "freely" so that it doesn't imply absoluteness, that would seem to commit you to a narrow interpretation of "ban," which if anything is less categorical than "freely" in its ordinary usage. Yet a narrow interpretation of ban would leave you with an honest mistake as well.

I am not Wallenburg, but essentially that is the position I advocate. "Ban" is an honest mistake and "freely" is not.

Can the committee in question set standards on international commerce concerning the sale of dairy products?

"The committee finds that the use of certain hormones (annex A) on dairy cattle leads to an increased concentration of these hormones in dairy milk and products produced from cattle so treated as to be above the naturally occurring level.

The committee further finds that evidence exists, of sufficient strength, to conclude that consumption of such excess hormones from food sources poses a significant danger to the reproductive ability of minors, including possible sterilization at sufficient prevalence in the food chain.

The committee hereby bans the production, importation, or exportation of milk and milk products from cows treated with hormones included in annex A of this order as unnecessary to the long-term health of any person."

Ridiculous, yes. An level I personally believe appropriate, absolutely not. Within the realm of what IRL administrative agencies have tried, yes. Violates the target resolution? Maybe, maybe not.

To D&G's point,

Minor point, but my name is D&B is you abbreviate it like that ;p

[Ithania]

[EDIT far later:

Oh my giddy goodness, I feel the need to add an apology to this post. I'm sorry for inflicting this incoherent mess on anyone. I guess this is a super useful and educational lesson in why it might be an ever so slightly bad idea to post stuff while under the influence of strong painkillers as part of recovery after surgery. Probably especially bad when you haven't slept in over 40hrs due to that recovery too, isn't it?

I promise I'm not usually this incomprehensible. I mean... I still am, just not as much... Hopefully?]

That is an interesting point, but again, the determinative question here is what a reasonable reader would gather from the word. Most players do not form their understanding of probably any term by careful analysis of past usage in resolution titles. I do not, that's for certain, and I guarantee you I am probably much more familiar with past resolutions than most players. So I doubt past usage in resolutions is really very useful for honest mistake analysis, at least in general.

The use of the word in passed resolutions is indicative of what the authors believe it would convey to the players. It's clear in every instance that the word is used to convey an absolute ban, because the authors know that it's the way most players would interpret the word.

Without addressing the practical value of considering use of words in past titles, I feel previous 'ban' resolutions often only constitute complete prohibitions when assessed using their internally defined terms without reference to any other definitions. To me, that context is important to remember.

While their legal effect may rely on internally defined terms, I'd suggest it's unreasonably narrow to restrict consideration of effect and meaning by only viewing through the lens of a relevant internal definition. There's meaning beyond that.

I'd also suggest that the specificity of the internally defined terms merely constitutes a different means of creating limits or exclusions. They are not "absolute" either, it just looks very different.

I'd argue that common phrasing such as "for the purposes of this resolution" inherently acknowledges alternative meaning and use (among other things), including the reality or chance of wider scope to a general audience.

Ultimately, the practical outcome of each approach is the same.

In one case, the specificity of a definition creates front-loaded exclusions, thereby making it unnecessary to include any provision for explicit exceptions. In the other, general use is relied upon for meaning and explicit exceptions are given.

I'd suggest it would be inconsistent to accept the first as a ban but not the latter. Consequently, to accept the claim in the proposal at vote for one method but not the other.

As an example of that, I believe GAR#79 limits itself to criminal law. Using a literal meaning of 'ex post facto,' (as one possibility) there is no absolute ban due to the narrow internal definition. Would it be acceptable to make the same claim as the proposal at vote? To claim that it doesn't ban ex post facto laws?

If GAR#79 had used a wider definition then created exceptions for everything but criminal matters, would the claim be acceptable then? Despite the material consequences being no different? Here, if "sterilisation" had simply been defined to not include situations where appropriate oversight exists, would it be different?

I can appreciate that an objection might be to point at GAR#79's definitions to draw a distinction, to argue it does ban it according to its own standards so judge claims based on that.

In that case, I'd propose any reading of the sterilisation ban, and the validity of claims about its effect, should be wholly reliant on the resolution itself, for consistency.

The resolution asserts that it prohibits sterilisation so the practical definition of "ban" it relies upon must be one which allows for exceptions while still qualifying as a "ban". Accordingly, claims should be judged based on that.

Personally, I feel that's all needlessly messy and prefer to have an overarching consideration of plain meaning, unless there's justification for something else. In that case, "ban" does not mean absolute, for reasons expressed way better than I ever could earlier.

[Bears Armed]

Can the committee in question set standards on international commerce concerning the sale of dairy products?

"The committee finds that the use of certain hormones (annex A) on dairy cattle leads to an increased concentration of these hormones in dairy milk and products produced from cattle so treated as to be above the naturally occurring level.

The committee further finds that evidence exists, of sufficient strength, to conclude that consumption of such excess hormones from food sources poses a significant danger to the reproductive ability of minors, including possible sterilization at sufficient prevalence in the food chain.

The committee hereby bans the production, importation, or exportation of milk and milk products from cows treated with hormones included in annex A of this order as unnecessary to the long-term health of any person."

Ridiculous, yes. An level I personally believe appropriate, absolutely not. Within the realm of what IRL administrative agencies have tried, yes.

Plausible.

[WayNeacTia]

"The committee finds that the use of certain hormones (annex A) on dairy cattle leads to an increased concentration of these hormones in dairy milk and products produced from cattle so treated as to be above the naturally occurring level.

The committee further finds that evidence exists, of sufficient strength, to conclude that consumption of such excess hormones from food sources poses a significant danger to the reproductive ability of minors, including possible sterilization at sufficient prevalence in the food chain.

The committee hereby bans the production, importation, or exportation of milk and milk products from cows treated with hormones included in annex A of this order as unnecessary to the long-term health of any person."

Ridiculous, yes. An level I personally believe appropriate, absolutely not. Within the realm of what IRL administrative agencies have tried, yes.

Plausible.

I would say that is a "colorable" (the new buzzword) interpretation myself.

[Separatist Peoples]

Plausible.

I would say that is a "colorable" (the new buzzword) interpretation myself.

It's only new for those unfamiliar with judicial opinions.

[Kranostav]

Agree on the accounts of 'ban' reasonably being interpreted as not absolute. Especially given all the examples of where it is used in titles in the exact same manner and then not used absolutely in the proposal text. (Thank you D&B)

'Freely' is misrepresentative of the proposal bc it cannot freely create regulations in any sense of the word. But I agree with Seps original point of it not mattering.

(Everything above is basically a for the record)

[Bananaistan]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Well, that's a bummer. Guess we will have to try again.

[WayNeacTia]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.

Somehow I find this less than shocking.

I would say that is a "colorable" (the new buzzword) interpretation myself.

It's only new for those unfamiliar with judicial opinions.

I know this may come as a shock (it does to all lawyers), not everyone is a lawyer or a paralegal. I know you and Scion are (or will likely be soon). Perhaps maybe take that into account every now and then?

[Separatist Peoples]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.

Somehow I find this less than shocking.

It's only new for those unfamiliar with judicial opinions.

I know this may come as a shock (it does to all lawyers), not everyone is a lawyer or a paralegal. I know you and Scion are (or will likely be soon). Perhaps maybe take that into account every now and then?

The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

[Araraukar]

The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.

[Sciongrad]

The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.

I don't think we should be using technical, inaccessible jargon if we don't need to. But if you look up the term "colorable" on Google, the four word definition shows up immediately. As I've said many, many times before, this is a policy game and, in recent years, one that involves an unnecessary amount of legal argumentation, and that means that players will have to make a basic effort to understand rudimentary policy and legal arguments. When players use jargon or arguments that can't be understood after 10-15 minutes of basic google research, that's bad and we should discourage that. But you cannot complain about Sep using a word whose simple definition you could have found in approximately 7 seconds.

EDIT: This is not directed at you specifically, Ara, you just happened to articulate the way many players view this issue.

[Araraukar]

But if you look up the term "colorable" on Google

...when was that word ever the point of anything? I mean, beyond Chester using it to stir up some trouble as usual.

EDIT: This is not directed at you specifically, Ara, you just happened to articulate the way many players view this issue.

I complain about the use of Legalese (and Latin) often enough that I wouldn't take it personally even if it was directed at me specifically.

[Separatist Peoples]

The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.

Its not my fault lawyers are the best of professions and that we are all supreme geniuses.

[Araraukar]

Its not my fault lawyers are the best of professions and that we are all supreme geniuses.

I prefer this type of madboys¹.

¹You may need to read the comic to understand that that isn't an insult...

[Bears Armed]

I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.

Its not my fault lawyers are the best of professions and that we are all supreme geniuses.

OOC: You know, for several years I was actually a paid-up member of the Richard III Society...
(You might need a basic familiarity with common quotations from Shakespeare to get this reference...)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: You know, for several years I was actually a paid-up member of the Richard III Society...
(You might need a basic familiarity with common quotations from Shakespeare to get this reference...)

I have this beautiful, strong, well-rested horse that I don't have the pasture space for and I don't really know what to do with... Wanna swap something for it?

Edit: unfucked quote tags

[Kranostav]

Somehow I find this less than shocking.



I know this may come as a shock (it does to all lawyers), not everyone is a lawyer or a paralegal. I know you and Scion are (or will likely be soon). Perhaps maybe take that into account every now and then?

The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

Preach. I am not at all a lawyer or in any industry related to law. We are in the age of the interwebs. It takes minutes to learn something. We also play a game centered around law. Therefore it's not unrealistic to expect someone to understand basic legal phrases. Don't know something? Ctrl c --> Ctrl v into google. You might learn something.

[Araraukar]

We are in the age of the interwebs. It takes minutes to learn something. We also play a game centered around law. Therefore it's not unrealistic to expect someone to understand basic legal phrases. Don't know something? Ctrl c --> Ctrl v into google. You might learn something.

Ah, then you won't have any trouble explaining all the Legalese ever used in proposals, in Finnish! Since it's so easy. Savon murteella, kiitos!

[East Meranopirus]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.

So, when can we expect the opinions to be published?

[Araraukar]

So, when can we expect the opinions to be published?

Some time during year 2020, if replacing CD with GH hasn't gotten any speed into them...