NationStates

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:47 pm**

Diplomatic Conduct Act
Moral Decency | Mild

Understanding the World Assembly’s ongoing efforts to improve the world one resolution at a time;

Familiar with the crucible of debate and reason, for which these halls are so well known, and it's propensity to engender impassioned arguments and harsh criticism;

Outraged that notable delegations have used the reputation of the World Assembly for strong, impassioned arguments as an excuse to bully, malign, and harass others for sport;

Concerned that harassment offends the very principles of cooperation that underlie the World Assembly’s mission;

The General Assembly enacts the following:

A ‘diplomat’ is an accredited individual sent to the World Assembly to represent their government.

‘Attachés’ are any non-accredited individuals attached to a diplomatic mission and tasked supporting or aiding a diplomat at the World Assembly Headquarters;

‘Harassment’ is offensive conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating or abusive, less classic defenestration into the Memorial Reflecting Pool. However, in no case will arguments relative to General Assembly proposal and debates based on an individual’s argument constitute harassment.

‘Sexual harassment’ is harassment involving unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks, propositions, actions, or advances.

All diplomats and attachés have a right to be free from harassment, sexual or otherwise. As such, all diplomats and attaché have a duty to refrain from conduct that arises to harassment or sexual harassment directed towards other diplomats, attachés, or WAHQ staff while within the WAHQ.

The Diplomatic Conduct Association is established and tasked to:

Create and promulgate, with advice of diplomats, attachés, and WAHQ staff, a code of conduct for those at the WAHQ that will ensure all are treated with dignity and respect.

Establish a system to receive and evaluate good-faith complaints about harassment, including reasonable investigation into veracity and taking of testimonial evidence from involved parties.

Dispense detailed findings of the investigation to the appropriate authority of the perpetrator’s home government for disciplinary purposes where the investigation shows clear and convincing evidence that the perpetrator violated their duties to refrain from harassment, and that the subject of the harassment actually and subjectively were harassed.

Declare diplomats and attachés persona non gratae upon no less than two but no more than five findings of harassment, and no more than two such findings of sexual harassment;

Consider the deliberate and malicious abuse or bad faith use of the DCA complaint system as equivalent to a finding of harassment for the purposes of enforcement; and

Allow persona non gratae to return to the World Assembly as a diplomat or attaché upon adequate demonstration of contrition and an unlikeliness to reoffend.
All diplomats and attaché have a right to file a complaint of harassment with the DCA. Complaints must allege the underlying facts of harassment and that the harassment was both actually and subjectively intimidating or abusive based on the severity or pervasiveness of the inappropriate behavior.

Member states must, upon a finding by the DCA that the diplomat or attaché is persona non gratae, recall the diplomat and begin appropriate domestic disciplinary procedures.

Member states may not allow those persona non gratae under their control to return to the WAHQ prior to the DCA’s approval.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:50 pm**

"Sir Benjamin, you have our full support. Our government believes that it is about time for the World Assembly to take direct action against some of the appalling behaviour coming from some members, present and former, of this body."

"That said, there are some errors: grata describes a first declension noun and must take the feminine gender. Here, it would not be a dative or ablative plural."

— Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:53 pm**

I do not see defenestration mentioned anywhere. That is a time honored tradition here in the General Assembly.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:54 pm**

Looks good, I guess. No gender/sex bias either, meaning sexual harassers aren’t only men, or only women.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:55 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:I do not see defenestration mentioned anywhere. That is a time honored tradition here in the General Assembly.

"I think defenestration doesn't count as harassment, ambassador. Its downright customary! I can add an exemption, though."

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:45 pm**

Full support.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:46 pm**

Absolutely opposed!

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:03 pm**

I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that Jack Riley is no longer our ambassador, and is soon bound for exile on Mars-- [coughs and sputters uncomfortably] -- er, I mean, a classified interplanetary-- er, international -- mission. Oh, and that Manuelo Fernanda was never a diplomat or attaché here. He just showed up whenever he felt like propositioning the Thessadorian Ambassador-- [more coughing and sputtering] -- I mean, improving Kennyite-Thessadorian relations! At any rate, it doesn't matter, as Fernanda is now bound for Hell-- er, a classified interdimensional...whatever.

We oppose this resolution, on the grounds that complaints against accredited individuals or support staff should be handled by the individual missions to this assembly; i.e., the nations themselves should be the ones addressing the problem from the start, not some toothless beancounter agency. I mean, really, how does the WA intend to enforce its "findings" against an ambassador or attaché? If someone has eight marks against them on their record, and the sending nation still refuses to recall them, what? Will the IAO impose fines? [scoffs] Our government has $10 trillion in its little piggybank, idiots; impose all the fines you want! Or does Necessary Security actually intend to snatch the offending individual and physically toss them into the interdimensional elevator?

Moreover, I would like to point out the utter absurdity of an agency making crosshatches until some magic number is reached to finally cite offenders as personae non gratae. [NOTE: this is the proper plural form of the term.] If one ambassador calls another "toots" twice and gets cited, and another ambassador grabs a colleague's breast without consent only once, and doesn't get cited, how is that fair?

[insert rousing conclusory rant here]

-- Jimmy Baca, Secretary of State

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:33 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:I do not see defenestration mentioned anywhere. That is a time honored tradition here in the General Assembly.

"I think defenestration doesn't count as harassment, ambassador. Its downright customary! I can add an exemption, though."

"The Empire would vote against it if defenestration was banned," Antoine stated to those assembled. "We are glad that it will not be banned, and hope that there is an exemption."

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:11 am**

“Clause 2 shouldn’t end with a semicolon given that every other clause ends with a full stop. I have full support for this measure, and any other that serves to protect the rights of this most oppressed class of people - ambassadors.”

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:13 am**

"big support"

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:33 am**

"Wait, we were supposed to be diplomatic? When did that happen? Why did I not get a memo beforehand?"

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:30 pm**

"I am Groot," says Groot, as he (lightly) slaps Ambassador Bell in the back of the head to indicate disapproval.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:43 pm**

Attempted Socialism wrote:"Wait, we were supposed to be diplomatic? When did that happen? Why did I not get a memo beforehand?"

You did get it. It was sent to your bar tab. You do read your bar tab notifications, right?

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:41 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Wait, we were supposed to be diplomatic? When did that happen? Why did I not get a memo beforehand?"

You did get it. It was sent to your bar tab. You do read your bar tab notifications, right?

"I deliberately make sure to avoid having a bar tab in my name, it invites my interns and more frivolous staffers to take liberties", the last part is expressed with an impressively disdainful sneer, "or worse! It is only now that it turns out there may be some flaws in my scheme."

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:58 pm**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
We oppose this resolution, on the grounds that complaints against accredited individuals or support staff should be handled by the individual missions to this assembly; i.e., the nations themselves should be the ones addressing the problem from the start, not some toothless beancounter agency.

"They are. The DCA merely removes them from the property. Nations may then deal with the offenders per domestic law and policy. This is necessary, as many delegations have proven a willingness to abuse, often with state-backed impunity."

I mean, really, how does the WA intend to enforce its "findings" against an ambassador or attaché? If someone has eight marks against them on their record, and the sending nation still refuses to recall them, what? Will the IAO impose fines?

"Failure to comply would be noncompliance."

[scoffs] Our government has $10 trillion in its little piggybank, idiots; impose all the fines you want!

"Fines are tailored to coerce behavior. There is no reason to believe that fines would not be scaled according to your government's $10 trillion in reserves."

Or does Necessary Security actually intend to snatch the offending individual and physically toss them into the interdimensional elevator?

"Nonsense. That would be needlessly cruel. I think the gnomes would just strike out my name on the bar tap and write in the offender!"

Moreover, I would like to point out the utter absurdity of an agency making crosshatches until some magic number is reached to finally cite offenders as personae non gratae. [NOTE: this is the proper plural form of the term.] If one ambassador calls another "toots" twice and gets cited, and another ambassador grabs a colleague's breast without consent only once, and doesn't get cited, how is that fair?

"Some measure of discretion is necessary. I am willing to believe that some examples of harassment are not so egregious that behavior cannot be modified. I am equally willing to believe that some acts are so egregious as to require no second chance. In the case of nonsexual harassment, a second chance at minimum is in order. In the case of sexual harassment, less leeway is needed.

"Thank you for the correction, my Latin is barely functional."

[insert rousing conclusory rant here]

"Consider me roused."

Groot wrote:"I am Groot," says Groot, as he (lightly) slaps Ambassador Bell in the back of the head to indicate disapproval.

"Well, that killed the rousing. I feel harassed."

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:18 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Wait, we were supposed to be diplomatic? When did that happen? Why did I not get a memo beforehand?"

You did get it. It was sent to your bar tab. You do read your bar tab notifications, right?

"What about those of us who don't frequent the Bar? How were we notified?" Antoine inquired.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:54 pm**

OOC: aren't the Forum Mods supposed to monitor this kind of behavior and deal with it? If not then why the F**k do we have Forum Mods in the first place? If a player is being harassed, let them file a complaint to the mods and the mods can come down on the perp like the motherf**king Hammer of God! Up to a few years ago we had mods who would either issue a warning and/or punish someone for trolling, flaming or harassment. If the Mods aren't going to stop this type of behavior as part of their job, then this is nothing but toothless RP Fluff.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:55 pm**

The Palentine wrote:OOC: aren't the Forum Mods supposed to monitor this kind of behavior and deal with it? If not then why the F**k do we have Forum Mods in the first place? If a player is being harassed, let them file a complaint to the mods and the mods can come down on the perp like the motherf**king Hammer of God! Up to a few years ago we had mods who would either issue a warning and/or punish someone for trolling, flaming or harassment. If the Mods aren't going to stop this type of behavior as part of their job, then this is nothing but toothless RP Fluff.

OOC:
You... realize that this is the GA, right?
Everything's toothless RP fluff.
Certainly the GA doesn't decide the law for NS, otherwise DEATs would be illegal.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:46 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
The Palentine wrote:OOC: aren't the Forum Mods supposed to monitor this kind of behavior and deal with it? If not then why the F**k do we have Forum Mods in the first place? If a player is being harassed, let them file a complaint to the mods and the mods can come down on the perp like the motherf**king Hammer of God! Up to a few years ago we had mods who would either issue a warning and/or punish someone for trolling, flaming or harassment. If the Mods aren't going to stop this type of behavior as part of their job, then this is nothing but toothless RP Fluff.

OOC:
You... realize that this is the GA, right?
Everything's toothless RP fluff.
Certainly the GA doesn't decide the law for NS, otherwise DEATs would be illegal.

OOC: my question still stands. In the past Mods enforced conduct in the GA, even to those RPing. They gave warnings and bans for genuine harrasing behavior IC or OOC.

Since 2005 I've spent much time and effort into making my ambassador a drunken horse's ass with a large helping of barbaric militant machismo thrown in the mix. I see no reason to modify his behavior because some snowflake ambassador might snivel to some committee that he was being mean to them in the Festering Snakepit.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:13 am**

My view on this, probably not shared by the old RP-ers, is that RP's death only happened when RP murdered itself under its own cruft. If we want to actually resurrect RP in the GA, it cannot be under the same paradigm that led to OOC's increasing domination when faced by incentives to venue shop into moderator protection.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:24 am**

What IA means to say, I think, is that for your ambassador to be affected would require someone to actually RP the committee -- which can always be ignored, of course. So in this case, at least, try taking Saddam's sage advice, and "relax, guy!"

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:43 am**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:What IA means to say, I think, is that for your ambassador to be affected would require someone to actually RP the committee -- which can always be ignored, of course. So in this case, at least, try taking Saddam's sage advice, and "relax, guy!"

Ooc: I thought that some IC mechanism to explain it would he interesting. I also suspect that basically all of the things dome by the good but unwholesome Senator Sulla would be safe. Harassment is meant to be a fairly high bar. Also, debate is explicitly spared, so unless ambassadors drop into ad homenim, no worries.

I think its reasonable to say if you arent getting warneed by mods, you arent getting in trouble with DCA.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:45 am**

The Palentine wrote:OOC: my question still stands. In the past Mods enforced conduct in the GA, even to those RPing. They gave warnings and bans for genuine harrasing behavior IC or OOC.

Not a mod anymore, of course, but warnings for IC "harassment" are pretty rare. Otherwise, I'd be in some serious trouble for some of the things I've done to Murray the Evil Skull, Herby, and anyone in the vicinity of the karaoke machine. But, yes, this is toothless fluff, and would be completely unenforceable by the mods, GenSec, etc. I suppose enforcement could be consensually RP'd, much like war is under GA#2.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:51 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: I thought that some IC mechanism to explain it would he interesting.

OOC: Hmm. If you're saying this is an attempt to provide an IC rationale for OOC moderation actions, then how is that not MetaGaming.

I don't really like these sorts of proposals so don't have much to contribute, not going to do a legality challenge, just mildly curious how definitions have shifted.

NationStates

[Draft] Diplomatic Conduct Act

[Draft] Diplomatic Conduct Act