[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] The End of Capitalism

[Imperium Anglorum]

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Believing that the inequities caused by capitalism, where huge amounts of wealth are sequestered in the richest portions of society causes an extreme hazard to national populations by depriving the poor of food, water, and other necessities of life in the name of profits, hereby

1. Creates the World Assembly Central Planning Board, which is granted overarching authority to regulate and control all economic activity with unlimited powers, subject to prior extant legislation, to service the ends of:

1. ending economic inequality around the world,
2. ensuring the equitable distribution of resources to all members of society, and
3. preventing the means of production from falling into the control of a single class in society and

2. Encourages member nations to redistribute wealth to solve wealth and income inequality in their nations.

Thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=408995

Two issues: (1) Optionality/Committee-only and (2) Strength.

Optionality is violated because clause 2, an encouragement clause, is not a mandate, and therefore, can be ignored at will. Thus, it violates the optionality rule. I will further note that if it can be ignored at will, it is also a committee-only violation, in that there are no other mandates than the creation of a committee. This is a stupendously stupid argument which ought be rejected to maintain consistency in the ruleset and with past resolutions. Never in the history of the GA has this patently absurd interpretation of the Optionality rule been accepted. Explicit rejection of this doctrine is requested.

Strength is violated because the overarching practically unlimited powers granted to the WA Central Planning Board bump this proposal into to the Strong category. It would be ridiculous from a statistical perspective to grant unlimited economic powers to a single international organisation with the mandate to ensure equitable distribution of resources and have the proposal under Mild.

If you buy that Araraukar is correct when they tell us that (1) committees ought not be considered to have a statistical effect and (2) a proposal can be too mild, this proposal is too mild, because it only encourages nations to do something. An encouragement which can simply be ignored, meaning that a Mild statistical effect is too strong for this proposal. This too is a bad argument which ought be rejected on face. Proposals cannot be and never have been 'too' mild. Explicit rejection of this doctrine is requested.

---

Hyper-legalism and stupid arguments aside: In the end, there probably ought be a change in the administration of the committee rule, because it is trivial to create committees with unlimited powers like this WA Central Planning Board and then utilise them to enact policy changes. The creation of the committee alone with those powers should place the resolution as a Strong resolution, and the ability to do that ought be reflected in the ruleset.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

You know, between these drafts and legality challenges, you're kinda raising a stink. Wouldn't it be better to just discuss the issue with gensec?

[Excidium Planetis]

I argue that because of the sweeping powers granted to whatever the hell this committee is called, the resolution cannot possibly be a Mild strength resolution and therefore is also illegal for optionality. Encourages clauses cannot be the only clauses acting on member nations in Strong proposals, obviously.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You know, between these drafts and legality challenges, you're kinda raising a stink. Wouldn't it be better to just discuss the issue with gensec?

I've been discussing these issues at length with three members of GenSec. If I had no concern for privacy implications, I'd even give you the logs. However it is, if you had read the GenSec rules, you would discover that they require a proposal to analyse, thereby leading to the wholly precedented creation of test proposals, already done in the past by Gruenberg to clarify ambiguities about the metagaming rule. That precedent was established in the first proposal GenSec ruled on, here.

Furthermore, if you wanted to consider changing the rules themselves, the last attempt to do so was both wildly unsuccessful and if you had read past discussions about rule changes (they could be on the Discord or on the forum, I don't recall), the general procedure is unclear and undefined, but would require some kind of consensus. This is by far the easier and more efficacious way to resolve ruleset ambiguities.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

You know, between these drafts and legality challenges, you're kinda raising a stink. Wouldn't it be better to just discuss the issue with gensec?

I've been discussing these issues at length with three members of GenSec. If I had no concern for privacy implications, I'd even give you the logs. However it is, if you had read the GenSec rules, you would discover that they require a proposal to analyse, thereby leading to the wholly precedented creation of test proposals, already done in the past by Gruenberg to clarify ambiguities about the metagaming rule. That precedent was established in the first proposal GenSec ruled on, here.

Furthermore, if you wanted to consider changing the rules themselves, the last attempt to do so was both wildly unsuccessful and if you had read past discussions about rule changes (they could be on the Discord or on the forum, I don't recall), the general procedure is unclear and undefined, but would require some kind of consensus. This is by far the easier and more efficacious way to resolve ruleset ambiguities.

Well, you're still kinda raising a stink the way you're posting these. I'd suggest just sending the test proposals to Gensec unless they absolutely have to be drafted here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, you're still kinda raising a stink the way you're posting these. I'd suggest just sending the test proposals to Gensec unless they absolutely have to be drafted here.

Well, you're still kinda raising a stink the way you're posting these replies. I'd suggest just applying your indubitable experience in GA legality ruleset litigation elsewhere unless it absolutely has to be applied here.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

*snip*

Guys, you might both want to calm down.

[Wallenburg]

Do you really think GenSec is going to waste its time with your joke proposal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Do you really think GenSec is going to waste its time with your joke proposal?

This proposal is not about the policy content of the proposal. This is about the legality of the proposal itself. In the same way that Gruenberg did not intend to repeal Napa, but rather, intended to create a test case for the metagaming rule. However, I would note that a legality challenge thread is not the forum in which to cast aspersions on an author's motives, but rather, the legality of the proposal itself. viewtopic.php?f=40&t=393921

[Araraukar]

This proves that the thread and its challenge were both posted in bad faith:

Welcome to that discussion. Second, I've never pretended that this proposal is going to be submitted and campaigned for. I would love to see where I made such an argument.

[Bananaistan]

How is that bad faith? If anything it's the opposite. He has clearly and explicitly stated the aim. There is no deception. There is no bad faith. Most importantly, there is precedent: GenSec has already ruled on what you would call a "bad faith" proposal.

[Wallenburg]

How is that bad faith? If anything it's the opposite. He has clearly and explicitly stated the aim. There is no deception. There is no bad faith.

You may as well say that a ridiculous interpretation of a resolution is not in bad faith if the offending nation openly admits that they don't believe their interpretation to be reasonable.

Most importantly, there is precedent: GenSec has already ruled on what you would call a "bad faith" proposal.

Which makes it all the more important that GenSec correct its previous mistake, rather than indulging yet another ridiculous proposal.

[Bananaistan]

How is that bad faith? If anything it's the opposite. He has clearly and explicitly stated the aim. There is no deception. There is no bad faith.

You may as well say that a ridiculous interpretation of a resolution is not in bad faith if the offending nation openly admits that they don't believe their interpretation to be reasonable.

This is neither here nor there and I'm not going to engage in idle speculation about differing interpretations of GAR#2.

Most importantly, there is precedent: GenSec has already ruled on what you would call a "bad faith" proposal.

Which makes it all the more important that GenSec correct its previous mistake, rather than indulging yet another ridiculous proposal.

Why? What is so offensive about this exercise? Is it that it's IA doing it? Or do you like the recent trend in the GA of pages of derailed discussion in proposal threads about the definition of common words or legalistic filibustering based on misunderstanding of the rules?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...do you like the recent trend in the GA of pages of derailed discussion in proposal threads about the definition of common words or legalistic filibustering based on misunderstanding of the rules?

It's based on settling this dire problem that I'm inclined to hear at least the "Socialism" one, to put the "requests/demands/mandates" abomination out of its misery once and for all. Not all of my colleagues have weighed in yet and given the holiday weekend (two-holiday weekend for some of us) whatever happens won't be immediate.

[Aclion]

You may as well say that a ridiculous interpretation of a resolution is not in bad faith if the offending nation openly admits that they don't believe their interpretation to be reasonable.

It is my impression that that is Separatist Peoples' understanding of reasonable nation theory.

[Separatist Peoples]

You may as well say that a ridiculous interpretation of a resolution is not in bad faith if the offending nation openly admits that they don't believe their interpretation to be reasonable.

It is my impression that that is Separatist Peoples' understanding of reasonable nation theory.

The RNT isn't really relevant to this. Nor is that an entirely accurate assessment, I think.

Look, we at GenSec don't want to see a lot of test cases like this, because they can be abused to force our hand. That said, we also recognize a legitimate interest in just settling a few points. IA has a question that he wants settled and he's perfectly open about what it is and why. From what I see, it isn't with the intention of manipulating a ruling to box us, or another author, into a box.

[Wallenburg]

Which makes it all the more important that GenSec correct its previous mistake, rather than indulging yet another ridiculous proposal.

Why? What is so offensive about this exercise? Is it that it's IA doing it? Or do you like the recent trend in the GA of pages of derailed discussion in proposal threads about the definition of common words or legalistic filibustering based on misunderstanding of the rules?

Oh, spare me. It is painfully obvious why I am speaking out against this. This is clear abuse of the legality challenge system, an attempt to force GenSec to deliver a ruling on a proposal that the author has no intention of doing anything with.

It is my impression that that is Separatist Peoples' understanding of reasonable nation theory.

The RNT isn't really relevant to this. Nor is that an entirely accurate assessment, I think.

Look, we at GenSec don't want to see a lot of test cases like this, because they can be abused to force our hand. That said, we also recognize a legitimate interest in just settling a few points. IA has a question that he wants settled and he's perfectly open about what it is and why. From what I see, it isn't with the intention of manipulating a ruling to box us, or another author, into a box.

That is exactly what IA is doing though. If IA wanted to ask GenSec members a question, he could have easily done so on the Q&A thread. You guys have offered personal thoughts on the rules before, why not this time? No, what IA is doing goes far beyond just trying to settle a question. He wants to force GenSec into a corner so that it has no option but to rule on a joke proposal.

[Sciongrad]

That is exactly what IA is doing though. If IA wanted to ask GenSec members a question, he could have easily done so on the Q&A thread. You guys have offered personal thoughts on the rules before, why not this time? No, what IA is doing goes far beyond just trying to settle a question. He wants to force GenSec into a corner so that it has no option but to rule on a joke proposal.

Personal thoughts do not carry the weight of precedent. GenSec has already established that we will hear legality questions on proposals that won't be submitted so long as the question is legitimate and made in good faith. In other words, we'll hear a question to resolve the strength of the verb "requests" but not a Frankenstein's monster of a dozen clear violations. Our ability to hear this type of question is grounded in precedent.

[Bananaistan]

Why? What is so offensive about this exercise? Is it that it's IA doing it? Or do you like the recent trend in the GA of pages of derailed discussion in proposal threads about the definition of common words or legalistic filibustering based on misunderstanding of the rules?

Oh, spare me. It is painfully obvious why I am speaking out against this. This is clear abuse of the legality challenge system, an attempt to force GenSec to deliver a ruling on a proposal that the author has no intention of doing anything with.

That horse has already bolted: as Scion says in the post immediately prior to this, there is already precedent that this sort of thing can be done. But fair enough your opinion is you opinion, although I don't think that players should have to somehow wrangle legal questions such as these into a proposal that they genuinely want to pass and thereby request a ruling that benefits the entire GA community while also running the risk of having their proposal ruled illegal.

[Aclion]

I don't think that players should have to somehow wrangle legal questions such as these into a proposal that they genuinely want to pass and thereby request a ruling that benefits the entire GA community while also running the risk of having their proposal ruled illegal.

not to mention the whole 'get ejected from the WA' thing.

[Araraukar]

Personal thoughts do not carry the weight of precedent. GenSec has already established that we will hear legality questions on proposals that won't be submitted so long as the question is legitimate and made in good faith. In other words, we'll hear a question to resolve the strength of the verb "requests" but not a Frankenstein's monster of a dozen clear violations. Our ability to hear this type of question is grounded in precedent.

...I'll keep this in mind and write up a few for you to sort out, then, that you refused to touch before...

[Tzorsland]

[quote="Imperium Anglorum";p="31518728"]

The World Assembly,

Believing that the inequities caused by capitalism, where huge amounts of wealth are sequestered in the richest portions of society causes an extreme hazard to national populations by depriving the poor of food, water, and other necessities of life in the name of profits, hereby

1. Creates the World Assembly Central Planning Board, which is granted overarching authority to regulate and control all economic activity with unlimited powers, subject to prior extant legislation, to service the ends of:

1. ending economic inequality around the world,
2. ensuring the equitable distribution of resources to all members of society, and
3. preventing the means of production from falling into the control of a single class in society and

2. Encourages member nations to redistribute wealth to solve wealth and income inequality in their nations.

Only two? I can think of a whole bunch more. It goes right into the heart of what a committee is and what a committee does. It pretty much breaks an unwritten rule. Giving any committee "unlimited powers" basically means they have the power to create legislation. Let's just call that a "Game Mechanics Violation" in an of itself since non existent committees can't stat wank and since these non existent committees could implement legislation at any time after passage stat wanking in the process (but since there is no mechanism for that, this is a game violation). Otherwise if it is applied in the traditional format the category strength would be ALL CATEGORIES and INFINITE STRENGTH (as the powers are "unlimited").

I'm going to suggest that you can't give committees "unlimited" powers. They only have the power to implement existing laws. Since the resolution does not mandate the missions of the committees the committee can't enforce it. (And there is nothing in the resolution that prevents member nations from waging war against the committee.)