General Assembly Q&A

[Separatist Peoples]

A strong case can be made that OUJ only deals with criminal law, not civil law, and especially not something as narrow as tort law.

The argument that IA made, though, was that tort law and criminal law overlap on some occasions, in which case it's ambiguous as to whether the Court of International Jurisdiction can make rulings without preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction. Obviously, you're far more knowledgeable about the law than most of us, so I was wondering if it makes a difference.

They overlap, but you don't dispense with both at the same time. The issue goes to two separate courts with two separate procedures and laws governing them in a country that splits them up. I think we can assume enough courts do because otherwise law would be an awful mass of double standards, questions of standing, and evidence bullshit.

So, say you stab somebody in a bar fight. They have cause for a battery tort and can sue you, but the state has cause to charge you with criminal assault or attempted murder on behalf of the victim. The victim has standing in civil court, but only the state does as plaintiff in criminal court. Combining that standing requurement would be a mess. Then there are the competing proof standards of "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". And the suck sandwich of claim preclusion/double jeopardy for trying the same transaction (the stabbing) twice in the same court.

An international tort court could be done. Probably relatively easily. There would have to be some legalese regarding the treatment of res judicata and collateral estoppel, which are just the civil versions of double jeopardy, for naysayers who insist their court system is unified.

[Araraukar]

tort couet ... judicata ... estoppel

I was going to zap you again for using an imaginary language, but "suck sandwich" was funny enough to forego tort(ure) for breakfast.

I know it's Legalese and that I could probaly check the words in Wiktionary or something, but still, really, if it can't be said it in normal English, we might as well be using Klingon for clarity.

[Tinfect]

tort couet ... judicata ... estoppel

I was going to zap you again for using an imaginary language, but "suck sandwich" was funny enough to forego tort(ure) for breakfast.

I know it's Legalese and that I could probaly check the words in Wiktionary or something, but still, really, if it can't be said it in normal English, we might as well be using Klingon for clarity.

Chay'pen vay' naDev jIQochbe'. betleHvam lo'lu' latin wabmey Hoch vISujlu'be' je buy' 'op nuv, 'ach 'oH Dov'agh vaj nIt English Hol wabmey lo' concepts laH neH Qochbe' maH.

According to every translator I could find that supports Klingon, this is the Klingon for: "I'm going to have to agree here. I'm sure the latin terms are all well and good to some people, but it'd be easier if we could just agree to use the plain-english terms for these concepts."

[Separatist Peoples]

tort couet ... judicata ... estoppel

I was going to zap you again for using an imaginary language, but "suck sandwich" was funny enough to forego tort(ure) for breakfast.

I know it's Legalese and that I could probaly check the words in Wiktionary or something, but still, really, if it can't be said it in normal English, we might as well be using Klingon for clarity.

We'll, the first is a typo. The second was a spell check error. This new spell check on my new phone is way better, but it's still learning legal terms. It's Res Judicata. The last one is a cognate. Estoppel - to stop.

There's a reason these terms can't be used in plain English: no accurate, short phrases exists. And since these are about a specific proposal, the discussion should occur in a draft thread. Legalese isn't designed to be flashy, it's to convey unique concepts without accurate plain English meanings.

[Araraukar]

Legalese isn't designed to be flashy, it's to convey unique concepts without accurate plain English meanings.

Legalese isn't same as Latin, though.

*snip*

^Also what he said.

[Separatist Peoples]

Legalese isn't designed to be flashy, it's to convey unique concepts without accurate plain English meanings.

Legalese isn't same as Latin, though.

*snip*

^Also what he said.

There aren't any that wouldn't take up a line of explanation. Res judicata and collateral etoppel are four-element concepts of procedure that function essentially as double jeopardy, barring certain claims and issues from being tried repeatedly, but they absolutely cannot be lumped together. I'm sorry you guys don't like it, but they're terms of art for a reason: They have precise and specialized meaning.

Also, collateral estoppel isn't Latin. Its a French-derived English term. Fortunately, law dictionaries abound on the internet. OR, that discussion can be had in the appropriate draft thread when the time comes. That promises to be very fun.

[Araraukar]

That promises to be very fun.

Only if I'm allowed to use the bug zapper on anyone using Latin or French terms within English sentences.

There are many things that Finnish says much simpler and easier than English, but I don't use those words despite there being several online translators able to give you the English meaning, because English is the language of these forums and I'm too annoyed at the Latin use to want to similarly annoy others. I guess it's too much to hope to be repayed the courtesy. (Note: this isn't just at you, SP, it's a common issue - and not just with the GA council peeps - and seems to be part of the trend of making everything a legality battle around here.)

[Separatist Peoples]

That promises to be very fun.

Only if I'm allowed to use the bug zapper on anyone using Latin or French terms within English sentences.

There are many things that Finnish says much simpler and easier than English, but I don't use those words despite there being several online translators able to give you the English meaning, because English is the language of these forums and I'm too annoyed at the Latin use to want to similarly annoy others. I guess it's too much to hope to be repayed the courtesy. (Note: this isn't just at you, SP, it's a common issue - and not just with the GA council peeps - and seems to be part of the trend of making everything a legality battle around here.)

But it isn't a matter of language barrier. I don't speak French, and my Latin has long since faded to dirty phrases. They're terms of art as recognized by legal systems around the world. Even if I translated Res Judicata to English, "A Matter [already] Judged", that doesn't differentiate between a preclusion of an issue raised by a claim or the claim as a whole, or even what that necessarily excludes. This is really no different than a debate on climate change using terms like "adiabatic" instead of spelling out "relating to or denoting a process or condition in which heat does not enter or leave the system concerned" every time, or "firewall" when discussing computer security instead of "a network security system, either hardware or software based, that uses rules to control incoming and outgoing network traffic."

The worst part about the insistence on plain language is that a simple explanation often doesn't connote nearly as much as the term of art. Here one word gets across the meaning, and indeed more meaning, than a simple explanation itself. It seem that describing things using simple words is beneficial but this can lead to additional confusion when definitions are very precise and a brief, accessible description in place of a "term of art" would leave ambiguity.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Only if I'm allowed to use the bug zapper on anyone using Latin or French terms within English sentences.

Je pense que il y a plus beaucoup de raisons pour l'usage de langue juridique. Primer, telle langue est plus évidente avec se clarté. Deuxième, telle langue est plus brève, et je ne veux pas lire une centaine de mots pour minime sens. Troisième, telle langue est plus super. Honnêtement, la troisième doit suffit. Le sens de 'lingua franca' est clair. Tout le monde doit le parler.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

En jaksa edes googlettaa tuota, saat leikkiä ihan keskenäsi. (Translation: Can't be bothered to google that, you can play all on your own.) But you've been harping at me for acting overly legalistic, so you should be against Latin Legalese as well.

2nd EDIT: What Google translated the Finnish as: "I can not even googled produce, you get to play pretty [keskenäsi]." There's a reason I tell people that Google Translate is a joke generator for me...

[Whovian Tardisia]

*snip*

En jaksa edes googlettaa tuota, saat leikkiä ihan keskenäsi. But you've been harping at me for acting overly legalistic, so you should be against Latin Legalese as well.

*Pfft* I google translated the Finnish. Nice try.

[Imperium Anglorum]

*snip*

En jaksa edes googlettaa tuota, saat leikkiä ihan keskenäsi.

First, I wrote that.

But you've been harping at me for acting overly legalistic, so you should be against Latin Legalese as well.

Second, I am fine with discussions about law, use of legal language, and the development of vocabulary. What I am against, to make my own position clear, is the trend over time where the GA community has reduced itself to a lower equilibrium, where we are no longer a political institution in which people draft legislation, debate, and employ the use of political action to get things done. What has happened is that players, instead of using voters to defeat proposals, have increasingly relied on procedural tricks to do so. That is bad for the community, bad for the game, and bad for everyone involved. This does not mean that we cannot talk about interesting topics. It is a question, instead, about how we ought formulate our objection to proposals.

[Sciongrad]

But you've been harping at me for acting overly legalistic, so you should be against Latin Legalese as well.

Of course, there is a difference between using uncommon Latin words appropriately and relying excessively on using the rules the shoot down proposals one does not agree with. Not accusing you of either, just pointing out the difference.

[States of Glory WA Office]

En jaksa edes googlettaa tuota, saat leikkiä ihan keskenäsi.

Google Translate is showing a bunch of nonsense for me.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This is descending rapidly into nothing more than spam. Knock it off.

[Tzorsland]

Google Translate is showing a bunch of nonsense for me.

Mine worked fine (select auto detect) and insisted that "keskenäsi" should be spelled "keskenäs."

[The Atlae Isles]

This is descending rapidly into nothing more than spam. Knock it off.

Aye aye. What's the difference between changing game mechanics and metagaming?

[Upper Sam Dodovi]

Do General Assembly proposals that get passed actually effect the Nations in the World Assembly?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Aye aye. What's the difference between changing game mechanics and metagaming?

Metagaming talks about doing something which the WA can't actually do. Game mechanics talks about changing the mechanics of NationStates. I think there is quite some overlap, but there are things which the WA cannot do which do not involve changing the way NationStates is played.

[Balochistan and New York]

Can you repeal GA#1

[Christian Democrats]

Can you repeal GA#1

No.

[Balochistan and New York]

Can you repeal GA#1

No.

Why not?

[Imperium Anglorum]

No.

Why not?

(1) There isn't a link.
(2) If you spoof the link, NS prevents you from trying.

The first one could have easily been determined from the fact that 1 GA doesn't have a repeal link.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why would anybody want to repeal GAR#1? It just establishes the WA.

[Araraukar]

Why would anybody want to repeal GAR#1? It just establishes the WA.

Somebody wanting to restart the WA?