AT VOTE: Repeal "Rights & Duties of WA States"

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Repeal "Rights & Duties of WA States"

A resolution to again demonstrate that most WA regulars believe they are entitled to troll Auralia.

 

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#2 | Proposed by: <a class="" href="http://www.nationstates.net/nation=world_assembly_charter_working_group">World Assembly Charter Working Group</a>

 

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

 

Argument: <i>Strongly affirming</i> the need for a World Assembly charter that clearly delineates the basic rights and responsibilities of World Assembly member states,

 

<i>Regretting</i> that the numerous flaws present in GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", necessitate its repeal,

 

<i>Condemning</i> the target resolution's morally repugnant conception of war, which is that war is permissible so long as it is consensual,

 

<i>Shocked</i> that this conception of war effectively legalizes armed conflict between two or more mutual aggressors, in which each party wishes to take control over the others’ territory, population or resources, because such a war is technically consensual,

 

<i>Appalled</i> that this conception of war also forbids most just wars, including peacemaking operations and humanitarian interventions, because not all parties consent to the conflict,

 

<i>Distressed</i> that the target resolution forbids nations from any unrequested intervention in the sovereign affairs of other nations, regardless of whether such intervention is justified, as in the case of peacemaking operations and humanitarian intervention,

 

<i>Alarmed</i> that the target resolution's requirement that resolutions be implemented in "good faith" is sufficiently vague as to permit the effective circumvention of resolutions through sincere yet invalid interpretations of resolutions, while prohibiting the World Assembly from passing a separate resolution governing the legitimate interpretation of resolutions,

 

<i>Concerned</i> that the target resolution prevents the World Assembly from taking or supporting any military action whatsoever, precluding the World Assembly from addressing violations of human rights or threats to international peace and security,

 

<i>Strongly hoping</i> that a replacement charter will soon be passed,

 

The General Assembly,

 

<i>Repeals</i> GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States".

 

---

Forum thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic....9&t=262545

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Here is a proposed replacement; though I don't believe it's legal at present, I doubt the mods share that view.

[Sandaoguo]

Totally for repealing this


As for the replacement, I was one if the principle authors. I think it's legal, but I doubt mods will let it through anyways. The last time this was discussed, they basically said they'd declare any replacement illegal, because they don't think the original would withstand scrutiny under new game mechanics and "forced role play" jurisprudence.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Ambivalent about the replacement. Legality concerns aside (I don't buy the category, for one thing) I'm not even sure I see the point of a replacement. I think it would be cute to just not bother replacing it and demonstrate that the WA didn't collapse overnight. I would like to see the laws of war revised, but unfortunately I have no hope of anything sensible materialising.

 

I will probably vote for the repeal, and against the replacement.

[Sandaoguo]

I think we wrote a replacement because people think it's the WA's constitution and would require a replacement.


There are some things that in the replacement that aren't in the rules or the original. The good faith interpretation thing, for example. That's a big one and for stupid political reasons it sank the last attempt.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

I think we wrote a replacement because people think it's the WA's constitution and would require a replacement.


There are some things that in the replacement that aren't in the rules or the original. The good faith interpretation thing, for example. That's a big one and for stupid political reasons it sank the last attempt.

 

Sure. So just concentrate on that. Write an NS version of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

 

But I don't agree that it does require a replacement in toto, and I actually think making that argument weakens the chances of the repeal passing: if people want a "constitution", they'll probably be more likely to stick with the original.

[Sandaoguo]

I agree that a replacement is a bad idea. Things can be better addressed by dedicated resolutions. But I think people are reluctant to support a repeal without knowing what will replace it. That's the case in general. We created a social rule that you have to replace a resolution, unless you're arguing that the very idea of the resolution is bad.

[Unibot]

I am for the repeal - GA#2 was a pain in the butt as an author. It's the old ruleset reaffirmed in a bloody law.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

I agree that a replacement is a bad idea. Things can be better addressed by dedicated resolutions. But I think people are reluctant to support a repeal without knowing what will replace it. That's the case in general. We created a social rule that you have to replace a resolution, unless you're arguing that the very idea of the resolution is bad.

 

The only reason that "social rule" came about - I will admit I am partly culpable in this - is that repeal authors continually hedged their bets by sort of floating the idea of a replacement in their repeal text. If they just made strong arguments against the original resolution, the "replacement" vogue would drift away.

 

Though, that's not directly relevant to this one; it just frustrates me that the standard for writing repeals has got so much lower even while the quality of resolutions otherwise has risen.

 

I am for the repeal - GA#2 was a pain in the butt as an author. It's the old ruleset reaffirmed in a bloody law.

 

I'm curious: what proposals did #2 actually block? I can't off-hand think of any examples of proposals that would be illegal for contradicting #2 that would otherwise be legal, but I was away from the WA for a long time when a lot of these issues were last discussed.

[Unibot]

Anything to do with taking sides on military issues was blocked. Not necessarily everything with that is blocked by the no WA Army rule.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Anything to do with taking sides on military issues was blocked. Not necessarily everything with that is blocked by the no WA Army rule.

 

Not sure I follow. There have definitely been legal proposals on military issues since Rights & Duties.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Ardchoille just ruled the proposal illegal for violating the branding rule, and if it passes the WA may get its first "Discarded" proposal, a feature already used in the SC.

 

:lol: :lol:

[Sandaoguo]

Declared the repeal branding or the replacement?

[Vibrant Coconuts]

The repeal.

 

And, in fairness, it's the only halfway consistent ruling they've made in recent memory. Using branded nations - "WA Charter Working Group" - has long been illegal.

[Sandaoguo]

The <a class="bbc_url" href="http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=19350795#p19350795">repeal</a>.


And, in fairness, it's the only halfway consistent ruling they've made in recent memory. Using branded nations - "WA Charter Working Group" - has long been illegal.

That's never been a rule, and of it somehow has, it's a stupid and useless rule. That's the kind of BS that drove me away from the WA. Rules for the sake of rules, which nobody questions why they exist.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Vibrant Coconuts" data-cid="121702" data-time="1395541529">
The <a class="bbc_url" href="http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=19350795#p19350795">repeal</a>.


And, in fairness, it's the only halfway consistent ruling they've made in recent memory. Using branded nations - "WA Charter Working Group" - has long been illegal.

That's never been a rule, and of it somehow has, it's a stupid and useless rule. That's the kind of BS that drove me away from the WA. Rules for the sake of rules, which nobody questions why they exist.
 


</blockquote>
 

Yes, it absolutely has been a rule for a long time - c. 2007 I'd say, if my memory hasn't failed me - and it was used to stop people branding their proposals for their regions and groups. It was a simple, straightforward rule applied several times, and it mystifies me as to why Ardchoille didn't originally apply it in this case. The rule came about through a discussion between players and mods, all of whom agreed simply banning branding was the best compromise. It's the type of conversation that unfortunately doesn't happen anymore, as the mods are simply so defensive and unwilling to even discuss their bizarre twists and turns of inconsistency.

 

I don't think this proposal should be "Discarded", but I'm hardly going to complain when after months of completely arbitrary rulings for the sake of the mods holding onto their tiny little bit of power over us - the recent 'all nations' taking the cake - they finally get one right.

[Sandaoguo]

I played the WA game for over 5 years. The branding rule only ever applied to the text of a proposal, not the nation name with which it's submitted. Mods shouldn't be involved in determining what we name our nations, but of course, they'll do it anyways. Inconsistently and arbitrarily.

 

It's a shame that somebody finally succeeded in writing a popular repeal of WAR#2, only to have it discarded no matter what. I don't think any repeal of WAR#2 will ever be safe from the mods. The added scrutiny makes them more susceptible to novel arguments, thus more likely to invent new precedents or evolve old ones, even if they have no overt agenda of stopping the repeal from succeeding.