NATION

PASSWORD

Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2949
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

Postby Sciongrad » Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:07 pm

Comprehensive List of GenSec Decisions

1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

6. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

  1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
  2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
  3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.
b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

7. Discretion over the Docket

The General Secretariat shall have discretion over which questions it hears. The General Secretariat shall grant a question a review with the approval of at least two members. If the General Secretariat decline to grant a question a review, each member that voted not to grant the question a review shall provide their reasoning publicly and promptly.

8. General Assembly Rule Changes

GenSec is responsible for making changes to the General Assembly Rules for Proposals. GenSec will draft the wording of the new or altered rule. The draft will be published in the GA forum for a two-week public comment period after which GenSec will finalise the rules change and request the moderators to update the General Assembly Rules for Proposals.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

Section 1 subsection d added on February 17, 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on March 1, 2017.
Section 6 added on May 14, 2017.
Section 6 header bolded on June 23, 2017.
Section 7 added on June 29, 2017.
Section 8 added on March 4, 2018.
Section 8 corrected for style on March 15, 2018.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:49 pm, edited 14 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8224
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:31 pm

If comments are permitted, publication thereof is certainly a good thing for confidence in this institution!

Sciongrad wrote:
1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.
1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

6. Discarding Proposals[/b]

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

  1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
  2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
  3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.
b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

Section 1 subsection d added on February 17, 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on March 1, 2017.
Section 6 added on May 14, 2017.
Comprehensive List of GenSec Decisions

1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

6. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

  1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
  2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
  3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.
b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

7. Discretion over the Docket

The General Secretariat shall have discretion over which questions it hears. The General Secretariat shall grant a question a review with the approval of at least two members. If the General Secretariat decline to grant a question a review, each member that voted not to grant the question a review shall provide their reasoning publicly and promptly.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

Section 1 subsection d added on February 17, 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on March 1, 2017.
Section 6 added on May 14, 2017.
Section 6 header bolded on June 23, 2017.
Section 7 added on June 29, 2017.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:39 am, edited 6 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
The Grand Puffle Republic
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Feb 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Grand Puffle Republic » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:29 am

It's interesting how you were commended for anti-beurocracy yet the mods picked you for their "more unnecessary beurocracy".-_-
Owner of "The peaceful coffee shop in Chicago"
Proud supporter of socialism!
WA Ambassador: Beaumont LéChêree
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.24

User avatar
The Grand Puffle Republic
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Feb 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Grand Puffle Republic » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:54 am

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:It's interesting how you were commended for anti-beurocracy yet the mods picked you for their "more unnecessary beurocracy".-_-

Not trying to be rude, just pointing out the contradiction.
Owner of "The peaceful coffee shop in Chicago"
Proud supporter of socialism!
WA Ambassador: Beaumont LéChêree
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.24

User avatar
Thama
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1393
Founded: Jun 29, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Thama » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:19 am

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:
The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:It's interesting how you were commended for anti-beurocracy yet the mods picked you for their "more unnecessary beurocracy".-_-

Not trying to be rude, just pointing out the contradiction.

Except this is the opposite of unnecessary bureaucracy. Finally blatantly idiotic proposals will be removed swiftly.
Politics? In my NS? It's more likely than you think.
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.50
Factbook, not stats. Not a guy, not a gal.
- The Nikopolian Empire and Archoncy of Thama -
- Des Nikopolsraik and Arkoncy of Thama -
Capital city: Capital District Territory
Official languages: Ostspeak, Llynduneg
Government: Federal Monarchy
Population: 234,240,000
Head of State: Cedric Stargard
National Anthem: First March
Technology Level: Class V11 (Late PMT)
Area: 6,103,670 Sq km (mainland)
Map


Insert Cliche Here

User avatar
The United Royal Islands of Euramathania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 124
Founded: Nov 21, 2016
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby The United Royal Islands of Euramathania » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:45 pm

I do hope this is the right place to suggest it, but maybe the legality challenges that are player initiated should have a subforum, much as the rulings do. That way they can be kept as a record of what issues have been seen and people can get guidance from those debates. Would also be helpful to know which challenges are active and make it easier to provide public comment for or against the challenge. And if a ruling as been issued then the thread could be locked once the ruling and dissent(if any) are posted so people can't just add on. It would keep the GA forum a bit tidier too.
Last edited by The United Royal Islands of Euramathania on Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the Office Ambassador of The United Royal Islands of Euramathania,
on behalf of the Eternal Monarch, the Theryiat, and the Most Serene Republic

"Many blessings of falling rain, and fair wind."
GA Ambassador: The Wise and Considered, A. Meridian, of the House of Solus Garden
Assistant Ambassador: The Distinguished, C.J. Wallows
Email: wa-office@uri-euramathania.com Yes, It's real.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13392
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:56 am

The United Royal Islands of Euramathania wrote:I do hope this is the right place to suggest it, but maybe the legality challenges that are player initiated should have a subforum, much as the rulings do. That way they can be kept as a record of what issues have been seen and people can get guidance from those debates. Would also be helpful to know which challenges are active and make it easier to provide public comment for or against the challenge. And if a ruling as been issued then the thread could be locked once the ruling and dissent(if any) are posted so people can't just add on. It would keep the GA forum a bit tidier too.


I have no idea if this was addressed elsewhere, but I was reading through this again and wanted to make a note.

Subforums were considered, but viewed as unnecessarily complicated and prone to creating confusion. Right now, we have the GenSec forum (invisible) and the Archive forum. If Legality Challenges start to gum up the forum, we can revisit it, but until then, we're sticking to the regular forum.

Somebody correct me if I'm off on that.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:34 pm

On a 5-1 vote, GenSec has approved the following procedure for discarding proposals.

5. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

  1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
  2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
  3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.
b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18959
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:02 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:On a 5-1 vote, GenSec has approved the following procedure for discarding proposals.

5. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

  1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
  2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
  3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.
b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

What about resolutions?
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13392
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:59 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:On a 5-1 vote, GenSec has approved the following procedure for discarding proposals.

5. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

  1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
  2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
  3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.
b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

What about resolutions?


Resolutions are passed proposals. We csnt affect those.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8224
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:54 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:Resolutions are passed proposals. We csnt affect those.

Anything that gets to a vote is a resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=ga
At the top, it says "General Assembly Resolution At Vote".

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 22832
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Anarchy

Postby Frisbeeteria » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:25 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Anything that gets to a vote is a resolution

You're being pedantic. It doesn't officially become a resolution until the vote passes. Otherwise we'd have to call all DEFEATED proposals "resolutions"

"General Assembly Resolution At Vote" is still the purview of the moderators. GenSec has no tools to affect those. If there is a failed Legality Challenge for a resolution at vote, the mods can and will use our "Discard at the end of voting" button.

Passed resolutions cannot be affected by either the mods or GenSec. Admin technically has the power to remove them (exercised on a few horrid resolutions when our original server died and we moved to Jolt), but it's extremely unlikely that will ever happen again.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18959
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:02 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Anything that gets to a vote is a resolution

You're being pedantic. It doesn't officially become a resolution until the vote passes. Otherwise we'd have to call all DEFEATED proposals "resolutions"

We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth. By your logic, the title "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" is redundant, and "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts" is actually a boldfaced lie coded into the game.
"General Assembly Resolution At Vote" is still the purview of the moderators. GenSec has no tools to affect those. If there is a failed Legality Challenge for a resolution at vote, the mods can and will use our "Discard at the end of voting" button.

What counts as a successful legality challenge on a resolution at vote then? I ask because a majority of GenSec ruled Open Internet Order illegal, but the resolution was allowed to pass.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13392
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:07 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:You're being pedantic. It doesn't officially become a resolution until the vote passes. Otherwise we'd have to call all DEFEATED proposals "resolutions"

We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth. By your logic, the title "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" is redundant, and "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts" is actually a boldfaced lie coded into the game.
"General Assembly Resolution At Vote" is still the purview of the moderators. GenSec has no tools to affect those. If there is a failed Legality Challenge for a resolution at vote, the mods can and will use our "Discard at the end of voting" button.

What counts as a successful legality challenge on a resolution at vote then? I ask because a majority of GenSec ruled Open Internet Order illegal, but the resolution was allowed to pass.



Your last point wikkbe addressed when the ruling is published.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18959
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:48 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth. By your logic, the title "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" is redundant, and "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts" is actually a boldfaced lie coded into the game.

What counts as a successful legality challenge on a resolution at vote then? I ask because a majority of GenSec ruled Open Internet Order illegal, but the resolution was allowed to pass.

Your last point wikkbe addressed when the ruling is published.

Will it though? To get back to my original question, will GenSec treat at-vote resolutions just like proposals?
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13392
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:56 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Your last point wikkbe addressed when the ruling is published.

Will it though? To get back to my original question, will GenSec treat at-vote resolutions just like proposals?


We consider anything not Passed a proposal. The redundancy isn't really a big deal.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18959
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:07 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Will it though? To get back to my original question, will GenSec treat at-vote resolutions just like proposals?

We consider anything not Passed a proposal. The redundancy isn't really a big deal.

All right, thank you. The change in procedure is appreciated.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11946
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:39 am

Wallenburg wrote:We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth.

Only in the sense that their at-vote threads get archived in the right place. If you're talking about ones that have been repealed (referring to the Passed Resolutions thread makes it look that way), then that's true, but repealed ones are no longer considered valid as arguments for new ones, as far as I know.

Separatist Peoples wrote:We consider anything not Passed a proposal. The redundancy isn't really a big deal.

Not the way I was taught it; anything that gets to a vote is a resolution. If it passes, it becomes a passed resolution, but if it's defeated, it's basically thrown into the bin and never spoken of again. :P
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Thyerata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thyerata » Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:59 pm

Can GenSec be asked to rule on/explain the interpretation of the rules, without there being an underlying legality challenge? I ask because I've come across a proposal (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=409593) that I like, and I don't want to challenge, but I disagree with the author over the interpretation and applicability of the RL rule.
From the Desk of the Honourable Matthew Merriweather Ph.D. (Law, 2040) LLM Public and International Law, 2036) LLB Law (2035) (all from Thyerata State University)
Thytian Ambassador to the World Assembly and Security Council

I'm a gay LLM candidate with mild Asperger syndrome and only one functioning eye. My IC posts may reflect this, so please be aware

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13392
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:05 am

Thyerata wrote:Can GenSec be asked to rule on/explain the interpretation of the rules, without there being an underlying legality challenge? I ask because I've come across a proposal (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=409593) that I like, and I don't want to challenge, but I disagree with the author over the interpretation and applicability of the RL rule.

You can ask, but we will not speak as a unit, merely as individuals. Furthermore, without a legality challenge nothing is precedential, merely advisory.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8224
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:31 am

Questions to the Prime Minister! (Bercow, yelling) Mr Imperium Anglorum! Okay. Joke over, but the actual question: Is there or will there be a policy to actually release the discussions to the Secretariat Archive forum, as various persons agitated for in the original threads concerning the formation of this council?

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:33 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Questions to the Prime Minister! (Bercow, yelling) Mr Imperium Anglorum! Okay. Joke over, but the actual question: Is there or will there be a policy to actually release the discussions to the Secretariat Archive forum, as various persons agitated for in the original threads concerning the formation of this council?

The current policy is one month. Are there any particular discussions on which you're waiting?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11946
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:35 am

Christian Democrats wrote:The current policy is one month. Are there any particular discussions on which you're waiting?


This perhaps?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=410614

The ruling was given May 7th.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18959
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:08 am

We're also waiting on this one from May 5th or so:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=410699

Is GenSec still struggling to get opinions on these? The members have been rather active.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8224
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:50 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:The current policy is one month. Are there any particular discussions on which you're waiting?

Thank you for confirming this. If that is the case, there are various different discussion threads which should have been released. I'm unclear on exactly which ones they are, but I am confident that there are more than three or so (unfortunately, I haven't made an exhaustive search of the relevant data when the ruling are issued).

It would also be fantastic if, when rulings were issued, they were also tagged with a specific ruling tag, perhaps something like #ruling-lc-XYZ, to make them accessible via the phpBB's searching mechanism, which is admittedly rather crude.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron