[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] National Control of Elections

[Bananaistan]

GenSec 1: Sees a proposal in the submission list, notices a possible rules violation
GenSec 1: "Hey guys, we should review this. This clause might violate this rule."
GenSec 2 (5 minutes later): "After reading, I agree. It does violate that rule."
GenSec 3: "I see the point and I agree."
GenSec 4: "Sorry, I don't ageee."
GenSec 5: "I'm with 4 on this, I don't agree."
GenSec 6: "I actually agree it's illegal."

Can anybody explain why GenSec 1 needs to recuse? What conflict of interest is there, compared to GenSec 2? Why is being the first to notice so bad? What happens if GenSec 2 notices first? All else being equal, suddenly GenSec 1 is free of any conflicts? Does that mean this is all based on animosity towards GenSec, versus a rational and logical theory of conflicts of interests?

What kind of incentives does this create? Why should GenSec members *ever* pay attention to the queue, if they're going to be forced to recuse themselves if they're the first to say something? Is this a perverse incentive that will harm the community, but you're demanding it because it *sounds* right?

Perhaps the following hypothetical conversation would work better:
GenSec 1: "Hey guys, we should review this. This clause might violate this rule. I'll start a legality challenge thread so that everyone can discuss this and we can hold off on making a prejudiced decision before we've seen the arguments and discussed it with the author, other players and amongst ourselves."

IA, Gruen, Banana & co., who are so quick to go with "Omg! Conspiracy! Power grab!" - if you were on the council, is that what you would be doing? If so, shame on you. If not, why assume that some of the most level-headed players that this forum has seen in the last few years suddenly become evil overlord wannabes, or that the mods, admins and Max would let that happen?

I mean, seriously, why did this forum suddenly become the Paranoia Paradise for Parasitical Parodies or whatever it should now be called?

Grow up, people, and try out some empathy. Our species (yes, the OOC one we all belong to) got to where it now is because of our capability of putting ourselves in the other person's position and trying to see their point of view. It's really embarrassing to watch this farce unfold.

EDIT: Someone please let me know when some sense has returned to any council-related discussion, I'll try to stick to proposal threads and the Strangers' Bar.

Or perhaps you could put yourself in my shoes just for a minute.

I am being asked to argue the case for a proposal where at least two councillors have already decided that it is illegal. Do you not see any issue with this at all?

The other objections which I had related to how and when the council advise an author of a council initiated review. The council themselves have stated that this is something they need to sort out! That they haven't formalised this procedure just yet does not mean that I think that they have suddenly become evil overlords!

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's frankly absurd to say the first person who notices a possible legality is prejudiced. I've asked this question several times on discord, and still there and here nobody is able to actually answer those questions.

Our job is make sure illegal proposals do not reach the floor. There is no prejudice when we are simply doing our jobs. It seems you guys are simply viewing GenSec as a biased enemy.

[Bananaistan]

I've also been yammering on about not knowing how many of you had already made your decision and nobody has replied. Can you not see the point I'm making? Perhaps you could answer this prior to calling people absurd:

GenSec 1: Sees a proposal in the submission list, notices a possible rules violation
GenSec 1: "Hey guys, we should review this. This clause might violate this rule."
GenSec 2 (5 minutes later): "After reading, I agree. It does violate that rule."
GenSec 3: "I see the point and I agree."
GenSec 4: "Sorry, I don't ageee."
GenSec 5: "I'm with 4 on this, I don't agree."
GenSec 6: "I actually agree it's illegal."

Can anybody explain why GenSec 1 needs to recuse? What conflict of interest is there, compared to GenSec 2? Why is being the first to notice so bad? What happens if GenSec 2 notices first? All else being equal, suddenly GenSec 1 is free of any conflicts? Does that mean this is all based on animosity towards GenSec, versus a rational and logical theory of conflicts of interests?

What kind of incentives does this create? Why should GenSec members *ever* pay attention to the queue, if they're going to be forced to recuse themselves if they're the first to say something? Is this a perverse incentive that will harm the community, but you're demanding it because it *sounds* right?

Perhaps the following hypothetical conversation would work better:
GenSec 1: "Hey guys, we should review this. This clause might violate this rule. I'll start a legality challenge thread so that everyone can discuss this and we can hold off on making a prejudiced decision before we've seen the arguments and discussed it with the author, other players and amongst ourselves."

And, you know, making up your mind before hearing the arguments is almost the textbook definition of prejudice. In your hypothetical council conversation, why can't there be a "let's have a discussion on this before we make up our minds" and instead of "5 minutes later" have "a few days later and after considered discussion and deliberation"?

Edit: And the first person to notice a possible legality challenge is not necessarily prejudiced. However, anyone who doesn't allow full due process to take its course, who doesn't allow a full consideration of all relevant factors and the opinions of interested parties and their fellow council members and makes their decision before commencing deliberations, is prejudiced. In this particular case we are told at the outset of this thread that at least two councillors believe that this proposal is illegal. There is a world of difference between "I believe this proposal is illegal" and "I believe that this proposal might be illegal but I want to discuss it and hear what everyone has to say before I make my decision". That's what I am yammering on about here. At least two council members made up their minds before listening to what I and others had to say. And that's why I am saying that I have not got a fair hearing.

[Excidium Planetis]

It's frankly absurd to say the first person who notices a possible legality is prejudiced. I've asked this question several times on discord, and still there and here nobody is able to actually answer those questions.

You are right. It is absurd. And not a single person has suggested that the first person to notice a possible legality violation should recuse themselves.

Our job is make sure illegal proposals do not reach the floor. There is no prejudice when we are simply doing our jobs. It seems you guys are simply viewing GenSec as a biased enemy.

Oh, stop with the victim mentality.

[Bananaistan]

So if the wording of the rule is useless, all we have to go on is precedent and given moderators previously signed off on an incredibly similar version of the language in this proposal, claiming it's illegal under this rule really doesn't add up.

This needs to be emphasised.

The original version of this proposal was taken down on Wednesday 22 April 2015 which included almost word for word the same clause as is now causing issues. Subsequently the moderators ruled on Monday 27 April 2015 that it had been incorrectly removed. Given the circumstances of the removal, I am sure that in the five intervening days they gave due consideration to every aspect of the proposal so that might subsequently justify the decision to remove. They did not then decide that this broke the blocker rule. They also made significant contributions to that thread such as that linked to by Gruen and not once did anyone point out any issues with the blocker rule.

The clause in question has already been effectively declared legal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

@EP: Yes, you guys are. When Gruen thought I was the first, he demanded I recuse myself.

The fact is that the first GenSecer to notice is going to be the first to bring it up. There is no conflict and no prejudice in that. There is no reason to recuse.

Your own scenario is even more absurd, EP. If I notice it, but then get Bears to be the one to post publicly that it's being challenged, how on earth does it make sense in this logic that Bears must recuse for prejudice but I don't have to?

These demands are illogical. They have no bearing in any actual rational theory of conflicts of interests. You're simply viewing a challenge as some form of punishment from authority on high, and thus treating the whole process as a trial. It's not. GenSec is doing its job.

[Wallenburg]

I don't mean to be hostile, but when the hell are we actually going to discuss the proposal instead of GenSec recusations? We have only 23 hours before this goes to vote, and if memory serves me correctly, this challenge was filed specifically to avoid the possibility of a discard.

[Sciongrad]

I don't mean to be hostile, but when the hell are we actually going to discuss the proposal instead of GenSec recusations? We have only 23 hours before this goes to vote, and if memory serves me correctly, this challenge was filed specifically to avoid the possibility of a discard.

I agree. If you have suggestions for recusal guidelines, take it to the public SecGen thread. Clogging this thread up with demands for recusal isn't helpful, guys!

[Wallenburg]

Looking at this proposal, I agree that its operative clauses run afoul of the blocker rule. The first clause is clearly a blocker, and the second is entirely optional, thereby failing to rescue the proposal from a blocker-only status.

I told you that you should have mandated tea at polling places, Banana.

[Bananaistan]

Looking at this proposal, I agree that its operative clauses run afoul of the blocker rule. The first clause is clearly a blocker, and the second is entirely optional, thereby failing to rescue the proposal from a blocker-only status.

Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed. However, for 'Mild' strength proposals, terminology such as "URGES", "RECOMMENDS" is acceptable.

[Wallenburg]

Looking at this proposal, I agree that its operative clauses run afoul of the blocker rule. The first clause is clearly a blocker, and the second is entirely optional, thereby failing to rescue the proposal from a blocker-only status.

Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed. However, for 'Mild' strength proposals, terminology such as "URGES", "RECOMMENDS" is acceptable.

Alright, then. By the current ruleset, this is legal. However, "urges" and "recommends" are absolutely optional, and they shouldn't be considered anything other than that by the rules.

[Bananaistan]

Alright, then. By the current ruleset, this is legal. However, "urges" and "recommends" are absolutely optional, and they shouldn't be considered anything other than that by the rules.

Not just by the current ruleset but for the last 11 years or so, IIRC.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It's been asserted that only two of the eleven Furtherment of Democracy resolutions currently on the books would be illegal were they submitted after National Control of Elections ("NCoE") becomes law. It's possible, though, that many of these eleven only fall in this category for the most tangential of reasons. Indeed, I'm hard-pressed to articulate how the Diplomat Protection Act counts as any increase of political freedoms, let alone a Significant one. At least two of these could (and, some would argue should) be Human Rights instead (Ban on Forced Disappearances, Military Freedom Act). If the category were blocked, they could be submitted under HR, but that doesn't magically render the putative FoD blockade legal.

How would supporters of NCoE counter the charge that the "NCoE wouldn't have blocked all these resolutions" argument rings hollow since a good half, and maybe more, of them shouldn't have passed under that category in the first place?

[Imperium Anglorum]

IA, Gruen, Banana & co., who are so quick to go with "Omg! Conspiracy! Power grab!" - if you were on the council, is that what you would be doing?

Refer here.

[Gruenberg]

Not just by the current ruleset but for the last 11 years or so, IIRC.

Yep. You can see in this thread from 2005, PC specifically brings up this point,.

It's been asserted that only two of the eleven Furtherment of Democracy resolutions currently on the books would be illegal were they submitted after National Control of Elections ("NCoE") becomes law. It's possible, though, that many of these eleven only fall in this category for the most tangential of reasons. Indeed, I'm hard-pressed to articulate how the Diplomat Protection Act counts as any increase of political freedoms, let alone a Significant one. At least two of these could (and, some would argue should) be Human Rights instead (Ban on Forced Disappearances, Military Freedom Act). If the category were blocked, they could be submitted under HR, but that doesn't magically render the putative FoD blockade legal.

How would supporters of NCoE counter the charge that the "NCoE wouldn't have blocked all these resolutions" argument rings hollow since a good half, and maybe more, of them shouldn't have passed under that category in the first place?

I don't think it matters. Because of the Ideological Ban rule, it must be the case that the Furtherment of Democracy category is to be used for things other than just legislating elections, because it has Significant and Strong strengths, and a resolution mandating elections wouldn't be able to be passed anyway. So what those particular things are isn't important. You could also argue that some resolutions passed under Human Rights, such as No Penalty Without Law or Rule Of Law, more properly belong in FoD because they don't seem so concerned with liberalizing social freedoms as with regulating the conduct of governments.

If you do go the route of deciding to post facto declare them all awfully convenient category violations, I do hope your ruling will contain a full explanation of how the category should be used in future.

[Bananaistan]

Yes, what Gruen said there. We can't be expected to now justify the category of resolutions passed over the last eight years (or more if you go back to the "furtherment of democracy" resolutions in the historical resolutions archive). SL has mentioned three particular resolutions. It could be said that the existence of these resolutions in the category is evidence that the category is very broad, and has over thirteen years been used to deal with topics completely unrelated to elections, which means that this proposal blocks even less of it than you might think at first glance.

[Excidium Planetis]

I It's possible, though, that many of these eleven only fall in this category for the most tangential of reasons.

Indeed. Tinfect argued that the FoD category should be abolished, with many of its resolutions fitting into other categories. I don't agree with him that it needs to go, but I do agree that many of the FoD resolutions are not exactly very fitting examples of their categories.

That isn't necessarily an agreement that National Control of Elections is a blocker violation, merely that the FoD category has some strange resolution choices.

[Bananaistan]

I also note that it was said offsite that it is an option for the responsibility for legality rulings to be handed back to the moderators while the kinks are ironed out of the entire council project. I respectfully suggest given the timeline now involved, the issues that have arisen in relation to operation of the council over the past few days, and the fact that the council is still only an advisory body, that this should now be handed on to the moderators, whom I would remind that they already ruled this legal in the thread relating to the wrongly removed non-interference in elections.

As far as I am aware, no one has submitted a GHR against NCoE under the old system, so I assume that if the council don't rule in this case or if the moderators, in line with their own precedent, don't see an issue, the proposal will merely hit the vote tomorrow.

As it stands, I simply won't have any time to further debate this between the next hour or so and the end of voting on Repeal "Quarantine Regulation". I won't say that I had a great weekend spending half my time on here debating a last minute challenge against a proposal I had drafted on the forums for months, and a clause that has existed in a materially unchanged form for a period of exactly two years tomorrow. This is the third time now that I have been involved in this sort of thing, and while I understand that this is something that the council has been set up to change in future, I sincerely hope that these council initiated reviews will be kept to an absolute minimum and that council members will be on hand to advise authors of such issues long before submission.

[Separatist Peoples]

I sincerely hope that these council initiated reviews will be kept to an absolute minimum and that council members will be on hand to advise authors of such issues long before submission.

I, for one, am trying to make sure that is the case.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I sincerely hope that these council initiated reviews will be kept to an absolute minimum and that council members will be on hand to advise authors of such issues long before submission.

I, for one, am trying to make sure that is the case.

This is 100% dependent on GA regulars being there to help us out!

It also behooves authors to avoid submitting a proposal when somebody have raised a possible issue with legality. It's not fun, nor is it conducive to good results, to have such a short time to deliver possibly precedent-setting opinions.

[Separatist Peoples]

I, for one, am trying to make sure that is the case.

This is 100% dependent on GA regulars being there to help us out!

It also behooves authors to avoid submitting a proposal when somebody have raised a possible issue with legality. It's not fun, nor is it conducive to good results, to have such a short time to deliver possibly precedent-setting opinions.

I wasn't trying to throw a reproachful glare your way, just trying to be generally supportive. It's never fun being the test subject.

[Bananaistan]

I, for one, am trying to make sure that is the case.

This is 100% dependent on GA regulars being there to help us out!

It also behooves authors to avoid submitting a proposal when somebody have raised a possible issue with legality. It's not fun, nor is it conducive to good results, to have such a short time to deliver possibly precedent-setting opinions.

That's a fine theoretical position that does not apply in this case when the proposal was on the forums for 3 months and nobody raised the issue. The particular clause has been on the forums for two years and nobody raised the issue in two years.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In fact, legality concerned were raised in August, about an unrelated issue. You also said you would request a review yourself before submission, didn't you? When in doubt, that's probably the best thing to do.

[Bananaistan]

In fact, legality concerned were raised in August, about an unrelated issue. You also said you would request a review yourself before submission, didn't you? When in doubt, that's probably the best thing to do.

I'd like to see a link to where anyone other than CD in January 2015 raised any issue as regards the blocker rule and this clause before last Friday. And given that CD subsequently did not raise a legality challenge I can only assume that he was, at that time and since, satisfied that my explanation was sufficient and there was no legality issue.

My own ramblings on legality issues in the current thread had nothing to do with the blocker rule and the clause that you now have "concerns" about.

At different stages over the last two years, several moderators and several current council members posted in the three debate threads. Aside from that one instance of CD in January 2015, nobody has raised any possible violation of the blocker rule. So in two full years of drafting, there was one query in this respect and that query appeared to have been adequately dealt with at the time.

You are implying that I rushed this proposal to submission knowing full well that there were legality concerns. I utterly reject that. In fact I'm livid at the accusation. If you're going to point the finger at anyone, point it at yourself and your fellow councillors who made no comment on this current alleged illegality despite posting many times in that thread in the last three months and who have now completely bollixed up this legality challenge. Aside from this three month period since I restarted the proposal, you also all missed the clear declaration I made yesterday week ago that the proposal was finished. You had five clear days there before submission where you were all active on the forums and could have raised this issue before submission. You could also reflect on how since this thread was created, aside from Sierra Lyricalia's asinine request of me to justify the category selection of resolutions passed over eight years ago, not one of you has debated any of the issues in this thread relating to the rule and the alleged illegality. You could also share some of this blame with the moderators who left you off half cocked with no idea of what you are doing or how you are supposed to do it, and now seem to have completely washed their hands of the GA.

[Separatist Peoples]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: National Control of Elections
Date of Decision: 7 November 2016
Decision: Proposal is legal, 5-2
Rules Applied: Blocker Rule

The GenSec voted 5-2 to allow this proposal to go to vote.

Bears Armed, Sierra Lyricalia, the Mods, and Separatist Peoples joined Sciongrad, who voted it was legal and wrote the opinion:

The question before us now is whether a proposal, by foreclosing future World Assembly action on elections, is a violation of the blocker rule. In order to answer this question, we must first review the wording of the blocker rule.

Historically, the blocker rule has permitted resolutions to foreclose particular issues (e.g., nuclear weapons disarmament) - the only additional criteria were that 1. the proposal provided for some additional action besides simply blocking, 2. the proposal could not be repeal-proof, and 3. the proposal could not foreclose legislation on an entire category. Under that reading of the rule, this proposal is quite clearly legal because, as appellee rightly noted, this legislation would only block two out of the 11 extant resolutions in the Furtherment of Democracy category.

However, following the GA Rules Consortium, the revised blocker rule declares that"[p]roposals cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit legislation on broad and specific issues." This change means that we cannot base the legality of appellee's proposal based strictly on the previous rule. The new criteria, which prohibits blockers on "broad and specific issues," ostensibly appears as if it would, indeed, render this proposal illegal. However, it also appears as if it would render almost any proposal illegal, as every resolution must necessarily foreclose future legislation on "broad and specific issues," as a result of the contradiction and duplication rule. It would be nonsensical, therefore, to declare appellee's proposal illegal simply because it violates the almost absurdly ill-considered prohibition on foreclosing "broad and specific issues." Such an interpretation of the rule would be excessively restrictive. "Broad and specific issues," interpreted literally, is a meaningless and nonsensical phrase. Additionally, interpreting the clause literally would make it internally inconsistent, as it cannot simultaneously prohibit legislation on basically any topic while also declaring that "'[b]lockers' themselves are not illegal." The rule, then, should be interpreted as banning legislation on specific issues when it forecloses "broad" categories of legislation. The only reliable test for "broadness" that does not rely on the normative considerations of council members would be whether or not the proposal blocks off an entire category, which, as has been proven previously, it does not.

As the proposal 1. provides for action in addition to blocking, 2. is not repeal-proof, and 3. does not foreclose all possible legislation in the Furtherment of Democracy category, we hold that the proposal is consistent with the blocker rule.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote a concurrence with Sciongrad:

I join the Majority opinion as to all parts except how to test "broadness" in determining what constitutes an illegal blocker (the two sentences beginning "The only reliable test").

I.

If as Majority claims the entire category must be blocked in order to render a proposal illegally broad, then virtually nothing could ever be an illegal blocker. There's often room for some outlandish, left-field sidestep. Take an International Security blocker: a provision mandates that all weapons research, manufacturing, procurement, deployment, and usage decisions must revert to member nations. It's still possible later for the WA to require (say) 2,000 hours of weapons safety training for police and military personnel - artfully dodging the IS blockade. The blocker rule cannot possibly be intended to allow this, so we cannot expect to require the entire category to be blocked in order to declare an illegal blocker. There must be some other standard at work.

Minority's second stated standard (the one apparently used), that a legal proposal may "only... block[] a non-significant portion of a category" is not terribly helpful. A "non-significant portion" may be as large as 49% or as small as you please, and gives the Secretariat too much leeway to declare even a small blockade "significant," or a large one inconsequential. Between "significance" and the equally unworkable "entire category" standard there only remains a majority standard.

Differing from Minority's first stated standard ("nearly impossible to utilize a category") only by semantics, this easily lets us determine whether or not most of the category is blocked, both by appeal to extant law and by imagining possible future topics. By that standard NCoE is legal, as Section II shows.

II.

The category "Furtherment of Democracy" seems straightforwardly focused on elections. The essence of democracy, its sine qua non, is voting; and by far the bulk of official voting takes place for representative elections. Therefore voting must be synonymous with elections; and by extension the "furtherment" of democracy must hold elections to be its primary or even sole focus.

But the record, both IRL and IC, belies this simplistic view. Referenda, plebiscites, and ballot initiatives are things for which one votes, but do not count as "elections" as the voter is not then voting to elect someone to office. Nations that use direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy, vote quite often without ever once holding an election. So in this respect even the rights of voters, narrowly construed, may remain open to World Assembly regulation, as long as WA law on those rights doesn't affect elections per se.

If that's too fine a distinction, though, there is far more to a successful democracy than mere voting. As any formerly marginalized group, ex-fringe party, or successful minority activist can tell you, voting may well be the least important step in exercising a citizen's political power. Petitioning members of the government, protesting in the streets, writing letters and editorials to news organizations, and submitting draft bills to the legislature are all essential techniques of drawing public attention to national issues. Furthering democracy is a fool's errand if one doesn't take these activities into account. All of them are important to the successful exercise of political rights by the people, some of them have already been the subject of FoD resolutions, and none of them are blocked from WA action by the proposal at hand.

The category "Furtherment of Democracy" encompasses election laws, it is true. But as with Minority's example of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act, elections "are not the entirety, or nearly the entirety, of what the [Furtherment of Democracy] category is about."1 It is far broader than that, and to assume that barring action on election laws bars all or even most avenues of furthering democracy is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of political power.

Given the vastity of the universe of FoD resolutions, statistical analysis is unnecessary here. But even if we performed it, only two of the eleven extant FoD resolutions would be blocked; and other relevant subjects remain untouched. I therefore hold the proposed resolution "National Control of Elections" not to be in violation of the blocker rule, and legal as drafted.


1It is worth noting here that one could use Minority's "significance" standard to reach either conclusion: Minority intended the preceding quote to contrast NAPA with NCoE; but obviously I think they're roughly equivalent. Therefore the standard fails. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to require the blockade of a litany (if not a mathematical count) of more than half the category's possible subject matter in order to uphold a blocker rule challenge.

Glen-Rhodes, joined by Christian Democrats, dissents:

I must respectfully dissent with my colleagues on this opinion. I believe National Control of Elections would foreclose an incredibly significant portion of possible future proposals in the Furtherment of Democracy category, and should therefor be considered an illegal Blocker.

First, let's consider what the proposal seeks to do. Very plainly, it seeks to place the entirety of law-making (or law-repealing) of anything in relation to elections, into the sole jurisdiction of member states. There is a minor urging clause requesting that member states ensure only "validly registered electors" are allowed to vote, if a member state chooses to hold elections. The broad language used in the proposal would prohibited the General Assembly from passing any future resolutions that not only create strong new pro-democracy mandates, but even mild proposals that merely inch towards more democracy. ("Guidelines" are, by definition, non-mandatory, meaning the proposal's language covers Mild "suggestion" resolutions.)

I would find this proposal to be an illegal blocker, because the above ropes off an incredibly significant portion of the Furtherment of Democracy category. The official GA Proposal Compendium guide describes the following types of policy questions touched on by the Furtherment of Democracy category: "Shall the WA require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue." While other issues also fall under that category -- consider the World Assembly General Fund -- it is clear that the bulk of the issues that can be addressed under Furtherment of Democracy pertain to matters of political representation. Given that elections are the defining feature of democracies, the Furtherment of Democracy category is effectively neutered by blocking it from housing election-related resolutions.

The test here is simple: Does a proposal make it nearly impossible to utilize a category, by preventing the General Assembly from passing resolutions on a significant number of issues natural to that category? If so, it is a blocker. When analyzing National Control of Elections, my answer to that question is "yes."

The exception to this rule is that proposals may block policy areas, as long as they do something else in addition. This is common for many "national sovereignty" proposals. However, the corollary here is that those proposals must only have the effect of blocking a non-significant portion of a category. The example provided in the official GA Proposal Compendium is the Nuclear Arms Possession Act ("NAPA"). NAPA does block the World Assembly from banning the possession of nuclear armaments. It is legal, however, because nuclear armament regulation is not the entirety, or nearly the entirety, of what the Global Disarmament category is about. It's but one relatively small part, and thus it does not run afoul the test above.

The interest the community has with the Blocker rule is ensuring that players can actually write proposals, here. The rule doesn't simply exist because there's a technical need for "saving" categories-- there is the Game Mechanics rule for that. It has a more serious purpose that I fear is lost in the Majority's reasoning. The GA community cannot exist without a wide variety of issues to debate about and to write laws about. Where will we stand if, in a genuine appeal to national sovereignty, 10, 15, 20, or more, of these proposals are written on broad issues (such as merely "elections" here)? How enjoyable will the community be when the Secretariat strikes down proposal after proposal in the queue, because we must point to two or three sentences of "National Control of This Broad Issue" and say, "Sorry, your proposal belongs under this expansive umbrella."

We must balance the purpose of the game -- to debate issues and write laws -- with the genuine desire for some issues to be beyond the General Assembly's international reach. While some authors may hold strong beliefs about sovereignty, the General Assembly is a game about writing international law, and that must be the broad goal of our rules. As such, we cannot foreclose the use of a category in its entirety. I would have decided here today to uphold that belief.

I respectfully dissent.

Christian Democrats wrote a short concurrence with Glen-Rhodes.

I join Glen-Rhodes’ dissenting opinion but write separately to emphasize three major faults of the totality test that Sciongrad advocates: “The only reliable test for ‘broadness’ . . . would be whether or not the proposal blocks off an entire category.”

First, the totality test misconstrues the Blocker Rule’s history. Under the old Blocker Rule, blocker proposals were illegal if they sought to “prohibit types of legislation.” GA moderators interpreted “types of legislation” to mean “categories.” Under the new Blocker Rule, blocker proposals are illegal if they seek to “prohibit legislation on broad and specific issues.” This change in the Rule’s wording strongly implies a change in the Rule’s meaning, and a change in the Rule’s meaning necessitates the formulation of a new test. By trying to apply to GA moderators’ old test for blockers to the new version of the Blocker Rule, Sciongrad would abdicate the responsibility of this Secretariat to give each rule a reasonable, historically-informed construction.

Second, the totality test misconstrues the Blocker Rule’s text. I agree with Sciongrad that the new Blocker Rule is very poorly worded, but I do not think it is “meaningless and nonsensical.” In my view, the best possible reading of the Blocker Rule is that a proposal is illegal if it attempts specifically to block legislation on a broad issue. Of course, it is debatable what “broad” means. I can say with complete confidence, however, that the word does not mean and has never meant “everything.” Glen-Rhodes’ view that “broad” means “significant number” is, on the contrary, wholly consistent with the word’s ordinary usage.

Third, the totality test misconstrues the Blocker Rule’s purpose. As Glen-Rhodes accurately puts it, the reason for having a Blocker Rule is “ensuring that [future] players can actually write proposals.” Under the totality test, it would be entirely permissible for a GA author to write a resolution that prevents legislation in 99% of a category. For example, one could write a resolution that bans all Human Rights proposals except for freedom of expression laws. The totality test is totally incompatible with the Blocker Rule’s raison d'être. The adoption of the totality test would be devastating to future GA authors.

I disagree with the decision to uphold National Control of Elections. This proposal would specifically prohibit international legislation on elections, and I believe electoral law is a broad issue. If this proposal had dealt, instead, with a discrete section of electoral law, such as campaign finance, the delimitation of electoral districts, or the choice of a voting system, I would have voted to uphold it. No test in today’s decision receives majority support (four votes), so the question of what “broad” means will have to be settled on another day. I respectfully dissent.