[Legality Challenge] International Art Gallery

[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.

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.

There is no typo, the ruling on illegality was made on a rationale concerning the Optionality rule.

[WayNeacTia]

You consent to international law when you join the WA. This is just a bad ruling....

[Old Hope]

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.

There is no typo, the ruling on illegality was made on a rationale concerning the Optionality rule.

Let me guess: You are changing precedent and declaring proposals that only "urge" illegal as optional(because urging would not be remotely of the strength of one issue which was assigned to Mild proposals) because the effects of being urged are actually negligible and don't actually change laws in member states directly.

[Heidgaudr]

You consent to international law when you join the WA. This is just a bad ruling....

Let's not make wild assumptions before the opinion is posted, yeah?

[Unibot III]

You consent to international law when you join the WA. This is just a bad ruling....

Let's not make wild assumptions before the opinion is posted, yeah?

GenSec must have decided to enforce the Optionality rule further than it’s been applied before.

Given past resolutions like “Universal Library Coalition” and “WA Environmental Council” followed an analogous patterns of optional & committee clauses, whatever ruling is coming down must involve a new rules interpretation that will mean some of the most popular past resolutions on the books would now be illegal if resubmitted.

[Wallenburg]

Given past resolutions like “Universal Library Coalition” and “WA Environmental Council” followed an analogous patterns of optional & committee clauses, whatever ruling is coming down must involve a new rules interpretation that will mean some of the most popular past resolutions on the books would now be illegal if resubmitted.

Old resolutions were submitted under a completely different ruleset with completely different implications and were adjudicated by moderators with completely different understandings of the WA. With that context in mind, you are absolutely correct that resolutions written 13 or 14 years ago, even "popular" ones, might not be legal for submission under the current rules and precedent.

[Unibot III]

Given past resolutions like “Universal Library Coalition” and “WA Environmental Council” followed an analogous patterns of optional & committee clauses, whatever ruling is coming down must involve a new rules interpretation that will mean some of the most popular past resolutions on the books would now be illegal if resubmitted.

Old resolutions were submitted under a completely different ruleset with completely different implications and were adjudicated by moderators with completely different understandings of the WA. With that context in mind, you are absolutely correct that resolutions written 13 or 14 years ago, even "popular" ones, might not be legal for submission under the current rules and precedent.

I think the GA would just ask GenSec to not make new rules up by misreading the ones currently on the book.

The rule has been around for ages. It hasn’t changed much - here’s the wording from the 2010s: “GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.”

The new wording is slightly different: “ 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.”

My impression is that the person who rewrote the blurb was trying to make it sound more professional, not in fact change the meaning of clause and motivate GenSec to significantly strengthen the rule.

Resolutions that create committees and agencies and not much else in terms of specific requirements have in the past satisfied this rule, why? Because the language used in the resolutions don’t indicate that the resolutions are optional, they just don’t require direct policy commitments on the part of member-states; they however can have important statistic effects due to increased spending in the committee’s priority area.

A whole slew of not just popular, but landmark WA legislation would now be illegal to be resubmitted, which calls into question why you’re reinterpreting the rule, whether it is in the interests of the GA to support that new interpretation and rule, and whether the rule needs to be rewritten to accomplish its original purpose in light of this re-interpretation that expands its scope? I mean, what is GenSec protecting the GA from here? Libraries, museums, and laboratories basically? They’ve always been popular subjects in the WA, I’m not sure I see the public value in a stricter rule that forces more teeth — you’ll end up with dumb “mandatory” fig leaf clauses tacked on to satisfy the new ruling.

[WayNeacTia]

You consent to international law when you join the WA. This is just a bad ruling....

Let's not make wild assumptions before the opinion is posted, yeah?

I am not making wild assumptions. I am capable of reading both the resolution and the challenge. My eyes are connected to my brain, just like everyone else's. When we manage to see an opinion in the next six months, it should be a fascinating read as to how the manage to think any of this is optional.

Edit:
The whole "all consenting member nations", is the problem here. I suspect if it had said "all consenting nations", without the member, it can be construed that nations automatically consent when they join. This is pretty shaky if you ask me. The whole "may" argument is ridiculous in my opinion. All it is doing is enumerating permission, which nations already possessed to loan out artwork.

[Imperium Anglorum]

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***

The Secretariat found the proposal illegal on optionality grounds. Imperium Anglorum wrote the opinion, joined by Separatist Peoples and Wallenburg. Bananaistan and Sierra Lyricalia dissented. Sierra Lyricalia joined opinion's ¶¶ 2–3. Bananaistan joined opinion's ¶ 3.

Opinion

[1] There are three issues before us. They are presented here in the following order:

1. strength,
2. committees, and
3. optionality.

The community requested guidance on enforcement of the strength rule – eg @ – and we give it at ¶ 2. An argument was raised on the committees rule. @. We dismiss it at ¶ 3. These first two actions seem to have general agreement. Re optionality, however, the Secretariat rules 3–2 in favour of overturning an old and internally inconsistent precedent (hortatory language being mandatory).

[2] Selection of an area of effect is evaluated under the category rule's reasonable-fit test. See [2020] GAS 2, ¶¶ 7–8. The areas of effect (with some exceptions) lack explicit strength encodings, but on background information, the nexus of their effect (strong) and breadth (narrow) imply they have generally significant effect. However, we view requiring authors to submit proposals fitting the implicit strengths of the various areas of effect to be too restrictive. Because of their opacity, we therefore rule that proposals submitted in areas of effect without strengths cannot be challenged on a strength basis.

[3] Another challenger argued a novel reading of the committee-only rule. @. A committee-only challenge can be sustained only if two things are shown. (1) All proposal actions are through the committee ("forming it may not be the proposal's only action"). (2) Member nations are not required to engage with that committee beyond a minor interaction, such as filing paperwork. An interpretation question arises in discussing "actions"; actions are extremely broad. Encouraging a nation is an action. Accordingly, hortatory language outside of and without interaction with a committee (the last clause in the challenged proposal) fails a committee-only challenge ab initio.

[4] The current optionality rule requires that a proposal contain at least one mandatory clause binding member nations. The negative implication in "for mild strength proposals, terminology such as 'urges' [or] 'recommends' is acceptable" militates this straightforward test. This post-2016 wording overrules the old optionality rule's traditional interpretation that a member nation is bound to receive a recommendation. This is a distinction without a difference. Not only is our reading more consistent with the rule text, it also eliminates an internal logical inconsistency in the ruleset: traditionally read, the same hortatory language (eg encouraging further legislation) is a "requirement" in positive legislation but not new legislation in repeals. Logical inconsistencies are to be avoided. See [2022] GAS 2, ¶ 9. This reading also precludes the imaginative reading that creating a committee without requirements of member nations is mandatory: such an interpretation confuses an advisory committee with mandatory action.

[5] Proposals which contain only permissive language ("member nations may..." or where the WA "encourages member nations to...") are per se mild. Because of the wording of the exception, a non-mild area of effect does not enjoy the exception from the optionality rule; accordingly, a per se mild proposal (containing no mandatory language) must be submitted with mild strength or in a mild area of effect.

[6] International Art Gallery imposes no requirements on member nations and is per se mild. The proposal's direct engagement with member nations is limited to its last clause, where it "encourages member states to expand art study programmes". The core part of the proposal is indirect through two committees, which themselves act on member nations only with their consent (s 1(a) "consenting member nations"; s 2(b)(ii) "wherein governments may loan"). All further impacts on member nations are dependent on securing member consent or inter-museum loans. The mandatory-permissive canon precludes reading requirement. Here, we largely concur with the original challenger's factual allegations. @. Submitted in "Education and Creativity" under "Artistic", it is therefore illegal.

Dissent (Sierra Lyricalia)

I must respectfully but strongly dissent from the bulk of the Majority's opinion. In point of fact, it is specifically because I agree with paragraphs 2-3 that I have to reject the remainder. I find it a disturbing example of mental gymnastics that we have written in black and white (if not in stone) "proposals submitted in areas of effect without strengths cannot be challenged on a strength basis" [emphasis in original], and yet turn right around and rule the challenged proposal illegal on the basis of strength, for all that we sprinkled a veneer of "optionality" over it like a child tossing a white sheet over herself and saying "I'm a ghost, not a kid!" on Halloween night. The child remains a child, and this remains a strength issue.

Categories with areas of effect lack a user-selectable strength. In order for authors to be able to write to particular AoEs, it is therefore necessary to grant them a certain amount of leeway. If this is not granted, it becomes impossible for authors to utilize areas of effect to their full potential. The rules for proposals are supposed to be an aid to GA writing at the community level, not a straitjacket at the individual one. We therefore need to err on the side of permitting proposals that otherwise meet the many strenuous criteria to reach the floor to do so, even if they may appear "too strong" or "too mild" for the assumption that AoEs are typically "significant." The single exception to this rule is the obvious one - the Environmental AoEs "All Businesses - Mild" vs. "All Businesses - Strong."

Indeed, past practice has allowed AoE resolutions from so mild as to be nearly pure blockers (e.g. GAR #302), all the way to ones that would be Strong if strength were player-selectable (e.g. GAR #80). #88 is almost exactly what we have here, i.e. a committee-intensive text with only mild exhortations on member states outside of the committee context. By the precedent the Majority has set here, this extremely long-standing resolution is no longer legitimate but for simply having passed. If it were to be repealed, a substantially similar resolution to replace it would be illegal under the newly-invented label "per se mild."

I see nothing whatsoever in the rules that justifies this invention. Mild proposals are specifically permitted under the Optionality rule; Majority itself admits that AoE proposals "cannot be challenged on a strength basis;" this logically forecloses all possibilities. Cloaking a proposal's being yanked for strength in the language of the optionality rule does not make it so; the proposal was yanked because it was mild.

The majority opinion itself does not help authors parse the rules, either. We say on the one hand that AoE proposals may not be challenged on the basis of strength, and we say on the other that insufficiently strong proposals violate the Optionality rule despite that rule's explicit allowance of mild language in Mild resolutions. This rationale is what I would expect if our job were to gatekeep the proposal queue as harshly as we could. As our mandate is to help players keep a clear sense of how to write a good resolution, this ruling is a failure on our part. My only excuse is that I had COVID the week this case was being decided, and was thus unable to bring the force of my full polemical strength to bear on it. We have not helped the GA community by ruling this way and while I sincerely mean no disrespect to my colleagues in saying this, I eagerly look forward to the day we overturn this opinion.

2022gas4. 2022-10-30. Edited to substitute URL tags, which are clearer at signalling a link, than post tags. Added this summary. 2022-12-02. Added dissent from Sierra Lyricalia.

[Attempted Socialism]

After checking, I can see one "mild" area of effect: Environment, All businesses -- mild. That would be the only area of effect that traditionally 'mild' language is now permitted in, correct?

Can GenSec elaborate on whether they foresee a chilling effect on proposals in the areas of effect where 'mild' language is now unavailable, but where the complexity at hand or difference between just IRL nations may encourage the lighter touch that 'mild' language previously permitted? An example could be tort reform, which varies a lot between just the US states. Looking through actual resolutions in Regulation: Legal Reform area of effect also contains a lot of "may" or "encourages" clauses, which lends credence to my argument that some areas of effect can be too complex to invite the firmer language of significant and strong resolution strengths, although a cursory look didn't reveal any that would fall short of the rule as GenSec now establishes it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

After checking, I can see one "mild" area of effect: Environment, All businesses -- mild. That would be the only area of effect that traditionally 'mild' language is now permitted in, correct?

Can GenSec elaborate on whether they foresee a chilling effect on proposals in the areas of effect where 'mild' language is now unavailable, but where the complexity at hand or difference between just IRL nations may encourage the lighter touch that 'mild' language previously permitted? An example could be tort reform, which varies a lot between just the US states. Looking through actual resolutions in Regulation: Legal Reform area of effect also contains a lot of "may" or "encourages" clauses, which lends credence to my argument that some areas of effect can be too complex to invite the firmer language of significant and strong resolution strengths, although a cursory look didn't reveal any that would fall short of the rule as GenSec now establishes it.

As to mild AOEs, yes.

As to the second point, if this wasn't clear in the opinion, there is a difference between "per se mild" and normal "mild". Part of why the majority viewed this on an optionality basis was because "mild" is broader than "per se mild". A proposal which contains 1 mandatory clause and much hortatory language can still be "mild". It is not, however, "per se mild". The words "per se mild" refer only to proposals that lack any substantive requirements. You can write a "mild" proposal and put it in a non-mild AOE; this ruling asserts only that you cannot write a per se mild proposal and put it in a non-mild AOE. (The logical converse is stated in the opinion: "a per se mild proposal (containing no mandatory language) must be submitted with mild strength or in a mild area of effect".)

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

A fair ruling -- thank you.

[PotatoFarmers]

I am glad that we get a very substantial ruling on strength, committees, and optionality rule, and thank the Secretariat for its time.

[Republic of Mesque]

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***
Opinion
[5] Proposals which contain only permissive language ("member nations may..." or where the WA "encourages member nations to...") are per se mild. Because of the wording of the exception, a non-mild area of effect does not enjoy the exception from the optionality rule; accordingly, a per se mild proposal (containing no mandatory language) must be submitted with mild strength or in a mild area of effect.

We humbly ask the GenSec to consider exposing this clearer in the “General Assembly Rules for Proposals”, as “These options do have a statistical effect and strength”, when referring to areas that don’t have an explicit strength is vague and do not imply this ultimate ruling, which considers Areas of Effect as automatically significant (as opposed to “statistical”).

[Imperium Anglorum]

You're right that that statement in the rules doesn't yield the result of the opinion. That isn't because of the opinion though, it's because that statement is irrelevant and doesn't engage with the logic of the opinion. The optionality rule says that all proposals must have requirements. It provides an exception for proposals in mild strengths. AOEs (except Environmental | All industry | Mild) are not tagged as mild. They don't enjoy the exception. You therefore cannot put a proposal with no requirements therein.

[Republic of Mesque]

AOEs (except Environmental | All industry | Mild) are not tagged as mild. They don't enjoy the exception.

Understandable, even though they are not tagged as significant, either. There is room for clarification, for example, under Strength:
"Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specify the area of effect designated from a pre-populated list of options. These proposals are classified as of significant strength or higher and cannot be classified as Mild or use mild language."
Our misunderstanding may just be a form of procedural ignorance, so disconsider the above suggestion if deemed so.

[Imperium Anglorum]

AOEs (except Environmental | All industry | Mild) are not tagged as mild. They don't enjoy the exception.

Understandable, even though they are not tagged as significant, either. There is room for clarification, for example, under Strength:
"Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specify the area of effect designated from a pre-populated list of options. These proposals are classified as of significant strength or higher and cannot be classified as Mild or use mild language."
Our misunderstanding may just be a form of procedural ignorance, so disconsider the above suggestion if deemed so.

The issue with the rule at hand does not deal with the Strength rule at all. It deals only with the Optionality rule. These are separate matters and issues.

[Republic of Mesque]

The issue with the rule at hand does not deal with the Strength rule at all. It deals only with the Optionality rule. These are separate matters and issues.

Thank you for your answer. In the interest of transparency, We request that the content of [5] in the present Opinion be considered as complimentary information in the “General Assembly Rules for Proposals”, so that this precedent can be better understood by new legislators.
We believe that the inexistence of a selectable strength in Areas of Effect Legislation when proposing a resolution can be a factor of confusion in relation to per se mild proposals. Effectively, if We are not mistaken, this limits proposals for non-Mild Areas of Effect to Significant or Strong, meaning that, even if they are not tagged as Significant or Strong when proposing the legislation, they are so, and cannot be Mild.
Hopefully this point of view is considered, and We are available for any clarifications to the above request.