Split from Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

[Flemingovia]

[not a joke]I thought the beloved Rule 4 already did that?

Note, however, that basing your proposal solely on a Real World ideology without reference to NationStates has been illegal since the introduction of Rule 4.

[/not a joke]

[Mousebumples]

Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

Once passed, WA law is presumed to be legal. Even if they are found to be otherwise after reaching a vote (or after passage), the mods/admins cannot and will not do anything about it.

Further, the GA and SC work as separate bodies. The rules of one do not apply to the other. (However, for the record, there is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.)

[Flemingovia]

thank you for that clarification. I did not realise that such a distinction existed. Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

Once passed, WA law is presumed to be legal. Even if they are found to be otherwise after reaching a vote (or after passage), the mods/admins cannot and will not do anything about it.

Further, the GA and SC work as separate bodies. The rules of one do not apply to the other. (However, for the record, there is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.)

What I meant was taking the resolution on Idealogical Bans and applying it as stated, and in the Proposal to Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe mention as a side point that it violates the Idealogical Bans resolution.

I thought that the rules of the GA and SC DO apply to each other as they are both part of the WA

[Mahaj WA Seat]

thank you for that clarification. I did not realise that such a distinction existed. Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?

Rule 4 DOES apply to the SC. Or am I misreading what you are saying?

[Flemingovia]

No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.

You said:

here is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.

and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.

[Grandais]

and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans.

Where?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Why not bring the SC resolution and we will find out?

...once the NS world has stopped laughing long enough to vote. it would be good for the lutz.

Why is it funny? By the logic employed here the North Pacific is supporting Islamofascism. [arguments about how this brings bad press to the site, and how this condones fascism] [/arguments].

[A mean old man]

There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.

[Mallorea and Riva]

There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.

In a way this resolution blocks any such attempts. It contradicts any such law.

[Mousebumples]

No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.
You said:

here is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.

and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.

The GA Rule in question that I was referencing was this one:

Game Mechanics
Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

Ideological Bans
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

I admit to not being super-familiar with SC rules - other than a general familiarity. However, as I understand it, R4 is not an ideological ban.

As others have said, the resolution "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" would be illegal if authored as a new proposal TODAY as it refers directly to the players within this region - not to the actions of the nations/leaders/etc. of the region. It's not about the actions of the region but really just about the name of the region.

Does that make sense? I can give it another go, if that doesn't help to explain things. Or, you know, members of our Modly Awesomeness can say it with more clarity.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.
You said:

and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.

The GA Rule in question that I was referencing was this one:

Game Mechanics
Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

Ideological Bans
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

I admit to not being super-familiar with SC rules - other than a general familiarity. However, as I understand it, R4 is not an ideological ban.

As others have said, the resolution "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" would be illegal if authored as a new proposal TODAY as it refers directly to the players within this region - not to the actions of the nations/leaders/etc. of the region. It's not about the actions of the region but really just about the name of the region.

Does that make sense? I can give it another go, if that doesn't help to explain things. Or, you know, members of our Modly Awesomeness can say it with more clarity.

But is it possible to do the following:

Create a GA resolution which says something along the lines of

No region or nation shall be disciplined for their ideology

and then submit a Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe and say that Condemn Nazi Europe violates the above GA resolution and should be repealed.

does that work? Is my explanation clear?

[Warzone Codger]

But is it possible to do the following:

Create a GA resolution which says something along the lines of

No region or nation shall be disciplined for their ideology

and then submit a Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe and say that Condemn Nazi Europe violates the above GA resolution and should be repealed.

does that work? Is my explanation clear?

If GA resolutions applied to the Security Council, most the SC's resolutions would be illegal right now. From WA 2

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Since basically every SC commend/condemn/liberation relates back to some military conflict (raiders vs defenders), all of them would be illegal if we follow what you're saying.

[Flemingovia]

Ideological Bans
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

The above does not apply in the case of this condemnation. It condemns Nazi Europe, it does not ban national socialism.

[Flemingovia]

Why not bring the SC resolution and we will find out?

...once the NS world has stopped laughing long enough to vote. it would be good for the lutz.

Why is it funny? By the logic employed here the North Pacific is supporting Islamofascism. [arguments about how this brings bad press to the site, and how this condones fascism] [/arguments].

I make it a point of honour never to explain humour. Once you do so the funniest joke in the universe* can be killed. You either find the above scenario funny or you do not.

I do, and I think others would too. Maybe not you. I am coming to understand that the NS forums are not the place for someone with a sense of humour. Some people here seem to need a proctologist to clean their teeth. (not you, of course)




* this is "hedgehogs - I don't get it. Why can't they share the hedge?"

[Sedgistan]

There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.

Not entirely the case:

Note, however, that basing your proposal solely on a Real World ideology without reference to NationStates has been illegal since the introduction of Rule 4.

I'll answer the rest of the points later today if still necessary.

[Meekinos]

There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.

There's no rule but there is precedent. And that precedent currently says that we can condemn ideologies. Our goal is to reverse that precedent so we can't condemn ideologies. The rules have no bearing here. Even if they did, every resolution passed before the induction of the SC ruleset is not retroactive. It applies to everything that was written from the introduction onward. The repeal had to respect that in order to be legal and pass all the basic legality challengers, if there was one. That's the trickiest part of all, it has to make its case using the current set of rules to repeal something that was written in a different era.

[Sedgistan]

Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

No. As Mousebumples says, any resolution which is passed by the World Assembly is deemed legal by the fact it has passed. Therefore it's impossible to repeal a resolution on the grounds that it's illegal.

Regarding passing a GA resolution which says that nations/regions can't be discriminated against based on ideology, I think that would fall foul of the GA resolution laws.

What I meant was taking the resolution on Idealogical Bans and applying it as stated, and in the Proposal to Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe mention as a side point that it violates the Idealogical Bans resolution.

Condemn Nazi Europe is not an ideological ban - it shows disapproval of the Nazi ideology, but does not ban it.

I thought that the rules of the GA and SC DO apply to each other as they are both part of the WA

No, or every SC proposal would fall foul of the GA's rule against metagaming.

Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?

Rule 4 applies to all SC proposals submitted from the time the rule was introduced. Previous resolutions were grandfathered in.

EDIT: I've split out all the post which discussed Mahaj's legality query. I apologise for splitting your post too, Meekinos, but as it was a direct response to one of the split posts, I felt it was more appropriate in this thread.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Okay, then I guess my Idea won't work.

It was just another attempt at finagling a way to get this Repealed, since who knows whether this will pass or not.

[Mousebumples]

Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

No. As Mousebumples says, any resolution which is passed by the World Assembly is deemed legal by the fact it has passed. Therefore it's impossible to repeal a resolution on the grounds that it's illegal.

Although, technically, I believe you could author a repeal text on different grounds (i.e. as been done here), but then use the argument that it would currently be illegal if proposed as a new draft TODAY as an argument for why it should be repealed in the At Vote thread, lobbying telegrams, etc.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize the split happened until just now. But, the "as has been done here" reference is to the Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" proposal, of course. I just wanted to edit that in for clarity since the proposal in question is not in this thread anymore.