[DEFEATED] Repeal GA#495 "SaVing the Humanities"

[Flying Eagles]

Incensed at section 5’s requirement that “the GAO... cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organization” “if incorrect use of funds is reported” without adequate due process;

Section 5 also reads “the decisions to cease funding by the GAO can be appealed by the nation or organization to the Independent Adjudicative Office”. Also, I’d assume that the DEA, as mentioned in Section 4, would carry out their own due process before informing the GAO of the “incorrect use of funding”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Incensed at section 5’s requirement that “the GAO... cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organization” “if incorrect use of funds is reported” without adequate due process;

Section 5 also reads “the decisions to cease funding by the GAO can be appealed by the nation or organization to the Independent Adjudicative Office”. Also, I’d assume that the DEA, as mentioned in Section 4, would carry out their own due process before informing the GAO of the “incorrect use of funding”

I thought of that. The specific reporting criteria are not linked to the DEA.

Moreover, the control mechanism itself creates massive harms for member nations. The passive construction of the next clause allows for the interpretation that the mere reporting of incorrect use of funds triggers the severe penalties that follow.

The argument that the only relevant reports are those from the Department of External Auditors is undercut by this being in a separate section. Moreover, the hypothetical enemies of, say, Bigtopia would never interpret the resolution this way, arguing instead that the passive construction permits them also to make reports.

Imperium Anglorum, "Spending without controls" (2020) 2; Ibid note 5. Moreover, the provisions of section 5 are not sufficient:

And while the resolution provides due process to restore lost funds, it requires the General Accounting Office to shut off funds merely when reported, with no discretion to reject false or malicious reports.

Funds that can be shut off at a whim, before entering an appeals process where a member nation likely must prove their own innocence, creates massive harms to poorer member nations. The funding restrictions are not limited only to funds given by this resolution. It says that the "allowance of funds"' shall cease. If the resolution meant only the funds in this resolution, it ought to have made that explicit or used the same verb as in section 3.

Ibid 2–3.

EDIT (9 Sep) Fixed formatting conversions necessary from Latex to bbCode. (14 Sep) Changed link from old Dropbox version to newer GitHub version.

[Comfed]

Responding to The North Pacific's IFV on the target resolution:

TNP IFV: Supporting and Valuing the Humanities is a proposal that firstly notes the importance and rightful mention of the humanities within the halls of the WA, coming after GA# 475 which spoke on the importance of the Natural Sciences.
Tinhampton: Much of what SaVing the Humanities' preamble says about the humanities - that it is important, that it can help people develop their critical thinking skills, that it has proven important for the development of ideas for a long time, and that people who work in this field should be celebrated - applies to almost all other academic subjects.

TNP IFV: This resolution not only speaks about the humanities' importance, but takes steps to ensure their presence and usage in member nations' curriculums.
Tinhampton: This is broadly incorrect. SaVing the Humanities only requires that one humanities subject be available for study in each year group - there is no requirement that students take these courses or that (if they do) such courses are factual and non-trivial in nature. If I "offer" you a job, that doesn't mean you're required to sign a contract to say that you work for my company.

TNP IFV: Funding is offered for those nations who may not be able to support such curriculums with their own national budget through the World Humanities Fund.
Tinhampton: There are seven distinct purposes for which WHF funds may be requested: three of them relating to humanities courses up to university level, one for informal access-to-humanities courses, one for finding humanities-related jobs, one for R&D (if that can be said, read my repeal) and one for symposia. Furthermore, there are no conditions associated to which national governments and non-profits under their jurisdiction may apply for WHF funding; so as long as they have not been blacklisted by the WHF for "incorrect use of funding" (although "incorrect" is a horribly jarring word to be using in this context), they can apply for WHF funds, regardless of whether they are actually unable to fund such projects.

TNP IFV: Such funding has been given concrete objectives to ensure that no money is being improperly used.
Tinhampton: The objectives in Article 3 of SaVing the Humanities are not "concrete." Fluffy language such as "seek[ing] to further the research and development in various areas of the humanities," "funding humanities courses... to allow for greater accessibility outside of formal academic institutions," "strengthen the academic enrichment of courses" and "increase the offerings of exposure to the foundations of areas in the humanities" is abound. For instance, does "academic enrichment" mean requiring that humanities courses cover more points of view with less detail, that they expand upon the beliefs of only a few thinkers, or that they set out to enhance critical thinking skills for their students?

TNP IFV: These funds are not limited to only governments, but are extended to non profit entities who help further the mission of this proposal.
Tinhampton: This is correct, but in some contexts (such as Article 3a) funds cannot directly go to the entities that need funding when necessary.

TNP IFV: Built into the proposal is the formation of the Department of External Auditors, which ensures funds are being responsibly allocated to avoid wasteful spending and ensures transparency when it comes to the use of funding.
Tinhampton: The DEA's mission is overstated by TNP's Ministry of WA Affairs; its task is to report abuse of funds to the GAO (using funds for their intended purpose remains the responsibility of member states), not to "ensure [that] funds are being responsibly allocated." Furthermore, the DEA's existence is unnecessary; in Quality in Health Services, the WHA can reject funding requests of its own accord without having to receive a notification from another WA committee that its funds are being misused.

TNP IFV: For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the proposal, "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities".
Tinhampton: Tinhampton reacted with :god_thinker:

OOC: Umm... we decide our IFV recommendation based on a forum vote, which also decides the delegate’s vote. And then we write something. More often than not, we create a for and against IFV, and then use whichever one is voted for.

[Draganisia]

Responding to The North Pacific's IFV on the target resolution:

TNP IFV: Supporting and Valuing the Humanities is a proposal that firstly notes the importance and rightful mention of the humanities within the halls of the WA, coming after GA# 475 which spoke on the importance of the Natural Sciences.
Tinhampton: Much of what SaVing the Humanities' preamble says about the humanities - that it is important, that it can help people develop their critical thinking skills, that it has proven important for the development of ideas for a long time, and that people who work in this field should be celebrated - applies to almost all other academic subjects.

TNP IFV: This resolution not only speaks about the humanities' importance, but takes steps to ensure their presence and usage in member nations' curriculums.
Tinhampton: This is broadly incorrect. SaVing the Humanities only requires that one humanities subject be available for study in each year group - there is no requirement that students take these courses or that (if they do) such courses are factual and non-trivial in nature. If I "offer" you a job, that doesn't mean you're required to sign a contract to say that you work for my company.

TNP IFV: Funding is offered for those nations who may not be able to support such curriculums with their own national budget through the World Humanities Fund.
Tinhampton: There are seven distinct purposes for which WHF funds may be requested: three of them relating to humanities courses up to university level, one for informal access-to-humanities courses, one for finding humanities-related jobs, one for R&D (if that can be said, read my repeal) and one for symposia. Furthermore, there are no conditions associated to which national governments and non-profits under their jurisdiction may apply for WHF funding; so as long as they have not been blacklisted by the WHF for "incorrect use of funding" (although "incorrect" is a horribly jarring word to be using in this context), they can apply for WHF funds, regardless of whether they are actually unable to fund such projects.

TNP IFV: Such funding has been given concrete objectives to ensure that no money is being improperly used.
Tinhampton: The objectives in Article 3 of SaVing the Humanities are not "concrete." Fluffy language such as "seek[ing] to further the research and development in various areas of the humanities," "funding humanities courses... to allow for greater accessibility outside of formal academic institutions," "strengthen the academic enrichment of courses" and "increase the offerings of exposure to the foundations of areas in the humanities" is abound. For instance, does "academic enrichment" mean requiring that humanities courses cover more points of view with less detail, that they expand upon the beliefs of only a few thinkers, or that they set out to enhance critical thinking skills for their students?

TNP IFV: These funds are not limited to only governments, but are extended to non profit entities who help further the mission of this proposal.
Tinhampton: This is correct, but in some contexts (such as Article 3a) funds cannot directly go to the entities that need funding when necessary.

TNP IFV: Built into the proposal is the formation of the Department of External Auditors, which ensures funds are being responsibly allocated to avoid wasteful spending and ensures transparency when it comes to the use of funding.
Tinhampton: The DEA's mission is overstated by TNP's Ministry of WA Affairs; its task is to report abuse of funds to the GAO (using funds for their intended purpose remains the responsibility of member states), not to "ensure [that] funds are being responsibly allocated." Furthermore, the DEA's existence is unnecessary; in Quality in Health Services, the WHA can reject funding requests of its own accord without having to receive a notification from another WA committee that its funds are being misused.

TNP IFV: For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the proposal, "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities".
Tinhampton: Tinhampton reacted with :god_thinker:

OOC: Umm... we decide our IFV recommendation based on a forum vote, which also decides the delegate’s vote. And then we write something. More often than not, we create a for and against IFV, and then use whichever one is voted for.

OOC: Yes but either way there is nothing wrong with responding to it. Also since this is NS the GAO funds pretty much are endless right now so there is no real reason to repeal that yet which is why I am voting against it like just about everyone else.

[Honeydewistania]

Also since this is NS the GAO funds pretty much are endless right now so there is no real reason to repeal that yet which is why I am voting against it like just about everyone else.

No, it’s not

[Imperium Anglorum]

GAO resources are not infinite. If they were, we ought probably to use them; write up a "Abolition of all tax" resolution.

[The Palentine]

Normally this would fall under my, I really don't give a rat's ass if this one passes or fails, so I might as well make some quick cash. attitude. At this point I'd bring out my fine Yeldan Pickle jar(TM), place it on my desk and announce my vote is for sale to the highest bidder. However this time I've decided to go against my gut feelings and vote for this repeal. Now I guess all that is left is to watch the sh*tstorm begin.

At this point the good but unwholesome old reprobate fills a large water tumbler with ice and Wild Turkey 101, fires up a fine Yeldan cigar(TM) the size of a small kosher salami, places his feet on his desk, and begins reading the September issue of Juggs Magazine, while leaning back in his chair.

[WayNeacTia]

It appears yet another Tinhampton proposal is going to reach its inevitable climax.

[Araraukar]

GAO resources are not infinite. If they were, we ought probably to use them; write up a "Abolition of all tax" resolution.

OOC: To specify further, the General Fund's money comes from the member nations themselves, and most member nations get their money from taxes gathered from their inhabitants, so basically the money the GA committees and proposals use, comes from the taxes of the WA population. Including those who voted against the proposal wanting to use their money.

[Honeydewistania]

I do not value humanity, so this is an easy FOR

[Imperium Anglorum]

From The South Pacific's IFV:

While this seems bad, the same clause states that "...The decisions to cease funding by the GAO can be appealed by the nation or organization to the Independent Adjudicative Office". We believe that if nations or organisations appeal to the IAO, an independent review body, will be able to prevent 'radiocative leaks' from occurring in member nations as a result of frivolous reports.

From my working paper:

And while the resolution provides due process to restore lost funds, it requires the General Accounting Office to shut off funds merely when reported, with no discretion to reject false or malicious reports. Funds that can be shut off at a whim, before entering an appeals process where a member nation likely must prove their own innocence, creates massive harms to poorer member nations... All of those funds are shut off until a member nation can complete its appeal with a favourable verdict.

Even if due process were upheld in invoking this funding embargo, the resolution would greatly harm countries with poor spending controls and deprive people who had nothing to do with any malfeasance of their health, lives, and livelihoods. But the failure to ensure due process makes this even worse, exposing member nations to the whims of their enemies and creating an unnecessary choice between domestic security and the welfare of their citizens.

Quotes from pages 3–4.

[Primorye Oblast]

Any repeal of a good resolution that does not have a replacement draft ready to submit is a big NO from me, regardless of the problems cited in the repeal.

I'm done with the "good intentions" repeal in the hopes of replacing it sometime in the future. At best, it's naively optimistic; at worst, it's a shell game by bad faith opposition.
We need to put pressure on authors to have a replacement draft ready if they are going to argue for a repeal and replace effort. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you just want to repeal it because you oppose the original resolution ideologically.

[Tinhampton]

Any repeal of a good resolution that does not have a replacement draft ready to submit is a big NO from me, regardless of the problems cited in the repeal.

I'm done with the "good intentions" repeal in the hopes of replacing it sometime in the future. At best, it's naively optimistic; at worst, it's a shell game by bad faith opposition.
We need to put pressure on authors to have a replacement draft ready if they are going to argue for a repeal and replace effort. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you just want to repeal it because you oppose the original resolution ideologically.

This repeal of GA#495 was written and submitted without any intention of replacement - and yes, I do "oppose the original resolution ideologically" because it allows for GAO funding to be unnecessarily thrown down the drain!

[United States of Americanas]

1. Using flashy photos to get votes is a red flag.
2. Talking about uranium mines in a education bill. You’re being irrelevant about the bill at hand.
3. Repeal without a replacement = opposed

Strongly opposing this for many more reasons.

[Kenmoria]

2. Talking about uranium mines in a education bill. You’re being irrelevant about the bill at hand.

(OOC: That was the basis of the criticism levied at the target proposal. A clause in the target had a debatable impact on all instances of GAO funding, including uranium mines, which clearly should have fallen well outside the legislation’s scope.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

2. Talking about uranium mines in a education bill. You’re being irrelevant about the bill at hand.

Target resolution says that “the GAO... cease the allowance of funds to the transgressing nation or organization” “if incorrect use of funds is reported”. Does the GAO provide funds for uranium mines? Yes. Are those funds embargoed? Yes. Is that relevant, when those funds are provided to prevent radiological accidents? Yes.

[Tinhampton]

"Repeal "Supporting and Valuing the Humanities"" was defeated 9,029 votes to 4,649.

[The Palentine]

Any repeal of a good resolution that does not have a replacement draft ready to submit is a big NO from me, regardless of the problems cited in the repeal.

I'm done with the "good intentions" repeal in the hopes of replacing it sometime in the future. At best, it's naively optimistic; at worst, it's a shell game by bad faith opposition.
We need to put pressure on authors to have a replacement draft ready if they are going to argue for a repeal and replace effort. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you just want to repeal it because you oppose the original resolution ideologically.

Sorry to pee in your bowl of Fruit Loops, old bean, but the author of a repeal is under NO OBLIGATION to offer a replacement.

See you in the Funny Papers,
Sen. Horatio Sulla