[OOC] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Gruenberg]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the existence of the Declaration on Bear Bile,

Believing that nuclear weapons are morally unjustifiable given their indiscriminate nature, and also somehow linking this to bear bile,

Aware that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act prevents the World Assembly from banning nuclear weapons:

Repeals "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the existence of the Security Council,

Believing that nuclear weapons are morally unjustifiable given their indiscriminate nature,

Aware that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act prevents the World Assembly from banning nuclear weapons:

Repeals "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

This is an OOC repeal draft, any IC comment will be ignored.

[Umeria]

This is an OOC repeal draft, any IC comment will be ignored.

So, we don't have to mark our posts OOC here, right?

Anyway, I'll support this if there is replacement legislation that bans, or at least highly restricts, nuclear weapons.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is an OOC repeal draft, any IC comment will be ignored.

So, we don't have to mark our posts OOC here, right?

Anyway, I'll support this if there is replacement legislation that bans, or at least highly restricts, nuclear weapons.

That is exactly what NAPA is trying to prevent, and exactly why nobody ever managed to repeal it.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Why do you believe this will succeed when numerous attempts have failed?

[Gruenberg]

I don't. The main reason it won't pass is that I have no intention of submitting it. It is my hope it will be ruled to be illegal by the new "GA Secretariat".

[World Dissembly]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the existence of the Security Council,

Believing that nuclear weapons are morally unjustifiable given their indiscriminate nature,

Aware that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act prevents the World Assembly from banning nuclear weapons:

Repeals "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

This is an OOC repeal draft, any IC comment will be ignored.

I want to see this posted ASAP if only to get the bunch of %$^&^%$less $%^&%^%^ers¹ scrambling to acion on their very first day on the job.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Yeah, make those bastards hit the ground running! That'll show 'em what we think of...

Oh. Uh, right. Lemme get back to ya on that.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't. The main reason it won't pass is that I have no intention of submitting it. It is my hope it will be ruled to be illegal by the new "GA Secretariat".

Why would it be ruled illegal?

[Gruenberg]

Yeah, make those bastards hit the ground running! That'll show 'em what we think of...

Oh. Uh, right. Lemme get back to ya on that.

Don't worry, there's no hurry or anything: I imagine it may take some time for you to get set up. This is just something I hope to bring up if the opportunity should present itself down the line, as was indicated could be the case.

[World Dissembly]

I think I will add to the legality question that Gruen is asking (i.e. Does the GA acknowledge the existence and function of the Security Council?) by asking a follow up question.

Can the GA legally pass a resolution banning member nations from banding together and voting to condemn or commend the actions of other nations? (We'll put it in as a throwaway line in a proposal on Political Stability, Global Disarmament or whatever)

[The BlAAtschApen]

I think I will add to the legality question that Gruen is asking (i.e. Does the GA acknowledge the existence and function of the Security Council?) by asking a follow up question.

Can the GA legally pass a resolution banning member nations from banding together and voting to condemn or commend the actions of other nations? (We'll put it in as a throwaway line in a proposal on Political Stability, Global Disarmament or whatever)

Edit: I'm not a legality expert.

Wouldn't that be running afoul of the Mechanics rule?

[World Dissembly]

I think I will add to the legality question that Gruen is asking (i.e. Does the GA acknowledge the existence and function of the Security Council?) by asking a follow up question.

Can the GA legally pass a resolution banning member nations from banding together and voting to condemn or commend the actions of other nations? (We'll put it in as a throwaway line in a proposal on Political Stability, Global Disarmament or whatever)

Edit: I'm not a legality expert.

Wouldn't that be running afoul of the Mechanics rule?

Possibly. But then so should proposals on topics that have issues about them--where you can choose the exact opposite of what GA Resolutions tell you you must do.

[Excidium Planetis]

I think I will add to the legality question that Gruen is asking (i.e. Does the GA acknowledge the existence and function of the Security Council?) by asking a follow up question.

Can the GA legally pass a resolution banning member nations from banding together and voting to condemn or commend the actions of other nations? (We'll put it in as a throwaway line in a proposal on Political Stability, Global Disarmament or whatever)

Edit: I'm not a legality expert.

Wouldn't that be running afoul of the Mechanics rule?

No. In my opinion, nothing runs afoul of the game mechanics unless it mandates an actual change to the game mechanics (for example, "All Delegates get only one vote").

Of course, I am of the opinion that if something can be interpreted as legal, it is legal.

And, on top of that, contradiction of GA #2 would still be an issue.

[Sciongrad]

Edit: I'm not a legality expert.

Wouldn't that be running afoul of the Mechanics rule?

No. In my opinion, nothing runs afoul of the game mechanics unless it mandates an actual change to the game mechanics (for example, "All Delegates get only one vote").

I actually disagree. There is currently no mechanism in the game that can compel players to vote a certain way. Passing a resolution that seeks to require voters to vote a certain way both 1. demands a code change to create a mechanism that would force players to vote a certain way or 2. constitutes a metagaming violation, because in my opinion, the Security Council's operations necessarily recognize certain aspects of the game in a way that the GA cannot without breaking the fourth wall. The GA currently cannot recognize players or regions in resolutions, but by allowing the GA to comment on SC resolutions, the GA must necessarily recognize them. This is incompatible with our metagaming rule, in my opinion.

[Excidium Planetis]

No. In my opinion, nothing runs afoul of the game mechanics unless it mandates an actual change to the game mechanics (for example, "All Delegates get only one vote").

I actually disagree. There is currently no mechanism in the game that can compel players to vote a certain way. Passing a resolution that seeks to require voters to vote a certain way both 1. demands a code change to create a mechanism that would force players to vote a certain way or 2. constitutes a metagaming violation, because in my opinion, the Security Council's operations necessarily recognize certain aspects of the game in a way that the GA cannot without breaking the fourth wall. The GA currently cannot recognize players or regions in resolutions, but by allowing the GA to comment on SC resolutions, the GA must necessarily recognize them. This is incompatible with our metagaming rule, in my opinion.

I agree, actually.

I misread World Dissembly's post.

What I thought we were talking about was a GA Resolution commending or condemning something. That would not run afoul of either Metagaming (because the SC is not involved) or Game Mechanics (because no change to the system is required). It would, however, run afoul of Contradiction (GA#2 prohibits condemnations) and Branding (unless you worded it so that no specific player was mentioned).

[States of Glory WA Office]

I don't. The main reason it won't pass is that I have no intention of submitting it. It is my hope it will be ruled to be illegal by the new "GA Secretariat".

1) On what basis will this be ruled illegal?

2) Why do you want this to be ruled illegal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't. The main reason it won't pass is that I have no intention of submitting it. It is my hope it will be ruled to be illegal by the new "GA Secretariat".

1) On what basis will this be ruled illegal?

2) Why do you want this to be ruled illegal?

The Acknowledging clause. He wants the SC not to be mentionable in GA resolutions. Seems to me the wrong hill to die on.

[States of Glory WA Office]

1) On what basis will this be ruled illegal?

2) Why do you want this to be ruled illegal?

The Acknowledging clause. He wants the SC not to be mentionable in GA resolutions. Seems to me the wrong hill to die on.

Wait, I thought that Gruen did want the SC to be mentionable in GA resolutions. Am I missing something?

[Tinfect]

The Acknowledging clause. He wants the SC not to be mentionable in GA resolutions. Seems to me the wrong hill to die on.

Wait, I thought that Gruen did want the SC to be mentionable in GA resolutions. Am I missing something?

OOC:
Hold on a second, since when has it not been metagaming to mention the Security Council in any IC context whatsoever?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Wait, I thought that Gruen did want the SC to be mentionable in GA resolutions. Am I missing something?

OOC:
Hold on a second, since when has it not been metagaming to mention the Security Council in any IC context whatsoever?

OOC: I think that Gruen, at one point, attempted to create a committee called the 'Security Council'. The Mods ruled it illegal, but Gruen maintains that as the SC is not recognised by the GA, creating a committee with the same name should be allowed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Wait, I thought that Gruen did want the SC to be mentionable in GA resolutions. Am I missing something?

OOC: Hold on a second, since when has it not been metagaming to mention the Security Council in any IC context whatsoever?

Something Sedge posted a bit ago.

[World Dissembly]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the existence of the Security Council,

Believing that nuclear weapons are morally unjustifiable given their indiscriminate nature,

Condemning the use of nuclear weapons in warfare <addition mine>

Aware that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act prevents the World Assembly from banning nuclear weapons:

Repeals "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

This is an OOC repeal draft, any IC comment will be ignored.

Can that sort of condemnation be done, or would it run afoul of "no legislating in a repeal"?

[Tzorsland]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the existence of the Security Council,

Believing that nuclear weapons are morally unjustifiable given their indiscriminate nature,

Aware that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act prevents the World Assembly from banning nuclear weapons:

Repeals "Nuclear Arms Possession Act".

This is an OOC repeal draft, any IC comment will be ignored.

Nice, short, simple, much like WA #10.
I like it.
I can really see the votes for this repeal.
I would say go for it.
Worst thing that can happen is that it passes and a plethora of people work overtime to rush in their replacements to the queue.
(Worst because I hate to give people work on such relatively short notice. )

[Gruenberg]

I have revised this draft with a new version. This is an OOC thread and anyone responding IC will be ignored.

[Tinhampton]

Will the hyperlink to the Declaration on Bear Bile be present in the submitted version? Otherwise, support