NationStates

Legality Challenge

As this proposal has now surprisingly been marked "Legal" by its first reviewer, and there is no discussion thread to raise the question of legality, I am filing this legality challenge.

Proposal in question

Repeal: “Nuclear Arms Possession Act”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#10 Proposed by: Byni

General Assembly Resolution #10 “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

About 80 years ago humanity got a weapon that could destroy ourselves.
This weapon was the Atom Bomb. 146,000 people died from the dropping of only two of weaker versions of this bomb. Now we have stronger bombs that could kill even more people.
So why should the world allow these weapons to be used!
Why: This weapon is to powerful to be allowed in this world to many people die from its power.
Why should we allow this weapon in the world if it can kill so many.
So please vote wisely and repeal this act.

Original Thread

I am not aware of any drafting thread associated with this submission.

Basis of Challenge

A) This proposal runs afoul of the GA Rule against Real World References. It does this in the following manner:

- The first line of the proposal text is a reference to the development of the atomic bomb approximately 80 years ago - culminating in the successful Trinity test in July of 1945
- The second line of the proposal text is a reference to the bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in August of 1945

B) Additionally, this proposal may run afoul of the requirement to use Understandable English:

- There is questionable grammar and incorrect homophone usage throughout the proposal. Specific examples include:

1) Substitution of an exclamation point for a question mark in line 3
2) Multiple uses of "to" in place of "too" in line 4
3) Substitution of a period for a question mark in line 5
4) Line 6 is not a sentence
5) There are issues with voice and agreement in line 1.

C) Finally, it may contradict the prohibition against Branding:

- Based on context and prohibited real world reference, the instances of the pronoun "we" in line 2 and line 5 are both clearly as personal pronouns to refer to humans outside of the NationStates game.


Precedent

The present list of submitted GA proposals includes two proposals ruled illegal on the basis of Real World References:

Specifically, "Provision Of Universal Healthcare" has been ruled illegal on this basis by all three reviewing members of the Secretariat.
Similarly, "Protecting The Rights Of Indigenous People" has been ruled illegal for the same reason, by the same reviewers.

Since at the time of filing only 1 of 6 gensec members had weighed in on this via control panel, this is a very premature challenge.

I think you'd have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the reference to that many deaths "80 years ago" can only point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On that basis I marked the proposed repeal legal.

On further reflection, the last line makes clear that there are other problems with this proposed repeal, and I have acted accordingly.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I think you'd have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the reference to that many deaths "80 years ago" can only point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On that basis I marked the proposed repeal legal.

On further reflection, the last line makes clear that there are other problems with this proposed repeal, and I have acted accordingly.

I'm... not sure reasonable doubt is the standard?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I think you'd have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the reference to that many deaths "80 years ago" can only point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On that basis I marked the proposed repeal legal.

On further reflection, the last line makes clear that there are other problems with this proposed repeal, and I have acted accordingly.

I'm... not sure reasonable doubt is the standard?

Omit those four words if you like, then. The alternative to this repeal language being legal is that we use a standard of "I know it when I see it" for determining RL refs. When it's that oblique, it may as well be someone's RP or a random argument. I wasn't about to mark it illegal on such apparently tenuous grounds.

We might hold a ruling otherwise, of course.

There's also the "not written as law" thing.

And if you want to claim the events are not RL reference, then it's talking about their roleplay and the "we" is definite branding.

Araraukar wrote:There's also the "not written as law" thing.

And if you want to claim the events are not RL reference, then it's talking about their roleplay and the "we" is definite branding.

^This

The submitted proposal's current status is

Illegal (3): Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricalia, Bears Armed

.

Bears Armed wrote:The submitted proposal's current status is

Illegal (3): Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricalia, Bears Armed

.

+1

Current reasonings, for later reference:

Illegal — Real world references
Illegal — Proposal Basics (Not written as a law; not written from the WA's viewpoint [final line]); RL References; arguably 'No Operative Clause'.
Illegal — Proposal basics: Not written from WA POV (final line), not written as a law
Illegal — Real world references

Though I thought the "no operative clause" no longer applied on repeals?

Araraukar wrote:Current reasonings, for later reference:

Illegal — Real world references
Illegal — Proposal Basics (Not written as a law; not written from the WA's viewpoint [final line]); RL References; arguably 'No Operative Clause'.
Illegal — Proposal basics: Not written from WA POV (final line), not written as a law
Illegal — Real world references

Though I thought the "no operative clause" no longer applied on repeals?

Oops!
Put that down to my being confused because of its wording...

My apologies for the premature challenge. As there was no drafting thread to discuss it in, the first "legal" flag had popped, and the approvals had begun to appear, I thought it better to err on the side of giving plenty of time for review rather than waiting until later in the process.

I am genuinely appreciative of the numerous responses here from the Secretariat and others, and will note for the future that I should hold back a bit longer before pursuing a challenge.

Verdant Haven wrote:My apologies for the premature challenge. As there was no drafting thread to discuss it in, the first "legal" flag had popped, and the approvals had begun to appear, I thought it better to err on the side of giving plenty of time for review rather than waiting until later in the process.

I am genuinely appreciative of the numerous responses here from the Secretariat and others, and will note for the future that I should hold back a bit longer before pursuing a challenge.

Eh, you don't really need to apologize very profusely - if the GenSec peeps think a challenge is completely unnecessary, they're not obligated to process it. They have that "power".

Verdant Haven wrote:My apologies for the premature challenge. As there was no drafting thread to discuss it in, the first "legal" flag had popped, and the approvals had begun to appear, I thought it better to err on the side of giving plenty of time for review rather than waiting until later in the process.

I am genuinely appreciative of the numerous responses here from the Secretariat and others, and will note for the future that I should hold back a bit longer before pursuing a challenge.

Generally, either post in the Illegal Proposal thread (is that thing even around anymore?) or wait until three members voted before making a thread. By then you're assured that a majority or close to it have seen it and missed something rather than not getting to it in the first place.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Generally, either post in the Illegal Proposal thread (is that thing even around anymore?)

It was posted there and commented there and that's why this thread exists, really, because you can probably blame me for not repeating the "unless it looks to be in danger of getting to vote", though the current at-vote thing snuck over quorum overnight, so over-reaction or not, there was a live example of why waiting can court disaster.

EDIT: This thread was posted before Bears' post on the Illegals thread.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Generally, either post in the Illegal Proposal thread (is that thing even around anymore?)

It was posted there and commented there and that's why this thread exists, really, because you can probably blame me for not repeating the "unless it looks to be in danger of getting to vote", though the current at-vote thing snuck over quorum overnight, so over-reaction or not, there was a live example of why waiting can court disaster.

EDIT: This thread was posted before Bears' post on the Illegals thread.

It wouldn't have passed anyway, and it would have taken a few days before it went to vote. This whole issue was highly unnecessary.

Wayneactia wrote:

Araraukar wrote:It was posted there and commented there and that's why this thread exists, really, because you can probably blame me for not repeating the "unless it looks to be in danger of getting to vote", though the current at-vote thing snuck over quorum overnight, so over-reaction or not, there was a live example of why waiting can court disaster.

EDIT: This thread was posted before Bears' post on the Illegals thread.

It wouldn't have passed anyway, and it would have taken a few days before it went to vote. This whole issue was highly unnecessary.

Not really. Part of gensec's job is weeding out illegal proposals in the queue. We usually are giving proposals a brief once-over, not an in depth scan. So when we miss things, the community should totally speak up.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:It wouldn't have passed anyway, and it would have taken a few days before it went to vote. This whole issue was highly unnecessary.

Not really. Part of gensec's job is weeding out illegal proposals in the queue. We usually are giving proposals a brief once-over, not an in depth scan. So when we miss things, the community should totally speak up.

Just a question for the sake of clarity: Should we post issues with proposals which are not in danger of going to vote here or in the illegal proposals thread? I was under the impression that it's better to speak up in the illegal proposals thread, but if that's not the case, then I'll cease that kind of thinking.

Morover wrote:Just a question for the sake of clarity: Should we post issues with proposals which are not in danger of going to vote here or in the illegal proposals thread? I was under the impression that it's better to speak up in the illegal proposals thread, but if that's not the case, then I'll cease that kind of thinking.

In the 'Illegal Proposals' thread is probably best, usually, yes.