SC Rules discussion

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

At the end of the day, I maintain that this proposal has faced a level of scrutiny and nitpicking absent from or deviating from the rulings on prior Declarations, and that that feels unfair and should at least drive rules specificity improvements if not a reversal.

[Fachumonn]

You know, if raiders were going to utilize a real life issue as a means to further their goals in a browser game (which is not only insensitive but also cruel), you would think they would at least have the competence to make it legal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

At the end of the day, I maintain that this proposal has faced a level of scrutiny and nitpicking absent from or deviating from the rulings on prior Declarations, and that that feels unfair and should at least drive rules specificity improvements if not a reversal.

It's a borderline case, and we're brawling behind the scenes with shattered beer bottles and broken eclipse glasses discussing the matter civilly while paying attention to this thread.

I won't speak for anyone else on the team, but where I see the weakness is that the last clause declares the SC's position against slavery. That's wishy washy - if the second-last clause was the declaratory clause (the operative clause) then this would be much easier. What saves it, in my mind, is that there is a clear call for action specific to the SC in that second-last clause. The call for action by nations to utilize the SC further on this topics is unique to the SC - the GA can't do that under its metagaming rules.

[Bisofeyr]

At the end of the day, I maintain that this proposal has faced a level of scrutiny and nitpicking absent from or deviating from the rulings on prior Declarations, and that that feels unfair and should at least drive rules specificity improvements if not a reversal.

It's a borderline case, and we're brawling behind the scenes with shattered beer battles and broken eclipse glasses discussing the matter civilly while paying attention to this thread.

I won't speak for anyone else on the team, but where I see the weakness is that the last clause declares the SC's position against slavery. That's wishy washy - if the second-last clause was the declaratory clause (the operative clause) then this would be much easier. What saves it, in my mind, is that there is a clear call for action specific to the SC in that second-last clause. The call for action by nations to utilize the SC further on this topics is unique to the SC - the GA can't do that under its metagaming rules.

At the risk of continually rehashing myself and sounding like a broken record, I have a hard time convincing myself that any participial phrase can be deemed a call to action, or otherwise operative. Glad this is getting some discussion, and hopefully some clearer guidelines will be utilized moving forward. Appreciate y'all for this!

[Kenmoria]

I must retract my earlier confidence in the proposal’s illegality. Within the framework that I presupposed for interpreting 3b, this would have been plainly illegal. However, EWS’ comments have proposed a different way of modelling the relevant part of 3b, in which this wouldn’t be illegal. It seems to me, though I could be misconstruing the matter, that EWS is proposing a more limited form of 3b in which Declarations would only be illegal if they tried to mandate or prohibit action in a GA-esque manner. Is that correct?

It seems to me as though the text of the rule is ambiguous on this front, and I don’t think that any of the resolutions helpfully quoted by EWS are comparable enough to satisfactorily resolve this ambiguity. It’s a matter of pure Moderator interpretation. However, if EWS is correct, on a different point, that the last line of the proposal is about imploring the SC to pass further condemnations, then the proposal is legal no matter how 3b is interpreted. I think that that is a tenuous reading, but it might be colourable.

[Refuge Isle]

You know, if raiders were going to utilize a real life issue as a means to further their goals in a browser game (which is not only insensitive but also cruel), you would think they would at least have the competence to make it legal.

This is a rules discussion thread, not the place for gameplay posturing. This unproductive content has no place here, so knock it off.

I have a hard time convincing myself that any participial phrase can be deemed a call to action, or otherwise operative.

I'm not sure this is a productive road to go down. The operative clause is "Hereby declares...". That's basically all that's allowed in declarations, since you can't introduce legislation or undertake any action like liberating and condemning.

---

Regarding the proposal, I'll just expand my thoughts for ruling the way I have:

As far as I can see, it does deal with the Security Council and condemnations, and it doesn't legislate on the topic in any way that would imply the SC has legislative power. It just says "SC says slavery bad" which is fine for declarations. I agree, however, that it is an edge-case, as Mall said. It's something that could conceivably be re-tooled into a GA resolution, although my problem with that thinking is that many declarations could possibly be retooled into GA resolutions, depending on how much ground you think "retooled" should cover. I think that Anti-Fascist Action is a good example of a declaration, for example, but its *topic* could likely have been undertaken by the GA. Its saving grace in my mind is that it had a lot of regional context that levied all the things regions should do and values they should hold. This one is more about what should happen to nations, and the difference between a nations/regions focus has sometimes been the pinhole through which the GA and SC are viewed.

The rule is fuzzy and subjective, however, and right now it basically holds that an SC proposal would be a better fit in the GA if there's a GA category for it, and GA categories are obviously something we've already announced are going to be abolished in the future. So we will have to rewrite this rule at some point and determine how we can better differentiate the two chambers on this topic in a perspective independent of categories. A legality debate probably could have been skipped if the proposal were drafted on the forum, but, ideally, the rules should be clear enough to project the legality where it's inadvisable or impossible to draft publicly.

[Bisofeyr]

I have a hard time convincing myself that any participial phrase can be deemed a call to action, or otherwise operative.

I'm not sure this is a productive road to go down. The operative clause is "Hereby declares...". That's basically all that's allowed in declarations, since you can't introduce legislation or undertake any action like liberating and condemning.

Would "Hereby implores... not be considered a valid operative clause? I guess as a simpler way of phrasing it, my view of any proposal is that it will generally be formatted as "The SC, [justifying text], hereby [operative text]." Sometimes this may be switched around, but consistently, the actual work that is being done always comes after "Hereby" or some comparable word. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't fully see how the SC only being able to "declare" things is relevant, as it could have easily rephrased to fit within that framework.

That being said, I really do appreciate the conversation surrounding this, even if I'm found to be wrong (or found incessant, frustrating, or otherwise leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone, though I hope that's not the case). This conversation probably did need to happen sooner or later, so might as well have it now.

If EWS' interpretation of the rule is right, I might phrase a change to the wording as:

Declarations may only take a stance or express an opinion on something. This may include stances on in-character policy, but may not include enforcement or recommendation mechanisms on individual nations as a General Assembly proposal would.

If my interpretation (which, again, I think is the more practicable of the two, but I'm biased in that regard), I would think it should be rephrased as:

Declarations may only take a stance or express an opinion on events, mechanisms, policies, and other happenings. In the event that a declaration is written on an in-character policy position, it must do more than take a broad stance, and the opinion expressed must involve a direct call-to-action or similar.

I think the actual argument as to what entails an "operative clause" is interesting, but largely speaking is not super relevant to the actual Rules change at play here, and more of a disagreement on what the Resolution actually states. Again, if the mods find that the "Imploring" clause is rendered as an operative part of the declaration, I am satisfied with the proposal being found legal, even if I disagree with that interpretation. The broader issue is regarding ambiguity within 3b, which I would hope either of my above suggestions would remedy.

[Fachumonn]

You know, if raiders were going to utilize a real life issue as a means to further their goals in a browser game (which is not only insensitive but also cruel), you would think they would at least have the competence to make it legal.

This is a rules discussion thread, not the place for gameplay posturing. This unproductive content has no place here, so knock it off.

I apologize. My bad.

[Diarcesia]

I'm not sure this is a productive road to go down. The operative clause is "Hereby declares...". That's basically all that's allowed in declarations, since you can't introduce legislation or undertake any action like liberating and condemning.

Would "Hereby implores... not be considered a valid operative clause? I guess as a simpler way of phrasing it, my view of any proposal is that it will generally be formatted as "The SC, [justifying text], hereby [operative text]." Sometimes this may be switched around, but consistently, the actual work that is being done always comes after "Hereby" or some comparable word. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't fully see how the SC only being able to "declare" things is relevant, as it could have easily rephrased to fit within that framework.

That being said, I really do appreciate the conversation surrounding this, even if I'm found to be wrong (or found incessant, frustrating, or otherwise leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone, though I hope that's not the case). This conversation probably did need to happen sooner or later, so might as well have it now.

If EWS' interpretation of the rule is right, I might phrase a change to the wording as:

Declarations may only take a stance or express an opinion on something. This may include stances on in-character policy, but may not include enforcement or recommendation mechanisms on individual nations as a General Assembly proposal would.

If my interpretation (which, again, I think is the more practicable of the two, but I'm biased in that regard), I would think it should be rephrased as:

Declarations may only take a stance or express an opinion on events, mechanisms, policies, and other happenings. In the event that a declaration is written on an in-character policy position, it must do more than take a broad stance, and the opinion expressed must involve a direct call-to-action or similar.

Seconding the rephrasing. It doesn't change my understanding of what a declaration is, but it makes the intent clearer. Also, "Hereby implores..." is a perfectly fine operative clause in terms of the SC taking a formal stance as a whole.

...As far as I can see, it does deal with the Security Council and condemnations, and it doesn't legislate on the topic in any way that would imply the SC has legislative power. It just says "SC says slavery bad" which is fine for declarations. I agree, however, that it is an edge-case, as Mall said. It's something that could conceivably be re-tooled into a GA resolution, although my problem with that thinking is that many declarations could possibly be retooled into GA resolutions, depending on how much ground you think "retooled" should cover. I think that Anti-Fascist Action is a good example of a declaration, for example, but its *topic* could likely have been undertaken by the GA. Its saving grace in my mind is that it had a lot of regional context that levied all the things regions should do and values they should hold. This one is more about what should happen to nations, and the difference between a nations/regions focus has sometimes been the pinhole through which the GA and SC are viewed.

The rule is fuzzy and subjective, however, and right now it basically holds that an SC proposal would be a better fit in the GA if there's a GA category for it, and GA categories are obviously something we've already announced are going to be abolished in the future. So we will have to rewrite this rule at some point and determine how we can better differentiate the two chambers on this topic in a perspective independent of categories. A legality debate probably could have been skipped if the proposal were drafted on the forum, but, ideally, the rules should be clear enough to project the legality where it's inadvisable or impossible to draft publicly...

Easily resolvable if we assume that the SC's opinions are not necessarily the GA's opinions.

[The Ice States]

If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

I would consider that Declaration Against Slavery and its Violence, if submitted verbatim in the GA, would be illegal for Metagaming (referencing the SC) and Operative Clause; if it had a mandate it would likely be illegal for Duplication. However, I would not consider that there would be any Category violation if it were submitted under, say, Civil Rights; the topic itself is easily addressed within that category (and has been; see GA #23). The plain reading of the rule text would suggest that the proposal is illegal.

[Simone Republic]

I would consider that Declaration Against Slavery and its Violence, if submitted verbatim in the GA

I assume the relevant wording is "(i)f something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration."

I think the issue referred to above can be summarised as "if something can be reworded to a General Assembly resolution, can it be handled within the GA and therefore not go with a declaration?" (As opposed to verbatim, as mentioned above).

In theory I think almost any topic can be reworded to fit it into a GA proposal - slavery as mentioned above is already mentioned in GA#23. There are some genuine topics that cannot - neither one of my two SC declarations can be, since one explicitly is built around worshipping around a religious holiday (Christmas), and another one mentions specific roleplay (the New 3WB and the Strangers' Bar), so both would break GA rules.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration.

I would consider that Declaration Against Slavery and its Violence, if submitted verbatim in the GA, would be illegal for Metagaming (referencing the SC) and Operative Clause; if it had a mandate it would likely be illegal for Duplication. However, I would not consider that there would be any Category violation if it were submitted under, say, Civil Rights; the topic itself is easily addressed within that category (and has been; see GA #23). The plain reading of the rule text would suggest that the proposal is illegal.

I still disagree on what the "something" is - here, the "something" is "slaver nations should be condemned by the SC." This is not something the GA can do.

[Comfed]

I would consider that Declaration Against Slavery and its Violence, if submitted verbatim in the GA, would be illegal for Metagaming (referencing the SC) and Operative Clause; if it had a mandate it would likely be illegal for Duplication. However, I would not consider that there would be any Category violation if it were submitted under, say, Civil Rights; the topic itself is easily addressed within that category (and has been; see GA #23). The plain reading of the rule text would suggest that the proposal is illegal.

I still disagree on what the "something" is - here, the "something" is "slaver nations should be condemned by the SC." This is not something the GA can do.

Hardly - the General Assembly can easily condemn slaver nations. Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, for instance:

Considering slavery, forced labour and human trafficking to be violations of basic human rights,

Now, that clause isn't the exact same wording as the proposal currently before the SC, but it could easily say "condemning all nations which practice slavery," and be fully compliant with the current ruleset. The only catch is that it can't be "by the SC" - but the entire purpose of the rule on overlap with GA subjects is that the SC can't do everything.

[Diarcesia]

I still disagree on what the "something" is - here, the "something" is "slaver nations should be condemned by the SC." This is not something the GA can do.

Hardly - the General Assembly can easily condemn slaver nations. Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, for instance:

Considering slavery, forced labour and human trafficking to be violations of basic human rights,

Now, that clause isn't the exact same wording as the proposal currently before the SC, but it could easily say "condemning all nations which practice slavery," and be fully compliant with the current ruleset. The only catch is that it can't be "by the SC" - but the entire purpose of the rule on overlap with GA subjects is that the SC can't do everything.

The GA can condemn slaver nations in general and actually legislate a ban. The SC specifically condemns particular slaver nations who brazenly commit the practice.

A declaration from the SC on the topic of slavery formalizes a direction that would guide future commends and condemns.

[Comfed]

The GA can condemn slaver nations in general and actually legislate a ban. The SC specifically condemns particular slaver nations who brazenly commit the practice.

A declaration from the SC on the topic of slavery formalizes a direction that would guide future commends and condemns.

But that - a condemnation of specific nations - isn't actually what this is, is it? It's a generalized statement of principle on the sort of topic the GA typically legislates on. If this were a condemnation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the rule we're discussing only applies to declarations.

You could probably say that's a mark against the GA overlap rule existing, but in terms of applying it to this specific case, I think it's pretty clear cut.

[The Ice States]

I would consider that Declaration Against Slavery and its Violence, if submitted verbatim in the GA, would be illegal for Metagaming (referencing the SC) and Operative Clause; if it had a mandate it would likely be illegal for Duplication. However, I would not consider that there would be any Category violation if it were submitted under, say, Civil Rights; the topic itself is easily addressed within that category (and has been; see GA #23). The plain reading of the rule text would suggest that the proposal is illegal.

I still disagree on what the "something" is - here, the "something" is "slaver nations should be condemned by the SC." This is not something the GA can do.

In addition to what Comfed said, are you arguing that what saves it is that the agent is the Security Council, not the World Assembly in general? If so I find this argument absurd on its face; it would imply that essentially any resolution which would otherwise violate the rule is legal as long as it uses "The World Assembly" in place of "The Security Council". I don't believe such an interpretation of the rule should be applied by Moderation.

[Diarcesia]

The GA can condemn slaver nations in general and actually legislate a ban. The SC specifically condemns particular slaver nations who brazenly commit the practice.

A declaration from the SC on the topic of slavery formalizes a direction that would guide future commends and condemns.

But that - a condemnation of specific nations - isn't actually what this is, is it? It's a generalized statement of principle on the sort of topic the GA typically legislates on. If this were a condemnation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the rule we're discussing only applies to declarations.

You could probably say that's a mark against the GA overlap rule existing, but in terms of applying it to this specific case, I think it's pretty clear cut.

On the part I underlined—I agree that GA#23 and the proposed Declaration on Slavery are both generalized statements of principle and has the apparent overlap. Lets assume that both are binding resolutions...

The significant difference is that in GA, the stated position on slavery is preambulatory. Its most important part is the actions that the members need to take because of this position. GA#23 can get repealed because the measures are too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or whatever, but it does not imply that the GA changed its stance on slavery.

Now, with Declaration Against Slavery and its Violence, the position is operative. The way I see it, its akin to saying "slavery is bad" under civil law rather than by precedent i.e. previous condemnations. I think what Ever-Wandering Souls is trying to say, is that strictly within the SC's context, that can potentially mean a) more condemnation proposals against slaver nations or b) it'll be easier to pass condemn proposals if the target is a slaver nation than would have been had the declaration not been in place; which, I also think would address the concerns raised below:

I still disagree on what the "something" is - here, the "something" is "slaver nations should be condemned by the SC." This is not something the GA can do.

In addition to what Comfed said, are you arguing that what saves it is that the agent is the Security Council, not the World Assembly in general? If so I find this argument absurd on its face; it would imply that essentially any resolution which would otherwise violate the rule is legal as long as it uses "The World Assembly" in place of "The Security Council". I don't believe such an interpretation of the rule should be applied by Moderation.

i.e. I'll rephrase the "something" from "slaver nations should be condemned by the SC." to "more capital C Condemnations should be passed by the SC against slaver nations"

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

But that - a condemnation of specific nations - isn't actually what this is, is it? It's a generalized statement of principle on the sort of topic the GA typically legislates on. If this were a condemnation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the rule we're discussing only applies to declarations.

You could probably say that's a mark against the GA overlap rule existing, but in terms of applying it to this specific case, I think it's pretty clear cut.

On the part I underlined—I agree that GA#23 and the proposed Declaration on Slavery are both generalized statements of principle and has the apparent overlap. Lets assume that both are binding resolutions...

The significant difference is that in GA, the stated position on slavery is preambulatory. Its most important part is the actions that the members need to take because of this position. GA#23 can get repealed because the measures are too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or whatever, but it does not imply that the GA changed its stance on slavery.

Now, with Declaration Against Slavery and its Violence, the position is operative. The way I see it, its akin to saying "slavery is bad" under civil law rather than by precedent i.e. previous condemnations. I think what Ever-Wandering Souls is trying to say, is that strictly within the SC's context, that can potentially mean a) more condemnation proposals against slaver nations or b) it'll be easier to pass condemn proposals if the target is a slaver nation than would have been had the declaration not been in place; which, I also think would address the concerns raised below:

In addition to what Comfed said, are you arguing that what saves it is that the agent is the Security Council, not the World Assembly in general? If so I find this argument absurd on its face; it would imply that essentially any resolution which would otherwise violate the rule is legal as long as it uses "The World Assembly" in place of "The Security Council". I don't believe such an interpretation of the rule should be applied by Moderation.

i.e. I'll rephrase the "something" from "slaver nations should be condemned by the SC." to "more capital C Condemnations should be passed by the SC against slaver nations"

Accurate rephrasing.

[United Calanworie]

At the end of the day, I maintain that this proposal has faced a level of scrutiny and nitpicking absent from or deviating from the rulings on prior Declarations, and that that feels unfair and should at least drive rules specificity improvements if not a reversal.

It's a borderline case, and we're brawling behind the scenes with shattered beer bottles and broken eclipse glasses discussing the matter civilly while paying attention to this thread.

I won't speak for anyone else on the team, but where I see the weakness is that the last clause declares the SC's position against slavery. That's wishy washy - if the second-last clause was the declaratory clause (the operative clause) then this would be much easier. What saves it, in my mind, is that there is a clear call for action specific to the SC in that second-last clause. The call for action by nations to utilize the SC further on this topics is unique to the SC - the GA can't do that under its metagaming rules.

After further reading of the resolution and some of the arguments made in this thread -- I am also leaning towards legal, but would suggest that in future cases such as this, the operative clause should definitively show that the GA cannot address the issue, e.g. "Hereby declares that this body should continue to condemn nations for employing the practice of slavery," would be clearer.

[Diarcesia]

Something does not sit well with me regarding certain nuances of Rule 3b and the draft proposal "On Terrorism". In particular, I find it extremely limiting that a Security Council Declaration, in an organ specifically designed for "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary", focused on a topic under the purview of interregional peace, and in a resolution format that is claimed for "commenting on, well, anything really", would be ruled illegal because the GA categories Political Stability and International Security exist.

Granted, that may be a skill issue on my part.

As a background on why I decided to put a draft declaration on the topic, I was trying to answer an RP question: "If Diarcesia were to submit an in-character declaration proposal in the Security Council, how would it look like?" Now, I have these follow-up questions.

1. Why is it possible to submit resolutions on SC-like categories in the GA? I'm assuming that's a gameplay constraint. That, I understand, the GA's legislation is binding and the SC has more limited powers (the RL counterpart has this flipped; the SC is more powerful). Then the next question is...
2. How necessary is it to make changes to Rule 3b? "Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. In some circumstances rules violations may be legal to refer to in a proposal - you must always request a ruling prior to submission if you wish to do this. If something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration." I would disagree on a total relaxation on just about any category the GA can tackle. I'm referring to those that overlap with the SC's very reason for existence.
3. I am very new to writing proposals in the WA, to what extent can the GA be aware of the SC? Vice versa? Or in general, how much of an overlap exists between these parts of the WA? I get the impression that unless it's for justifying a Commend or Condemn, I cannot do this.

[Kenmoria]

3. I am very new to writing proposals in the WA, to what extent can the GA be aware of the SC? Vice versa? Or in general, how much of an overlap exists between these parts of the WA? I get the impression that unless it's for justifying a Commend or Condemn, I cannot do this.

The General Assembly cannot make any mention whatsoever of the Security Council, nor can it make any reference to any sort of Gameplay. Conversely, the Security Council can mention the General Assembly without restriction. This is because the manners in which the General Assembly is IC and the manner in which the Security Council is IC are very different. The General Assembly operates in a fictional world with mystical gnomes, in which nothing to do with the game of NationStates exists, whereas the Security Council cloaks everything that happens in the game of NationStates in a layer of narrativisation, to make it IC. Hence, the two chambers are very different and have little, if any, overlap.

[Unibot III]

I filed a GHR against this proposal (which made a comment on "Slavery And Its Violence") for violating 3b, specifically the section which notes "[i]f something can be addressed within a General Assembly proposal category, it should be handled within one of those rather than a Declaration." I was advised that if I wanted to have a discussion regarding this, to post here, and so I'm doing so in case there is any disagreement pertaining to the enforcement of this rule and for posterity's sake, as this (maybe) is precedent for what is or is not allowed in declarations.

Seems fair enough to me.

I would argue it is legal, but the legality of the resolution may expose a problem with how 3b is written.

This declaration writes that the SC as a whole is “against” slavery as a practice, and indeed the SC has a history of aligning itself against the (roleplayed) slave trade.

Such a proposal cannot be addressed in the GA because in the GA you cannot generally align the organization against an issue, not without concrete actions specified — that would be illegal.

(The GA also cannot mandate what the SC’s position is too…)

For this reason, it seems to me what this proposal is accomplishing something that could not be addressed in the GA… and copycat resolutions might follow on other topics.

Might better if the rule was something like ‘if a declaration is centred around an issue that would conventionally be dealt with in the GA, there should be a clear effort to connect this issue with specific nations, regions, organizations, and/or events in the NationStates universe.’

That way a proposal like this one would at least need a fig leaf to make it legal: for instance, the proposal might cite some slavery organizations from II or something.