[DEFEATED] Repeal 'Ban on Secret Treaties'

[Kaboomlandia]

Ooc: if you had spent any meaningful amount of time in the GA, at least, you'd know there isnt a clique. Theres a group pf players who are extremely familiar with the game but who otherwise are in total disunity. Half the time, the WA veterans are at each others throats.

More often than not, players who dont understand the game and cant make a convincing pitch fall back on this line of criticism to save face, but it doesn't work very well.

What don't I understand about the game? That the same people have been running the WA for years?

The "WA Elite" conspiracy stopped being a thing around 2016.

[Gagium]

I don't appreciate the recent stint of repealing every resolution immediately after it passes.

Yes, this has happened in the past, but it's been continuous lately. I feel like there should be a rule where a passed proposition cannot be repealed for 30 days or some such to prevent this whiplash.

Secret treaties make the game more interesting!

"Ambassador, the targeted resolution was passed over two years ago. Hardly recent."

OOC: Has it really been that long?? oh my god

[Munkcestrian Republic]

What other regions would dare to post "if you want to know how to vote, link to our government's dispatch here" in a WA thread

OOC: Osiris, as I've previously done.

That said, an opinion being backed by a region being posted here is no more objectionable than anyone else posting here, particularly those who only post the once.

Using another GCR to argue against my point

[Creslonia]

"This is a refreshing repeal. Prime Minister Wyodi himself came to my office to tell me to vote for it in person."
~ Alexander Finch - Minister of Foreign Affairs

Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2 Creslon Square
Creslon City, East Island 0123
Republic of Creslonia
Website: http://www.mfa.gov.cs
Email: mfaenquires@cge.cs
Freephone: 0900 001 000
International Phone: +341 000 001 0000

[Potted Plants United]

“In response to what has been said by the ambassador from New Waldensia, it should be noted that definitions in the General Assembly are limited in their scope to the legislation in which they are defined.”

OOC
Actually, that depends on context: If they're written as operative clauses rather than just part of the preamble, and without something along the lines of "for the purpose of this resolution" attached, then they're just as much WA law -- and just as binding on members in future, unless & until the resolution containing them is repealed -- as any other operative clauses... Thus, giving a different definition for the same term in a later proposal would be (in my opinion, anyway) an illegal Contradiction. [/one-sixth of GenSec]

OOC: This goes against the usual GenSec preaching on the matter. Has the official stance changed in the last few months? Because last I heard, there was something about any definition having effect outside its own resolution being an attempt to amend all the previously passed resolutions as well (especially when defining words that don't really need defining and which have been used before) and thus not being able to be a valid interpretation.

However, if that's the new interpretation, then there's even greater reason to repeal the target, because it creates a definition for no other reason than to bugger up future legislation.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Actually, that depends on context: If they're written as operative clauses rather than just part of the preamble, and without something along the lines of "for the purpose of this resolution" attached, then they're just as much WA law -- and just as binding on members in future, unless & until the resolution containing them is repealed -- as any other operative clauses... Thus, giving a different definition for the same term in a later proposal would be (in my opinion, anyway) an illegal Contradiction. [/one-sixth of GenSec]

OOC: This goes against the usual GenSec preaching on the matter. Has the official stance changed in the last few months? Because last I heard, there was something about any definition having effect outside its own resolution being an attempt to amend all the previously passed resolutions as well (especially when defining words that don't really need defining and which have been used before) and thus not being able to be a valid interpretation.

OOC: It's an interpretation that I remember being used in the past (hence the fact that the definitions in some resolutions do specify that they are "for the purposes of this legislation") and would support in the future. Possibly some other GenSec members would disagree about this, but as far as I recall we haven't actually made an official ruling on this point yet.

[Lord Dominator]

OOC: Osiris, as I've previously done.

That said, an opinion being backed by a region being posted here is no more objectionable than anyone else posting here, particularly those who only post the once.

Using another GCR to argue against my point

OOC: You said Feeder earlier, not GCR. Goalpost moving much?

[Superbunny]

What don't I understand about the game? That the same people have been running the WA for years?

The "WA Elite" conspiracy stopped being a thing around 2016.

Also, should I add, if a region tells you that should vote one way, they're not forcing you to; nobody is. It's just a resolution that they support. It would be silly to restrict official dispatch-writing Officers from having an opinion.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: It's an interpretation that I remember being used in the past (hence the fact that the definitions in some resolutions do specify that they are "for the purposes of this legislation") and would support in the future. Possibly some other GenSec members would disagree about this, but as far as I recall we haven't actually made an official ruling on this point yet.

OOC: But wouldn't then a proposal defining something with the "for the purposes of this resolution" be able to ignore that, because its definition was only for that resolution? I thought that was the point of the opinion change. And no there hasn't been an official decision on that because the lot of GenSec said it was silly to think the definition had any effect beyond the resolution in question.

[New Waldensia]

OOC: It's an interpretation that I remember being used in the past (hence the fact that the definitions in some resolutions do specify that they are "for the purposes of this legislation") and would support in the future. Possibly some other GenSec members would disagree about this, but as far as I recall we haven't actually made an official ruling on this point yet.

OOC: But wouldn't then a proposal defining something with the "for the purposes of this resolution" be able to ignore that, because its definition was only for that resolution? I thought that was the point of the opinion change. And no there hasn't been an official decision on that because the lot of GenSec said it was silly to think the definition had any effect beyond the resolution in question.

OOC: there is no "for the purpose of this resolution" statement in the target resolution.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: But wouldn't then a proposal defining something with the "for the purposes of this resolution" be able to ignore that, because its definition was only for that resolution? I thought that was the point of the opinion change. And no there hasn't been an official decision on that because the lot of GenSec said it was silly to think the definition had any effect beyond the resolution in question.

OOC: there is no "for the purpose of this resolution" statement in the target resolution.

OOC: The way it's worded implies effect on future legislation

[Kenmoria]

OOC: there is no "for the purpose of this resolution" statement in the target resolution.

OOC: The way it's worded implies effect on future legislation

(OOC: It’s also ambiguous as to what is being done. The most reasonable interpretation, from my point of view, is as a definition clause applying solely to that resolution. Interpreting the clause otherwise leads to all sorts of problems, since there’s no concrete statement of what member nations have to do.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: The way it's worded implies effect on future legislation

(OOC: It’s also ambiguous as to what is being done. The most reasonable interpretation, from my point of view, is as a definition clause applying solely to that resolution. Interpreting the clause otherwise leads to all sorts of problems, since there’s no concrete statement of what member nations have to do.)

OOC: quite clear imo

The words 'secret treaty' and all variant capitalisations thereof, excluding pluralisations, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: It’s also ambiguous as to what is being done. The most reasonable interpretation, from my point of view, is as a definition clause applying solely to that resolution. Interpreting the clause otherwise leads to all sorts of problems, since there’s no concrete statement of what member nations have to do.)

OOC: quite clear imo

The words 'secret treaty' and all variant capitalisations thereof, excluding pluralisations, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

(OOC: Is that the only acceptable meaning? Or is this an additional definition? Does this apply in governmental texts or to anything spoken in member nations?)

[Danyl]

Per GAR #408: "A note for everyone. There are no instances in which the words 'secret treaty' or 'secret treaties' occur in the resolution text outside of section 4. Furthermore, the definition for 'secret treaty' does not apply to the words 'secret treaties' as the definition explicitly excludes the plural, and therefore, does not apply to the title."

"With all due respect for the author of this repeal, we Gallifreyans just have one thing to say: Lighten up and find your sense of humor. We see no compelling reason for this repeal and will be voting against."

- The Doctor

[Dome Artan]

Per GAR #408: "A note for everyone. There are no instances in which the words 'secret treaty' or 'secret treaties' occur in the resolution text outside of section 4. Furthermore, the definition for 'secret treaty' does not apply to the words 'secret treaties' as the definition explicitly excludes the plural, and therefore, does not apply to the title."

"With all due respect for the author of this repeal, we Gallifreyans just have one thing to say: Lighten up and find your sense of humor. We see no compelling reason for this repeal and will be voting against."

- The Doctor

The problem our fellow ambassadors (and if I may add, myself) are having is not to do with the application or lack thereof of clause 4's definition to the plural form. Changing the commonly accepted definition of any word is an unusual action for an international governmental body such as the WA of which we ought be proud and respectful members. The action becomes especially unusual however with the now dichotomous meaning of the term secret treaty. Not only has the resolution stepped beyond the reasonable scope of this body but it has gone so far as to sow anarchy in our language.

As previous statements made on The Federal Republic of Dome Artan's behalf have stated, this resolution should be repealed, however the resolution absent the clause at issue would gladly be ratified by Dome Artan.

[Kaiserholt]

The Most Serene Republic votes for the Repeal, because how exactly would you know about a secret treaty if it is secret? It’s like a ban on developing nuclear fuel, but then giving the nation developing said fuel the sole discretion of how to reveal said nuclear development and telling the nation developing nuclear material ahead of time that your inspectors are going to be visiting and where.

[Great Algerstonia]

This is a generally bad proposal.

It's the most punderful time of the year...

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Osiris, as I've previously done.

That said, an opinion being backed by a region being posted here is no more objectionable than anyone else posting here, particularly those who only post the once.

Using another GCR to argue against my point

What exactly are you hoping to achieve? If it is gaining credibility, that ship sailed and was torpedoed out of the water long, long ago.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: It's an interpretation that I remember being used in the past (hence the fact that the definitions in some resolutions do specify that they are "for the purposes of this legislation") and would support in the future. Possibly some other GenSec members would disagree about this, but as far as I recall we haven't actually made an official ruling on this point yet.

OOC: But wouldn't then a proposal defining something with the "for the purposes of this resolution" be able to ignore that, because its definition was only for that resolution? I thought that was the point of the opinion change. And no there hasn't been an official decision on that because the lot of GenSec said it was silly to think the definition had any effect beyond the resolution in question.

OOC: You're right. I was in a hurry (Bear Armed's national football team is in the latest NS World Cup qualifiers, and I had to get something written for them as well...) and didn't stop to consider all of the possibilities. All that a definition as an operative clause without that "for the purposes of this resolution" limitations included would block is rival definitions as operative clauses that also don't have limitations of that nature included.

[Kenmoria]

The Most Serene Republic votes for the Repeal, because how exactly would you know about a secret treaty if it is secret? It’s like a ban on developing nuclear fuel, but then giving the nation developing said fuel the sole discretion of how to reveal said nuclear development and telling the nation developing nuclear material ahead of time that your inspectors are going to be visiting and where.

(OOC: WA gnomes work out whether or not nations are in compliance. Although there isn’t really a mechanism for this to happen, it’s just assumed that this occurs through some gnomic method.)

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Using another GCR to argue against my point

What exactly are you hoping to achieve? If it is gaining credibility, that ship sailed and was torpedoed out of the water long, long ago.

What is anyone in this subforum hoping to achieve?

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Using another GCR to argue against my point

OOC: You said Feeder earlier, not GCR. Goalpost moving much?

All those words invented by Gameplayers for themselves are complicated, and I'm not really involved with that side of the game enough to care

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: You said Feeder earlier, not GCR. Goalpost moving much?

All those words invented by Gameplayers for themselves are complicated, and I'm not really involved with that side of the game enough to care

Ooc: that kinda undercuts your prior points.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

All those words invented by Gameplayers for themselves are complicated, and I'm not really involved with that side of the game enough to care

Ooc: that kinda undercuts your prior points.

Not really