[WILL SUBMIT 29-APR] Regulating Police Use of Force

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 4,990
Word count: 835

ICly by Susanna Bryant, fifth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador, who took over after D-A Smith abandoned this project in frustration.

OOC: This is Draft #5. Draft 4 is here and Drafts 1-3 are here.

Regulating Police Use of Force
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Extremely frustrated by the World Assembly's continued inaction on the use of force by police, ensuring that unscrupulous, negligent, or simply malevolent law enforcement officers throughout the WA can continue to use excessive or even deadly force while on duty without any punishment whatsoever, and

Convinced that the introduction of a WA-wide regulation of the use of force by police will protect all sapient rights, inasmuch as they cannot be realised without the right to life (which is often infringed upon by the use of excessive force), while protecting persons from all backgrounds - especially vulnerable ones - who interact with the police during such interactions...

The General Assembly hereby enacts as follows.

1. Definitions: For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) is a person who is employed in a member state to conduct public-facing law enforcement activities in any member state, and is acting in the course of such activities, and
   2. the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person means the use by that LEO of significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain that person, to protect themselves from a physical attack (or threat thereof) by that person, or otherwise to carry out a routine action such as a body search against that person.
2. Requirements for employers: All entities that employ LEOs must:
   
   1. ensure, through education and in practice, that their LEOs do not use force against suspected criminals or any other person when the use of less forceful measures has not been ruled out in the circumstances,
   2. educate their current LEOs, and those who they are training to become LEOs in the future, on when the use of force constitutes excessive force, as well as on when the use of those items described in Article d is appropriate,
   3. further educate their LEOs on de-escalation techniques that comply with WA law and when to use them,
   4. regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force (although this Article does not require that incidents where a decision has already been made upon review be re-reviewed, nor that incidents which occurred prior to this resolution coming into force be reviewed themselves; hence each incident need not be reviewed more than once), and
   5. provide suitable support for the victims of excessive force used by their LEOs (or, if they are dead, their next of kin).
3. General rule: LEOs must not use excessive force against any person.
4. Carriage of less-than-lethal items: For any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary, or for which they carry any other class of weapon, LEOs must carry less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals, such as batons, irritant spray or tasers. However, a LEO may simultaneously carry a less-than-lethal item and some other weapon, such as a gun or knife.
5. Use of body-worn cameras: LEOs shall wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while in the course of their public-facing duties (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation). Those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location.
6. Harm prevention and reduction: LEOs must avoid causing death or life-changing injury to any person unless the life or bodily sovereignty of any person (including the LEO in question) is, or likely would be, placed in immediate danger by that person. Where a LEO non-fatally harms another person under this Article, they must ensure that the person receives any basic first aid necessary for their survival, where doing so would not cause or otherwise threaten death or life-changing injury to any LEO.
7. Ban on excessive use of force by LEOs: Member states must criminalise the use of force by LEOs after this resolution has been enacted that contradicts Articles b, c, or f. To that end, whenever an entity that employs LEOs finds that one or more of their LEOs have wilfully, recklessly, or negligently administered such force, it must refer their use of such force to the appropriate tribunal. If a LEO is found to use such force in a manner that is overly excessive or pervasive, they shall be forbidden from being employed to conduct public-facing law enforcement activities in any member state.
8. Principle of independence: No person not carrying out an Article b(iv) review, such as politicians or the LEOs being investigated by such a review, shall influence or attempt to influence the outcome of such a review.
9. Recommendation: Entities that employ LEOs are urged to ensure that LEOs are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

[Tinhampton]

Reserved for old drafts, in the event I manage to completely rewrite this in the ten-and-a-half days I've given myself.

[The Ice States]

Full support as written.

[The Overmind]

Originally, my opposition to this proposal came from a place of not believing it went far enough. After seeing the ridiculous reasons people chose to oppose it, I decided to submit a vote of FOR anyway. That being said, I do still think that there is a missing ingredient here, and that's the fate of the career of a LEO who engages in excessive force.

Originally, I would have liked for the proposal to include a clause barring any LEO guilty of excessive force, as defined, from serving for the duration of their lifespan, but after discussions with The Ice States off-site, and their contention that sometimes "significantly more force than is necessary" is not the same as "egregiously more force than is necessary," I could see my way to supporting this if it included a clause like:

"Additionally, when the use of force by a LEO is egregiously excessive, or the use of excessive force by a LEO is pervasive, along with the other penalties enumerated here, they must also be permanently barred from working in law enforcement in any capacity."

I believe this consequence correctly reflects the grievous breach of public trust constituted by an especially heinous or repeated use of excessive force, and, while described here as a penalty, it is actually moreso vital to the protection of the public. Just as fraud, blackmail, and bribery come to light typically result in the end of a career in a domain where the guilty party has power over other people's lives, I believe this also rises to, if not exceeds, that level of flagrancy.

[Tinhampton]

This change was made. A clarification was also added that no incident has to be reviewed more than once.

[The Overmind]

Full support as written.

[Bananaistan]

"Completely and utterly opposed.

"The requirement of a review of every "use of force" is particularly obnoxious. It would need a whole expensive bureaucracy. Countries have better things to use their limited resources than the needless busywork of reviewing every legitimate arrest.

"Requiring police officers to carry a wheelbarrow full of supposedly non-lethal weapons every time they step outside the station is also daft."

[The Overmind]

The requirement of a review of every "use of force"

If this were in a repeal, it would be illegal for honest mistake. That's not what the proposal says.

Requiring police officers to carry a wheelbarrow full of supposedly non-lethal weapons every time they step outside the station is also daft.

This would be too if not for the ambiguity of "[...] such as [...] and [...]" but Tinhampton can eliminate that ambiguity simply by replacing "and" with "or."

[Bananaistan]

The requirement of a review of every "use of force"

If this were in a repeal, it would be illegal for honest mistake. That's not what the proposal says.

I quote:

"regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs ..."

If that's not a requirement for a review of every "use of force", I don't know what is.

[The Overmind]

If this were in a repeal, it would be illegal for honest mistake. That's not what the proposal says.

I quote:

"regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs ..."

If that's not a requirement for a review of every "use of force", I don't know what is.

That would be what it means if it said "review every incident where the use of force was exercised by LEOs [...]." What it actually says is "regularly review," which means "at uniform intervals of time" or "with a constant or definite pattern."

[Republics of the Solar Union]

to protect themselves from a physical attack (or threat thereof)

What if someone intimidates a LEO? Is that something that a LEO could gain protection from under this? I would assume "or threat thereof" would imply that intimidation would be something that a LEO could gain protection from but at what point is it defined a threat? What if the person in question does an action that the LEO thinks is a threat, but is disputable, in that case would they be able to use force?

Also if a LEO does an action that the person in question thinks means that they are about to use excessive force, if they resist this potential use of excessive force, can that resistance be nitpicked by a LEO as a threat?

Also many WA states have incredibly advanced technology capable of creating realistic video that could fool most people, if a LEO has access to such advanced technology as a member of the government, they could use it to blame the person in question of a threat.

You have stated that another LEO must be present at all times, but eyewitnesses aren't the most reliable, and there have been multiple studies that have determined that eyewitnesses aren't always accurate, if a LEO drugs the other LEO then they could forgot almost all the details of the encounter.

Now come in security cameras, you mentioned that the LEO must have a camera with them at all times well security cameras have to respect privacy to a degree, and if the LEO does use their excessive force in a private place, that could be seen as a violation of privacy to bring a camera into such a place. If the WA doesn't respect privacy that could be grounds for rejection.

I am not a WA member, I just found this interesting and thought I would comment.

[Sicias]

I will Vote Against this as much as I voted against the current proposal up for WA vote
I feel such Legislation is not only Unnessisary but Harmful for member States who try to keep law and order.

[Vurk]

{Few quick hot fix about grammers etc. (12:47)}

The Republic of Vurk will consider her decision and we believe many more will, if these points taken by propounding parts:

- Article "a" has to be revisited. Especially subarticle of "i" Anyone can label military forces, national guards and offical paramilitary groups as LEOs. They are not everyday police force, they have much more different primary duties. However, we want to point out, martial laws are above any proposed law enforcement duty. They are extraordinary situations. Just because, in a scenario military is tasked to keep order, they must have autonomy in their actions while left with some accountabilities, maybe this should be a different topic of another resolution, but it has to be made clear first before moving on to LEOs and excessive force.

- We are generally againist any obligation about methods of tracking LEOs. Mandating carry of less-then-lethal firearms, obligotary body worn camera etc. We understand obligations of member states, there must be. All domestic methods should also be accepted by other delegate members. But then, we may have different methods of tracking our LEOs. We may have different methods rather than giving less-then-lethal firearms to every single of our LEO. We believe suggesting requirements, goals and recommendations are convinient. In the end, main goal is preventing excessive force. However, not strictly methods, those must not have to be adopted by every member state.

If these two main concerns won't be taken into consideration, we will not continue to any negotions about aye of The Republic of Vurk, and we will veto again if this resolution will be voted again. And we believe many will do similar.


Roleplay if you have time:

This time, an old man appears, carrying an Owl badge. Seems like another new Vurk diplomat. This turbulence causes certainly causes doubts among the international communities. Neverhless, every Vurkian bureaucrat diplomats would able to carry relations good so far. In a calculated manner, some cold handshakes and some few sincere comments, then following proposals, comments or anything else, made with good intentions to benefit both parts.

As this old man approaches other WA delegates; he smiles formally. Then greets formally and begins the word given him to be told other delegates:

"We understand concerns of member states who previously supported rejected 'Police Accountability Act' As The Republic of Vurk, we share similar thoughts about main principles about excessive force, education of law enforcement officers and few parts. Yet, we have two main concerns, must have been adressed before if we were going to vote 'Regulating Police Use of Force'

Definition at 'a.i' article is still disputable. We had many turmoils in the past, and we had a bloody-civil war. At that dark days, we had taken neccessary decision to be sure republic regime continue to exists on our soil. If we were subjected to such a resolution at these days, we would be left to mercy of foreign intervention. Ladies and gentlemen, I have permission to say it clearly: We wouldn't want any intervention to our beloved country just because we choosed our best for our future. LEOs stamped out many civil rights, military walked into cities, suspended many schismatic elements. This could be done by initiative of the Directorate -our revolutionary governing body above parliment and government, they calculated how much force is neccessary or not. Those days left behind for us, nearly all emergency authorities revoked. However, by simply defining excessive force in one single article, we see this as an intervention to many member's internal affairs. Because this will make many countries as target to intervene. We suggest discussing defining LEOs much extensively and better.

Second main issue is main philosophy of the resolution itself. We understand there may be definitions, obligations and recommendations. Even so, we will not simply put cameras on our every single LEO. We will not simply give less-then-lethal equipment to every single LEO. Our governing bodies very capable to meet up requirements and obligations by our own domestic solutions. We believe 'iv' subarticle of article 'b' and few other articles 'f, g, h and i' are applicable as they are pointing out recommendations and obligations. If we can come to an agreement on these, as The Republic of Vurk, we will Vote for this resolution.

As for concerns, leaving a resolution too much general and theoric may seem noneffective, we believe there are several other ways ensuring determining excessive force and how to react it. First of all, any kind of unneccessary force is a crime in our borders. If a LEO commits unneccessary force againist a civillian, that individual will charged for both abuse of authority and violence crime. And same way, if a civillian commits unneccessary force againist a LEO, that civillian will charged for both not accepting legitimate government authority and violence crime. And, as we said, leave us to determine our domestic ways to track these situations and transparently sharing every single details to both Vurkian community and international community.

This is the last offer us. We are open to dialogue, however, we want to see frankly expressed intentions to discuss without any emotions confusing us and turning this simple, yet effective resolution into political debate."

[Tinhampton]

- Article "a" has to be revisited. Especially subarticle of "i" Anyone can label military forces, national guards and offical paramilitary groups as LEOs.

How can the work of these people be defined as "public-facing law enforcement activities?" A soldier does not do law enforcement work in his normal duties, and you admit that the work he does is more important than "any proposed law enforcement duty." If you want I can exclude soldiers from the scope of this resolution and/or encourage the passage of some future resolution on their conduct?

- We are generally againist any obligation about methods of tracking LEOs. Mandating carry of less-then-lethal firearms, obligotary body worn camera etc.

Less-than-lethal weapons cannot be used to "track" LEOs. Bodycam recordings are for internal use only to ensure that they are not using excessive force.

---

to protect themselves from a physical attack (or threat thereof)

What if someone intimidates a LEO? Is that something that a LEO could gain protection from under this?

Yes, if the intimidation is gross enough.

Also if a LEO does an action that the person in question thinks means that they are about to use excessive force, if they resist this potential use of excessive force, can that resistance be nitpicked by a LEO as a threat?

Most likely it would come under self-defence, and not be a threat - but it depends on a case-by-case basis.

Also many WA states have incredibly advanced technology capable of creating realistic video that could fool most people, if a LEO has access to such advanced technology as a member of the government, they could use it to blame the person in question of a threat.

Bodycam recordings cannot be tampered with at the point of recording. The recordings must be transmitted as made to some third location before they can be tampered with.

You have stated that another LEO must be present at all times...

I don't. The bullet point where I say this is literally subtitled "Recommendation." (I also don't say anything about what the other LEO(s) in the team must do, although I hope they will work out their duties on each occasion as needed.)

Now come in security cameras, you mentioned that the LEO must have a camera with them at all times well security cameras have to respect privacy to a degree, and if the LEO does use their excessive force in a private place, that could be seen as a violation of privacy to bring a camera into such a place. If the WA doesn't respect privacy that could be grounds for rejection.

Cameras may be turned off in the course of an underground operation. This doesn't violate pre-existing WA laws on privacy; generally speaking, the right of a police officer to record a house raid and have records of that raid stored outweigh the householder's right not to have their actions in their own home recorded, especially when the raid has a good underpinning such as to seize proceeds of criminal activity or things used in committing it.

[Vurk]

The Republic of Vurk responds to respond:

- Article "a" has to be revisited. Especially subarticle of "i" Anyone can label military forces, national guards and offical paramilitary groups as LEOs.

How can the work of these people be defined as "public-facing law enforcement activities?" A soldier does not do law enforcement work in his normal duties, and you admit that the work he does is more important than "any proposed law enforcement duty." If you want I can exclude soldiers from the scope of this resolution and/or encourage the passage of some future resolution on their conduct?

- Yes, we simply want a guarantee. There are no "public-facing law enforcement activities" defined in this proposal and neither in past resolutions. We suggest defining term of "public-facing law enforcement activities" first.

Making main goals, intentions and purposes in a resolution is crucial, even if one part admits work done by a soldier is more important than "any proposed law enforcement duty" this still isn't giving guarantee first for us and then many other nations. Some member nations may claim one's military personal used as LEO, if we don't over see the fact that some member nations have different ways of preserving order by even it means constant use of military force.

- We are generally againist any obligation about methods of tracking LEOs. Mandating carry of less-then-lethal firearms, obligotary body worn camera etc.

Less-than-lethal weapons cannot be used to "track" LEOs. Bodycam recordings are for internal use only to ensure that they are not using excessive force.

- We already know, most less-than-lethal weapons cannot be used to "track" LEOs. But given the fact that forcing a LEO to first pull his/her less-than-lethal firearm is a checking mechanism to be sure about things. In a hypotetical scenario where this resolution passed, LEO with a broken camera shoots down a criminal who charged the officer. However, then we see, criminal who charged without any weapon, not targeted with less-then-lethal firearm firstly. Then how would react authorities? There is one more important thing to notice in this scenario, broken camera. Was it broken by accident or something else? Alongside with several things, we can extend this hypotetical scenario. Neverthless, we can see how less-than-lethal firearms tied together with body worn camera, and many more.

However, as a soverign member of WA, we might find better solution about our domestic affairs. We have discussed in our parliment to apply community cameras to every possible open locations, including deserted natural areas. These observations will not done solely for tracking LEOs but all kinds of things in open public places, including forest fire and many more situations when we have to intervene. Several other things we have also considered, for instance, observing drones for this purpose. When a LEO breaks private lines in order to commit his duty, now we have right to observe no matter how private that place is. Now a government drone can enter. These are still draft. Despite that, it is an evidence that others way possible when tracking LEOs and being sure preventation of excessive force usage. To answer less-then-lethal firearm, we decided we must not give such equipments to LEOs. If a citizen breaks the law and go against a LEO, that person would break two laws simultaneously: Committing a crime and disregarding the authority of the state. Similarly, if a LEO breaks the law and uses excessive force, that person would break two laws simultaneously: Committing a "violent" crime and abusing the authority of the state. The Republic of Vurk has strong attitude towards determining differences between sole crime and a crime combined with disregarding the authority of the state. If our well educated LEOs feels to shoot a criminal warned multiple times, they can. Because this is disregardation of the authority.

So this arrives the main point of our objection: Leave nations independent to be how they would ensure their LEOs are not using excessive force. WA has only right to track results and integrity of main principles in each domestic system.

Some nations may not see any problem a police carrying body worn camera, but this is a disregard of authority, in Vurk, it is just like that. Different cultures and different nations require different methods to achive same goal.

We will say for the last time, ways of ensuring things must be iniative of each member states.

[Lower Antegria]

As much as I'm sympathetic to both sides of the argument in regards to Tinhampton's gameplay actions, I believe a resolution like this should be passed eventually however with a few adjustments based on the more notable complaints around this resolution (i.e. Tinhampton's conduct, the resolution being a bit vague around use of disproportionate force to protect others rather than the officer themselves, the vagueness around whether exceptional circumstances around a nation's police force apply or who defines disproportionate force etc.)

1. The revised resolution should be headed up by someone other than Tinhampton (Because as much as they have put their heart, soul, and £/$ into this resolution, the revised resolution would be tarred from association with Tinhampton due to the controversy over the mass telegram advertising and response thereafter. This because even ignoring notable (I'm not naming them) regions boycotting this resolution due to this controversy, there exists a considerable number of individual nations who claim snarky or rude telegrams from Tinhampton after responding to the mass telegram. Therefore, if supporters of this resolution and Tinhampton themselves want the new resolution to have a chance at passing - they should publicly distance themselves from the remake and make only minor contributions.)

2. The revised resolution should be clearer around use of disproportionate force to protect others rather than the officer themselves, the vagueness around whether exceptional circumstances around a nation's police force apply or who defines disproportionate force.

3. There should be a public dispatch or OOC declaration around how this resolution and WA resolutions interact with nation specific roleplay around police forces or dictatorial or autocratic states (i.e. how a nation technically be in contravention of WA resolutions through drugs laws and so on but there is no actual OOC punishment besides region liberation and roleplay punishments)

4. The resolution should be renamed to avoid association with the previous and more controversial version.


(P.S I voted For the resolution for nation roleplay reasons - just wanted to declare that)

[Republics of the Solar Union]

What if someone intimidates a LEO? Is that something that a LEO could gain protection from under this?

Yes, if the intimidation is gross enough.

I am worried about that, what amount of force can be used? Intimidation should definitely be something that has no force used at all to stop it. Force is pretty abstract, do you mean psychological or physical force. What I mean is no physical force should be used to stop intimidation or a "mood", and by psychological force I mean a use of discipline or action that does not involve physical touching of the criminal in question, such as interrogation.

Also if a LEO does an action that the person in question thinks means that they are about to use excessive force, if they resist this potential use of excessive force, can that resistance be nitpicked by a LEO as a threat?

Most likely it would come under self-defence, and not be a threat - but it depends on a case-by-case basis.

Case-by-case basis? What stops a dictator from defining a bad case-by-case basis specifically? Also self-defense can be seen as a threat if a LEO themselves don't notice that they were hinting at or implying an excessive use of force. The difference between self-defense and threatening is pretty vague in itself.

Also many WA states have incredibly advanced technology capable of creating realistic video that could fool most people, if a LEO has access to such advanced technology as a member of the government, they could use it to blame the person in question of a threat.

Bodycam recordings cannot be tampered with at the point of recording. The recordings must be transmitted as made to some third location before they can be tampered with.

What stops a LEO from replacing the camera with another camera which filters what's going on, or a LEO could just claim that the camera stopped working because of some technical issue, the latter is more likely. What would be the response in both of these situations?

You have stated that another LEO must be present at all times...

I don't. The bullet point where I say this is literally subtitled "Recommendation." (I also don't say anything about what the other LEO(s) in the team must do, although I hope they will work out their duties on each occasion as needed.)

That's not a good thing at all, that should probably be a requirement and more details should be added. Though generally monitoring from another LEO is not the best use of this recommendation as it currently is, I can definitely see monitoring from another LEO working if more detail is added about this. I see a bunch of value deplete from this resolution if you make this thing a recommendation or advisory.

Now come in security cameras, you mentioned that the LEO must have a camera with them at all times well security cameras have to respect privacy to a degree, and if the LEO does use their excessive force in a private place, that could be seen as a violation of privacy to bring a camera into such a place. If the WA doesn't respect privacy that could be grounds for rejection.

Cameras may be turned off in the course of an underground operation. This doesn't violate pre-existing WA laws on privacy; generally speaking, the right of a police officer to record a house raid and have records of that raid stored outweigh the householder's right not to have their actions in their own home recorded, especially when the raid has a good underpinning such as to seize proceeds of criminal activity or things used in committing it.

I see, well privacy and the police is a topic that can have much more discussion, but anyways going back onto topic for this resolution, I am not talking about a house raid for example, more like a public bathroom.

[The Overmind]

As much as I'm sympathetic to both sides of the argument in regards to Tinhampton's gameplay actions, I believe a resolution like this should be passed eventually however with a few adjustments based on the more notable complaints around this resolution (i.e. Tinhampton's conduct, the resolution being a bit vague around use of disproportionate force to protect others rather than the officer themselves, the vagueness around whether exceptional circumstances around a nation's police force apply or who defines disproportionate force etc.)

1. The revised resolution should be headed up by someone other than Tinhampton (Because as much as they have put their heart, soul, and £/$ into this resolution, the revised resolution would be tarred from association with Tinhampton due to the controversy over the mass telegram advertising and response thereafter. This because even ignoring notable (I'm not naming them) regions boycotting this resolution due to this controversy, there exists a considerable number of individual nations who claim snarky or rude telegrams from Tinhampton after responding to the mass telegram. Therefore, if supporters of this resolution and Tinhampton themselves want the new resolution to have a chance at passing - they should publicly distance themselves from the remake and make only minor contributions.)

2. The revised resolution should be clearer around use of disproportionate force to protect others rather than the officer themselves, the vagueness around whether exceptional circumstances around a nation's police force apply or who defines disproportionate force.

3. There should be a public dispatch or OOC declaration around how this resolution and WA resolutions interact with nation specific roleplay around police forces or dictatorial or autocratic states (i.e. how a nation technically be in contravention of WA resolutions through drugs laws and so on but there is no actual OOC punishment besides region liberation and roleplay punishments)

4. The resolution should be renamed to avoid association with the previous and more controversial version.


(P.S I voted For the resolution for nation roleplay reasons - just wanted to declare that)

Tinhampton wrote this resolution, and it is their effort that got it to this point. There is no reason they should step down as author.

[Lower Antegria]

As much as I'm sympathetic to both sides of the argument in regards to Tinhampton's gameplay actions, I believe a resolution like this should be passed eventually however with a few adjustments based on the more notable complaints around this resolution (i.e. Tinhampton's conduct, the resolution being a bit vague around use of disproportionate force to protect others rather than the officer themselves, the vagueness around whether exceptional circumstances around a nation's police force apply or who defines disproportionate force etc.)

1. The revised resolution should be headed up by someone other than Tinhampton (Because as much as they have put their heart, soul, and £/$ into this resolution, the revised resolution would be tarred from association with Tinhampton due to the controversy over the mass telegram advertising and response thereafter. This because even ignoring notable (I'm not naming them) regions boycotting this resolution due to this controversy, there exists a considerable number of individual nations who claim snarky or rude telegrams from Tinhampton after responding to the mass telegram. Therefore, if supporters of this resolution and Tinhampton themselves want the new resolution to have a chance at passing - they should publicly distance themselves from the remake and make only minor contributions.)

2. The revised resolution should be clearer around use of disproportionate force to protect others rather than the officer themselves, the vagueness around whether exceptional circumstances around a nation's police force apply or who defines disproportionate force.

3. There should be a public dispatch or OOC declaration around how this resolution and WA resolutions interact with nation specific roleplay around police forces or dictatorial or autocratic states (i.e. how a nation technically be in contravention of WA resolutions through drugs laws and so on but there is no actual OOC punishment besides region liberation and roleplay punishments)

4. The resolution should be renamed to avoid association with the previous and more controversial version.


(P.S I voted For the resolution for nation roleplay reasons - just wanted to declare that)

Tinhampton wrote this resolution, and it is their effort that got it to this point. There is no reason they should step down as author.

Ok, in which case ignore point 1 about Tinhampton stepping down. However, in the campaigning for the revised resolution, we should avoid the mistakes of last time and make it clear to WA members and potential voters that this time there will be changes and it's not the same recycled resolution. Also, although some of the criticisms were unfair, we still need to demonstrate that the resolution's campaigning was imperfect and work on points 2,3, and 4 and then communicate these changes to the wider WA.

[Vurk]

Tinhampton wrote this resolution, and it is their effort that got it to this point. There is no reason they should step down as author.

Ok, in which case ignore point 1 about Tinhampton stepping down. However, in the campaigning for the revised resolution, we should avoid the mistakes of last time and make it clear to WA members and potential voters that this time there will be changes and it's not the same recycled resolution. Also, although some of the criticisms were unfair, we still need to demonstrate that the resolution's campaigning was imperfect and work on points 2,3, and 4 and then communicate these changes to the wider WA.

Firstly,
We commend constructive approach of Lower Antegria.

Secondly,
Sadly, we still think point 1 can't be ignored. As The Republic of Vurk, we don't have any opinion about those disputes between member states and suggesting parts of the resolution. Even so we believe good intentions of those who put this resolution forward, in this situation. That being stated, we believe sacrifices must be made by suggesting parts, if we all working for every habitants of member states. If there is no other way possible to convince international community, then the revised resolution should be headed up by someone else.

(P.S. I don't know my veto associated with my opinion about gameplay or not. Neverthless, I don't know what happend at gameplay, I am newbie, you might see. I've tried to be critique, I want to state out that clear. I vetod it due according to my roleplay draft, still I work on.)

[The Overmind]

Ok, in which case ignore point 1 about Tinhampton stepping down. However, in the campaigning for the revised resolution, we should avoid the mistakes of last time and make it clear to WA members and potential voters that this time there will be changes and it's not the same recycled resolution. Also, although some of the criticisms were unfair, we still need to demonstrate that the resolution's campaigning was imperfect and work on points 2,3, and 4 and then communicate these changes to the wider WA.

Firstly,
We commend constructive approach of Lower Antegria.

Secondly,
Sadly, we still think point 1 can't be ignored. As The Republic of Vurk, we don't have any opinion about those disputes between member states and suggesting parts of the resolution. Even so we believe good intentions of those who put this resolution forward, in this situation. That being stated, we believe sacrifices must be made by suggesting parts, if we all working for every habitants of member states. If there is no other way possible to convince international community, then the revised resolution should be headed up by someone else.

(P.S. I don't know my veto associated with my opinion about gameplay or not. Neverthless, I don't know what happend at gameplay, I am newbie, you might see. I've tried to be critique, I want to state out that clear. I vetod it due according to my roleplay draft, still I work on.)

If someone else wants to write a competing resolution, then they should go ahead and do so. Asking Tinhampton to essentially give permission for someone to completely plagiarize her work because of the often unjustifiably negative attitude she receives is just not appropriate.

[Vurk]

Firstly,
We commend constructive approach of Lower Antegria.

Secondly,
Sadly, we still think point 1 can't be ignored. As The Republic of Vurk, we don't have any opinion about those disputes between member states and suggesting parts of the resolution. Even so we believe good intentions of those who put this resolution forward, in this situation. That being stated, we believe sacrifices must be made by suggesting parts, if we all working for every habitants of member states. If there is no other way possible to convince international community, then the revised resolution should be headed up by someone else.

(P.S. I don't know my veto associated with my opinion about gameplay or not. Neverthless, I don't know what happend at gameplay, I am newbie, you might see. I've tried to be critique, I want to state out that clear. I vetod it due according to my roleplay draft, still I work on.)

If someone else wants to write a competing resolution, then they should go ahead and do so. Asking Tinhampton to essentially give permission for someone to completely plagiarize her work because of the often unjustifiably negative attitude she receives is just not appropriate.

No, it's not because that isn't what I meant. I will keep it simple this time, I have kind of work to do irl.

I am trying to say, what is her own priority. Because;

Is priority passing a resolution or passing resolution by herself?

That is the question, I am trying to understand her attitude. I don't have interest to involve write similar resolution, it is not in my personal interest category. My whole goal to participate in this topic is because I want to make this thing passed with some changes. I can agree revised version of this one, according to roleplay I envisioned. And also simply involving in a this kind of situation that early to learn game's mechanics and playerbase's social mechanics. Resolution didn't pass because unrelated things about it. I am trying to make those "unrelated" things about resolution noneffective, trying to understand, what makes people give aye or nay. Is it the itself of proposal, proposer or combination of both? And also to understand why people propose resolutions: To discuss about it or bringing something else into voting? So far, I saw player's attitude towards proposers outweight interprepting proposal. This is a cruel fact I saw, so far.

I think I may assume, goal is trying to pass resolution by herself. Then what she and other participants of proposal will do?

I believe this resolution has nothing to do with gameplay or other unrelated thing. And especially, I believe this resolution proposal wasn't about giving a message, or anything I don't know and I don't understand (I am a newbie, as I mentioned earlier.). However, if you don't bring the debate into more "What we can do?" category, I will start to believe opposite. Not going to lie, my belief shaken a bit, about intentions solely base upon reason proposing this resolution.

[The Overmind]

If someone else wants to write a competing resolution, then they should go ahead and do so. Asking Tinhampton to essentially give permission for someone to completely plagiarize her work because of the often unjustifiably negative attitude she receives is just not appropriate.

No, it's not because that isn't what I meant. I will keep it simple this time, I have kind of work to do irl.

I am trying to say, what is her own priority. Because;

Is priority passing a resolution or passing resolution by herself?

That is the question, I am trying to understand her attitude. I don't have interest to involve write similar resolution, it is not in my personal interest category. My whole goal to participate in this topic is because I want to make this thing passed with some changes. I can agree revised version of this one, according to roleplay I envisioned. And also simply involving in a this kind of situation that early to learn game's mechanics and playerbase's social mechanics. Resolution didn't pass because unrelated things about it. I am trying to make those "unrelated" things about resolution noneffective, trying to understand, what makes people give aye or nay. Is it the itself of proposal, proposer or combination of both? And also to understand why people propose resolutions: To discuss about it or bringing something else into voting? So far, I saw player's attitude towards proposers outweight interprepting proposal. This is a cruel fact I saw, so far.

I think I may assume, goal is trying to pass resolution by herself. Then what she and other participants of proposal will do?

I believe this resolution has nothing to do with gameplay or other unrelated thing. And especially, I believe this resolution proposal wasn't about giving a message, or anything I don't know and I don't understand (I am a newbie, as I mentioned earlier.). However, if you don't bring the debate into more "What we can do?" category, I will start to believe opposite. Not going to lie, my belief shaken a bit, about intentions solely base upon reason proposing this resolution.

What I think you're misunderstanding is how proposal authorship works. Tinhampton is the primary author because the proposal is her idea, and most of the work put into the proposal, including writing it, revising it, and campaigning for it was done by Tinhampton. It is simply not reasonable to expect Tinhampton to relinquish the proposal to someone else in the hopes that it will pass with her name removed from it. First, anyone who is opposed to the proposal on the grounds that Tinhampton wrote it will still be opposed on those grounds. Second, the author who actually submits it would not have done anything to earn having their name on it. Hence why I said it was inappropriate to even as Tinhampton to do that.

[Qamara]

Tinhampton should definitely be allowed to maintain authorship over their own proposal it's pretty ridiculous to suggest otherwise. To reiterate what I said in the other thread, I was initially FOR but after reading Also I don't see the need to use disproportionate force to protect other, or unrelated, people from harm I switched my vote to AGAINST. My law enforcement is supposed to protect the public and the intentions of this resolution clearly didn't allow for that. I am entirely FOR this resolution as long as the ability of my law enforcement to protect the public is not compromised.

[Vurk]

No, it's not because that isn't what I meant. I will keep it simple this time, I have kind of work to do irl.

I am trying to say, what is her own priority. Because;

Is priority passing a resolution or passing resolution by herself?

That is the question, I am trying to understand her attitude. I don't have interest to involve write similar resolution, it is not in my personal interest category. My whole goal to participate in this topic is because I want to make this thing passed with some changes. I can agree revised version of this one, according to roleplay I envisioned. And also simply involving in a this kind of situation that early to learn game's mechanics and playerbase's social mechanics. Resolution didn't pass because unrelated things about it. I am trying to make those "unrelated" things about resolution noneffective, trying to understand, what makes people give aye or nay. Is it the itself of proposal, proposer or combination of both? And also to understand why people propose resolutions: To discuss about it or bringing something else into voting? So far, I saw player's attitude towards proposers outweight interprepting proposal. This is a cruel fact I saw, so far.

I think I may assume, goal is trying to pass resolution by herself. Then what she and other participants of proposal will do?

I believe this resolution has nothing to do with gameplay or other unrelated thing. And especially, I believe this resolution proposal wasn't about giving a message, or anything I don't know and I don't understand (I am a newbie, as I mentioned earlier.). However, if you don't bring the debate into more "What we can do?" category, I will start to believe opposite. Not going to lie, my belief shaken a bit, about intentions solely base upon reason proposing this resolution.

What I think you're misunderstanding is how proposal authorship works. Tinhampton is the primary author because the proposal is her idea, and most of the work put into the proposal, including writing it, revising it, and campaigning for it was done by Tinhampton. It is simply not reasonable to expect Tinhampton to relinquish the proposal to someone else in the hopes that it will pass with her name removed from it. First, anyone who is opposed to the proposal on the grounds that Tinhampton wrote it will still be opposed on those grounds. Second, the author who actually submits it would not have done anything to earn having their name on it. Hence why I said it was inappropriate to even as Tinhampton to do that.

Maybe I am not familiar with proposal authorship as much as you do. Neverthless;

I don't know how you can prove first point, are voters careful that careful in NationStates? Or most usually look and vote very quickly? You are more experienced then me, so I assume you are saying most will track it down and oppose it again. Then there is no other way I can help, discuss or just make a slight impact about these.

And second point, I respect that. But this was the point I wanted to hear. It is difference between main philosophy between pretty much humans and I, I guess. I am tend to fixate on more about achieving goals. In the future, I want to involve in GA, when I will have time. Maybe try to write something or at least try. However, big difference is, I really don't care whetever badge will be remain on me or any other player. To me, seeing my contribution on the resolution is enough. If it is not enough for you guys, I can understand. And this is not a bad thing, don't get me wrong. We all need to see reward in the end. I just don't share same "reward" philosophy with most. Also don't forget, people who opposed probably share similar "reward" philosophy so they know they will punish Tinhampton by that. (And then again, I don't know what happend, I am unbiased about all those things.) Probably they will never let this resolution go, just for this sake.

I will support this articles -I mentioned earlier- are visited. Frankly, I only care what writes in the resolution, from now on. In future, if there will be oppurtunities to talk about resolution itself, I would continue to share my thoughts about it. I withdraw from all the things related outside the resolution's articles, words and sentences. Even so, if I would bother you, Tinhampton or any other people behind this proposal, let me know by writing here or via telegram. So I can stop bothering anyone in here.

Unfourtunate that I have disappointed little bit. Not because players, but because of my expectations. I thought people were tend to reject things because of roleplay, professionalism etc. in GA, not because unrelated things about it. However, it is what it is. Thank you for helping me to understand it. From now on, I will be more careful about it.

My best regards

(Edit: A little typo I've made.)