[PASSED] Historical Region Act

[Lenlyvit]

My impression from Sedge’s post is that the mods may establish a precedent that the resolution must avoid a perception of obligating member-nations.

New categories in the SC involve a lot of precedent-setting as the rules come to interact with the category. After the final ruling, it may only require some fine-tuning of the language.

I get that from Sedge's post as well. They more than likely will lay out precedent for the regulations and guidelines for SC created committees and so forth, so I'm looking forward to seeing their verdict.

[Sedgistan]

Unless Lenlyvit feels this is urgent to proceed on, I'd like to read more discussion here from players before a firm ruling is given. There's also another couple of mods who haven't had a chance to give their views yet who I'd like to hear from. This is one of the bigger decisions to make on legality following on from Declarations, and I'd like to make sure it gets the consideration and input it warrants.

[The Blaatschapen]

*counts *

Omg, I was(or am) a native of five of these regions.

[Lenlyvit]

Unless Lenlyvit feels this is urgent to proceed on, I'd like to read more discussion here from players before a firm ruling is given. There's also another couple of mods who haven't had a chance to give their views yet who I'd like to hear from. This is one of the bigger decisions to make on legality following on from Declarations, and I'd like to make sure it gets the consideration and input it warrants.

No urgent need on my part, take as long as you and moderation need in order to make a ruling.

[Xyeox]

do not know

[Lenlyvit]

I'm just going to bump this for regular feedback still. I know we're waiting on a legality ruling, but that doesn't mean discussion has to end.

[Quebecshire]

Does the alliance between Texas, The Heartland and Wysteria pre-date the implementation of their founders? If it does (I have no idea personally) I think mention of that alliance and its importance would be rather interesting, since it would be between three early founderless UCRs.

[Lenlyvit]

Does the alliance between Texas, The Heartland and Wysteria pre-date the implementation of their founders? If it does (I have no idea personally) I think mention of that alliance and its importance would be rather interesting, since it would be between three early founderless UCRs.

Honestly, I don't know if it predates their founders. I think it does, and I might have a telegram somewhere from Big Tex about it, but I would have to find it. The only thing is is that I don't see where it fits into this proposal.

[Xanthal]

Is there still no ruling on this?

[Sedgistan]

Provisional ruling:

• A Declaration can encourage the creation of organisations.
• A Declaration cannot legislate on how organisations must act/be comprised etc.
• However, a Declaration can set conditions for those organisations to be recognised by the SC under that resolution.

Reasoning:

• Encouraging the creation of an organisation is nothing more than stating an opinion. It's not requiring anything, so fits absolutely fine within Declarations.
• Declarations have no formal power, so cannot start setting rules/requirements for regions/nations/the people within them.
• The SC "recognising" an organisation is nothing more than it expressing an opinion, and setting conditions for that recognition is the same.

Under the above, the draft proposal here would need a small tweak to the "Encourages" clause to make clear that the bullet points that follow are requirements for the SC to recognise those CCAs, not requirements for all CCAs.

[Lenlyvit]

Provisional ruling:

• A Declaration can encourage the creation of organisations.
• A Declaration cannot legislate on how organisations must act/be comprised etc.
• However, a Declaration can set conditions for those organisations to be recognised by the SC under that resolution.

Reasoning:

• Encouraging the creation of an organisation is nothing more than stating an opinion. It's not requiring anything, so fits absolutely fine within Declarations.
• Declarations have no formal power, so cannot start setting rules/requirements for regions/nations/the people within them.
• The SC "recognising" an organisation is nothing more than it expressing an opinion, and setting conditions for that recognition is the same.

Under the above, the draft proposal here would need a small tweak to the "Encourages" clause to make clear that the bullet points that follow are requirements for the SC to recognise those CCAs, not requirements for all CCAs.

Alright, thanks Sedge! I'll do some tweaking and see what I can come up with.

[Lenlyvit]

Provisional ruling:

• A Declaration can encourage the creation of organisations.
• A Declaration cannot legislate on how organisations must act/be comprised etc.
• However, a Declaration can set conditions for those organisations to be recognised by the SC under that resolution.

Reasoning:

• Encouraging the creation of an organisation is nothing more than stating an opinion. It's not requiring anything, so fits absolutely fine within Declarations.
• Declarations have no formal power, so cannot start setting rules/requirements for regions/nations/the people within them.
• The SC "recognising" an organisation is nothing more than it expressing an opinion, and setting conditions for that recognition is the same.

Under the above, the draft proposal here would need a small tweak to the "Encourages" clause to make clear that the bullet points that follow are requirements for the SC to recognise those CCAs, not requirements for all CCAs.

I've made the small tweak to the encouraging clause, can I get a legality check to make sure it's okay now please?

[Sedgistan]

Looks good.

The ruling was labelled a "Provisional" one in case of feedback that changed our view on it, but if none of that appears in the next few days, it'll be "official" and I'll add something about it to the rules document.

[Reventus Koth]

In case feedback is still desired on the provisional ruling: I was skeptical of how this could be handled, and even as an opponent of this specific legislation I think it's a fair ruling by the mod team and good precedent.

I'm not sure what good a hypothetical "Security Council seal of approval" would do for an outside organization, but if the resolution passes we'll certainly get to learn.

[Lenlyvit]

In case feedback is still desired on the provisional ruling: I was skeptical of how this could be handled, and even as an opponent of this specific legislation I think it's a fair ruling by the mod team and good precedent.

I'm not sure what good a hypothetical "Security Council seal of approval" would do for an outside organization, but if the resolution passes we'll certainly get to learn.

I have to agree with Koth on the ruling, it seems pretty fair to me.

Edit: Last call also, now that I have a go-ahead. I'll probably submit this after Creeperopolis is close to being over.

[Xanthal]

The existing wording is pretty awkward with the new restrictions. I'd do something more like,

Code: Select all

[i]Encourages[/i] the creation by concerned nations of Caretaker Conservation Administrations (CCAs) to govern historical regions where no legitimate native leaders exist, or where such leaders request them, recommending and recognizing those which:
[list][*]Operate independently and do not limit membership based on affiliations outside the region,
[*]Require participating nations to be present in the governed region for the duration of their participation in the CCA,
[*]Make a good faith effort to honor the history of the region and the preferences of pre-established natives,
[*]Prioritize the best interest of the region over that of their members and other organizations,
[*]Recruit for and promote active participation in the region to establish new native stakeholders,
[*]Vigorously pursue the goal of establishing a healthy, independent region with independent native leadership,
[*]Dissolve or subordinate themselves to native administration once native leaders are established, and
[*]Do not allow members to serve concurrently in the native administration, nor use proxies to do so.[/list]

[Lenlyvit]

The existing wording is pretty awkward with the new restrictions. I'd do something more like,

Code: Select all

[i]Encourages[/i] the creation by concerned nations of Caretaker Conservation Administrations (CCAs) to govern historical regions where no legitimate native leaders exist, or where such leaders request them, recommending and recognizing those which:
[list][*]Operate independently and do not limit membership based on affiliations outside the region,
[*]Require participating nations to be present in the governed region for the duration of their participation in the CCA,
[*]Make a good faith effort to honor the history of the region and the preferences of pre-established natives,
[*]Prioritize the best interest of the region over that of their members and other organizations,
[*]Recruit for and promote active participation in the region to establish new native stakeholders,
[*]Vigorously pursue the goal of establishing a healthy, independent region with independent native leadership,
[*]Dissolve or subordinate themselves to native administration once native leaders are established, and
[*]Do not allow members to serve concurrently in the native administration, nor use proxies to do so.[/list]

Yeah, that's better. I've edited it in. Thanks Xanthal!

[Xanthal]

Was the loss of the closing clause intentional? I notice it's not there anymore.

Code: Select all

[i]Establishes[/i] this Historical Region Act and authorizes the passage of additional resolutions to advance native rights and regional conservation.

[Lenlyvit]

Was the loss of the closing clause intentional? I notice it's not there anymore.

Code: Select all

[i]Establishes[/i] this Historical Region Act and authorizes the passage of additional resolutions to advance native rights and regional conservation.

Whoops, that was completely accidental. I didn't even notice it was gone

[Unibot III]

I complain a lot about, so I just wanted to echo Koth and say I thought it was a strong ruling and hopefully will serve as a foundation in terms of precedent for future authors.

Best of luck with submission.

[Grea Kriopia]

It remains unclear to me, as has been the case with every version of this proposal, why we are justifying external actors taking control of a region without native consent solely because it is a historical novelty. A proposal intended to caretake uniquely founderless regions including an imperialist-esque provision is laughable

[Kirrlark]

This falls at the first hurdle for me, a declaration shouldn’t be an “Act” as it doesn’t enact anything. Additionally, the declaration attempts to do a whole lot more than it should as a declaration and taking over and recruiting a new community into a region just for the sake of preserving a name lacks any logic.

[Philimbesi]

"We rise today to cast our vote against this act as the WA intern called "Heads," and the flip result was tails. As always, ambassadors, may the odds be forever in your favor".

Nigel S Youlkin

[Unibot III]

"We rise today to cast our vote against this act as the WA intern called "Heads," and the flip result was tails. As always, ambassadors, may the odds be forever in your favor".

Nigel S Youlkin

The Unibotian Ambassador, half-overhearing this interjected: “You have an intern named Heads?”

“What an odd name for an intern..” she said to herself with a perplexed look.

Through a haze of Xanax and gin, Unibot managed to cast its vote FOR the resolution.

[Lakeside Valley]

The Community of Lakeside Valley votes FOR

We agree with the declaration, that many of the culturally and historically significant regions lack the proper guidance to protect and sustain themselves. Furthermore, we agree that it is the responsibility of the SC and foreign nations to, if reasonable and possible, assist these historically significant regions to preserve their history and culture. As such, we are voting for this to be passed, as we believe it would benefit the safety of significant regions and so it would benefit the world.