[DISCARDED] Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"

[Eireann Fae]

Why was Auralia ejected from the WA?

"Because their representative was a fucking douchebag and the Secretariat finally saw the light!"

"Alex... Martin Russell is no longer conducting affairs here. You need not insult the man any longer..."

"But if this repeal goes through - and early voting shows it winning by a pretty fucking wide margin - it'll be a hell of a legacy for him that we just can't get rid of. It'll suck. Hard. Fuck that guy, and his 'working group'."

"All we can do is hope that the early showing of support is due to a strong campaign. Unlikely, as there is a fairly wide margin even amongst individual voters, but let us not lose hope..."

(OOC: But seriously though. Had an illegal second nation in the WA that he used to try and commend himself. Most people seem to have expected better of him. I expected nothing less.)

[Hakio]

Auralia has sent out many mass telegrams. It could be a very well funded campaign...
OOC: I really hate these stamps they give an unfair advantage to those with more money.

[Edlichbury]

The Applebanian delegate stands.
"GAR #2 makes humanitarian interventions illegal when the government of the interveenee is unwilling to be intervened in. I vote in support."
He then quickly leaves the chamber, one, because he needed to prepare a chamber for his newest proposal, and two, to prevent anyone from shooting him in the fission reactor.
(OOC: Yes, Prince Applebane is a fusion-powered cyborg.)

But the replacement makes it expressly illegal for intervention in non-WA states regardless of reason.

Against wholly.

[The Scientific States]

Auralia has sent out many mass telegrams. It could be a very well funded campaign...
OOC: I really hate these stamps they give an unfair advantage to those with more money.

Yeah, I got the TG.

When I saw the flag i figured it was a regular WA TG telling me that a resolution passed, then I realized that wasn't the case. I then clicked on the nation, and saw it wasn't in the WA anymore, and saw that it was fairly new. So, I went to this thread, and saw that Auralia had done it. I chuckled.

[Hirota]

Auralia has sent out many mass telegrams. It could be a very well funded campaign...
OOC: I really hate these stamps they give an unfair advantage to those with more money.

Something has to balance out being Auralia I suppose

[Benjamin Mark]

Auralia really wants it gone, I will still oppose its repeal nonetheless. I'm perfectly happy with the current charter. Been there since this nation got founded, and it hasn't done us any harm. *sighs* Is it that dull in the WA?

Kara Holliday
WA Ambassador

[Texan Hotrodders]

Please vote FOR the current General Assembly resolution at vote, Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States". The resolution you would be voting to repeal is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:

- the resolution contains a morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

- the resolution effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

- the resolution forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict, and

- the resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security.

You may vote FOR the resolution here. Thank you for your consideration.

Having received the missive of the supporters of the proposal and responded to it, my office has decided to share our concerns regarding the arguments invoked therein.

1. Having been there when GA #2 was written, my understanding is that the definition of war was merely a recognizance of the realities of war between NationStates rather than an explicit attempt to encourage it or a failure to recognize its moral gravity. GA #2 was written with an awareness that wars do happen regardless of the good intentions of WA members and that it would not be feasible for WA members to impose a ban on war, and also that an attempt to implement such a ban would likely cause many nations leave the WA and remove them from what positive influence that WA members might have on mitigating any conflicts in which they were to engage.

2. The claim that the resolution forbids just wars for WA members strikes me as odd given Article 4 of Section II of GA #2 wherein collective self-defense against armed attack is specifically authorized. What makes you draw the conclusion that a just war would not be considered "collective self-defense"? Traditionally, just war is conceived of in such a way that it is always against the aggressor, which would indeed put the NationState waging just war in precisely a posture of defense collectively with the victim of the aggression.

3. The resolution does prevent the World Assembly from forming its own military force, though I would suggest that this is a feature of GA #2 rather than a bug. It would be incredibly dangerous to create a military force under the auspices of the WA; given the democratic nature of the WA and the volatile nature of many of its constituent members, providing them with an international military force by which to eliminate their opposing NationStates under the guise of "humanitarian interventions" or "peacemaking operations"seems rather like handing over control of the chicken coop to the strongest coalition of foxes.

I am somewhat concerned that an implausible reading of the text of GA #2 has been made the basis for repeal arguments and that it may be motivated by self-interest rather than any altruistic concern for the well-being of WA member and their citizens.

I welcome attempts to assuage our concerns.

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Plo City]

(( This includes many WA rules. What happens when it's repealed?))

[Texan Hotrodders]

(( This includes many WA rules. What happens when it's repealed?))

The author has a replacement proposal at the ready. I suspect that the author means to submit that replacement immediately to ensure continuity.

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Brilliant Equestria]

(( This includes many WA rules. What happens when it's repealed?))

In a word? Chaos. The former delegate from Auralia has suggested he intends to propose a replacement, but I have my doubts as to the truth of that. Besides, there's no guarantee it would pass even if he did. The proposed replacement itself is no better and certainly not worth repealing the foundation of this Assembly over.

[The Dark Star Republic]

1. Having been there when GA #2 was written, my understanding is that the definition of war was merely a recognizance of the realities of war between NationStates rather than an explicit attempt to encourage it or a failure to recognize its moral gravity. GA #2 was written with an awareness that wars do happen regardless of the good intentions of WA members and that it would not be feasible for WA members to impose a ban on war, and also that an attempt to implement such a ban would likely cause many nations leave the WA and remove them from what positive influence that WA members might have on mitigating any conflicts in which they were to engage.

OOC: Sorry to respond OOC, but there's no way of making this point in-character.

Writing the definition of war to reflect 'the realities of war between NationStates' makes no sense. Every other resolution is written in character. Even the other resolutions about war are written in character! Claiming that an out of character, metagamed definition of war is justified because that's the reality of NS is inconsistent with that. Every NS nation gains population every day, making a resolution on family planning redundant; every NS nation chooses its economic profile, meaning "developing nations" are that way voluntarily and shouldn't be given aid. But these are obviously silly arguments, because treating everything in such an OOC way would strip away the fun of roleplaying the WA.

There should be an in character definition of war used, and it is not at all surprising that the use of an out of character definition has real problems of interpretation.

2. The claim that the resolution forbids just wars for WA members strikes me as odd given Article 4 of Section II of GA #2 wherein collective self-defense against armed attack is specifically authorized. What makes you draw the conclusion that a just war would not be considered "collective self-defense"? Traditionally, just war is conceived of in such a way that it is always against the aggressor, which would indeed put the NationState waging just war in precisely a posture of defense collectively with the victim of the aggression.

That is an utterly torturous interpretation of 'collective self-defence' that is simply not reflected in the how the mods have ruled, striking down as illegal proposals on humanitarian intervention. They're probably right, too: in international relations theory, a humanitarian intervention is not typically considered to be a form of collective self-defence, even when conducted within an organization such as the UN, AU, etc.

3. The resolution does prevent the World Assembly from forming its own military force, though I would suggest that this is a feature of GA #2 rather than a bug. It would be incredibly dangerous to create a military force under the auspices of the WA; given the democratic nature of the WA and the volatile nature of many of its constituent members, providing them with an international military force by which to eliminate their opposing NationStates under the guise of "humanitarian interventions" or "peacemaking operations"seems rather like handing over control of the chicken coop to the strongest coalition of foxes.

But the rule is incredibly over broad at present. For example, I know you will remember PC's gun amnesty proposal, as you were involved in the Moderation discussion following its deletion. It was ruled that the WA (actually, the NSUN at the time) providing security for gun amnesty caches was a violation of the No Army rule. That's incredibly limiting. I am not aware that any of the advocates for reform of the rule actually want any sort of "WA Army" at all. There's no need for a false dichotomy between the present overly restrictive rule and total anarchy.

Your return at this moment also utterly terrifies me, but I won't jump the gun.

[Rotwood]

(( This includes many WA rules. What happens when it's repealed?))

In a word: Nothing. GAR #2 was based off the rules, not the other way around.

[Texan Hotrodders]

(( This includes many WA rules. What happens when it's repealed?))

In a word? Chaos. The former delegate from Auralia has suggested he intends to propose a replacement, but I have my doubts as to the truth of that. Besides, there's no guarantee it would pass even if he did. The proposed replacement itself is no better and certainly not worth repealing the foundation of this Assembly over.

I quite agree, your Excellence, that the proposed replacement contains little benefit. For the most part it is simply a restatement of the status quo, which makes it odd that the arguments made against GA #2 are made in such strong terms. I would expect a proposal to change so little would be preceded by a repeal which merely invoked a need to engage in a bit of housecleaning.

On the other hand, this repeal and replacement are unlikely to cause chaos unless we foment it.

My concerns with the repeal are related to the attempts to justify it rather than the consequences of passage of the repeal per se.

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Tantricia]

Voting against purely because of the annoying campaign telegram spam.

[Rotwood]

Okay, let's have a full and proper crack at this one

Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #2

Strongly affirming the need for a World Assembly charter that clearly delineates the basic rights and responsibilities of World Assembly member states,

Regretting that the numerous flaws present in GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", necessitate its repeal,

Opinion, and debatable

Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

First off, again, opinion. Second, it is actually a part of the rules, so this is the wrong area to be questioning it.

Shocked that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

Well, it is war, after all. You can't exactly ban war (OOC: I believe that is part of the rules too)

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,

What exactly is a "just" war, and who determines if a war is a just one? A war that seems just to one party would be seen as unjust to the opposition. Also there is nothing stopping peacemaking or humanitarian interventions, otherwise passed resolutions and proposals in the works since GAR #2 would be deemed illegal.

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention,

There you go with justification again. Not to mention domestic affairs are not international ones.

Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions,

We are surprised to see this one from a nation who has done exactly this thing, along with openly claiming non-compliance with other resolutions

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security,

No WA army or police is a rule, and GAR #2 is just reiterating it. Removing this does not remove that rule

Strongly hoping that a replacement charter will soon be passed,

First, a replacement isnt needed. Second, and more importantly, giving the nation submitting this and their actions in regards to Repeal Internet Net Neutrality where they promised to work on a replacement then openly admitting they had no intention of doing so, we wonder if they would be doing the same here

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States".

No, just no.

This repeal is not warranted. Half of it seems to be trying to change the rules (which wont happen) and the other half is just opinion, which isn't basis for a repeal

[The Dark Star Republic]

Okay, let's have a full and proper crack at this one

OOC: I'm not sure why you take such umbrage at the inclusion of 'opinion' in an argument. A proposal free of opinion would be zero characters long. Your own proposal states:

Also believing there should be a code of conduct in regards to peacekeeping and dealing with peacekeeping forces,

That is, unambiguously, an opinion.

Condemning the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

First off, again, opinion. Second, it is actually a part of the rules, so this is the wrong area to be questioning it.

Yes, it's part of the rules for roleplaying in the NS/II forums that RPs must be by mutual consent, meaning it's exactly right to be questioning why an OOC definition has been used in a nominally IC document. Freedom of Expression contradicts the rules, which don't allow for spamming or trolling. Diplomatic Immunity doesn't reflect the rules: if I flamed you, then claimed I had immunity as a representative to the WA, I would still be warned by the mods.

Shocked that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

Well, it is war, after all. You can't exactly ban war (OOC: I believe that is part of the rules too)

Except that that definition is based on the rules, meaning it doesn't square with a realistic sense of roleplayed war.

It would be equivalent to arguing that all trade and environmental proposals should be banned in the WA, because one nation's issue choices on economic and environmental matters cannot affect any other nation by virtue of the game engine.

Appalled that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,

What exactly is a "just" war, and who determines if a war is a just one?

The WA voters, who would now have a chance to vote on a proper NS version of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. I think there's even been a just war proposal at vote before, by Cowardly Pacifists, though I won't attest to its merits as I wasn't around at the time.

A war that seems just to one party would be seen as unjust to the opposition. Also there is nothing stopping peacemaking or humanitarian interventions, otherwise passed resolutions and proposals in the works since GAR #2 would be deemed illegal.

Yes, there is. Proposals on humanitarian intervention and peacemaking operations have been ruled illegal for contradicting #2.

Distressed that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention,

There you go with justification again. Not to mention domestic affairs are not international ones.

You are sincerely arguing that it should be legally forbidden to intervene to prevent genocide because it is a 'domestic' issue?

Alarmed that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions,

We are surprised to see this one from a nation who has done exactly this thing, along with openly claiming non-compliance with other resolutions

Auralia's replacement would make non-compliance harder. A better idea even would be an NS version of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Neither is possible, though, with this in place.

Concerned that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security,

No WA army or police is a rule, and GAR #2 is just reiterating it. Removing this does not remove that rule

Agreed. So there's no need to fear the repeal leading to a WA army. Phew, what a relief!

Strongly hoping that a replacement charter will soon be passed,

First, a replacement isnt needed.

Broadly agreed. I'd like to see resolutions on war - proper, in-character resolutions - but I don't think there's any need to replace the core document.

Second, and more importantly, giving the nation submitting this and their actions in regards to Repeal Internet Net Neutrality where they promised to work on a replacement then openly admitting they had no intention of doing so, we wonder if they would be doing the same here

If a replacement isn't needed, why would that bother you? Surely the prospect of a replacement not being submitted would be encouraging.

This repeal is not warranted. Half of it seems to be trying to change the rules (which wont happen)

Agreed. So there's no need to be worried about 'chaos' if it passes. The NSUN did fine before Resolution #49 passed, too.

[Texan Hotrodders]

OOC: Sorry to respond OOC, but there's no way of making this point in-character.

OOC: No worries. You know I always welcome your input.

Writing the definition of war to reflect 'the realities of war between NationStates' makes no sense. Every other resolution is written in character. Even the other resolutions about war are written in character! Claiming that an out of character, metagamed definition of war is justified because that's the reality of NS is inconsistent with that. Every NS nation gains population every day, making a resolution on family planning redundant; every NS nation chooses its economic profile, meaning "developing nations" are that way voluntarily and shouldn't be given aid. But these are obviously silly arguments, because treating everything in such an OOC way would strip away the fun of roleplaying the WA.

Hmm. I'm not sure that it would strip away the fun of roleplaying the WA. I find that arbitrary boundaries help promote creativity and fun, particularly in games. That's how a lot of games work, specifically by providing arbitrary boundaries to work against, and I'm not sure why it should be different in this game.

It doesn't really concern me that GA #2 isn't an exemplar of perfect consistency within the IC world in which it operates. It's meant to be a bridge between the IC and OOC aspects of the game, and I think that while there is some tension caused because of its melding of IC and OOC functions, it's part of the healthy tension that keeps necessary conflict in the WA aspect of the game.

There should be an in character definition of war used, and it is not at all surprising that the use of an out of character definition has real problems of interpretation.

I'm pretty sure that you know enough about law that you are well aware that problems of interpretation are inevitable for a variety of reasons, and that repealing and replacing a law usually just means a slightly different set of problems of interpretation over the long term. If problems of interpretation were eliminated, many judges and magistrates (perhaps even Mods!) would be out of a job, and you and I would never have had so much fun with the WA (or the NSUN). Ah, the memories. :-)

That is an utterly torturous interpretation of 'collective self-defence' that is simply not reflected in the how the mods have ruled, striking down as illegal proposals on humanitarian intervention. They're probably right, too: in international relations theory, a humanitarian intervention is not typically considered to be a form of collective self-defence, even when conducted within an organization such as the UN, AU, etc.

Can't a guy put forward what would be an utterly torturous interpretation OOC in an IC context and argue for it? I'm pretty sure I've done that before...a few times.

But the rule is incredibly over broad at present. For example, I know you will remember PC's gun amnesty proposal, as you were involved in the Moderation discussion following its deletion. It was ruled that the WA (actually, the NSUN at the time) providing security for gun amnesty caches was a violation of the No Army rule. That's incredibly limiting. I am not aware that any of the advocates for reform of the rule actually want any sort of "WA Army" at all. There's no need for a false dichotomy between the present overly restrictive rule and total anarchy.

Yes, it is incredibly limiting. I hope you'll understand if I'm really comfortable with that.

And don't worry, I'm not expecting any anarchy aside from that order through biker gangs apparently going on in my nations.

Your return at this moment also utterly terrifies me, but I won't jump the gun.

I'm sorry to hear that you're bothered by my return. Maybe it would help to know that I've been watching the WA for a while and keeping quiet because I'm busy finishing the last term of my second degree. I don't have time to really do much in the way of activity beyond watching and voting, but this has been a pleasant diversion from some very boring homework, and I thank you for it.

Edited for typo.

[Wrapper]

The fact that the Auralian delegation is misrepresenting itself as a WA group is reprehensible. One must wonder how many voters see the official-looking flag and "WA Charter Working Group" authorship and are voting on that basis.

(OOC: Still have trouble understanding how the "WA Charter Working Group" authorship was ruled legal.)

[Wrapper]

Or NOT.

@ Pio City: Yes. The rules are based on the game, and a proposal -- or a Resolution -- can't change the game.

@ Elke and Elba: Osiris is a region, of which Osiris WA Office is a member. The logic of that ruling stands. It is advertising their region.

The rule says,

This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.

On "Charter Working Group": it was my understanding that, earlier in the thread, it had been established that the "group" was, indeed, Auralia alone. However, the pre-title (The Collaborative Initiative of) and the operative name (World Assembly Charter Working Group) both proclaim that it is a group, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should have ruled on that basis. (Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

*** The ruling is hereby RESCINDED. ***

I will post in the thread that the proposal is illegal.

In the case of an illegal proposal becoming a legal Resolution, the matter could be simply dealt with by a speedy repeal.

However, as this is a Repeal, it would remove a Resolution that is already legal. I will ask my colleagues for permission to use the "Disallow" mechanism.

If it's refused, I guess I have some TGing ahead of me.

[Separatist Peoples]

"It appears that we have the opportunity to organize a better counter-campaign."

[Eireann Fae]

Alex lets out a rather loud cheer before turning around and lifting her skirt to flash her purple silk panties at ex-Ambassador Russell. "For someone with such a holier-than-thou attitude, you sure do love breakin' the rules, man! I already knew this repeal was bullshit by its bullshit arguments and your bullshit campaign letter. Very few voters apparently caught the whiff in the text and purpose of the repeal, but I'm glad the Secretariat caught the scent of that bullshit shell nation you put up to get this submitted. Celebratin' good times, come on!" With that, the teen sets about breaking up some of her ſinzœ^† for a blunt.

^† The Fae word for 'smelly'. The full name of her home-grown marijuana is ʂœnöſœn-Inſinzœ, "Aromatic Dreams".

[Chester Pearson]

On "Charter Working Group": it was my understanding that, earlier in the thread, it had been established that the "group" was, indeed, Auralia alone. However, the pre-title (The Collaborative Initiative of) and the operative name (World Assembly Charter Working Group) both proclaim that it is a group, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should have ruled on that basis. (Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

*** The ruling is hereby RESCINDED. ***

I will post in the thread that the proposal is illegal.

In the case of an illegal proposal becoming a legal Resolution, the matter could be simply dealt with by a speedy repeal.

However, as this is a Repeal, it would remove a Resolution that is already legal. I will ask my colleagues for permission to use the "Disallow" mechanism.

If it's refused, I guess I have some TGing ahead of me.

OOC: Really? This is the excuse that is going to be used to throw out the only successful repeal of #2? Seems pretty shitty if you ask me. I am wholly opposed to any repeal of #2 myself, but that is another matter. The real question here, is why this is happening now? Would this ruling have been made if the repeal was failing? Somehow I think not....

[Rotwood]

<snip due to being lengthy>

1. OOC: I could be wrong about this, but I think opinions aren't exactly allowed in repeals, or at least frowned upon. Especially so in this instance given that there could have been a better phrase used than "morally repugnant" which comes across as overtly opinionated.

2. Its just reiteration of the rules, simple as that.

3. That does not come across in the argument posed in the repeal. In that particular article it comes off as criticsing the fact that war is alowed

4a. That does not really make it just. A good example here would be the SC liberation of Nazi Europe, which could very much be seen as unjust (they weren't raiding or anything, it was just based on ideology), yet that was still passed.

4b. Yet there are still ones that have passed, and have not been pulled from/ruled illegal during the drafting process.

5. If it is requested by the those being targeted, then there should be intervention. If it is not requested, then no. That's not to mention in your scenario it would already be covered by GAR #38

6. Non-compliance is already against the rules. We were just pointing out the irony of the situation.

7. Wow, we agree on something. Here, have a beer, or alcoholic beverage of your choice.

8a. Agreed, and many have already passed or are in drafting. To us, GAR #2 just reiterates the rules, but allows conduct to be defined after.

8b. It's more pointing out the motives and actions of the author.

9. It isn't worry about chaos, its because of a pointless repeal.

OOC Sidenote: I understand your view on the whole IC thing. In the case of GAR #2, I just feel an exception should be made because it is only a reiteration of the rules. If it went beyond that, then fair enough, but as it stands I have no problem with it

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC Sidenote: I understand your view on the whole IC thing. In the case of GAR #2, I just feel an exception should be made because it is only a reiteration of the rules. If it went beyond that, then fair enough, but as it stands I have no problem with it

OOC: I guess it comes down to this, then. Most opposed to the repeal regard #2 as somehow special. If it's truly going to be special, then it should not be allowed to be repealed, as is the case for #1. Frisbeeteria is a senior game mod, and would certainly be able to make such a ruling.

But in the absence of such a ruling, there is no reason why it should be treated any differently than any other resolution.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC Sidenote: I understand your view on the whole IC thing. In the case of GAR #2, I just feel an exception should be made because it is only a reiteration of the rules. If it went beyond that, then fair enough, but as it stands I have no problem with it

OOC: I guess it comes down to this, then. Most opposed to the repeal regard #2 as somehow special. If it's truly going to be special, then it should not be allowed to be repealed, as is the case for #1. Frisbeeteria is a senior game mod, and would certainly be able to make such a ruling.

But in the absence of such a ruling, there is no reason why it should be treated any differently than any other resolution.

Sure, I'd love a repeal of GAR#2 for the replacement with resolutions that can be individually repealed rather than have mass collateral damage.

But with an argument this weak, no thank you.