[PASSED] The Central Library Compact

[The Atlae Isles]

That's quite fine, I personally disagree that nations not involved in the drafting process should be allowed to vote on the proposals, but I know that's just me...

Barbera: It's not just you, you know.

Harold: Did you just use a contraction? This is cause for celebration! Custard pies for everyone! (starts lobbing custard pies all around the chamber)

Barbera: (holding in laughter) St...stop it. This is embarr...embarrassing.

George ducked, knowing that being hit would have dire consequences (at least for him, anyway). He still didn't know what was in them: acid, a boxing glove, or raw sewage.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

We have submitted this resolution at this time. We thank members for their contributions and support of this endeavor.

[Bakhton]

"We stand in solidarity with librarians across the nation in supporting this proposal."

[Araraukar]

OOC: How is this not a house of cards violation?

Since some authors have a habit of deleting their text if it's unsuccesful, preserving this one's here.

World Assembly Central Library Compact

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the work of the Universal Library Coalition (ULC), its Executive Committee (ULCEC), and their Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN), in promoting literacy;

Concerned, however, by a lack of protections for preserving physical written works, and thus, that the mission of digitizing and distributing literary works may be hindered by not having a central repository from which to conduct this import work;

Therefore, Hereby:

Establishes & builds a World Assembly Central Library Complex (WACLC), with the purpose of:
-Restoring & Replicating older written works, which may have become damaged with age,
-Collecting new & informative written works for archival purposes,
-Displaying rare, unique, or important works from nations,
-Providing scholastic access to such works, and maintaining the circulation of important written works among nations;

Mandates that WA Nations seek to preserve &, wherever possible, restore the historic & cultural written works of their nation, which may have become damaged through age;

Further, Requires all WA nations adopt standards governing the preservation, restoration, and security of historical, cultural, or important written works;

Encourages that all WA Nations unable to provide for the preservation and security of historic & cultural written works, seek wherever permissible to donate such works to the WACLC;

Mandates, that in order to achieve these goals, that the ULC be tasked with:
- Collecting & Preserving written texts as donated by entities to the WACLC, and when applicable returning original texts to their donor,
- Providing for the storage & security of written works;
- Creating replicated copies of works which may not be stable enough for public handling,
- Comparing digital copies of works to original written works to prevent tampering,
- Restoring & Repairing, at fair cost, written texts, at the request of donor entities;

Mandates that ULCEC oversee & consult with donors on:
- Ongoing funding efforts for WACLC operations,
- The importance, or literary value of a written work donated to the WACLC,
- The restoration or replication of written works provided, to ensure authenticity and validity,
- The security of written works donated to the WACLC,
- New standards of preservation, restoration, and protection of written works against loss or damage,
- Transfers of written works from donors to the WACLC;

Mandates that the Office of Building Management (OBM) locate suitable land(s) and/or a planet, in international territory on which to build the WACLC, which shall:
- Have adequate access to transportation to & from the WACLC & WA Nations,
- Be sufficiently large enough to include for future expansion(s) of the WACLC,
- Ensure necessary protection against fire, natural elements, or other natural phenomena;

Encourages all WA Nations seek wherever possible to donate new, informative written works to the WACLC and the ULEN for circulation amongst nations and/or archival purposes;

Affirms that all donors retain cultural ownership of all written works donated to the WACLC, and may elect to remove their work from circulation by providing written notice to the ULCEC;

Clarifies that nothing herein shall be read as to remove written works from member states, and that all contributions to the WACLC must be voluntary;

Affirms the rights of all WA Nations in promoting, as they see fit, the written works and literary traditions of their nation.

Still OOC: Also, were you at the word limit or something, because you use & instead of "and" a lot.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: How is this not a house of cards violation?

None of the active clauses, as far as I can tell, require an existing resolution to be in force?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: How is this not a house of cards violation?

Because nothing in it requires a previous resolution, and committees are explicitly exempted.

It isn't a House of Cards violation because that isn't how the House of Cards rule has been previously enforced. The House of Cards rule is one of the clearest rules in the ruleset — explicit reference of a specific past resolution, in operative sections of new legislation, is not permitted. And there is also a test for when this is the case — whether or not the requirements would or would not make sense if the reference did not exist.

When Bakhton asks why this rule is this confusing, I can tell you we've found the source of the Nile.

[Thyerata]

OOC: How is this not a house of cards violation?

Because nothing in it requires a previous resolution, and committees are explicitly exempted.

It isn't a House of Cards violation because that isn't how the House of Cards rule has been previously enforced. The House of Cards rule is one of the clearest rules in the ruleset — explicit reference of a specific past resolution, in operative sections of new legislation, is not permitted. And there is also a test for when this is the case — whether or not the requirements would or would not make sense if the reference did not exist.

When Bakhton asks why this rule is this confusing, I can tell you we've found the source of the Nile.

I agree with IA here - as far as I understand House of Cards from the Wa rulebook, it only really kicks in if the resolution says something like "RELYING on GARs #X, Y, A and B". This one doesn't - all it does is refer to a pre-existing committee, which is perfectly legal - the committee will continue to exist even if the Resolution that established it is blasted into oblivion.

That said, if you really wanted to argue the nuts and bolts of it, I could get GenSec involved through a full-blown legal challenge if you wanted...

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ok, fine, not HoC but amendment.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Since some authors have a habit of deleting their text if it's unsuccesful, preserving this one's here.
Still OOC: Also, were you at the word limit or something, because you use & instead of "and" a lot.

OOC:
First I feel that I have been involved in the community of the GA long enough to understand that the full legislative history is important even if my resolution is unsuccessful.
Second point, is yes, it was nearer to 5000 at one point, which is all available in this thread for review.

OOC: Ok, fine, not HoC but amendment.

How so? it is clearly providing a novel purpose for the WA. Most of the bulk of the bill is dedicated to building the library.

[Thyerata]

*thumbs the "Legality Challenge" dossier threateningly*

Do you really want a full-on debate about this? I can ask GenSec if you're desperate...

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Ok, fine, not HoC but amendment.

What? How does it amend prior legislation? Does it change that prior legislation? That's the bright line here.

EDIT: Per the GenSec decision here, 'Amendment violations actively attempt to somehow alter the text of the extant legislation'. This is not an amendment violation because it doesn't somehow alter the text of a past resolution. This should be clear both to you and everyone else. You raised the challenge in the first place and accepted the decision in that very same thread!

[Thyerata]

Honourable ambassador, you may need to start campaigning to get this thing to vote...it's languishing on 24 delegate approvals...

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: C'mon, if you didn't have any arguments from me to jump on, you'd get bored.

And, more specifically, the preamble clauses are tripping on my HoC/Amendment tripwires, since "Universal Library Coalition" is the name of an existing resolution. Yes, I know it's also the committee's name, which makes one or the other badly named for the purpose. (Also, were it submitted these days, I'd file a challenge for committee only.)

To author: if you were attempting to break the record on how many committees are named/introduced in a single proposal, you totally should've added WASP to make it six...

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

OOC: C'mon, if you didn't have any arguments from me to jump on, you'd get bored.

And, more specifically, the preamble clauses are tripping on my HoC/Amendment tripwires, since "Universal Library Coalition" is the name of an existing resolution. Yes, I know it's also the committee's name, which makes one or the other badly named for the purpose. (Also, were it submitted these days, I'd file a challenge for committee only.)

To author: if you were attempting to break the record on how many committees are named/introduced in a single proposal, you totally should've added WASP to make it six...

OOC: That's absurd. Even if the reference is ambiguous, it is reasonable to interpret it as referencing the committee, not the resolution, so it wouldn't be illegal. And committees can be mentioned in several resolutions. I don't see how this could possibly be an Amendment or HOC violation without taking a view that ignores a reasonable legal interpretation for the sole purpose of finding it illegal.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: I said "the preamble clauses are tripping on my HoC/Amendment tripwires [because these reasons]", not "the preamble clauses are automatically illegal because I'm the supreme lord of the multiverse". I just explained why it gave me the false alert and you yell at me for making my point clearer?

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

OOC: I said "the preamble clauses are tripping on my HoC/Amendment tripwires [because these reasons]", not "the preamble clauses are automatically illegal because I'm the supreme lord of the multiverse". I just explained why it gave me the false alert and you yell at me for making my point clearer?

OOC: That's not yelling, that's incredulous as to how they're tripping your senses. Yelling involves MOAR CAPS LOCK.

[Thyerata]

OOC: I said "the preamble clauses are tripping on my HoC/Amendment tripwires [because these reasons]", not "the preamble clauses are automatically illegal because I'm the supreme lord of the multiverse". I just explained why it gave me the false alert and you yell at me for making my point clearer?

OOC: That's not yelling, that's incredulous as to how they're tripping your senses. Yelling involves MOAR CAPS LOCK.

ahem

I think we're entering into a discussion that is better saved for a legality challenge. Rather weirdly, I agree with the author that this is legal, so if I were to lodge such a challenge, would I refer to it as a "Legality Ruling", since I'm not challenging anything?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Remind me never to nominate Ara to any GenSec position. Day 1, any proposal which talks about the World Assembly is illegal, because that's the name of 1 GA. Day 2, every single new proposal is illegal too, because it amends 1 GA by adding new functionality to the World Assembly.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That's not yelling, that's incredulous as to how they're tripping your senses. Yelling involves MOAR CAPS LOCK.

ahem

I think we're entering into a discussion that is better saved for a legality challenge. Rather weirdly, I agree with the author that this is legal, so if I were to lodge such a challenge, would I refer to it as a "Legality Ruling", since I'm not challenging anything?

OOC: Legality discussions sans a legality challenge are perfectly reasonable, and even on topic. In no way is this discussion inappropriate. If you want to bring a challenge, you should, but be aware that we take challenges seriously and don't want to hear unnecessary ones. If there isn't a genuine issue of law regarding the rules, please don't file one. This is pretty clear-cut in my eyes.

[Thyerata]

ahem

I think we're entering into a discussion that is better saved for a legality challenge. Rather weirdly, I agree with the author that this is legal, so if I were to lodge such a challenge, would I refer to it as a "Legality Ruling", since I'm not challenging anything?

OOC: Legality discussions sans a legality challenge are perfectly reasonable, and even on topic. In no way is this discussion inappropriate. If you want to bring a challenge, you should, but be aware that we take challenges seriously and don't want to hear unnecessary ones. If there isn't a genuine issue of law regarding the rules, please don't file one. This is pretty clear-cut in my eyes.

OOC: I agree with you - it's clearly legal. It's Ararukar that's having trouble with it on (nonexistent) legality grounds...

[Araraukar]

OOC: I agree with you - it's clearly legal. It's Ararukar that's having trouble with it on (nonexistent) legality grounds...

*thumbs the "Legality Challenge" dossier threateningly*

Do you really want a full-on debate about this? I can ask GenSec if you're desperate...

OOC: Was not I that suggested making a legality challenge. I merely asked how it complied with the rules, this was answered, and I explained why I had thought it might not comply, and then it degenerated to this stuff due to, apparently, some mutual misunderstandings of meanings...

Remind me never to nominate Ara to any GenSec position.

Trust me, that goes both ways, though in your case I think you might - unwillingly or not - cause trouble with your superdelegate status... But happily neither of us was chosen, so we can continue to posture and hiss at each other.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

To author: if you were attempting to break the record on how many committees are named/introduced in a single proposal, you totally should've added WASP to make it six...

That was not our intention, it was originally to preserve books in the form of a library. The existing committees were merely a nice path by which to do so. I am not sure how WASP would have helped my cause, as I cannot force how they would be involved in preserving books. As for how many committed there are, with the exception of the library itself (WACLC), every committee already exists, we are just giving them more work.

Honourable ambassador, you may need to start campaigning to get this thing to vote...it's languishing on 24 delegate approvals...

Yes that is a side effect of campagning in the slow hours, I imagine most delegates received their telegrams during the morning and day when they logged in.

[Thyerata]

This resolution has hit quorum with 112 approvals. Prepare for the big fight.

[Araraukar]

I am not sure how WASP would have helped my cause, as I cannot force how they would be involved in preserving books.

OOC: Force? And maybe scientific texts?

As for how many committed there are, with the exception of the library itself (WACLC), every committee already exists, we are just giving them more work.

Oh I know, that's why I said "named/introduced", as one is introduced and the rest named. Still, five mentioned in total has to approach some kind of record...

---

This resolution has hit quorum with 112 approvals. Prepare for the big fight.

IC: Why would there be a fight? The nations that dislike this will not vote for it, the ones that do, will, but it's not like it's a very controversial issue.

[Wickedly evil people]

Affirms that all donors retain cultural ownership of all written works donated to the WACLC, and may elect to remove their work from circulation by providing written notice to the ULCEC;

What does that mean? Someone can remove something from circulation why?