[DRAFT] Proper Inheritance of Monarchical Titles

[Old Hope]

OOC: Threatening dissolution of member states might be illegal for breaching mechanics rules, for a similar reason to why mandating a WA currency is illegal...

If this were to pass, it would treat member nations differently before the law and there is no way you can dance around that fact. This law treats republics, elective and ceremonial monarchies inherently differently than it does all other forms of hereditary monarchy. The text of the law you're trying to implement is making that distinction, it discriminates on the basis of the characteristics of the monarchy in question. That is no longer a state of equality before the law with other member nations:

Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State

Under the law of your proposal, put a republic next to a hereditary semi-constitutional monarchy, and they are no longer equal. Because the republic doesn't face the threat of dissolution because of the characteristics of its form of government, while the semi-constitutional monarchy does, and profoundly so. Your proposal violates the rule of equality that GAR #2 grants member nations, there's no way around it.

This is a horrible precedent and anyone not blinded by hatred for this proposal would see that. I gave you one counter-example already. It is easy to imagine other ones. Any time any kind of member nation is negatively advantaged by anything they do, they will then claim they are not being treated equally relative to other people who have not done those things. It is like Elon Musk claiming that the SEC is treating him unequally and rights are being violated because he got fined and Joe Smith, who does not have Twitter and never made any jokes about taking Tesla private at 420, did not.

Er. This resolution specifies that it does not apply to some member nations. That's the problem. Not that member states might be affected differently, but rather that they are treated differently.
(e.g.:All nations must force any monarchs they have to split their inheritance amongst their children equally: Equality before the law.
All nations with monarchies must force their monarch to split their inheritance amongst their children equally, other nations do not: No equality before the law.
In this case, it is a semantic problem, but it is a problem nontheless.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Somehow that is a good point from Old Hope. Anti-monarchist legality challenges makes strange bedfellows of us all. Let's proceed as if I already made the changes that would preclude a game mechanics challenge.

Edit. Wait a second. This isn't that great of an argument. If we all accept forcing nations to have succession referenda isn't a game mechanics violation, this isn't either.

[South St Maarten]

IC: "Finding that republics rule and monarchies drool, hereby enacts as follows"

Opposed.

[Daarwyrth]

I'll be frank. The reason I'm using multiple question marks there is because you are entirely off balance with your interpretation of GA 2. It is entirely unsupported by precedent and I gave it the seriousness it deserved. It has been clearly rejected multiple times. I did not expect you to make that argument seriously. I also very clearly don't care about the proposal or its contents at all. You – inexplicably – still treat this as a normal thread. It isn't a normal thread where ambassadors come knocking about and I have to have some consistent RP where I make arguments consistent with what my member nation would want.

That is not how GA 2 works. Separatist Peoples (9 Dec 2019) viewtopic.php?p=36511992#p36511992. Separatist Peoples (10 Nov 2018) viewtopic.php?p=34891637#p34891637. Mallorea and Riva (10 Jun 2014) viewtopic.php?p=20457243#p20457243 (cited previously in this thread on ideological ban). To be clear, there have been previous moderator rulings which have interpreted the GA 2 provisions in that way. They have since 2014 or so, however, been overruled or rejected.

Like I said in the Discord server, I thank you for pointing me to the correct interpretation of this rule. Now I know that I was indeed off the mark with my interpretation of GA 2, and won't make the same mistake again.

Sure, you could then respond with something like "IA is trying to tell me how to play the GA and he can't do that". Sure I can... it just doesn't work. No matter.

Your words, not mine. I had no intention of responding with that.

This is a horrible precedent and anyone not blinded by hatred for this proposal would see that. I gave you one counter-example already. It is easy to imagine other ones. Any time any kind of member nation is negatively advantaged by anything they do or have, they will then claim they are not being treated equally relative to other nations who have not done or have those things. Nations with a shoreline have to abide by the law of the sea! They are not being treated equally under the law with these burdensome regulations which landlocked member nations do not have to follow! It is like Elon Musk claiming that the SEC is treating him unequally and rights are being violated because he got fined and Joe Smith, who does not have Twitter and never made any jokes about taking Tesla private at 420, did not.

If you ask me, there is a vast difference between "your state gets dissolved if this happen, yours doesn't" and "your nation is landlocked but still has to abide by the law of the sea". Yes, there are many examples of WA resolutions that put restrictions on member nations or chip away at parts of what they can do, but - as far as I know - none actually force a state apart, which this proposal does. Yes, I get it, you're having a go at the rules and don't care about the rest, you've made that clear. But your argument doesn't come across as sound as you think it does, to me, at least. Perhaps that's to blame on me, but in my opinion you've stretched this argument to the point where it ripped. I admit, I did the same with my argument on GA 2.

These arguments are the sort of rubbish I would expect from Old Hope and some drive-by orcs in the at-vote thread of some anti-war crimes proposal. It is not something I expected from someone somewhat versed in the operations of the Assembly.

I've decided that I'm not going to bite to this jab. More to the point, "somewhat versed" does not mean "fully versed". As I stated at the beginning of this reply, you have pointed me to a deficit in my knowledge of the operations of the WA, especially regarding GA 2, and through it helped me undo that deficit. For that I thank you, and I appreciate the chance to have been able to learn. The experienced teach the inexperienced after all, no?

I will leave the last word to you, as I agree with you that I am wasting time by engaging with the actual content of this proposal, which you don't even take seriously, as I understood you. Whatever you're doing behind that is your business.

[Herby]

Ehhhhhh I don’t get it. Why should we care about how royal families distribute their wealth or how they determine succession?

"Why should dictatorships vote on how democratic systems should be regulated?"

Ehhhhh what? No no no, I mean the WA doesn’t dictate how dead presidents are succeeded or what they can or can’t do with their wealth. So why should we do so for monarchies?

[Jedinsto]

"Why should dictatorships vote on how democratic systems should be regulated?"

Ehhhhh what? No no no, I mean the WA doesn’t dictate how dead presidents are succeeded or what they can or can’t do with their wealth. So why should we do so for monarchies?

Because monarchies are bad

[Old Hope]

Somehow that is a good point from Old Hope. Anti-monarchist legality challenges makes strange bedfellows of us all. Let's proceed as if I already made the changes that would preclude a game mechanics challenge.

Edit. Wait a second. This isn't that great of an argument. If we all accept forcing nations to have succession referenda isn't a game mechanics violation, this isn't either.

We know that ejecting nations out of the WA for noncompliance is a mechanics violation.
We know that forcing a specific or no currency, a specific religion or no religion, a specific national leader, a number for national leaders or a capital or number of capitals is a mechanics violation.
What does a nation have to do if it has two heirs and the monarch dies?
Have two leaders? Game Mechanics. Out of the power of the WA.
Split the nation? Out of the power of the WA. Game mechanics.
Abolish monarchy? If that's the only solution in the remit of the WA we have an ideological ban.

What does a nation have to do if the WA has succession referenda?
Depends... but might be illegal per the above. Or not?
If it can put in any leader(s) they like then... probably

[Camerian]

Moral Decency: Mild
To the World Assembly,
I would like to ask the delegates how it intends to deal with imbalances when a monarch power is split. In the long term, when the monarch splits itself repeatedly, will there be enough moveable property to split?
Is the power of the monarch split as well?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Please don't gravedig threads on dead proposals.

[Tinhampton]

Please mark your [ABANDONED] drafts accordingly

[Imperium Anglorum]

Please mark your [ABANDONED] drafts accordingly

That is not consistent with mos maiorum. People did not mark drafts "abandoned" in 2014; there is no reason to do so now.

[Frisbeeteria]

Please don't gravedig threads on dead proposals.

This.

Please mark your [ABANDONED] drafts accordingly

That's never been a rule.