[Legality???] A Simple Resolution Against Animal Cruelty

[Rex the Very Good Boy]

Hello. I really wanted to stay IC as much as possible but I need clarification on the rules. My proposal was marked as illegal and I don't think that's fair.

Here's my proposal:

A Simple Resolution Against Animal Cruelty
Moral Decency * Mild

The Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that woof woof woof, "Whose a good boy?!"

Angered that grrrrrrrr, grrrrrrrrrrrrr, bark bark!

Convinced that bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant...

Defining an "animal" for the purposes of this resolution to be any non-sapient mammal, reptile, fish, amphibian, or bird;

Limited only by the terms of any previously-enacted active resolutions, the World Assembly enacts the following provision:

In all World Assembly nations it is unlawful to inflict pain on any animal in a manner that is cruel, malicious, or shows callous indifference to suffering.

The game masters say my proposal is illegal because it's a joke and is not written in English. I disagree, and I hope the game masters will change their mind.

The joke rule says:

Joke/Silly Proposals: Proposals intended solely to be 'humorous' or a 'joke' are removed, however, authors may post these in the [SILLY] GA Joke Proposals Only thread.

That emphasis (underlining the word solely) is in the rule; I didn't add it, the game masters did. Even if I intended the proposal to be somewhat humorous, its not fair to say it is solely humorous or solely a joke. The proposal also contains appropriate language modeled after past resolutions on this subject, animal cruelty, a legitimate topic of discussion! I added humorous elements that offended you; I am sorry! But I just don't get how this can possibly be considered illegal under the joke rule you wrote. It's not fair my proposal is being deemed illegal by the game masters when I proposed a serious action on a serious topic, just because I also added some humor. I was having fun!

The language rule says:

Language: Proposals must use understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals written in incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.

If I may say so, my proposal is written in understandable English. All the main parts are undeniably written in English. Do I also use onomatopoeia in the preamble part? Yes, because I am a dog IC. I did use English onomatopoeia; there are no "guau guau"-s to appeal to my Spanish-speaking friends or "ouaf ouaf"-s for my French friends. People who speak English know "grrr" is a written representation of a growl sound; "bark, whine, pant, and woof" are all real English words for sounds a doggie makes.

I didn't think a preamble was necessary; I included one to be IC and funny. Presumably, if I had proposed:

A Simple Resolution Against Animal Cruelty
Moral Decency * Mild

The Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that woof woof woof, "Whose a good boy?!"

Angered that grrrrrrrr, grrrrrrrrrrrrr, bark bark!

Convinced that bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant...

Defining an "animal" for the purposes of this resolution to be any non-sapient mammal, reptile, fish, amphibian, or bird;

Limited only by the terms of any previously-enacted active resolutions, the World Assembly enacts the following provision:

In all World Assembly nations it is unlawful to inflict pain on any animal in a manner that is cruel, malicious, or shows callous indifference to suffering.

... this would not be considered a joke or a foreign-language proposal and people could vote for it. It would also be far less funny. Why am I not allowed to add a humorous preamble? Do I poke too much fun? This is not fair! My proposal was serious, it was written well-ish, it tried to be funny, it should at least be eligible for a vote.

Please, I made this nation to play in this forum IC and write IC WA laws. I thought from the rules that it is permitted to be funny in laws as long as at the core is a serious topic for debate written in English. If I cannot play in this way I will accept that and go do something else but I hope you will reconsider. Thank you!

[Imperium Anglorum]

On Joke: Precedent supports complainant in [2017] GAS 10 for the exact reasoning employed by SL, all then-members agreeing (sans CD), in decision therein. viewtopic.php?p=32572359#p32572359

Curiously Banana and BA voted on control panel a mutually exclusive position from the opinion they also agreed with.

[Denathor]

1. With no context about your nation, it’s impossible to know that you’re RPing as a dog. Therefore it’s easy to assume that it’s a joke. I don’t believe WA proposals are written in character anyway; they’re written from the viewpoint of the WA as a whole, not an individual nation.

2. The presence of the onomatopoeias means that no part of the preamble forms a coherent sentence or thought, at least not in English.

That’s just my two cents, but I’m not a member of GenSec.

[Araraukar]

I'll throw in contradiction for the wording "or shows callous indifference to suffering".

GA #477 bans cruel and malicious animal testing, but says nothing of indifference to suffering, so it must be assumed to be okay, and thus unless proposal excludes animal testing animals, it contradicts that.

GA #431 clause 5.a. "Provides for the use of selective pesticides and herbicides, and means to capture or kill invasive fauna, to eliminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law" - key words "kill - eliminate populations" with the use of pesticides, presumably with indifference to their suffering as mere pests (invasive species includes animals, and pesticides don't kill animals without causing suffering), as well as "within limitations of already existing WA law", so it doesn't excuse future lawmaking.

There's probably others but those are the two that jumped to mind. Not leaving pest control out of it is especially problematic in general.

EDIT: And I'm fairly sure that the "understandable English" thing applies to the entire proposal text, not just the active clauses.

[Imperium Anglorum]

On 1 WA proposals have rules. It has to be solely a joke. On 2 rule says proposal must be not understandable, not clauses within the proposal. Scope is clear.

[Araraukar]

On 1 WA proposals have rules. It has to be solely a joke. On 2 rule says proposal must be not understandable, not clauses within the proposal. Scope is clear.

Fortunately you're not GenSec either.

[Denathor]

On 1 WA proposals have rules. It has to be solely a joke. On 2 rule says proposal must be not understandable, not clauses within the proposal. Scope is clear.

For 1, I was just saying that without context it was reasonable for GenSec to declare it illegal, but given context I don’t believe it violates the joke rule. For rule 2, I’m of the opinion that it means all parts of the proposal must be in understandable English. This would include the preamble in question. So not illegal for joke proposal, but still illegal for understandable English imo.

[Imperium Anglorum]

On 1 WA proposals have rules. It has to be solely a joke. On 2 rule says proposal must be not understandable, not clauses within the proposal. Scope is clear.

For 1, I was just saying that without context it was reasonable for GenSec to declare it illegal, but given context I don’t believe it violates the joke rule. For rule 2, I’m of the opinion that it means all parts of the proposal must be in understandable English. This would include the preamble in question. So not illegal for joke proposal, but still illegal for understandable English imo.

Is the proposal written in incomprehensible English?

[Denathor]

The Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that woof woof woof, "Whose a good boy?!"

Angered that grrrrrrrr, grrrrrrrrrrrrr, bark bark!

Convinced that bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant...

You tell me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that woof woof woof, "Whose a good boy?!"

Angered that grrrrrrrr, grrrrrrrrrrrrr, bark bark!

Convinced that bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant...

You tell me.

Is that the proposal?

[Denathor]

Is that the proposal?

It’s the preamble, which is part of the proposal, yes. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but are you suggesting that parts of a proposal can be complete gibberish as long as some of it makes sense?

[Verdant Haven]

This is emphatically not in understandable English. I wouldn't even say it's really in English at all, since a language is a comprehensible assembly of both words and structure, not just words by themselves. Even the argument "but I'm RPing a dog!" emphasizes, rather than mitigates the problem, as that implies that the reason you understand it is because you are a creature that speaks a different language.

These words have no grammatically valid English meaning. We cannot recognize that "woof woof woof" in English, nor be convinced that "bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant." They are not understandable any more than a 3 year old screaming "Purple monkey dishwasher Buzz Lightyear zip zip pizza!"

As a random aside, even the English part has at least one error. "Whose" is possessive. You're looking for the conjunction "Who's."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Hmmmm. The OP makes reasonable points, the is not entirely a joke nor is it entirely incomprehensible. Apologies for this error. I have rescinded my CP ruling

I don't agree with Ara's contradiction argument either. Callous indifference is very specific. I don't see that the use of pesticides to control/kill pests is automatically callously indifferent to their suffering nor is it incompatible with the definition of ethical testing or humane euthanisation in GAR#477.

[Excidium Planetis]

This is emphatically not in understandable English. I wouldn't even say it's really in English at all, since a language is a comprehensible assembly of both words and structure, not just words by themselves. Even the argument "but I'm RPing a dog!" emphasizes, rather than mitigates the problem, as that implies that the reason you understand it is because you are a creature that speaks a different language.

The proposal as a whole is understandable to me (as a matter of record, I am not the author). The operative clauses are in plain English, the fact that preamble doesn't mean anything does not really matter because
1) it is not the entirety of the proposal, only part of it
2) it is not relevant to the effect of the proposal

It's pretty clear in past GA rulings that as long as the whole proposal is understandable, minor parts which make little to no sense or are done for humor (such as the inclusion of a recipe in a repeal) do not invalidate the legitimacy of the operative part of the resolution.

As a random aside, even the English part has at least one error. "Whose" is possessive. You're looking for the conjunction "Who's."

Last I checked, proposals were not discarded based on minor grammatical errors.

[Araraukar]

...so I can actually write a preamble in Finnish Savo dialect (to prevent Google Translate working on it) and it'll be entirely legit, is that what y'all are saying? For real? And yes I would have RP reasons for it: Araraukarian language is basically Finnish, and RL Savo dialect is spoken in the northwest part of the nation.

[Excidium Planetis]

...so I can actually write a preamble in Finnish Savo dialect (to prevent Google Translate working on it) and it'll be entirely legit, is that what y'all are saying? For real? And yes I would have RP reasons for it: Araraukarian language is basically Finnish, and RL Savo dialect is spoken in the northwest part of the nation.

One could make the argument that if part of the resolution really is in a language that's incomprehensible to any member of GenSec, then it is impossible to determine if it's part of the preamble or operative clauses, and thus illegal.

[The Yellow Monkey]

...so I can actually write a preamble in Finnish Savo dialect (to prevent Google Translate working on it) and it'll be entirely legit, is that what y'all are saying? For real? And yes I would have RP reasons for it: Araraukarian language is basically Finnish, and RL Savo dialect is spoken in the northwest part of the nation.

The Language rule explicitly requires proposals be written in English, so obviously writing in a foreign language would be a genuine violation of that. Can't really compare that with what was done here. If I understand the OP properly, the argument isn't that the rule allows writing in a foreign language but that they may include some amount of frivolity written in English. Someone else suggested that this was written in a foreign language of "dog speak" but that argument rests on a faulty premise. Writing English words standing for dog sounds does not mean you've written in the language of "dog." The writing itself was done in English. Do you see the distinction there?

Was the language intelligible? Certainly it was, at least insofar as an English speaker reading those words would recognize them and know what they mean in English. Of course, some of what is written in the preamble only meant a series of sounds unless there's some sort of poetry behind them that can only be understood through subjective interpretation based on context. "Angered that (growl noises)" in the context of a proposal titled "Against Animal Abuse" suggests something about how an animal - and perhaps others - might feel about an animal being abused. Of course, that requires a bit more subjective interpretation than many like to stomach in a WA proposal, especially given the problems we have had historically with "creative non-compliance" when too much subjective interpretation is allowed. (And, even, when very little subjective interpretation is allowed but people want to be difficult.)

Anyway, I'm probably giving the author more credit than they deserve here. From what I can tell "woof" likely means literally only woof, and that part of the preamble was just an attempt at humor without some sort of deeper poetic attempt at meaning through contextual interpretation.

[Rex the Very Good Boy]

As a random aside, even the English part has at least one error. "Whose" is possessive. You're looking for the conjunction "Who's."

!?!

Whimper... (looks away in shame).

[Terttia]

...so I can actually write a preamble in Finnish Savo dialect (to prevent Google Translate working on it) and it'll be entirely legit, is that what y'all are saying? For real? And yes I would have RP reasons for it: Araraukarian language is basically Finnish, and RL Savo dialect is spoken in the northwest part of the nation.

OOC: The bark, woof, grr, etc. is onomatopoeia , so yes, it’s written in English. The use of those words might be confusing, yet their use, like The Yellow Monkey has stated, can be used to express anger, resentment, etc.

Edit: Also, I don’t think this proposal is intended to be solely humorous; I think it does something from a legal standpoint with humor.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The bark, woof, grr, etc. is onomatopoeia , so yes, it’s written in English.

Translate it for me, then. You, not the dog person. Feel free to use Google Translate, but gimme Finnish translation of it, if it's so easy to read as English.

...I bet if I wrote English in the "onomatopoetic" way (aka, how I'd pronounce it if it were Finnish), you'd call it unintelligible. So, not really buying the whole thing.

The author has confessed that the preamble is a joke. So whether the words are English or not ("woof" is not an English word, btw, nor is "grrr" - "bark" I'll admit is one), it's just a joke. I'd buy the whole "serious proposal" thing, if they'd been clever with the language (things like "Howling at the injustice of" or writing more than one R in words with R's) instead of replacing it with random noises.

Also not buying the RP thing, given that there are RP-realistic systems in place that translate everything we say into something understandable (English), and that if they'd like to go for the "but language was not added to universal translators yet", then none of it would have been understandable.

[SherpDaWerp]

OOC: The bark, woof, grr, etc. is onomatopoeia , so yes, it’s written in English.

Translate it for me, then. You, not the dog person. Feel free to use Google Translate, but gimme Finnish translation of it, if it's so easy to read as English.

Not every word has to have a direct translation into Finnish for it to be considered correct English... That said:

Additionally, via google translate:
Bark is haukkua
Whine is kitistä
and Pant is huohottaa

Does that qualify this as "proper english" for you?

[Verdant Haven]

Again, the rule says "Understandable English" - not just "English."

If it is understandable, we should be able to rephrase it in other understandable ways. For example, "There is a blue car next to the large building" can be rephrased as "A sky-colored automobile exists beside that big structure." If we ask five people to rephrase it without consulting each other, we'd get five different results, but they'd all be understandable as the same thing.If you wanted to translate the meaning in to another language for somebody, you could, and they could then rephrase it in their native tongue. There would be some comprehensible concept that is shared between all versions of the sentence.

If we ask five people to rephrase "bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant," or translate it meaningfully, or do anything other than literally emulate meaningless dog sounds, they will diverge. There won't be a shared understanding.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'll throw in contradiction for the wording "or shows callous indifference to suffering".

GA #477 bans cruel and malicious animal testing, but says nothing of indifference to suffering, so it must be assumed to be okay, and thus unless proposal excludes animal testing animals, it contradicts that.

[emphasis added]

This is an absurd interpretation. Silence on a topic by a resolution cannot by itself guarantee a right to that topic by member states; it simply means that no resolution has yet addressed that topic. If we went by what you've said here, we'd have to hold that (say) since #477 only prohibits the cruel killing of a test animal, cruel killings of sapient beings must be OK, and a future resolution to prohibit them must be contradictory. We wouldn't say that a resolution to prohibit discrimination based on whether you prefer Star Trek or Star Wars contradicts CoCR on the grounds that that isn't listed as illegal there, so there must be a right to do it. Contradiction can only apply where there is actual text that can be contradicted.

GA #431 clause 5.a. "Provides for the use of selective pesticides and herbicides, and means to capture or kill invasive fauna, to eliminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law" - key words "kill - eliminate populations" with the use of pesticides, presumably with indifference to their suffering as mere pests (invasive species includes animals, and pesticides don't kill animals without causing suffering), as well as "within limitations of already existing WA law", so it doesn't excuse future lawmaking.

This seems to hold more water. However, we have in the past upheld the legality of such apparently contradictory proposals if they include a "subject to / except as prohibited by existing law" clause - the exception being where there flat out was no possible application except for one that clearly violated existing law. Here, there are applications (in this case, animals) for whom humane treatment does not contradict nations' power or obligation to eradicate invasive species, and so this "contradiction" likewise isn't one.

---

IA is correct that existing precedent on the "joke proposal" rule negates that argument against this proposal's legality - this is legal as far as that rule goes. I'm less 100% sure about the Understandable English rule here. Certainly all of the operative clauses, those that actually put mandates on member states, are clear English. Just as clearly, the words in the preamble convey to an English speaker that a dog is making noises. I'm on record being in favor of heavily-RP'd proposals like this one where basic character traits of the author change the writing style; while the English in that cited resolution is broken, it is still "understandable" in the sense that no English speaker could fail to perceive the clear meaning that G l o g was going for.

Language: Proposals must use understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals written in incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.

In the past, GenSec has held that proposals partially written in incomprehensible English are illegal, but to my knowledge all of those cases were for proposals whose operative clauses were incomprehensible - here it is only the preamble, so the stakes are rather less, if not zero.

It's obviously not written in a foreign language, as animal noises are not a foreign language; and these animal noises are in fact English words. The question, then, is whether the presence of animal noises changes the English language from "understandable" to "incomprehensible."

Most mammals use vocalizations to convey information about their physical or emotional state to other mammals. A lion that is roaring is conveying that it would like to attack and perhaps eat you, whereas one that is purring is conveying contentment. One that is screaming or squealing has probably just been shot or otherwise grievously injured. Here, content is also being conveyed by the written form of common dog noises. Taking the challenge above, I would say the following is the most that can possibly be conveyed:

The Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that woof woof woof, "Whose a good boy?!" the author is excited to be here and/or see us

Angered that grrrrrrrr, grrrrrrrrrrrrr, bark bark something has made the author angry!

Convinced that bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant the author would very much like something, and is awaiting our response...

But since animal noises, while conveying meaning, do not convey complex thoughts as language does, this might all be rather too vague to hang a resolution on. Preambles are used to clarify authorial intent in cases where either the operative clauses are too vague, or new and unforeseen circumstances arise. While we don't hold preambles to utter linguistic precision (indeed, this is where authors are supposed to get flowery and metaphorical, to inspire the voters), it may be a bridge too far to have such vague statements as the most meaning that can be gleaned.

On the other hand, the operative clauses provide context here, and there is no rule that says preambles must be perfectly aligned with their mandates. Some legal proposals have lacked a preamble altogether. It might well be enough to have dog noises indicating this topic is important to the canine author (and nothing more complex than that), and then the operative clauses operate normally.

I prefer to have interesting proposals such as this one be legal if possible, but I'm not fully convinced yet that this can be. I invite the participants in this thread to make further arguments on this narrow topic. Wittgenstein might be of use here, though too much of that might begin to take us outside of the question at hand.

[Excidium Planetis]

Again, the rule says "Understandable English" - not just "English."

If it is understandable, we should be able to rephrase it in other understandable ways. For example, "There is a blue car next to the large building" can be rephrased as "A sky-colored automobile exists beside that big structure." If we ask five people to rephrase it without consulting each other, we'd get five different results, but they'd all be understandable as the same thing.If you wanted to translate the meaning in to another language for somebody, you could, and they could then rephrase it in their native tongue. There would be some comprehensible concept that is shared between all versions of the sentence.

If we ask five people to rephrase "bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant," or translate it meaningfully, or do anything other than literally emulate meaningless dog sounds, they will diverge. There won't be a shared understanding.

What if you used the word "Antidisestablishmentarianism"? I bet if you asked 5 random people off the street, they couldn't even tell you what that word meant (without looking it up), even though it's in "understandable English".

Any fluent English speaker would recognize the words "pant" and "whine". If you want I can even rephrase those for you. "Pant" is "a short, quick breath" and "whine" is "a long, high-pitched complaining cry".

Translate it for me, then. You, not the dog person. Feel free to use Google Translate, but gimme Finnish translation of it, if it's so easy to read as English.

...I bet if I wrote English in the "onomatopoetic" way (aka, how I'd pronounce it if it were Finnish), you'd call it unintelligible. So, not really buying the whole thing.

Ara, I don't think you understand what Onomatopoeia is. It's not something that can be translated, nor is it a way to write how you pronounce words. So no, you can't really "write English in the onomatopoetic way". Especially as some onomatopoetic words don't even truly sound like the sound they represent (like "Pow!" or "Splash!").

Onomatopoeia is words that stand in for non-word sounds. An example would be the above mentioned "Bam!". I speak English, and I couldn't even translate that into English, let alone into Finnish. Nevertheless I recognize the word and understand that it's used to fill in for a loud, sudden noise that maybe sounds a little like "Bam!". If you wrote "Crash, bang, bam, ow!", that doesn't mean anything literally, but I recognize all the onomatopoetic words as sounds indicating that something probably crashed or fell and someone was hurt in the process. So it was understandable even if there was no meaning.

I'm not aware of any Finnish examples of onomatopoeia. Maybe they don't even exist, although I imagine they do. I know that the sound that we write as "quack" in English is written as "coin" in French, because following French pronunciation rules it actually does sound somewhat like a sound a duck makes. I know that in English "haha" indicates the sound of laughter, but in Japanese that might be written "fufu".

[Denathor]

What if you used the word "Antidisestablishmentarianism"? I bet if you asked 5 random people off the street, they couldn't even tell you what that word meant (without looking it up), even though it's in "understandable English".

Any fluent English speaker would recognize the words "pant" and "whine". If you want I can even rephrase those for you. "Pant" is "a short, quick breath" and "whine" is "a long, high-pitched complaining cry".

Just as not knowing what a word means doesn’t mean it’s not understandable, knowing what a word means doesn’t make it understandable. Like Verdant said earlier, if I told you that I was "convinced that bubble red over toast in the Wednesday on smoke," what do you think that would mean? It doesn’t form a coherent thought, even though all the words are understandable English. Likewise, "convinced that bark whine bark, pant pant pant pant pant" doesn’t form a coherent thought, even though the words are in English.

Language: Proposals must use understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals written in incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.

In the past, GenSec has held that proposals partially written in incomprehensible English are illegal, but to my knowledge all of those cases were for proposals whose operative clauses were incomprehensible - here it is only the preamble, so the stakes are rather less, if not zero.

So does this mean that when the rules say "proposals," it really only means "operative clauses?"