[Legality Challenge] International Art Gallery

[PotatoFarmers]

Beckingham: "I have always been under the impression only Mild Proposals can write an entire proposal based on recommendations & optional clauses. By that logic, this proposal is illegal since the strength isn't mild?"

Proposal In Question: International Art Gallery, which just went to vote in the Assembly

Proposal Text: See spoiler below

International Art Gallery
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Cultural

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the rich artistic traditions of the World Assembly’s diverse multitude of member states,

Concerned, however, that cultural divides and a lack of international cooperation often lead to a lack of multicultural artistic knowledge,

Wishing to educate and inspire a new generation of artists among WA citizens by creating a public gallery of artwork from member states of all sizes, cultures, and histories,

Hereby:

Establishes the Artistic Retention Trusteeship (ART) with the task of creating, maintaining, and expanding two galleries:

1. The Publicly Available International Net Treasury (PAINT), a public and easily available online repository with the purpose of documenting the artwork of member states. The ART must:
   
   1. Visit the public museums and galleries of all consenting member nations to photograph, audio/videotape, or otherwise record a digital display of all exhibited artworks within, except when:
      
      1. a nation would present a direct or indirect danger to any dispatched photographers or historians.
      2. Photographing or otherwise recording the artwork would damage or degrade the quality of the piece.
   2. Research and compose, to the best of their ability, a short historical or contextual explanation of each recorded artwork for study thereof.
   3. Publish all digital artwork displays on the PAINT website alongside any research done on the histories of the artworks.
   4. Establish an onsite channel for reporting mistakes done in research or origins of any artworks; All such reports must be investigated and changed accordingly.
   5. Ensure effective and adequate organization and working order of the PAINT, including searchable labelling of artwork by nation, artist, time period, collection, and any other labels deemed relevant by the ART.
2. The Public Institution for the Exhibition of Craft Expertise (PIECE), a physical gallery with the purpose of presenting the greatest masterpieces of each member nation:
   
   1. The Office of Building Management must allocate a sufficiently accessible (to as many WA nations as possible) and sizable portion of land within international World Assembly territory for the purposes of building the PIECE.
   2. The ART must:
      
      1. Build and maintain the PIECE, accommodating adequate space for the volume of donated artworks and providing additional ability to expand as necessary for future donations to the gallery.
      2. Establish a system of outgoing loans with member state governments wherein governments may loan up to two pieces of artwork to the PIECE for a period of 3 years, choosing at the end of that period to either renew the loans on those pieces of artwork, exchange them with other pieces, or remove them entirely.
      3. Ensure that all artworks being loaned to the gallery are of a reasonable size, moral decency, and have not been illegally or immorally sourced. Additionally, to the best of its ability, consent must be ascertained by any living artists or creators of works being loaned to the PIECE.
      4. Conserve all active artworks in the PIECE, ensuring they are not damaged or altered during their time in the PIECE. If a piece becomes impossible to conserve for any reason, ART may cancel the outgoing loan and request another artwork from the originating nation.
      5. Create caption cards for all submitted artworks based on any information provided by donating member states, making sure to include the artists and countries of origin.

Encourages member states to expand art study programs to include foreign artwork and artistic technique as well as student exchange programs to other WA member states.

Co-authored by Fhaengshia.

Rules in question: Optionality

Optionality: Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all member nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed. However, for 'Mild' strength proposals, terminology such as "URGES", "RECOMMENDS" is acceptable.

Argument(s):
The rule states that proposals, upon becoming resolutions, are "mandatory and binding on all member nations". My argument is that this proposal, doesn't have a single portion that is binding on all member nations, which is the minimum requirement to fulfil the rule.

There are 3 main clauses to the proposal. The first is the creation of the Publicly Available International Net Treasury (PAINT). It is not a requirement for all member nations to participate in PAINT, as given by the wording in the proposal as follows:

1. The Publicly Available International Net Treasury (PAINT), a public and easily available online repository with the purpose of documenting the artwork of member states. The ART must:
   
   1. Visit the public museums and galleries of all consenting member nations to photograph, audio/videotape, or otherwise record a digital display of all exhibited artworks within, except when:

Given that member nations are expected to give consent in order to participate in the PAINT, it can therefore be argued that it is non-binding for them, they are allowed to ignore the said clause by not giving consent.

The second is the creation of the Public Institution for the Exhibition of Craft Expertise (PIECE).

2. The Public Institution for the Exhibition of Craft Expertise (PIECE), a physical gallery with the purpose of presenting the greatest masterpieces of each member nation:
[list=a][*]The Office of Building Management must allocate a sufficiently accessible (to as many WA nations as possible) and sizable portion of land within international World Assembly territory for the purposes of building the PIECE.
[*]The ART must:
[list=i][*]Build and maintain the PIECE, accommodating adequate space for the volume of donated artworks and providing additional ability to expand as necessary for future donations to the gallery.
[*]Establish a system of outgoing loans with member state governments wherein governments may loan up to two pieces of artwork to the PIECE for a period of 3 years, choosing at the end of that period to either renew the loans on those pieces of artwork, exchange them with other pieces, or remove them entirely.

Given the use of the word "may", it is therefore implied that it is up to the governments to decide whether they want to comply and support by lending the artworks to PIECE.

The last clause is just an "encourages" clause, encouraging member states to expand art study programs. The use of the word encourages implies that this is, again, another optional clause.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

The last clause is just an "encourages" clause, encouraging member states to expand art study programs. The use of the word encourages implies that this is, again, another optional clause.

As far as I know -- a GenSec member can correct me if I'm wrong -- "encourages" clauses only violate "Optionality" if you can opt-out of -- or fail to opt-in to -- being encouraged. This clause encourages all member nations.

An argument can be made that this would be a category violation; as the proposal is not explicitly "Mild" -- due to the E&C/Artistic category lacking a strength input -- it is too mild to fit into the category. This would be supported by non-binding moderator precedent.

I would personally hope that GenSec disregards this non-binding precedent, as such a ruling would block off legislation that isn't "Strong" on an entire category, which would be more harmful to the game Ooc than allowing the equivalent of "Mild" or "Significant" strength within a category without explicit strengths.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Apologies for the double post -- however, I would argue that there is a case to be made for illegality under the "Committees" rule, though I would personally still view the resolution at vote as legal. All of the mandates -- noticeably apart from the encouragement -- legislate solely on the committee, and seem not to do so in a manner that grants the committee authority to directly act upon member nations. The committee enters consenting member nations' museums; the committee maintains the PAINT; the committee creates the PIECE; the committee establishes the loan mechanism; etc). However, there are two arguments to made for legality which I believe should be considered _

If a piece becomes impossible to conserve for any reason, ART may cancel the outgoing loan and request another artwork from the originating nation.

Does "request another artwork from the originating nation" mean that the ART has the authority to bind a nation to provide "another artwork", or does it merely allow ART to make a request which may or may not be followed through? I would personally argue that this wording would imply the latter -- just because something is requested does not mean that it is actually mandatory. However, I would view the former interpretation as a colourable one that could be used to defend this proposal's legality.

Encourages member states to expand art study programs to include foreign artwork and artistic technique as well as student exchange programs to other WA member states.

Do non-binding clauses -- such as "Encourages" -- that legislate directly on member nations exempt violation of the Committee-Only rule, as they do for Optionality? I would argue that it should indeed exempt violation of the rule, as that would be necessary to ensure consistency in the ruleset.

My thanks in advance to GenSec for considering the arguments in this thread.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's well established that both optionality and committees exclude hortatory language.

---

An argument can be made that this would be a category violation; as the proposal is not explicitly "Mild" -- due to the E&C/Artistic category lacking a strength input -- it is too mild to fit into the category. This would be supported by non-binding moderator precedent.

This is an unresolved question and where I would focus my analysis. Facts also may have changed: back when the areas of effect were set up in that way, I believe they were strong. I recall someone remarking that they were downgraded to significant some time ago. The best version of the argument is that it would be a strength violation to place a mild proposal in an area of effect that implicitly requires a significant strength.

Edit. I have asked Sanctaria via Discord to weigh in on the strength question.
Edit. The Secretariat will take this question. Topical community feedback or briefs on these (and related) matters will be appreciated.

[Sanctaria]

Edit. I have asked Sanctaria via Discord to weigh in on the strength question.

E&C: Cultural Heritage would have similar stat direction changes as other categories such as IntSec, for example, has for "Strong".

However, "Strong" in other categories often effects more areas than that which E&C:CH would - they're more sweeping, to borrow a term.

For AoE strengths, where Mild, Significant, and Strong aren't demarcated, I would advise that they are typically between Significant and Strong - they should not, in my opinion, be taken as "Mild". GenSec are naturally free to make their own determination on how they should be interpreted going forward.

[Unibot III]

I would urge GenSec to consider “Universal Library Coalition” — a significant GA resolution — when reviewing the resolution under question today.

My understanding is that the committee precedent - “your resolution can’t just create committees” - and the optionality precedent - “your resolution can’t just have optional clauses, it must do something” are limited conditions and have interacted with one another in an unusual way over the years because they can cancel each other out.

Universal Library Coalition is one example of this, the WA Environmental Council is another.

A resolution can satisfy the need for more than just optional clauses by establishing a committee (which is different than an “Encourages” or “Urges” clause), and a resolution can satisfy the need for more than committee-creating clauses with optional clauses (“Encourages” / “Urges”). Paradoxically this results in a resolution satisfying both rules on a superficial basis without requiring that a resolution directly compels a member-nation to do something.

The International Art Gallery would join a number of past resolutions in doing just this, satisfying both the committee and optionality rules by playing them against each other.

This is also consistent, I should add, with Game Mechanics because these resolutions always either directly or indirectly result in spending in arts and creativity or the environment. So the effect is there, even in the cause is discreet.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

It's well established that both optionality and committees exclude hortatory language.

Fair enough.

Edit. I have asked Sanctaria via Discord to weigh in on the strength question.

E&C: Cultural Heritage would have similar stat direction changes as other categories such as IntSec, for example, has for "Strong".

However, "Strong" in other categories often effects more areas than that which E&C:CH would - they're more sweeping, to borrow a term.

For AoE strengths, where Mild, Significant, and Strong aren't demarcated, I would advise that they are typically between Significant and Strong - they should not, in my opinion, be taken as "Mild". GenSec are naturally free to make their own determination on how they should be interpreted going forward.

Thanks for this input.

I would strongly advocate a ruling against proposals with a strength equivalent of "Mild" in categories without explicit strengths. Such a ruling would force category-wank for many kinds of proposals, as they cannot be put in a category without explicit strengths -- and there would be very little actual benefit to such a ruling. A blanket stat effect of "Significant" can be interpreted as being the average stat effect of a resolution in a category -- rather than the effect of the particular resolution. If that is the case, it counters any argument for illegality based on stats.

I'm so far not seeing any other justification for this being illegal that is not "stats", and I'd rather not block off entire ideas for being "too mild" on an (imo) weak argument.

[Old Hope]

I would strongly advocate against such a ruling. Such a ruling would force category-wank for many kinds of proposals, as they cannot be put in a category without explicit strengths -- and there would be very little actual benefit to such a ruling. A blanket stat effect of "Significant" can be interpreted as being the average stat effect of a resolution in a category -- rather than the effect of the particular resolution. If that is the case, it counters any argument for illegality based on stats.

I'm so far not seeing any other justification for this being illegal that is not "stats", and I'd rather not block off entire ideas for being "too mild" on an (imo) weak argument.

It does not block off these ideas entirely.
You just need to do more than the proposal currently does and add something. "Stats" is a very valid reasoning based on roleplay. The effects of a resolution should not be vastly different from what the proposal text would suggest. Just like issues should have an effect based on what the option says... a resolution should not be mis-represented by its effects.
Mild proposals like these are already on the edge of legality. Having to do a bit more isn't the end of the world. Sanctaria said it themselves, the category isn't broad; a simple demand to(not just encouragement of) member states should probably be enough for legality

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

I would strongly advocate against such a ruling. Such a ruling would force category-wank for many kinds of proposals, as they cannot be put in a category without explicit strengths -- and there would be very little actual benefit to such a ruling. A blanket stat effect of "Significant" can be interpreted as being the average stat effect of a resolution in a category -- rather than the effect of the particular resolution. If that is the case, it counters any argument for illegality based on stats.

I'm so far not seeing any other justification for this being illegal that is not "stats", and I'd rather not block off entire ideas for being "too mild" on an (imo) weak argument.

It does not block off these ideas entirely.
You just need to do more than the proposal currently does and add something. "Stats" is a very valid reasoning based on roleplay. The effects of a resolution should not be vastly different from what the proposal text would suggest. Just like issues should have an effect based on what the option says... a resolution should not be mis-represented by its effects.
Mild proposals like these are already on the edge of legality. Having to do a bit more isn't the end of the world. Sanctaria said it themselves, the category isn't broad; a simple demand to(not just encouragement of) member states should probably be enough for legality

"A resolution that only does [insert mild effect]" is an idea.

[Old Hope]

It does not block off these ideas entirely.
You just need to do more than the proposal currently does and add something. "Stats" is a very valid reasoning based on roleplay. The effects of a resolution should not be vastly different from what the proposal text would suggest. Just like issues should have an effect based on what the option says... a resolution should not be mis-represented by its effects.
Mild proposals like these are already on the edge of legality. Having to do a bit more isn't the end of the world. Sanctaria said it themselves, the category isn't broad; a simple demand to(not just encouragement of) member states should probably be enough for legality

"A resolution that only does [insert mild effect]" is an idea.

A resolution that only introduces a committee is also an idea. And illegal.
That a resolution should do a bit more than merely constantly asking member nations to do something isn't unreasonable.
We have major proposal ideas that could not be used because they do not fit into the category system or otherwise violate rules.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"A resolution that only does [insert mild effect]" is an idea.

A resolution that only introduces a committee is also an idea. And illegal.

I don't agree with that rule.

That a resolution should do a bit more than merely constantly asking member nations to do something isn't unreasonable.

The non-binding request is unacceptable if it's on arts or free press, but if it's on civil rights or national defense, it's all fine and dandy?

We have major proposal ideas that could not be used because they do not fit into the category system.

Example? And even if this was the case, that doesn't mean that more proposal ideas should be blocked off because they don't have a category.

[Old Hope]

A resolution that only introduces a committee is also an idea. And illegal.

I don't agree with that rule.

Stats.

That a resolution should do a bit more than merely constantly asking member nations to do something isn't unreasonable.

The non-binding request is unacceptable if it's on arts or free press, but if it's on civil rights or national defense, it's all fine and dandy?

You misunderstand. It is not a major problem for civil rights or national defense because the mild category adequately represents very small stats changes.... but I don't have a problem with these going away entirely.

We have major proposal ideas that could not be used because they do not fit into the category system.

Example? And even if this was the case, that doesn't mean that more proposal ideas should be blocked off because they don't have a category.

Hmmm now... it's actually mostly other rules, I think. Nevertheless:
Any WA resolution abolishing or reducing welfare.(Category)
A WA currency(Metagaming)
A WA resolution on WA member expulsion(Metagaming)
A WA resolution banning a listed industry, such as Automotive(Ban all automobiles).(Blocker)
A WA official religion (Metagaming)
A WA World Government that micromanages member nations (Metagaming)
A WA resolution mandating actions from member nations against non-member nations (Metagaming...)
A WA resolution decreasing civil rights in the name of tyranny(instead of moral decency)(Category).

[Attempted Socialism]

Edit. I have asked Sanctaria via Discord to weigh in on the strength question.

E&C: Cultural Heritage would have similar stat direction changes as other categories such as IntSec, for example, has for "Strong".

However, "Strong" in other categories often effects more areas than that which E&C:CH would - they're more sweeping, to borrow a term.

For AoE strengths, where Mild, Significant, and Strong aren't demarcated, I would advise that they are typically between Significant and Strong - they should not, in my opinion, be taken as "Mild". GenSec are naturally free to make their own determination on how they should be interpreted going forward.

I would make the contrarian case here that a it is detrimental to rule in a way that sets the precedent that what would work as mild-strength language in any other resolution is prohibited in the categories with areas of effect. I recognise that the stats may not exactly reflect this, but I think the rules should consider both stats and game-play effects. This is an added complexity that is not clear in the rules as currently constituted, is not clearly helping anyone (At least, that is not clear to me), and would make some styles of lighter touch resolutions in those categories impossible. To take them in order:
I am a proponent of the principle that people only have to read the rules as pinned to have a good chance of understanding the rules to the level where they could write a legal resolution (A fairly classic Civil Code viewpoint, where the law is supreme and case law is subordinate). The ruling catalogue is mostly relevant in interpretation and edge cases; today, reading the rules is usually enough. Requiring many categories to adhere to a specific strength (Not mild, and perhaps not even significant either) should not be hidden in some ruling from Autumn 2022.
Second, to reverse Cicero's famous phrase 'cui bono', I could ask 'cui nocer'? Who is harmed? What detrimental effect do we want to make impossible by ruling that what is usually mild language doesn't work within several categories? Is it to build a better game? Make it more fair? I can't see what the positive benefit is that warrants ruling on the inherent strength -- and thus required language -- of the areas of effect.
Third, I can see a detriment. A number of resolutions in the areas of effect target areas where a lighter touch is warranted. This can be due to political concerns (Industry or Health might both be contentious enough that 'mild' language is easier to pass) or because the categories themselves lend themselves towards letting nations decide for themselves (Regulation, tort reform, for instance). Without the option of writing mild-strength language some of these areas of effect would be much harder to legislate on than they already are, to the detriment of the game.

I'm not arguing against stats as a whole, but I don't think that stats can decide an issue like this without also considering game-play effects, and there are weighty concerns against it, as far as I can see. The transparency of the rules, that the ruling implied in the statistical strength isn't needed to protect the game, and that the ruling could wall off several areas of effect from reasonable legislation, are in my view reasons to allow mild-strength language in the areas of effect categories regardless of what the stats might suggest.

[Sanctaria]

I would make the contrarian case here

I am not making any "case"; IA asked me to explain the current stats, insomuch as I am able to with regard to divulging confidential information. I have no position either way on this legality challenge.

The stats, as it stands, are more in line with Significant or Strong. They should not be understood to be the same as stats that are associated with a Mild resolution. That's just the reality of the coding.

How GenSec chooses to move forward with regards to interpretation of strength is a case for them - it has nothing to do with me, and my explanation of the stats typically has no bearing. It's generally given only when requested and even then just to provide background information for GenSec.

[Attempted Socialism]

I would make the contrarian case here

I am not making any "case"; IA asked me to explain the current stats, insomuch as I am able to with regard to divulging confidential information. I have no position either way on this legality challenge.

The stats, as it stands, are more in line with Significant or Strong. They should not be understood to be the same as stats that are associated with a Mild resolution. That's just the reality of the coding.

How GenSec chooses to move forward with regards to interpretation of strength is a case for them - it has nothing to do with me, and my explanation of the stats typically has no bearing. It's generally given only when requested and even then just to provide background information for GenSec.

I apologise for attributing the case to you, then. I should have paid more attention to your wording.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would prefer it if people did not attribute some case or taking-sides-ism to Sanct. I requested background information on the specific statistical coding, which the Secretariat does not have access to, which Sanct (as an Issues editor) does have access to. We felt it would be better if that information were posted publicly; the alternative is to do that consultation behind closed doors.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Submitted in support of a finding of illegal as the rules currently stand:

I agree that the proposal at vote currently ought to be deemed illegal under the strength rule. A summary of the argument:

1. Strengths are explicitly delineated by their statistical effects. Mild nudges nations but not more than to the centrist position. Strong proposals institute broad and sweeping changes that can push a nation to the extreme. Significant exists to handle the squishy middle.
2. The statement of Sanctaria, should be treated as a definitive statement as to the statistical effects of proposals that have areas of effects (or as definitive a statement as we are going to be given)
3. If 1 is desirable (strength tied to statistical effect), is true, and is considered desirable, then it follows that proposals with areas of effect should be required to justify the statistical effect they have.
4. From 2, let us accept as stipulated fact that the statistical effect of the areas of effect is more than significant and less than strong, to wit the stat changes are of a magnitude with strong but are confined to a narrow category.
5. From 4 and 1, it is reasonable to call a narrow but sweeping change significant (strong would also be possible, as I read Sanc's statement as there being some inconsistency to exactly how broad each category is inherently, but I think forcing all proposals to be strong would be debilitating to an extent that we should not accept).
6. From 5, areas of effect have a (broadly) significant impact on statistics. To maintain the relationship between proposals and effects as delineated in 1, areas of effect should be significant in strength. This also accords with the prior moderator precedent. To the extent that precedent tracks both logic and the current state of the rules and code, it should be considered highly persuasive as well.
7. Under the precedent of International Aviation Act (3 Gensec 2016), it is impossible for proposals that only advise and suggest to "affect policy in a dramatic way". This accords with the longstanding treatment of such proposals as being mild only.
8. Measured against causing a sweeping but narrow change, a strictly advisory proposal cannot clear this hurdle, as "WA members are at liberty to reject GA suggestions after giving them due consideration" (ibid).
9. The proposal is, accordingly, illegal.

Submitted as commentary in support of neither side:

The strength rule is itself in need of some clear precedent and delineation. Internation Aviation Act (supra) actually only establishes that suggestions cannot ever be strong, but does not actually establish definitively that they cannot be significant. As laid out, I believe they should not be held to be significant, but I recognize that GenSeC has never actually stated so. GenSec has an opportunity here to provide guidance on this question as well.

Additionally, the dividing line between significant and strong is unclear. Administrative Compliance Act (25 Gensec 2018) is a 3-2 decision that does not give particularly clear guidance on where the line is between significant and strong. Sep eventually submitted as significant instead of strong, leaving the published opinion in place, but without the benefit of the reasoned dissent of the 3-2 panel, and strength has not been revisited in the 4 years hence.

I would like to suggest that beyond the immediate proposal at hand, GenSec should seek to promulgate a clearer standard of delineation between strengths and a clear standard of what level of strength proposals written in areas of effect should be written for, through amendments to the language of the ruleset.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

[list=1]
[*]Strengths are explicitly delineated by their statistical effects. Mild nudges nations but not more than to the centrist position. Strong proposals institute broad and sweeping changes that can push a nation to the extreme. Significant exists to handle the squishy middle.
[*]The statement of Sanctaria, should be treated as a definitive statement as to the statistical effects of proposals that have areas of effects (or as definitive a statement as we are going to be given)
[*]If 1 is desirable (strength tied to statistical effect), is true, and is considered desirable, then it follows that proposals with areas of effect should be required to justify the statistical effect they have.

I disagree. Category and strength should be treated as an estimation of the actual effects of a proposal. It does not -- and should not -- have to be the exact effects that a proposal would have if, say, it was an issue option. In this case, the strength cannot be specifically chosen as "Mild", "Strong", or "Significant" -- so the closest option to such strength should be allowed. The closest option that approximates the strength of the effects of the resolution at vote is the blanket strength assigned to all proposals in the Arts category.

From 2, let us accept as stipulated fact that the statistical effect of the areas of effect is more than significant and less than strong, to wit the stat changes are of a magnitude with strong but are confined to a narrow category.

From 4 and 1, it is reasonable to call a narrow but sweeping change significant (strong would also be possible, as I read Sanc's statement as there being some inconsistency to exactly how broad each category is inherently, but I think forcing all proposals to be strong would be debilitating to an extent that we should not accept).

Agreed.

From 5, areas of effect have a (broadly) significant impact on statistics. To maintain the relationship between proposals and effects as delineated in 1, areas of effect should be significant in strength. This also accords with the prior moderator precedent. To the extent that precedent tracks both logic and the current state of the rules and code, it should be considered highly persuasive as well.

Under the precedent of International Aviation Act (3 Gensec 2016), it is impossible for proposals that only advise and suggest to "affect policy in a dramatic way". This accords with the longstanding treatment of such proposals as being mild only.

Even GenSec precedent can be overturned. Moderator precedent does not have to even be considered in GenSec decisions, and here it should not be considered. The rules exist -- and should exist -- to ensure the WA's Ooc health. There is no harmful Ooc effect to allowing a favourable (to the proposal) ruling in cases of ambiguity in the category system. There is, however, a harmful Ooc effect in blocking off all legislation that isn't "Strong" or "Significant" on numerous categories.

Submitted as commentary in support of neither side:

The strength rule is itself in need of some clear precedent and delineation. Internation Aviation Act (supra) actually only establishes that suggestions cannot ever be strong, but does not actually establish definitively that they cannot be significant. As laid out, I believe they should not be held to be significant, but I recognize that GenSeC has never actually stated so. GenSec has an opportunity here to provide guidance on this question as well.

Additionally, the dividing line between significant and strong is unclear. Administrative Compliance Act (25 Gensec 2018) is a 3-2 decision that does not give particularly clear guidance on where the line is between significant and strong. Sep eventually submitted as significant instead of strong, leaving the published opinion in place, but without the benefit of the reasoned dissent of the 3-2 panel, and strength has not been revisited in the 4 years hence.

I would like to suggest that beyond the immediate proposal at hand, GenSec should seek to promulgate a clearer standard of delineation between strengths and a clear standard of what level of strength proposals written in areas of effect should be written for, through amendments to the language of the ruleset.

I agree with this, with the caveat that a speedy resolution (no pun intended) to the legality of this particular resolution should be treated as a short-term priority over long-term amendments to the text of the ruleset.

[Sanctaria]

Category and strength should be treated as an estimation of the actual effects of a proposal. It does not -- and should not -- have to be the exact effects that a proposal would have if, say, it was an issue option.

Just for background information, we did adjust the stats of WA resolution categories about 4/5 years back now so that mild/significant/strong reflected issue options.

Mild is the same as one issue on the matter, Significant is the same as two issues on the matter, Strong is the same as three issues on the matter. In general.

[Old Hope]

Category and strength should be treated as an estimation of the actual effects of a proposal. It does not -- and should not -- have to be the exact effects that a proposal would have if, say, it was an issue option.

Just for background information, we did adjust the stats of WA resolution categories about 4/5 years back now so that mild/significant/strong reflected issue options.

Mild is the same as one issue on the matter, Significant is the same as two issues on the matter, Strong is the same as three issues on the matter. In general.

What about affecting nations that are already on the stat edge? How is that handled with Mild vs others?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Category and strength should be treated as an estimation of the actual effects of a proposal. It does not -- and should not -- have to be the exact effects that a proposal would have if, say, it was an issue option.

Just for background information, we did adjust the stats of WA resolution categories about 4/5 years back now so that mild/significant/strong reflected issue options.

Mild is the same as one issue on the matter, Significant is the same as two issues on the matter, Strong is the same as three issues on the matter. In general.

Thanks for this clarification.

[Wallenburg]

*** Notice from the General Assembly Secretariat ***
Challenged Proposal: International Art Gallery
Date of Decision: 24 October 2022
Decision: Illegal
Rules Applied: Optionality

A formal opinion is in progress.

[The Web of Life and Destiny]

Interesting! Clearly a rule I do not understand at all haha. Thanks for the briskness is deciding the legality though ^_^

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

*** Notice from the General Assembly Secretariat ***
Challenged Proposal: International Art Gallery
Date of Decision: 24 October 2022
Decision: Illegal
Rules Applied: Optionality

A formal opinion is in progress.

I do not wish to be intemperate, but is the basis of GenSec's ruling actually the optionality rule?

If so, I shall wait for the opinion, but would like to note that nothing in this challenge ever suggested that the optionality argument was being taken remotely seriously.

[PotatoFarmers]

OOC:
Given the discussion that was done in this thread, I am genuinely surprised that the GenSec agreed with my original legality challenge, especially with regards to what rule was broken. Given the lack of a strong precedent in this particular rule, I hope this can be seen as something to reference to for future interpretations on when a full-recommendation proposal is legal and when it is not.

IC:
The Poafmersian ambassador thanks the GenSec for their time, and curiously awaits to hear about the details of the opinions surrounding this issue.