International Democratic Union Board

The Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Sanctaria wrote:

"IA has been doing a terrible job with recent proposals"

No. Brevity does not mean terrible. I suggest you get involved in the GA before casting judgement on the efficacy, or lack thereof, of resolutions and proposals.

Some proposals, particularly proposals regarding civil rights, can be very brief as they're conferring a right, or forbidding the removal of a right (as IAs have done). People only want such laws longer to add exceptions and clarifications and so on, thereby removing or limiting such rights. IA clearly does not believe such a right should be limited and should be broad.

That does not make his proposal "terrible". You may disagree with his stance and his opinion, but it doesn't make it terrible, and you need to learn to distinguish between those two perspectives.

(the debtor voting rights) It is certainly not terrible. There is nothing wrong with its set up, nor its intentions. The reason I voted against it was because I found it to have not had the love and care that a resolution should have. Shortness or succinctness is a very good thing, vagueness and ambiguity are not. That is why I am voting for its repeal.

It's not vague or ambiguous. It's very clear in what it does. It's one line long, for goodness sake.

Separatist Peoples and Zamastan

Sanctaria wrote:

It's not vague or ambiguous. It's very clear in what it does. It's one line long, for goodness sake.

Exactly. It accomplishes it's sole goal clearly and directly, with no room for misinterpretation.

Zamastan

Edited

Exactly. It accomplishes it's sole goal clearly and directly, with no room for misinterpretation.

It fails to define what is meant by debts meaning I can interpret that however I like.

EDIT: This isn't to say that IA is a bad resolution writer, he isn't. He (or she) just needed a couple more clauses to be included.

Edited

It fails to define what is meant by debts meaning I can interpret that however I like.

EDIT: This isn't to say that IA is a bad resolution writer, he isn't. He (or she) just needed a couple more clauses to be included.

You have to give it a good faith interpretation. I cannot think of a good faith interpretation of "debt" that doesn't square with "debt."

You have to give it a good faith interpretation. I cannot think of a good faith interpretation of "debt" that doesn't square with "debt."

I didn't say I wouldn't take it at face value. I am saying that some nation would find that very apparent loophole.

I didn't say I wouldn't take it at face value. I am saying that some nation would find that very apparent loophole.

That nation would be in violation of GAR#2. Which means that isn't a valid loophole.

That nation would be in violation of GAR#2. Which means that isn't a valid loophole.

If I am not mistaken, they would just say that they thought that it was the correct interpretation of the definition. They wouldn't be in violation of GAR #2.

Edited

The Divine Federation of Sanctaria

If I am not mistaken, they would just say that they thought that it was the correct interpretation of the definition. They wouldn't be in violation of GAR #2.

They would genuinely have to believe that the definition of debt is not the definition of the word as commonly understood. Which is an insane proposition, since it's a pretty common word without a complicated meaning. Nobody can make that claim without looking like a high-caliber moron.

Naboompu and Zamastan

It'd fall foul of both good faith, and the reasonable nation principle, as no reasonable nation would suddenly redefine debt to get out of this resolution.

Algebron

The Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Naboompu wrote:

See IA's newest resolution here: page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1547766850. This is the best resolution bar none that I've seen since I rejoined the site a few months ago and yet it lacks support. Why? Because economics can be difficult and many WA delegates are somewhat disinclined to make the appropriate effort to understand the resolution. As much as I'd also take issue with his recent glib one-liner, I can also appreciate the difficulty and frustrations of passing more comprehensive legislation. I fail to see how the merits, or lack thereof, of one resolution should have any bearing on a commendation that reflects his positive overall contribution.

This whole conversation seems to be falling into a false dichotomy. A resolution doesn't have to be on par with an academic paper (or even an IRL UN resolution), but writing a single sentence is just lazy, pure and simple--there's a happy (and, more importantly, reasonable) medium to be had here. Anyone, and everyone, can write a single-sentence resolution and if everyone actually did that it would make the WA boring and useless. No one likes one-sentence RPs, why should this be treated any differently? Frankly, I think some folks here are letting their personal like for IA get in the way of objective evaluation of the resolution's quality.

As for the particular resolution you cited, I agree it'll likely go over the head of most, but that's why the ability exists to send TGs campaigning for a resolution, as well as discussing it in the forums.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sanctaria wrote:

It'd fall foul of both good faith, and the reasonable nation principle, as no reasonable nation would suddenly redefine debt to get out of this resolution.

Any reasonable nation would, it'd literally be irrational for a country to not interpret it in a way that's beneficial to them.

Shuell

Algebron wrote:

Frankly, I think some folks here are letting their personal like for IA get in the way of objective evaluation of the resolution's quality.

I mean, frankly, Sep and I are two of the GA's most prolific authors, and both of us have been involved in the chamber for well over a decade, but sure - what would we know about quality of resolutions? Clearly it's just personal like *rolls eyes*

Algebron wrote:

Any reasonable nation would, it'd literally be irrational for a country to not interpret it in a way that's beneficial to them.

Resolutions have to be interpreted in good faith. Reasonable Nation is a principle that is used when writing resolutions to determine what a reasonable nation would do.

Those are two fundamental principles of the GA. What all of you say could or might happen, couldn't because of those two principles.

Naboompu, New Lusitania and the Algarves, Lauchenoiria, and Zamastan

Algebron wrote:

Any reasonable nation would, it'd literally be irrational for a country to not interpret it in a way that's beneficial to them.

Re-interpreting debt to evade compliance would destroy a nation's economy. Tell me again how that is beneficial?

Gonhog

Re-interpreting debt to evade compliance would destroy a nation's economy. Tell me again how that is beneficial?

How would that destroy an economy? Actual question, btw, I’m not trying to be snarky or anything.

Shuell

Gonhog wrote:

How would that destroy an economy? Actual question, btw, I’m not trying to be snarky or anything.

You'd bankrupt banks overnight. Plus any supplier that operates on credit, like 99.999% of agricultural lenders. And most manufacturing lenders. Both of whom gain a security interest in later products. You redefine debt to wipe that out, and you wipe out any chance of borrowers to get funds in the future or lenders to securely lend. Economic disaster.

Naboompu, Trive 38, Lauchenoiria, and Gonhog

Edited

You'd bankrupt banks overnight. Plus any supplier that operates on credit, like 99.999% of agricultural lenders. And most manufacturing lenders. Both of whom gain a security interest in later products. You redefine debt to wipe that out, and you wipe out any chance of borrowers to get funds in the future or lenders to securely lend. Economic disaster.

That would require the actual definition of “debt” to be altered. Banks have exceeding long contracts that you must sign in order to take out a loan. They painstakingly lay out exactly what is meant by debt.

Trive 38 and Algebron

That would require the actual definition of “debt” to be altered. Banks have exceeding long contracts that you must sign in order to take out a loan. They painstakingly lay out exactly what is meant by debt.

And a nation altering that definition by law can invalidate those definitions. I'm not sure why this is a foreign concept. Even if it only affected government loans, it would still crash all banking and national lending. No sane nation would do this. Ergo, we apply the Reasonable Nation Theory, which states that authors need not consider interpretations so unreasonable as to be against a nation's own interest.

Sanctaria and Naboompu

Edited

The Transcathayan Empire of Trive 38

And a nation altering that definition by law can invalidate those definitions. I'm not sure why this is a foreign concept. Even if it only affected government loans, it would still crash all banking and national lending. No sane nation would do this. Ergo, we apply the Reasonable Nation Theory, which states that authors need not consider interpretations so unreasonable as to be against a nation's own interest.

I am not saying it is particularly likely, I am just saying that it would have been so easy to include a perambulatory definition and we wouldn’t have been having this debate.

EDIT: Further more, it isn't like people don't try to find loopholes in legislation to avoid following laws/rules that would be detrimental to them/their country/their business. It happens all the time IRL. When the new federal tax bill was released a year (ish) ago, people hired lawyers for the specific reason of attempting to find loopholes in it. People make a living off of getting around legislation through technicality.

Algebron

This is an Imperial Announcement from the Emperor.
Normal programming has been suspended.

My fellow Trivians. Today, as planned, the newly elected members of Parliament have taken power.
Due to an unprecedented event in the history of the Empire, the Parliament will be closed and all members dismissed until further notice.
The Imperial House of Yakovlev will proceed with governmental duties during this period.
Residents of the oblasts: Kamchatka, Vladivostok, Magadan, Chukotka, Yakutia, Khabarovsk, Birobidzhan, Zabaykalsky, Krasnoyarsk, Irkustsk, Tannu Tuva, Greater Novosibirsk, Baikalia and Sverdlovsk - stay alert for your Emergency Alert System.
All residents in areas not previously mentioned are ordered not to travel to any of the areas previously stated.
Stay safe. Trive gloria aeterna.

Zamastan

I am not saying it is particularly likely, I am just saying that it would have been so easy to include a perambulatory definition and we wouldn’t have been having this debate.

EDIT: Further more, it isn't like people don't try to find loopholes in legislation to avoid following laws/rules that would be detrimental to them/their country/their business. It happens all the time IRL. When the new federal tax bill was released a year (ish) ago, people hired lawyers for the specific reason of attempting to find loopholes in it. People make a living off of getting around legislation through technicality.

There's a big difference between interpretive loopholes being exploited by individuals and those being exploited by national governments. For one thing, individuals are not beholden to an entire population's welfare.

Hamstan

The First Republic of Zamastan

Ey yall, how goes it.