by Auralia » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:08 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:12 pm
Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".
Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?
Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:16 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:28 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:45 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Lastly, I don't think it's appropriate,m and perhaps might even be illegal outright, to talk about GenSec in a proposal, no matter how obliquely you word it.
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:50 pm
by Auralia » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:55 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:On its face, I would probably say that this repeal would be illegal under the Honest Mistakes rule. There is no mod or GenSec ruling stating that it is prima facie discrimination -- ie, no exception can be argued -- to have laws that treat domestic nationals different from foreign nationals. Your a-b-c is predicated upon that false characterization of GenSec's latest ruling.
Sciongrad wrote:The second, and more nuanced, question is whether "all inhabitants of member nations" refers to individuals outside of a member nation's territory. We believe it does. A plain reading of the language would seem to suggest that every single inhabitant of all member nations is guaranteed equal treatment by the governments of member nations, not that the governments of member nations must provide equal treatment solely to the inhabitants of their nation.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:And finally, you undermine the whole argument of your repeal -- and thus engage in Honest Mistakes -- by pointing out that everything you've described CoCR does isn't necessarily true, as the resolution has a pretty damn big exception built into it.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Lastly, I don't think it's appropriate,m and perhaps might even be illegal outright, to talk about GenSec in a proposal, no matter how obliquely you word it.
by Auralia » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:59 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Given our controlling precedent on metagaming is "is the thing being mentioned OOC?" and that GenSec is decidedly OOC, it seems like a clear cut case of metagaming. We are not a roleplaying body. We're an OOC rule-making body. Authors shouldn't be able to mention GenSec in proposals any more than they can mention the rules.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Auralia is quite literally saying "I don't trust members of GenSec to maintain a consistent opinion on what CoCR means, so we should repeal it."
by Bananaistan » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:06 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:10 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Given our controlling precedent on metagaming is "is the thing being mentioned OOC?" and that GenSec is decidedly OOC, it seems like a clear cut case of metagaming. We are not a roleplaying body. We're an OOC rule-making body. Authors shouldn't be able to mention GenSec in proposals any more than they can mention the rules.
Auralia is quite literally saying "I don't trust members of GenSec to maintain a consistent opinion on what CoCR means, so we should repeal it."
Recalling that the institution responsible for interpreting General Assembly resolutions has ruled
this clause of the resolution must be interpreted so as to require member states to refrain from discriminating between all inhabitants of member states everywhere, not merely between inhabitants of that member state
by Auralia » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:22 pm
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?
Bananaistan wrote:I would also maintain that the council's interpretation of extant resolutions is only binding on future authors and does not effect a player's RPed creative compliance. In character, how would any ruling impact on a nation's own judicial system? Why should the OOC council impact on the IC Bananamen Supreme Court which has already interpreted COCR to mean that only legally present inhabitants of Bananaistan, and citizens and long standing non-national residents are eligible for Bananamen social assistance? Fair enough that if, OOC, I wanted to propose a resolution which contradicts this ruling, it impacts on OOC me. But I just don't see that the IC RP compliance of (theoretically) thousands of players is automatically invalid because 4 players decide otherwise.
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:31 pm
Auralia wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?
Maybe? The problem is that it seems that "compelling practical purposes" exception isn't meant to be used very often -- GR already likened it to strict scrutiny -- but I would guess that 95%+ of the discrimination practiced by member states between domestic vs. foreign nationals is in my view legitimate. As I said, it's dangerous when normal state behaviour is prima facie illegal and only saved by an vague exception.
Auralia wrote:Doesn't that divergence bother you, though? When you as a player submit a resolution, your nation is submitting it for consideration IC. But if the OOC council rulings don't exist IC, then that means there are constraints on what you can do IC that nonetheless don't actually exist IC. It seems to me that it's in the best interests of the game to have as few such discrepancies as possible, which is why I think the OOC rulings should exist IC.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:45 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Auralia wrote:Doesn't that divergence bother you, though? When you as a player submit a resolution, your nation is submitting it for consideration IC. But if the OOC council rulings don't exist IC, then that means there are constraints on what you can do IC that nonetheless don't actually exist IC. It seems to me that it's in the best interests of the game to have as few such discrepancies as possible, which is why I think the OOC rulings should exist IC.
We've gone a decade so far without needing to say "mods interpret it this way" in our proposals. There are others ways to get your points across!
by Sciongrad » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:35 pm
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?
Nonetheless, I support this repeal for the OOC reason that if COCR is repealed, the automatic response to many new players will no longer be "COCR already did it."
by Auralia » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:39 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:The issue here is that you're using CD's dissent as the basis of your arguments, and not the actual majority opinion. Because the majority opinion doesn't say anywhere that it is prima facie illegal to discriminate between domestic vs foreign nationals. It says it's illegal to discriminate, in your immigration policy, against people based on their race, ethnicity, etc.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:We've gone a decade so far without needing to say "mods interpret it this way" in our proposals. There are others ways to get your points across!
by Auralia » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:42 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?
Agreed. In my eyes, the argument behind this repeal, including that parade of horribles, constitutes an honest mistake.
by Sciongrad » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:45 pm
Auralia wrote:This post is OOC.Sciongrad wrote:Agreed. In my eyes, the argument behind this repeal, including that parade of horribles, constitutes an honest mistake.
Would you not agree that the logic of your majority opinion would prohibit certain kinds of discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals if such discrimination is not for a "compelling practical purpose"?
by Wallenburg » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:58 pm
by Auralia » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:00 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Auralia wrote:This post is OOC.
Would you not agree that the logic of your majority opinion would prohibit certain kinds of discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals if such discrimination is not for a "compelling practical purpose"?
OOC: I would agree, discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals would be proscribed by clause 1c of CoCR. But, like you've noted, basically any instance where such a proscription would be problematic would almost certainly be covered by the compelling practical purposes exemption. CoCR clearly doesn't prohibit limiting immigration, voting regulations based on nationality, etc.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:20 pm
Auralia wrote:This post is OOC.Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I would agree, discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals would be proscribed by clause 1c of CoCR. But, like you've noted, basically any instance where such a proscription would be problematic would almost certainly be covered by the compelling practical purposes exemption. CoCR clearly doesn't prohibit limiting immigration, voting regulations based on nationality, etc.
On what basis can you claim that CoCR "clearly" permits discrimination in those cases? How can anyone know with any certainty what constitutes a "compelling practical purpose" under CoCR?
Before your ruling, I didn't consider this uncertainty to be such a big deal, but only because discrimination on the grounds listed in the resolution isn't (or wasn't) the norm. But it is the norm with respect to domestic versus foreign nationals. Your recent ruling effectively rendered a large swath of ordinary governmental practices prima facie illegal unless they can be demonstrated to have a "compelling practical purpose". There's just way too much uncertainty in this area now.
by Christian Democrats » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:15 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:The issue here is that you're using CD's dissent as the basis of your arguments
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Bakhton » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:25 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:48 am
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:57 am
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement