[PASSED] Recognition of the General Assembly

[Wrapper]

Second, it's false even just from a roleplay perspective. The General Assembly can pass and in fact has passed resolutions prohibiting WA member nations from engaging in non-compliance with General Assembly resolutions. These resolutions are binding from a roleplay perspective, based on the rules of the General Assembly.

As someone who's roleplayed non-compliance in the past, I wholly disagree with this statement. It certainly can be done in an RP sense -- not in the largely-ignored everyday braggadocio of ambassadors saying "my nation will never comply with this," but with more subtle, "behind-the-scenes" actions by its leaders or representatives that are never acknowledged by its characters in a public forum. Part of the fun and intrigue of roleplaying such non-compliance is showing the struggle with the morality of it, of trying to balance the needs of one's own people with society's rules, when to bend those rules, when to outright break those rules, etc. Also, from a game mechanic standpoint, this is untrue as well. The GA may outlaw any restrictions on abortion, for example, but that doesn't prevent a WA member nation from making abortion illegal when Issue #136 or Issue #183 pops up.

Anyway, bottom line for me, the SC has already recognized the GA, as countless commendations (and even a few condemnations) have referenced GA resolutions, and even a couple (like Separatist Peoples' own commendation) reference RP in the GA forum. This proposal merely formalizes what's already in existence. That's why I voted in favor.

[Partnership for Sovereignty]

The Partnership for Sovereignty recommends a vote FOR "Recognition of the General Assembly”: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1570340

[Servilis]

I find this proposal really funny because... It's commending the GA,
The SC commending the GA, how funny,

This is like if a member of a Judicial Branch turned to a member of a Legislative Branch, and lets say these two have been working together for years, and the JB member says "Aight dawg let's kiss",

I don't know why but I find this proposal really funny, especially since it's long overdue,

My joke here also implies the existence of... WAcest...

/j /PG

EDIT : This is so worth all the incoming moderation telegrams haha.

[Beta Cyndriel]

I find this proposal really funny because... It's commending the GA,
The SC commending the GA, how funny,

This is like if a member of a Judicial Branch turned to a member of a Legislative Branch, and lets say these two have been working together for years, and the JB member says "Aight dawg let's kiss",

[...]

There will somehow be fan art of this up on DeviantArt before you finish the sentence. I'm terrified to see what the SC waifu turns out to be.

As far as the proposal, it has all the feel of some kid sneaking booze into the Prom to spike the punch bowl "for the lulz", so....no. It's already enough like a telenovela around here as it is.

[Waldenes]

“Why, this is an absolutely splendid idea! We shall vote in favor.”

[Imperium of Josh]

I find this proposal really funny because... It's commending the GA,
The SC commending the GA, how funny,

This is like if a member of a Judicial Branch turned to a member of a Legislative Branch, and lets say these two have been working together for years, and the JB member says "Aight dawg let's kiss",

I don't know why but I find this proposal really funny, especially since it's long overdue,

My joke here also implies the existence of... WAcest...

/j /PG

EDIT : This is so worth all the incoming moderation telegrams haha.

The fact that it is in effect a commendation of all GA players, for doing nothing to impact the game in any meaningful way in the vast majority of cases (i.e. simple voting participants), is why it's so stupid and unwelcome. The SC already has mechanisms to commend (or condemn) noteworthy people as they earn it, and the entire GA most certainly has not earned the right to come over to the SC just to pat itself on the back for simply existing.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Recognition of the SC in the GA would obliterate the basic RP conventions around metagaming; I may not be especially frequent around here these days, but, frankly, passing this will do nothing. GA RP simply can't acknowledge the SC, it's a fundamentally metagame entity, whereas the GA is a fundamentally RP based entity. The SC already acknowledges the GA, The Imperium here was condemned specifically on GA grounds, but, by its very nature, this relationship can only go one way.

I really don't see what you expect to achieve by this.

[Holy Roman Empires2]

I personally think it ridiculous (I dont want to ridicule any rp concerns, or anything like that- I'm probably not even that into the wa and its rp for my comments to have any weight), that the Security Council should not recognize the General Assembly. They will exist without the SC recognition, and vice versa. When you join the wa, you have the right to vote in the GA and SC. This should just be a formality.

Why make a deal out of it? Then again, why bother with a resolution? Even though I see it as as a bit pointless, as others have pointed out theres commendations and condemnations of GA resolutions, I think that its still an admirable gesture.

[The Random Thief]

After this passes, I expect that the GA will pass a bill in its chambers giving the Security Council its formal recognition.

I mean, there's no double standard, right?

[Wallenburg]

After this passes, I expect that the GA will pass a bill in its chambers giving the Security Council its formal recognition.

I mean, there's no double standard, right?

Have you discovered a way to remove the Metagaming rule?

[WayNeacTia]

After this passes, I expect that the GA will pass a bill in its chambers giving the Security Council its formal recognition.

I mean, there's no double standard, right?

That would be metagaming.

[The Random Thief]

After this passes, I expect that the GA will pass a bill in its chambers giving the Security Council its formal recognition.

I mean, there's no double standard, right?

Have you discovered a way to remove the Metagaming rule?

I'm sure the GA's best can simply write around that.

[Mikeswill]

V. An active disavowment of either chamber of the World Assembly should be considered a disavowment of both, with the full consequences being incurred upon the offender.

We are a Region steadfast AGAINST the Security Council on principal. We thus cannot adhere to this recent Proposal that attempts to punish our free speech within the World Assembly under this provision. As such, voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Recognition of the General Assembly".

MH

[Praeceps]

While I think this proposal is lame (sorry Morover), I do find it incredibly amusing that it is passing despite the lamentations of certain GAers and SCers that are trying to ignore that the other chamber exists.

[Imperium of Josh]

While I think this proposal is lame (sorry Morover), I do find it incredibly amusing that it is passing despite the lamentations of certain GAers and SCers that are trying to ignore that the other chamber exists.

That'd be the individual nation sheep-stacking from the initial vote distribution.... And the fact that noobs have no idea how stupid this is.

[Wallenburg]

Have you discovered a way to remove the Metagaming rule?

I'm sure the GA's best can simply write around that.

I'm pretty sure they can't. The precedent is pretty categorical when it comes to the legality of mentioning the Security Council.

[WayNeacTia]

Have you discovered a way to remove the Metagaming rule?

I'm sure the GA's best can simply write around that.

Talk to Fris and get him to repeal GAR #2 and we can talk.

[The Random Thief]

I'm sure the GA's best can simply write around that.

I'm pretty sure they can't. The precedent is pretty categorical when it comes to the legality of mentioning the Security Council.

That's lame.

I'm sure the GA's best can simply write around that.

Talk to Fris and get him to repeal GAR #2 and we can talk.

Do you know if Fris takes bribes in the form of cookies?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm sure the GA's best can simply write around that.

I'm pretty sure they can't. The precedent is pretty categorical when it comes to the legality of mentioning the Security Council.

Not really. It's gone back and forth over the years. Currently GenSec has it as illegal. Before that, it was legal. Before that, it was illegal. Before that, there was no SC.

[Wallenburg]

I'm pretty sure they can't. The precedent is pretty categorical when it comes to the legality of mentioning the Security Council.

Not really. It's gone back and forth over the years. Currently GenSec has it as illegal. Before that, it was legal. Before that, it was illegal. Before that, there was no SC.

Unlike the inconsistent rules back when mods regulated GA proposal rules, GenSec is very consistent in the application of the rules.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Not really. It's gone back and forth over the years. Currently GenSec has it as illegal. Before that, it was legal. Before that, it was illegal. Before that, there was no SC.

Unlike the inconsistent rules back when mods regulated GA proposal rules, GenSec is very consistent in the application of the rules.

You made it sound (at least by my reading) that the precedent has been set in stone for some time, which isn't the case. I'm not attacking GenSec.

[Wallenburg]

Unlike the inconsistent rules back when mods regulated GA proposal rules, GenSec is very consistent in the application of the rules.

You made it sound (at least by my reading) that the precedent has been set in stone for some time, which isn't the case. I'm not attacking GenSec.

I guess what counts as longstanding precedent may differ from person to person, but seeing as it has been precedent for four and a half years I think it's something that we can call consistent.

[The Random Thief]

All this talk about precedent is so exciting! Is this a taste of what the GA is like?

[Mallorea and Riva]

You made it sound (at least by my reading) that the precedent has been set in stone for some time, which isn't the case. I'm not attacking GenSec.

I guess what counts as longstanding precedent may differ from person to person, but seeing as it has been precedent for four and a half years I think it's something that we can call consistent.

I don't disagree.

All this talk about precedent is so exciting! Is this a taste of what the GA is like?

MallEdit: Snarky response replaced with truth: yes.

Anyways, it's vaguely interesting that this is passing with 80% support among individual member states, but only 70% overall - the delegates are more against this than the WA at large.

[Wallenburg]

All this talk about precedent is so exciting! Is this a taste of what the GA is like?

Yes.