Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

[Wallenburg]

These are hypothetical questions, I'm just curious:

Does GenSec have any checks/balance besides the site moderators?
If so, what are they? And can any legislation be passed in the WA that adds/removes checks and balances for GenSec? Or can GenSec be written into a WA proposal at all?

No, none, no, and no.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

These are hypothetical questions, I'm just curious:

Does GenSec have any checks/balance besides the site moderators?
If so, what are they? And can any legislation be passed in the WA that adds/removes checks and balances for GenSec? Or can GenSec be written into a WA proposal at all?

No, none, no, and no.

If we screw up, there will be a public outcry and moderator intervention. The rest would be a metagaming or possibly game mechanics violation (see proposal rules linked in my signature below)

[Newplacelandia]

No, none, no, and no.

If we screw up, there will be a public outcry and moderator intervention. The rest would be a metagaming or possibly game mechanics violation (see proposal rules linked in my signature below)

Thanks! I was just looking around and couldn't find anything on those questions, so I got curious.

[Araraukar]

In the GenSec rulings Google Doc that has a link to it in the first post of this thread, the Ban On Secret Treaties (the first attempt) has been marked as being ruled illegal for committee-only and joke proposal rules, yet the actual ruling says it's not illegal for the joke proposal rule, only the committee one.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In the GenSec rulings Google Doc that has a link to it in the first post of this thread, the Ban On Secret Treaties (the first attempt) has been marked as being ruled illegal for committee-only and joke proposal rules, yet the actual ruling says it's not illegal for the joke proposal rule, only the committee one.

Read the comment on the far right. It isn’t possible to sub-divide to the question level. The legality column is at large.

[Araraukar]

Read the comment on the far right. It isn’t possible to sub-divide to the question level. The legality column is at large.

I thought that might've been it, but there were other, earlier challenges, where more challenges had been made than what was actually used to rule the thing illegal, and those didn't have the dismissed claims in that column.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Read the comment on the far right. It isn’t possible to sub-divide to the question level. The legality column is at large.

I thought that might've been it, but there were other, earlier challenges, where more challenges had been made than what was actually used to rule the thing illegal, and those didn't have the dismissed claims in that column.

The comments on the far right are supposed to be very short and only note decisive decisions. If you have any suggestions on how to improve them while keeping them short, I'd be happy to make modifications. (Namely, meaning proposing additional or replacement text.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Could the threads for

Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care"

Be released?

[Christian Democrats]

Could the threads for

Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care"

Be released?

Requested.

[Wrapper]

Done.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Could the threads for

Repeal "Protection of Biomedical Research", 2018-02-05
Promoting Research on Life in Foetuses and Embryos, 2018-03-08

be released?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Could the threads for

Repeal "Protection of Biomedical Research", 2018-02-05
Promoting Research on Life in Foetuses and Embryos, 2018-03-08

be released?

The former thread was released this past Friday. I'll check on the latter shortly.

[Ransium]

They are both released now.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Thanks!

[Monstrosities]

Comprehensive List of GenSec Decisions

1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

6. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.

b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

7. Discretion over the Docket

The General Secretariat shall have discretion over which questions it hears. The General Secretariat shall grant a question a review with the approval of at least two members. If the General Secretariat decline to grant a question a review, each member that voted not to grant the question a review shall provide their reasoning publicly and promptly.

8. General Assembly Rule Changes

GenSec is responsible for making changes to the General Assembly Rules for Proposals. GenSec will draft the wording of the new or altered rule. The draft will be published in the GA forum for a two-week public comment period after which GenSec will finalise the rules change and request the moderators to update the General Assembly Rules for Proposals.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

Section 1 subsection d added on February 17, 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on March 1, 2017.
Section 6 added on May 14, 2017.
Section 6 header bolded on June 23, 2017.
Section 7 added on June 29, 2017.
Section 8 added on March 4, 2018.
Section 8 corrected for style on March 15, 2018.

Why not just include another member, making 7 total in order to prevent ties?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why not spoil your post instead of posting a wall of text followed by a short question? But more topically, Mods break the tie so they don't happen.

[Wallenburg]

Why not spoil your post instead of posting a wall of text followed by a short question? But more topically, Mods break the tie so they don't happen.

In fairness, it would still be easier to just have a seventh member.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why not spoil your post instead of posting a wall of text followed by a short question? But more topically, Mods break the tie so they don't happen.

In fairness, it would still be easier to just have a seventh member.

Or not replace the next one who steps down and keep a team of 5.

[Bears Armed]

You're assuming that the current members are all always active: In fact there are times when fewer can find the time in which to do much here, and of course there are cases on which one or another of us has to recuse themselves due to personal involvement in the proposal being discussed, so there are times when we effectively have an odd number of members voting anyway... and if we did change the "full" number to either seven or five then those same kinds of situations would lead to cases where we still have an even number of members voting...

[Wallenburg]

You're assuming that the current members are all always active: In fact there are times when fewer can find the time in which to do much here, and of course there are cases on which one or another of us has to recuse themselves due to personal involvement in the proposal being discussed, so there are times when we effectively have an odd number of members voting anyway... and if we did change the "full" number to either seven or five then those same kinds of situations would lead to cases where we still have an even number of members voting...

Very true, and looking at the voting record IA has compiled, it would seem that GenSec has to rely on 5 opinions for one reason or another more often than not.

[Lord Dominator]

You're assuming that the current members are all always active: In fact there are times when fewer can find the time in which to do much here, and of course there are cases on which one or another of us has to recuse themselves due to personal involvement in the proposal being discussed, so there are times when we effectively have an odd number of members voting anyway... and if we did change the "full" number to either seven or five then those same kinds of situations would lead to cases where we still have an even number of members voting...

Very true, and looking at the voting record IA has compiled, it would seem that GenSec has to rely on 5 opinions for one reason or another more often than not.

Oh so a mere 10/26 is a lot now? Poppycock

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can we get releases for

Administrative Compliance Act
Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can we get releases for:

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" (ie [2018] GAS 9)
Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" (tomorrow)

[Battlion]

Can we get releases for:

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" (ie [2018] GAS 9)
Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" (tomorrow)

One day

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can we get releases for:

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" (ie [2018] GAS 9)
Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" (tomorrow)

Bump.