[CHALLENGE] Administrative Compliance Act

[Sciongrad]

Sure, we can do that.

I'm happy that you agree with the points raised in the last challenge concerning HoC that the rules need to be changed to have the interpretation that is currently in use. If all proposals can reference resolutions, you can also delete the line specifically exempting repeals from the HoC rule.

We have not agreed to change the rule. And if we did, it would not be because we recognize a substantive change is required.

[Wallenburg]

As lovely as this discussion is, I'd like to remind you all that the House of Cards rule is not a subject of this thread. Since the challenge thread that does involve the HoC rule is still active, albeit resolved, I might encourage discussion on that rule over there.

[Stoskavanya]

If I may file an amicus brief;
I don't see the problem with the committees. While the substance of the legislation may lie under the heading of committees, It is obvious that the resolution does a lot more than create a committee; it establishes a whole new process which extends in scope far greater than the committee he assigned. As stated,

Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

Common sense dictates that creating and expanding a committee isn't the "sole purpose" of this particular resolution. He is simply assigning the new process he created to a committee.
I think a lot of you are getting caught up in the format. If the Separatist People's simply wrote

"This act creates a process where the WA can collect fines proportional to the act of noncompliance. This process will be monitored by the Whatever committee",

then the active clause survives without a committee. But that is clumsy, and the act is better organized the way People wrote it.

I know this argument is abstract but it is my firmly held belief.

[Bears Armed]

Have we agreed to change the Committees Rule so that requiring member nations to take action in connection with a committee can be enough for legality without requiring action by member nations independent of the committee as well?
I know that I argued in favour of this policy, but don't recall it becoming the official viewpoint yet.
Otherwise, this proposal does seem 'Committee-only' to me...

[Separatist Peoples]

Have we agreed to change the Committees Rule so that requiring member nations to take action in connection with a committee can be enough for legality without requiring action by member nations independent of the committee as well?
I know that I argued in favour of this policy, but don't recall it becoming the official viewpoint yet.
Otherwise, this proposal does seem 'Committee-only' to me...

I believe that was the plan. A ruling of "illegal" will speed things along on that front, I believe.

Under the traditional rule, its probably illegal. My argument is not that it escapes the rule, though I think there is potential for it, but that the traditional interpretation, coupled with the "committee is cancer" test, is just terrible.

[Wallenburg]

Have we agreed to change the Committees Rule so that requiring member nations to take action in connection with a committee can be enough for legality without requiring action by member nations independent of the committee as well?
I know that I argued in favour of this policy, but don't recall it becoming the official viewpoint yet.
Otherwise, this proposal does seem 'Committee-only' to me...

If I recall correctly, GenSec members have repeatedly stressed their caution about changing the ruleset without due discussion, especially when there is no consensus in the community as to whether it should be changed, or how it should be changed. The discussion on this rule has all of 41 posts, and there is no consensus on whether or how to change it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

And no, the previous ruling isn't precedent, that proposal did not deal with an active resolution.

The ruling did apply, if you read the text, it applied far more broadly than just the case brought up in my resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Sure, we can do that.

I'm down to change the rule. There's already a thread on it. Considering what CD expressed on the rule back during the big discussion, he was down to change it too. So if everyone voted, it'd be tied.

[Bears Armed]

Also, seeing that this proposal is about preventing non-compliance with all categories of resolution rather than just with 'Human Rights' ones I definitely do not see 'Human Rights/Strong' as a valid classification for it: I agree with the earlier comments that 'Book-Keeping', if that ever gets opened up for players'' use, would be best... and, because of how the currently-open categories balance each other in terms of effects, am not entirely convinced that any of those categories is appropriate here. Becasue the Human Rights proposals passed so far have been such a major aspect of this Assembly's work and seem to out-weigh the Moral Decency ones that have also been passed I might accept 'Human Rights/Mild', but I'm still considering the matter.

[Separatist Peoples]

Also, seeing that this proposal is about preventing non-compliance with all categories of resolution rather than just with 'Human Rights' ones I definitely do not see 'Human Rights/Strong' as a valid classification for it: I agree with the earlier comments that 'Book-Keeping', if that ever gets opened up for players'' use, would be best... and, because of how the currently-open categories balance each other in terms of effects, am not entirely convinced that any of those categories is appropriate here. Becasue the Human Rights proposals passed so far have been such a major aspect of this Assembly's work and seem to out-weigh the Moral Decency ones that have also been passed I might accept 'Human Rights/Mild', but I'm still considering the matter.

I picked the category based on SL's Doomsday Asteroid Test, which determines appropriate category based on the remaining active clauses. I believe the last line is sufficient.

As for the strength, well, I think it's clear that in the aggregate, this has a huge impact.

[Tzorsland]

Answer me one question, please. What is the purpose of a preamble?

Fluffy Text for Fluffy Bunnies that has no actual legislative implications whatsoever.
It's like suggesting that if somehow it was shown that all men are not created equal the United States must become a colony of the UK because the Declaration of Independence has an HOC violation based on its preamble.

[Bears Armed]

Also, seeing that this proposal is about preventing non-compliance with all categories of resolution rather than just with 'Human Rights' ones I definitely do not see 'Human Rights/Strong' as a valid classification for it: I agree with the earlier comments that 'Book-Keeping', if that ever gets opened up for players'' use, would be best... and, because of how the currently-open categories balance each other in terms of effects, am not entirely convinced that any of those categories is appropriate here. Becasue the Human Rights proposals passed so far have been such a major aspect of this Assembly's work and seem to out-weigh the Moral Decency ones that have also been passed I might accept 'Human Rights/Mild', but I'm still considering the matter.

I picked the category based on SL's Doomsday Asteroid Test, which determines appropriate category based on the remaining active clauses. I believe the last line is sufficient.

As for the strength, well, I think it's clear that in the aggregate, this has a huge impact.

But does it have a huge impact on Human Rights? No, it doesn't. Therefore, it is not 'Human Rights/Strong'.
Consider also that it also tries to protect Moral Decency resolutions against noncompliance, and that they have opposite stat effects to Human Rights ones, so there's an element of cancelling-out involved.

I do not recognise the "Doomsday Asteroid Test", as described in this thread's opening post, as an accurate representation of the precedent set by past rulings. As I remember it, the process for considering the legality of mainly-committee proposals goes as follows:
1/ Category and Strength must be appropriate for the proposal as a whole, with the committee-related clauses included.
2/ If the committee and all clauses that involve action by member nations in connection with the committee are removed, is there still any thing left that member nations are required (or, at least, urged) to do?

And as I remember the situation, according to precedent based on past rulings, proposals whose effects cross over categories do have to be submitted in the most appropriate of those categories rather than just in any of them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Either we pretend that committees don't exist for strength/category considerations, thereby justifying the 'committee actions do not justify a statistical change' rationale for the current committees rule. Or we don't, implicitly gutting the rationale behind that rule. What you cannot have is both ways.

[Bears Armed]

Either we pretend that committees don't exist for strength/category considerations, thereby justifying the 'committee actions do not justify a statistical change' rationale for the current committees rule. Or we don't, implicitly gutting the rationale behind that rule. What you cannot have is both ways.

I've been arguing for relaxing the Committee rule, remember? Anyway, if we remove the committee then this even more obviously doesn't have 'Strong' effects.

[Separatist Peoples]

Either we pretend that committees don't exist for strength/category considerations, thereby justifying the 'committee actions do not justify a statistical change' rationale for the current committees rule. Or we don't, implicitly gutting the rationale behind that rule. What you cannot have is both ways.

I've been arguing for relaxing the Committee rule, remember? Anyway, if we remove the committee then this even more obviously doesn't have 'Strong' effects.

The committee rule is designed to ensure there are statistical effects. It is not beyond the ken to consider the committee's actions in aggregate. The rest of strength isn't the Doomsday Asteroid test, that's the test of category and committee-only. You don't get to remove the category when assessing strength.

[Wallenburg]

Bump

[Wallenburg]

Bump

[Christian Democrats]

Having reviewed the proposal and the posts made in this thread and having reviewed the relevant case law that emerged during my absence,* I agree with Wallenburg and Araraukar. SP's proposal, in my view, violates both the Committee Rule and the Strength Rule.

Ergo, it appears right now:
Legal -- Scion
Illegal -- BA, CD
Undecided -- Banana, SL

---

* I would have joined the majority opinion.

[Wallenburg]

Bump

[Wallenburg]

Bump. Two months now.

[Wallenburg]

Bump. Get it together, already.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump. Get it together, already.

OOC: Hey, lets remember that I've got nothing to do with this the next time you want to go off on GenSec.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump. Get it together, already.

OOC: Hey, lets remember that I've got nothing to do with this the next time you want to go off on GenSec.

It seems to me that Sep might be the life force of the body.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Hey, lets remember that I've got nothing to do with this the next time you want to go off on GenSec.

It seems to me that Sep might be the life force of the body.

God help us all.

[Separatist Peoples]

It seems to me that Sep might be the life force of the body.

God help us all.

No worries, I will.