NATION

PASSWORD

[Counter-Challenge] Preventing the Spread of Disease

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20038
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

[Counter-Challenge] Preventing the Spread of Disease

Postby Wallenburg » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:32 pm

Since this is getting held and I disagree with the rulings made, I suppose I should counter-challenge? Challenge the GenSec ruling? Whatever you want to call it. Here you go.

Rules Held On: Category, Joke Proposal, Metagaming, Contradiction (267, 465)

Argument:

Following my submission of a proposal for Preventing the Spread of Disease, multiple members of the General Assembly Secretariat have struck it as illegal, allegedly violating proposal rules on no less than five (5) counts. Some of these claims of illegality grasp well beyond the scope of reason, while others appear far more plausible, at least upon a cursory reading of the relevant legislative texts. However, all these claims ultimately fail upon diligent inspection, as I shall demonstrate using legislative text, the General Assembly proposal ruleset, and game text.

Among the many claims of illegality, that of a category violation convinces me -- and the members of the Secretariat, according to their summaries regarding the legality of the proposal -- the least. The game describes Regulation as a category "to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public". Thus, a resolution submitted under Regulation : Safety must in some way establish workplace safety standards, consumer protection measures, or public health and safety laws. The proposal for Preventing the Spread of Disease unquestionably does the latter, protecting people from violent, diseased, and otherwise dangerous animals. Even the title speaks to this obvious primary purpose, despite claims to the contrary. If this public safety measure is not suitable for Regulation, then no public safety measure is. A reasonable view of the scope of this category will naturally find my application of it legal.

The charge of metagaming suffers from an identical departure from the realities of my proposal text. The only justification provided for this claim argues that the proposal's references to marsupials actually refer to a specific, dynamic set of nations, rather than marsupials. This, of course, ignores that nations cannot be quarantined, cannot reproduce, do not have vital organs, cannot be hunted, and most importantly, are not "any of the various brutal, soulless, nonsentient mammals that carry young in a pouch". To hold to a metagaming accusation, the Secretariat must pretend that these contradictions between its chosen interpretation and the active clauses of the proposal do not exist, that the entire first active clause does not exist, and that a reasonable interpretation where "marsupial" means marsupial does not exist. Furthermore, any claim of contradiction with resolutions concerning hunting or endangered species is incompatible with the interpretation that "marsupials" refers to nations as a part of NationStates. While "marsupial" may have another meaning in Gameplay, and resolutions almost always have out-of-character motivations behind them, it is patently absurd to force an unreasonable illegal interpretation of the word "marsupial" over a reasonable legal interpretation of it. Certainly similarities may be drawn in this matter, but any argument that my use of the word is metagaming can only be made in bad faith.

Joke proposals are, in the word of the General Assembly ruleset, "intended solely to be 'humorous' or a 'joke'". I will not argue that my proposal does not at least attempt humor, although clearly that attempt has been poorly received. This alone, however, is not basis enough for a proposal to be dismissed as a joke. Historically, humorous legislation has gone to Vote and even passed by wide margins. Law Enforcement Education was repealed by a recipe for Orange Julius, for example. By comparison, my proposal is rather measured. Certainly, I make implied references to the "marsupial" hunts familiar to Gameplay, but the resolution takes itself seriously, as it would written by an authoring delegation whose purpose for authorship is a genuine concern with the dangers marsupials pose to the public. Thus, clearly humor is not the sole purpose of this proposal, and the rule against joke proposals does not render this illegal.

Finally, we depart from the contrived legal objections to this proposal and consider two questions of contradiction. We first consider contradiction of GAR #267, Sensible Limits on Hunting, which requires member states to regulate hunting such that it is "sustainable and environmentally suitable". First, this does not proscribe a recommendation to license the hunting of marsupials. Second, even if it did, the same clause in GA #267 lists "'invasive' species, species parasitic on people or domestic livestock, or species carrying agents likely to cause serious epidemics in people" as exempt from this protection. I contest that marsupials, being infamously disease-ridden and undesirable to many environments, thus are not protected under this clause's provisions. Now we consider the final claim of illegality thus far levied against my proposal, that of contradiction with GAR #465, Preventing Species Extinction. Again, while this resolution does not protect endangered species from deliberate extermination, it does not do so without exception. Clause 6 states that the resolution's mandates may be wholly or partially lifted when considering, among other factors, the danger it poses to the public to protect a species. As marsupials reasonably meet the standards of the exceptions in clause 6.i "the endangered species presents a public health risk, such as through infection or parasitism" and in clause 6.iii "the clearly needed protections for the species would present a serious public health emergency", I hold that quarantine and hunting of marsupial populations does not contradict GAR #465.

From this exploration of the many accusations of illegalities within my effort to prevent the spread of disease, we can now clearly see that many were rather unpersuasive from the start and others, while initially compelling, do not hold up to scrutiny. The proposal now held illegal may not suit the tastes of the members of the Secretariat -- understandably so -- but it is within the bounds of legality.

Understanding that the health of all people depends greatly on the organisms they interact with,

Recognizing that several species of marsupials are known to suffer from serious epidemics of disease, and that all instances of marsupials are incredibly vicious or generally disgusting,

Convinced that this international body cannot reconcile the continued existence of diseased or otherwise dangerous populations of marsupials with public health and safety,

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines "marsupial" as any of the various brutal, soulless, nonsentient mammals that carry young in a pouch,

Requires member states to remove marsupials from all inhabited areas within their jurisdiction, and to expediently quarantine marsupials in high-security closed environments,

Restricts reproduction among these quarantined marsupials to that which member states or the entities overseeing the reproduction can prove to further legitimate scientific or educational interests,

Mandates the removal of some vital organ from any marsupial released from quarantine,

Urges member states to provide priority medical and hospice care to those children directly exposed to marsupials for any prolonged period of time,

Recommends that member states license inhabitants to hunt and destroy marsupial populations, especially those encroaching on inhabited areas,

Establishes the Marsupial Extermination Advancement Nexus, a centralized body of information on the nature of marsupials, the dangers they pose to the inhabitants of member states, and the safest and most effective methods of neutralizing individual instances.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2361
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United Massachusetts » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:34 pm

Don't die on this hill, Wally. I like you, but you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

Fmr. WA Affairs Minister, The East Pacific
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

President, Right to Life
Author/Co-author: 7 GA, 2 SC resolutions

Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis
Note: I don't have Discord access for now; tg me instead.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3307
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:44 pm

I would have hoped you had enough respect for the intelligence of members of the community to stop short of the ridiculous argument that a proposal to hunt, quarantine, and kill "marsupials" from a member of TEP's government is anything but the extension into the GA of what I'll politely call a cultural event put on by that same region. Would you have used the word at all in the absence of TEP's cultural event? Answering "yes" would be so insulting as to border on trolling. I agree that there's no category issue, and the contradictions can be argued either way in good faith, but telling us that there's no metagaming here is the next thing to kicking over our picnic and then offering to help track down the bastards who kicked over our picnic. "Marsupials" are the menace du jour in a powerful GCR, and in no other context are they alleged to be more dangerous than any other class of animal. The reference and intent are clear, even if you didn't spell them out in eight foot high flaming letters.

I'm honestly insulted.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8729
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:49 pm

Useful links

GA 267 viewtopic.php?p=17266501#p17266501
GA 465 viewtopic.php?p=35834887#p35834887

[2016] GAS 1; Metagaming: viewtopic.php?p=30530251#p30530251
[2016] GAS 5; Metagaming: viewtopic.php?p=30574358#p30574358
[2018] GAS 1; HM, metagaming: viewtopic.php?p=33366590#p33366590

[2018] GAS 4; Contradiction: viewtopic.php?p=34134698#p34134698

[2016] GAS 6; Category: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=392419&p=31029747#p31029747
[2018] GAS 5; Area of Effect (relevant to Category): viewtopic.php?p=34196064#p34196064

[2017] GAS 10; Joke: viewtopic.php?p=32572359#p32572359



Also perhaps useful

Metagaming interpretation, not taken up (preferring legal interpretations to illegal ones when both are possible): viewtopic.php?f=9&t=425277&p=32627521&hilit=legality+challenge#p32627521



Personal thoughts

I haven't yet read what Wally wrote beyond the rules at the top, the proposal itself, or what was put on the GenSec panel. Moving is an incredible pain, which gets worse when the weather alternates between humid tropical-style temperatures that exceed the surface of the Sun and torrential thunderstorms that feel not-out-of-place in the Book of Genesis (not to mention the uselessness of the weather forecast).

But I would highly recommend the Secretariat to take up this question primarily for the purpose of actually determining what metagaming is. If it is little more than an analogue to the Perspective rule in the Security Council (Oh no, I used the S word!) or the similar one we have here, we should admit that. If it is little more than a restatement of the Game Mechanics rule, then we should omit it. The description we get out of the wording of the rule in the current ruleset is the former: "Proposals cannot break the 'fourth wall' or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself". And it seems, what does breaking the fourth wall actually mean?

If we're going to turn the GA into mock trial yet again, we should at least have an interesting discussion followed by a cohesive resolution ... rather than repeat classic NationStates GA moderation-style inconsistency with on-the-fly amendments. I thought the whole point of this now-three-year-old Council was, in part, to rationalise the ruleset. Establishing clearly what metagaming is would go a long way in doing that.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:13 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 5907
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:11 pm

The right to determine what should be waived by 465 clause 6 was clearly given to a WA committee. If any made up preamble can assert clause 6 without the committee’s consultation then one only needs to pass legislation asserting all life is covered by clause 6 and the resolution is meaningless. You don’t get to decide what limits 465 has as far as clause 6 only the committee does. By deciding yourself, you’re contradicting an essential check of the resolution.
Last edited by Ransium on Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20038
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:00 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I would have hoped you had enough respect for the intelligence of members of the community to stop short of the ridiculous argument that a proposal to hunt, quarantine, and kill "marsupials" from a member of TEP's government is anything but the extension into the GA of what I'll politely call a cultural event put on by that same region. Would you have used the word at all in the absence of TEP's cultural event? Answering "yes" would be so insulting as to border on trolling. I agree that there's no category issue, and the contradictions can be argued either way in good faith, but telling us that there's no metagaming here is the next thing to kicking over our picnic and then offering to help track down the bastards who kicked over our picnic. "Marsupials" are the menace du jour in a powerful GCR, and in no other context are they alleged to be more dangerous than any other class of animal. The reference and intent are clear, even if you didn't spell them out in eight foot high flaming letters.

I'm honestly insulted.

You ignore entire clauses of my proposal to argue that it means something it does not and to justify a bogus claim of metagaming, and then you claim to be the insulted party? Wow, okay then.
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
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2188
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:19 am

Ransium wrote:The right to determine what should be waived by 465 clause 6 was clearly given to a WA committee. If any made up preamble can assert clause 6 without the committee’s consultation then one only needs to pass legislation asserting all life is covered by clause 6 and the resolution is meaningless. You don’t get to decide what limits 465 has as far as clause 6 only the committee does. By deciding yourself your contradicting an essential check of the resolution.


From Wally's post above "Clause 6 states that the resolution's mandates may be wholly or partially lifted when considering ....". Wally is correct. But so is Ransium. Only the committee can "wholly or partially lift" the mandates of GAR#465. The current proposal attempts to lift those requirements when it is no longer within the GA's purview to do so.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8729
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:41 pm

Bananaistan wrote:From Wally's post above "Clause 6 states that the resolution's mandates may be wholly or partially lifted when considering ....". Wally is correct. But so is Ransium. Only the committee can "wholly or partially lift" the mandates of GAR#465. The current proposal attempts to lift those requirements when it is no longer within the GA's purview to do so.

Banana, you once told me on the WA Discord that if one wanted to implement a Chevron doctrine-like requirement, it would do nothing, since the interpretation would still be up to the player to determine. I disagreed that would be the case, in-character, as there would exist some committee. Out of character, it is definitely up for determination. In rules application, it is specifically up for determination by the Secretariat. The warrant you provide seems insufficient.

But given that the Secretariat already ruled in favour of deference [2018] GAS 4 to proposal fact claims, what distinguishes this case from the other one? (Other than the presence of a committee taking an action, which is identical OOC to if that action were granted by legislation.) Do you believe that the claim that marsupials are dangerous falls under the desk corners exception?
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4030
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:52 pm

I think that ruling resolutions illegal based solely on the author's regional affiliations sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
Last edited by Aclion on Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2188
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:29 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:From Wally's post above "Clause 6 states that the resolution's mandates may be wholly or partially lifted when considering ....". Wally is correct. But so is Ransium. Only the committee can "wholly or partially lift" the mandates of GAR#465. The current proposal attempts to lift those requirements when it is no longer within the GA's purview to do so.

Banana, you once told me on the WA Discord that if one wanted to implement a Chevron doctrine-like requirement, it would do nothing, since the interpretation would still be up to the player to determine. I disagreed that would be the case, in-character, as there would exist some committee. Out of character, it is definitely up for determination. In rules application, it is specifically up for determination by the Secretariat. The warrant you provide seems insufficient.

But given that the Secretariat already ruled in favour of deference [2018] GAS 4 to proposal fact claims, what distinguishes this case from the other one? (Other than the presence of a committee taking an action, which is identical OOC to if that action were granted by legislation.) Do you believe that the claim that marsupials are dangerous falls under the desk corners exception?


I don't recall ever mentioning Chevron doctrine-like requirement and I left the WA discord due to the unrestricted outbreak of toxic proto-fascist edgelords so I can't go back and check.

I may have mentioned that people are free to roleplay committee decisions as they see fit in their own nation. That's quite different to the GA usurping a committee powers in another resolution. It doesn't go as far as fact checking. It's up to the committee to fact check. It's not up to the GA.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8729
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:58 am

The committee doesn't exist OOC.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 5907
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:25 am

IMO (as a dumb powerless player not a GenSec member!) it is possible to write this sort of proposal (purposefully putting species at risk of extinction for a public health good) and be complaint with an IC committee. I'm not quite sure how to best write it to not be a HOC violation, but something accepting that the only species targeted and actions undertaken are ones found to be compliant with any existing resolutions WRT endangered species protections would seem to work.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13278
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:08 pm

Ransium wrote:but something accepting that the only species targeted and actions undertaken are ones found to be compliant with any existing resolutions WRT endangered species protections would seem to work.

Which exception the target does not make.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret

Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18043
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:26 pm

Aclion wrote:I think that ruling resolutions illegal based solely on the author's regional affiliations sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Well, it’s a good thing that’s not why this was ruled illegal then, eh?
I am The Grumpy Old Man. Wielder of the Cane of Righteousness. Possessor of the Grill of Ribs. Aficionado of the Salad of Potatoes. Sprayer of the Repellant of Mosquitoes.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8729
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:30 pm

Ransium wrote:IMO (as a dumb powerless player not a GenSec member!) it is possible to write this sort of proposal (purposefully putting species at risk of extinction for a public health good) and be complaint with an IC committee. I'm not quite sure how to best write it to not be a HOC violation, but something accepting that the only species targeted and actions undertaken are ones found to be compliant with any existing resolutions WRT endangered species protections would seem to work.

I mean, yea, you can avoid contradiction issues by prefacing everything with: 'The World Assembly, subject to extant prior legislation, hereby ...'

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20038
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:29 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Aclion wrote:I think that ruling resolutions illegal based solely on the author's regional affiliations sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Well, it’s a good thing that’s not why this was ruled illegal then, eh?

I mean, it's getting ruled as illegal for both metagaming and contradiction in such a manner where the interpretation required for one and the interpretation required for the other are incompatible. When GenSec members are clearly making up reasons for this to be illegal, there's not may other explanations.
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
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13278
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:07 pm

Wallenburg wrote:When GenSec members are clearly making up reasons for this to be illegal, there's not may other explanations.

Or they're just not marking it illegal for all the possible reasons. Which has happened several times in the past.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret

Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3307
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:57 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Well, it’s a good thing that’s not why this was ruled illegal then, eh?

I mean, it's getting ruled as illegal for both metagaming and contradiction in such a manner where the interpretation required for one and the interpretation required for the other are incompatible. When GenSec members are clearly making up reasons for this to be illegal, there's not may other explanations.


I don't see how you reach the underlined conclusion. The alleged menace of marsupials is not up to the WA as a whole to determine due to the structure of GAR #465, and the alleged menace of marsupials is a clear gameplay reference. These things are both true simultaneously and without resorting to mutually exclusive arguments.

If you honestly think we're making shit up, Moderation is
thataway.
<--------------
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4030
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:18 am

Grays Harbor wrote:
Aclion wrote:I think that ruling resolutions illegal based solely on the author's regional affiliations sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Well, it’s a good thing that’s not why this was ruled illegal then, eh?

The whole argument behind the metagameing is predicated on Walls affilation with TEP.
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I would have hoped you had enough respect for the intelligence of members of the community to stop short of the ridiculous argument that a proposal to hunt, quarantine, and kill "marsupials" from a member of TEP's government is anything but the extension into the GA of what I'll politely call a cultural event put on by that same region. Would you have used the word at all in the absence of TEP's cultural event? Answering "yes" would be so insulting as to border on trolling. I agree that there's no category issue, and the contradictions can be argued either way in good faith, but telling us that there's no metagaming here is the next thing to kicking over our picnic and then offering to help track down the bastards who kicked over our picnic. "Marsupials" are the menace du jour in a powerful GCR, and in no other context are they alleged to be more dangerous than any other class of animal. The reference and intent are clear, even if you didn't spell them out in eight foot high flaming letters.

I'm honestly insulted.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13278
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:34 pm

Aclion wrote:The whole argument behind the metagameing is predicated on Walls affilation with TEP.

Well...

United Massachusetts wrote:I am opposed to the hijacking of the General Assembly as a means to legitimize Fedele's violations of the Concordat. Opposed.

Kranostav wrote:Isn't this where GP jokes go to die? Especially one that is a low effort NS version of a genocide/ethnic-cleansing meme.

East Meranopirus wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Joke proposal thread? Anyway, this is very funny, even without the context of Fedele and the Marsupial Hunting License.)

It's less funny with the context.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:Like everything else Fedele's government is doing in The East Pacific, this isn't remotely entertaining or funny. It's a no from me.

Wymondham wrote:First time ever in the General Assembly and I am rather sad it has to be for this, a proposal which is not funny in any way, shape or form. TEP is literally ejecting nations in violation of its own constitution and in a way that seems aimed at reducing the guardian's influence pools so as to make it impossible for them to stop Fedele when the eventual coup comes.

Great Algerstonia wrote:You seriously got to stop playing with that “marsupial” thing. It is not at all funny, and fairly harmful towards The East Pacific. This GA proposal has taken it too far...but then again, I thought it went too far when it all started. :p

I'd say it's fairly obvious to everyone that it's a Metagaming thing.
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
For anyone who wasn't subject to the debacle on the GA discord, here's the short of it.

As LD up there stated, the reason the term 'marsupial' is used, is because the flag of the nations being purged is the default flag, also known as, the Aboriginal flag. Australian Aborigines are an indigenous people that have historically, and in the modern day, are, treated horrifically, as is par for the course for colonial governments.

I shouldn't need to explicate on why associating the flag of an indigenous people with a fucking animal is a problem, but suffice it to say that treating Indigenous peoples as subhuman is a rather common problem. Using the term in the context of a purge of nations using that flag, should also raise a few red flags.

I don't care if whoever originated this absurd Gameplay joke is actually intentionally racist themselves, but we should at least be able to acknowledge that the joke is more than a bit racist, and stop using it.

I'm not calling Wallenburg racist, I'm even calling anyone involved in the joke racist, but that doesn't absolve the joke itself of its connotations.
Last edited by Araraukar on Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret

Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4030
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:06 pm

Araraukar wrote:I'd say it's fairly obvious to everyone that it's a Metagaming thing.

First "I know it when i see it" is a dumb argument. Second it's only obvious if you insist on breaking the fourth wall when interpreting the resolution. You can interpret the resolution perfectly well entirely in IC context. Metagaming bars proposals from breaking the fourth wall, it says nothing about them being illegal if the person reading them decided to do so.
Last edited by Aclion on Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2188
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:51 am

Perhaps it’s worth noting that four of six CP rulings agreed on contradiction with GAR#465.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13278
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:12 am

Aclion wrote:You can interpret the resolution perfectly well entirely in IC context.

Which I did on the thread when I said right from the start that it's contradictory.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret

Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aquind, Araraukar, Cromulent Peoples, Kortunal, Krioval, Liberimery, United Massachusetts

Advertisement

Remove ads