Political Freedoms

[Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago]

Can I have some feedback please?



Description: All Nations must allow the public to have some say in how the country is run.

Section 1, Generalities
In general these different types of nations should have this voting body, system, or failsafe in their government.
Article 1.1: Monarchies must have some sort of a parliament.

Article 1.2: Republics must have some sort of a congress.

Article 1.3: All Authoritarian nations must add some sort of a democratic system to have the leader be removed from power if the leader does something completely against the people.

Section 2, Exceptions
In rare circumstances, full control by the government is good but it cannot EVER be permanent and it MUST have a failsafe.
Article 2.1: During Martial Law the government can TEMPORARILY have full authoritarian control.

Article 2.2: During a vast disaster where authoritarian government take over is good for the people it can be allowed until the crisis is resolved.

Article 2.3: A country that is half authoritarian half democratic (e.x An Authoritarian Democracy) that has voting for a president is exempt even if they do not have a congress or parliament.

Section 3, Punishments
If this resolution is not abided by...
Article 3.1: This Proposal recommends that totalitarian nations not abiding by this should be condemned.

Section 4, Clarification
To clarify...
Article 4.1: This does not abolish authoritarian ideologies but it demands they have some sort of personal political freedom. From a parliament/congress for law making to presidential elections to a failsafe to remove an abusive leader from power.

[Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago]

Illegal (2): Bears Armed, Sierra Lyricalia

41 minutes ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Illegal — As stated below.
47 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Meta-gaming (mention of 'Authoritarian Democracy', clearly meaning the in-game categorization), possibly other problems. If you want to continue with this project then I suggest strongly that you redraft it in the GA forum, where you can receive more feedback from experienced authors.

[New Udonia]

I wouldn't recommend any attempts to enforce democracy, as a large percent of the WA are not democratic governments.
At this rate, who knows, maybe they'll script in a new international organization for the website which can wage war on the WA and vice versa.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: In the response you quoted, there was mentioned a problem of metagaming. This is because an authoritarian democracy is an in-game category, so it looks like you are referring to something outside the purview of the World Assembly. However, it was also mentioned that there could be other issues. There could also be a possible problem with ‘condemned’ in clause 3.1,mas that could be read as referring to an SC condemnation.)

“What about non-democratic, but still fair and transparent systems? For example, how are meritocracies, technocracies or gerontocracies affected by this?”

[Hatzisland]

The odds of this passing are near zero. This proposal has so many requirements that a clear majority of nations would be violating this law. I suggest, as Kenmoria said, you move on to something more passable.

[BlackLight Covenant]

Article 4.1: This does not abolish authoritarian ideologies but it demands they have some sort of personal political freedom. From a parliament/congress for law making to presidential elections to a failsafe to remove an abusive leader from power.

Now you say that this doesn't abolish any kind of ideologies, but I'm still convinced this is an ideological ban, even if not intended as such. It's pretty much certain that there are authoritarian and/or totalitarian regimes whose ideology is not compatible with democracy, or otherwise views democracy/democratic values as wrong.

Regardless of whether it's legal in this area or not, the WA's high number of authoritarian and totalitarian nations will most likely ensure a proposal like this one would never pass. I'd recommend finding something else to write about, preferably something that doesn't try to influence forms of government or ideologies. Trust me, it will be a lot easier to do compared to salvaging this proposal.

[Araraukar]

Now you say that this doesn't abolish any kind of ideologies, but I'm still convinced this is an ideological ban, even if not intended as such. It's pretty much certain that there are authoritarian and/or totalitarian regimes whose ideology is not compatible with democracy

OOC: ^This, pretty much.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Can I have some feedback please?



Description: All Nations must allow the public to have some say in how the country is run.

Section 1, Generalities
In general these different types of nations should have this voting body, system, or failsafe in their government.
Article 1.1: Monarchies must have some sort of a parliament.

Article 1.2: Republics must have some sort of a congress.

Bad idea. Have you ever heard of the House of Lords? Yup. Someone's just going to stuff in puppets, or, like in the case of my leader, call themselves President-Emperor. (A real life example would be Napoleon III). Also, please, please, define them.

Article 1.3: All Authoritarian nations must add some sort of a democratic system to have the leader be removed from power if the leader does something completely against the people.

Alrighty then. *Has the leader removed...and then reinstated by the 'acting leader'* This helps nobody. Also, you just let the monarchist libertarians (such people do exist, I know) get out scott-free. Or really any libertarian dictatorship. Or Charles De Gaulle.

Section 2, Exceptions
In rare circumstances, full control by the government is good but it cannot EVER be permanent and it MUST have a failsafe.
Article 2.1: During Martial Law the government can TEMPORARILY have full authoritarian control.

Temporarily have full authoritarian control for a googol millenia it is.

Article 2.2: During a vast disaster where authoritarian government take over is good for the people it can be allowed until the crisis is resolved.

*Cough cough* Hitler and the Enabling Act. *Cough cough*

Article 2.3: A country that is half authoritarian half democratic (e.x An Authoritarian Democracy) that has voting for a president is exempt even if they do not have a congress or parliament.

Wrong section. Also, why specifically a president? Why not just say 'head of state'?

Section 3, Punishments
If this resolution is not abided by...
Article 3.1: This Proposal recommends that totalitarian nations not abiding by this should be condemned.

"""""Recommends"""" Sure, because that'll do anything.

Section 4, Clarification
To clarify...
Article 4.1: This does not abolish authoritarian ideologies but it demands they have some sort of personal political freedom. From a parliament/congress for law making to presidential elections to a failsafe to remove an abusive leader from power.

Technically speaking, it is possible to be both authoritarian and democratic. Also, this has no actual legislative use whatsoever and should be made the preamble because you haven't got one.

[Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago]

Ok fair enough, but then what do you suggest I make?

[Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago]

The odds of this passing are near zero. This proposal has so many requirements that a clear majority of nations would be violating this law. I suggest, as Kenmoria said, you move on to something more passable.

Ok fair enough, but then what do you suggest I make?

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Ok fair enough, but then what do you suggest I make?

Split the WA.

[Grays Harbor]

Ok fair enough, but then what do you suggest I make?

Split the WA.

OOC: Don’t give bad advise.

[Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago]

Ok fair enough, but then what do you suggest I make?

Split the WA.

Legit? You think that would pass? Like honestly?

[Araraukar]

Legit? You think that would pass? Like honestly?

OOC: I think they're trying to encourage you to submit illegal proposals long enough that you'd get kicked out of the WA.

This is and will remain illegal as long as there's any kind of mandatory democracy involved, or any kind of mention of condemning nations, as one is ideology ban and the other is metagaming (as condemnations are SC stuff, not happening in the IC universe of GA).

Drop this idea, please, it's not going to go anywhere and you'll just waste time and effort banging your head against the wall.

[Hatzisland]

The odds of this passing are near zero. This proposal has so many requirements that a clear majority of nations would be violating this law. I suggest, as Kenmoria said, you move on to something more passable.

Ok fair enough, but then what do you suggest I make?

“What about non-democratic, but still fair and transparent systems? For example, how are meritocracies, technocracies or gerontocracies affected by this?”

Or

Drop this idea.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Split the WA.

Legit? You think that would pass? Like honestly?

Split the WA.

OOC: Don’t give bad advise.

It's more likely to pass. I'm not giving bad advice.

[Kenmoria]

Legit? You think that would pass? Like honestly?

OOC: Don’t give bad advise.

It's more likely to pass. I'm not giving bad advice.

(OOC: It’s less likely to pass, with a rough percentage of 0% for the idea you have proposed, and a few percent for the one in the opening post, with changes. Currently, the proposal by Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago is, unfortunately, illegal for a few reasons, but the core concept of encouraging democracy is salvageable. However, splitting the WA would be irrevocably illegal for metagaming and/or game mechanics, probably both, and there isn’t a way to change that.)

[Separatist Peoples]

Legit? You think that would pass? Like honestly?

OOC: Don’t give bad advise.

It's more likely to pass. I'm not giving bad advice.

OOC: Few things.

1. No it isn't.

2. I'm not sure you have the experience to make that estimate reliably.

3. Irredeemably illegal, so it can't pass.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

It's more likely to pass. I'm not giving bad advice.

OOC: Few things.

1. No it isn't.

2. I'm not sure you have the experience to make that estimate reliably.

3. Irredeemably illegal, so it can't pass.

1. From a rational perspective, it is.

2. I do. I’ve been on NS for the last 4 years. Just switched nations.

3. It is, but so is this. Changing it to become legal would be making it ineffectual.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Few things.

1. No it isn't.

2. I'm not sure you have the experience to make that estimate reliably.

3. Irredeemably illegal, so it can't pass.

1. From a rational perspective, it is.

2. I do. I’ve been on NS for the last 4 years. Just switched nations.

3. It is, but so is this. Changing it to become legal would be making it ineffectual.

(OOC: No, it isn’t. It doesn’t matter if an idea is the best possible and is supported by ninety percent of the assembly, if it is blatantly illegal it can’t pass. That proposals breaks at least two rules, and would thus be declared illegal. Something illegal cannot pass, if Gensec notices, which is very likely given that one member thereof was just speaking to you.

This thread is a learning opportunity for Israeli Tuamoto Archipelago, as well as other players who might want to try another idea. It is not a place to promote submitting illegal proposals to the World Assembly.)

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

1. From a rational perspective, it is.

2. I do. I’ve been on NS for the last 4 years. Just switched nations.

3. It is, but so is this. Changing it to become legal would be making it ineffectual.

(OOC: No, it isn’t. It doesn’t matter if an idea is the best possible and is supported by ninety percent of the assembly, if it is blatantly illegal it can’t pass. That proposals breaks at least two rules, and would thus be declared illegal. Something illegal cannot pass, if Gensec notices, which is very likely given that one member thereof was just speaking to you.

This thread is a learning opportunity for Israeli Tuamoto Archipelago, as well as other players who might want to try another idea. It is not a place to promote submitting illegal proposals to the World Assembly.)

Well, yes, but it's still illegal either way. Both are illegal. If you change this one and bend the language to the point it'll become legal (even if it's still unlikely to pass), it'll be pointless. 'Encouraging' and 'Asking' aren't words you put in international law; they're words you put in a letter begging someone to change policy.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: No, it isn’t. It doesn’t matter if an idea is the best possible and is supported by ninety percent of the assembly, if it is blatantly illegal it can’t pass. That proposals breaks at least two rules, and would thus be declared illegal. Something illegal cannot pass, if Gensec notices, which is very likely given that one member thereof was just speaking to you.

This thread is a learning opportunity for Israeli Tuamoto Archipelago, as well as other players who might want to try another idea. It is not a place to promote submitting illegal proposals to the World Assembly.)

Well, yes, but it's still illegal either way. Both are illegal. If you change this one and bend the language to the point it'll become legal (even if it's still unlikely to pass), it'll be pointless. 'Encouraging' and 'Asking' aren't words you put in international law; they're words you put in a letter begging someone to change policy.

(OOC: On the contrary, it is perfectly legal to have language such as ‘encouraging’ in a proposal, so long as the proposal is at mild strength. Some, including me, may regard it as a stylistic weakness, but there is no rule against it.)

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Well, yes, but it's still illegal either way. Both are illegal. If you change this one and bend the language to the point it'll become legal (even if it's still unlikely to pass), it'll be pointless. 'Encouraging' and 'Asking' aren't words you put in international law; they're words you put in a letter begging someone to change policy.

(OOC: On the contrary, it is perfectly legal to have language such as ‘encouraging’ in a proposal, so long as the proposal is at mild strength. Some, including me, may regard it as a stylistic weakness, but there is no rule against it.)

I personally regard putting suggestive language to be completely useless, because both in reality and probably here, nations just ignore and accept encouraging language at their will.

[Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago]

It's more likely to pass. I'm not giving bad advice.

(OOC: It’s less likely to pass, with a rough percentage of 0% for the idea you have proposed, and a few percent for the one in the opening post, with changes. Currently, the proposal by Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago is, unfortunately, illegal for a few reasons, but the core concept of encouraging democracy is salvageable. However, splitting the WA would be irrevocably illegal for metagaming and/or game mechanics, probably both, and there isn’t a way to change that.)

Actually...thanks! You gave me a second idea I will work on pronto

[Israeli Tuamotu Archipelago]

Also this forum post is now irrelevant, thank you all so much for your feedback