NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republic of Youteria, in Congress, has decided the following to be sent to the WA´s proposal list. After much discussion, we have decided to comment it with our WA counterparts to search for advice in the redaction of the proposal, specially since English is not our mother tongue:

"Juridic Bases of the WA

In consideration of the current situation after the sudden collapse of the former UN, the Member Nations of the WA agree to observe:

I) The principle of legality in all branches of Public and International Law, which means that every member State may only act in accordance to what the normative order has already formalized (non-retrospective application on the law; rule of law over the will of individual public officials). Should any Nation be obliged to overrule this principle in response to a situation that merits this action (i.e. natural tragedies, military issues or civil unrest), the nation will be able to do so after its Legislative Power decrees the "state of exception or emergency". This state may only last for a month, which would start the day it is published on the Nation´s Official Newspaper.

II) The principle of autonomy of will in all branches of Private law. This means that private citizens may at any moment act in whatever way they see fit when no normative disposition has been sanctioned against that particular action. This principle can only be used in manners that do not excessively affect third parties, the Natíon´s Administration or the Public Interest .

The WA confirms that these principles do not affect the member nations´ sovereignty, since they are both subject to the internal normative system of every member nation, and are meant to provide WA members´ citizens juridic security to permit a fair application of justice within the WA members´ borders. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have decided to rate the strength of this proposal as significant, but are unsure about categorizing it as either Human Rights, Book Keeping or Political Stability.

We appreciate every comment and critic, and will surely consider to use it in the final proposal that will be presented to the WA. May God save Youteria and every Nation in the World.

Quintus Caligula Rufus, President of the Youterian Council for Foreign Affairs.

Come on people! Is there nothing you can say about this?

Our translators are having a difficult time trying to decipher what your proposal says.

The Dominion

I guess the proposal is too technical. What it pretends to regulate is the observation of law by the public administration (the government) in every act and the freedom of choice whenever private citizens´actions are not regulated by the law. It also regulates the use of the "reason of state" (the right to suspend civil and political freedoms and rights for a worthy cause).
It is a reflection of the modern positive juridic theory. It gives citizens security, since they know how and when the law will affect them.

We have decided to rate the strength of this proposal as significant, but are unsure about categorizing it as either Human Rights, Book Keeping or Political Stability.

Quintus Caligula Rufus, President of the Youterian Council for Foreign Affairs.

I can think of only one thing to do when I see comments like this about a proposal. And that is, the author needs to scrap the entire thing, start over, pick the category it's going to be filed under and rewrite it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I think I understand this proposal, and if I do so correctly, then I basically support it. It basically requires nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali for WA nations. Given the popularity of the resolution "No Ex Post Facto Laws" in the UN, we hope this will do well, but it might serve you well to spell out a bit more clearly, rather than just adding in brackets, that this prohibits retrospective application of law.

We have a slight problem with the national emergency subclause. It might be more appropriate to say 'in accordance with that nation's constitutional processes' o.w.t.t.e. as not every nation has a legislature or a national newspaper. The setting of a month seems a bit arbitrary, as well; perhaps it could be 'a month, followed by extension only on review and approval'?

Oh, and to us this is definitely "The Furtherment of Democracy" as the rights involved are essentially political. Perhaps Significant strength?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I think I understand this proposal, and if I do so correctly, then I basically support it. It basically requires nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali for WA nations. Given the popularity of the resolution "No Ex Post Facto Laws" in the UN, we hope this will do well, but it might serve you well to spell out a bit more clearly, rather than just adding in brackets, that this prohibits retrospective application of law.

We have a slight problem with the national emergency subclause. It might be more appropriate to say 'in accordance with that nation's constitutional processes' o.w.t.t.e. as not every nation has a legislature or a national newspaper. The setting of a month seems a bit arbitrary, as well; perhaps it could be 'a month, followed by extension only on review and approval'?

Oh, and to us this is definitely "The Furtherment of Democracy" as the rights involved are essentially political. Perhaps Significant strength?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

You are right. The reason I put this here was to get help to be more precise in the proposal, specially since it is mostly juridic lingo.

Flibbleites: I can only think about one thing when I read posts like yours: was there any reason to post that? I asked because "nullum crimen sine lege praevia", rule of law and every other principle like that are 1)part of human rights. It also deals with 2)political stability: the less you can act outside the law, then the more stable the political system can be. 3)Book Keeping because this kind of principles aren´t necessary gonna affect the stats of a nation, since the rule of law depends on the written law, and that is created by every sovereign country.

"Juridic Bases for the WA

In consideration of the current situation after the sudden collapse of the former UN, the Member Nations of the WA agree to observe:

I) The principle of legality in all branches of Public and International Law, which means that every member State may only act in accordance to what the normative order has already formalized. This means a non-retrospective application of the law (i.e. "nullum crimen sine lege praevia") and the rule of law over the will of individual public officials. Should any Nation be obliged to overrule this principle in response to a situation that merits this action (i.e. natural tragedies, military issues or civil unrest), the nation will be able to do so after its Legislative Power decrees the "state of exception or emergency". This state may only last for a month, which would start the day it is published on the Nation´s Official Newspaper, or should there be a lack of it, in accordance with that nation's law publishing processes, and its political constitution.

II) The principle of autonomy of will in all branches of Private law. This means that private citizens may at any moment act in whatever way they see fit when no normative disposition has been sanctioned against that particular action. This principle can only be used in manners that do not excessively affect third parties, the Nation´s Administration or the Nation´s Public Interest.

The WA confirms that these principles do not affect the member nations´ sovereignty, since they are both subject to the internal normative system of every member nation, and are meant to provide WA members´ citizens juridic security to permit a fair application of justice within the WA members´ borders."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I made some changes following the advice you have given. The only thing I am not sure is if it should be labeled as "Furtherment of Democracy", since it should, in theory, apply to any kind of political system, as long as it has written law. Anyway, I think it somehow enforces nation´s to have some kind of law, so it could be applied to any type of political congregation. I believe Human Rights could be the best choice. What do you think about this?

Flibbleites: I can only think about one thing when I read posts like yours: was there any reason to post that?How about, because mods have said that on numerous occasions.
I asked because "nullum crimen sine lege praevia", rule of law and every other principle like that are 1)part of human rights. It also deals with 2)political stability: the less you can act outside the law, then the more stable the political system can be. 3)Book Keeping because this kind of principles aren´t necessary gonna affect the stats of a nation, since the rule of law depends on the written law, and that is created by every sovereign country.

First off, Book-keeping isn't even a valid category currently so that right there throws that one out the window. Secondly, it is infinitely easier to write a proposal to fit a category than it is to write a proposal and then try to shoe horn it into a category. That's why I strongly recommend you start over and pick your category first. Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to, but don't come crying to me if your proposal gets deleted for being in the wrong category.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[OOC]
I can give you the practical answer as to the chances of this making quorum: none. There are a large number of English-as-Second-Language readers here. There are practically no Latin-as-Primary-Language readers in this game. They're going to read the first couple of sentences and move right on.

We're not lawyers here, and using juridic language for its precision simply isn't an option. You need to explain your terms in language a 13 year old can grasp, because an awful lot of our delegates are 13.

Finally, you MUST write to the category or *I* will delete it. As a game moderator, it's my job to remove proposals that don't match the category description. Trying to shoehorn it into a category after it's written doesn't work. I'm afraid it's just that simple.

Ugh I don't see why there is a category for the furthering of democracy when there are communist countries and dictatorships, too.

That is why I posted it here before in the proposal list. Perhaps Mr. Moderator could use some moderator training to understand the quantum physics in asking other people about a proposal, so to get some helpful comments to try to improve it. I recently said it would be labeled as human rights, and I also said that I hadn´t proposed it. So YOU cannot delete THIS because THIS does not exist as a proposal. Now, I knew this would happen. I asked for help because writing this in simple English is pretty difficult, since its language its too technical. Everyone learned a word or too here, I am sure. I wondered if someone who is better at English than me could help me make it more accessible.

Yes, I see, people in here are not lawyers, and they can´t use Wikipedia to search for whatever they don´t understand. It was just an idea. And who cares if the proposal is easier to write after choosing a category. The proposal is good, it is fair, it would work with the different nations in the game. This is used in the real world! And is a part of the life of the people who live on the free world. Some people in here just attack what they can´t understand.

And that Latin phrase means "no crime without a previous law ". I think crime and crimen look alike, praevia looks like previous and legge means law. And so, the fancy secret language is explained to everyone.

All OOC:

Pissing off the moderators is not a smart move. Fris was pointing out what would happen if you continued to ignore Bob Flibble's advice and submitted.

To be honest, the Latin isn't too much of a problem. I read Latin perfectly well, thanks, but my eyes glazed over before I got to the middle of the first paragraph. The real problem is that the text is too dense, and the reading age much too high. As was said, you need to pull it down to a reading age of thirteen or so, otherwise you have no hope of getting it to quorum, never mind passing a floor vote.

This is used in the real world!

The real world doesn't have the same limitations as the game code. They can mix categories at will. You can't.

Pissing off the moderators is not a smart move.

It takes more than that to piss me off. It does demonstrate a decided lack of diplomacy and willingness to accede to the rule of compromise, though. I suspect any approval or vote period would end up with several flaming warnings before the dust settled.

OoC: I freely admit that I sometimes write sections of text that are dense, often unneccessarily complicated, and scan like a Victorian Military manual. But even I don't understand what the blazes this is waffling on about

Pissing moderators off? I think he was pissed at me just for posting this! I didn´t submitted this immediately to try and stop these kind of problems. Why does he threaten to delete a non existent proposal? He couldn´t understand it. Guess that is it. Perhaps his ego (another Latin word) was hurt because of his inability to do so. Perhaps not. That is the diplomatic way to say it, I think. And that would please the moderator.
Last time I got flamed because I didn´t posted the proposal in the forum before I proposed it to the UN. And I got flamed because it was too "light" (in the lack of a better word). At least discuss the proposal instead of attacking me or the category!
And how would this affect game mechanics? If it did, then probably any other proposal would.
I´ll try to make it a little less dense now, but it won´t change a thing. The original one is a bit too "elegant" for this game. Probably not (I like this diplomatic "I am not going to compromise myself with any statement" thingy). Now, seriously, if I have to say something I will. And that does not hurt/affect/change any proposal I do. It just changes the perception of me! How is that lack of compromise with the proposal? Defending the proposal is now some sort of way of denying it? Please enlighten me!

All OOC:

Just remember, you asked for enlightenment.

Pissing moderators off? I think he was pissed at me just for posting this! I didn´t submitted this immediately to try and stop these kind of problems. Why does he threaten to delete a non existent proposal?
He didn't. Try reading what he wrote again, paying particular attention to the context. If you do, you'll find that he was pointing out the inevitable fate of this proposal if submitted unmodified.

He couldn´t understand it.
I'm not sure anyone has admitted to understanding it apart from Quod, and even he wasn't certain. That includes a lot of very able wordsmiths who have produced flowing, accurate and concise proposals in the past. That should give you just the teensiest hint that you might have a problem being comprehended, you know.

Guess that is it. Perhaps his ego (another Latin word) was hurt because of his inability to do so. Perhaps not. That is the diplomatic way to say it, I think. And that would please the moderator.
Then your idea of diplomacy is as badly in need of repair as your idea of clarity.

Last time I got flamed because I didn´t posted the proposal in the forum before I proposed it to the UN. And I got flamed because it was too "light" (in the lack of a better word). At least discuss the proposal instead of attacking me or the category!
I don't recall your last proposal. This one is unreadable. Further discussion rather depends on it being made readable.

And how would this affect game mechanics? If it did, then probably any other proposal would.
All proposals affect the game in terms of everyone's national statistics. The type of effects are determined by the category and strength of the proposal. It is therefore the duty of the moderators to delete any proposal whose text doesn't match its category. Airily stating (as you did in response to the Flibbleites) that its a bit of this and a bit of that strongly implies that the end result is going to be wearing a placard saying "Delete before reading".

I´ll try to make it a little less dense now, but it won´t change a thing.
It'll change quite a lot of things, most notably the chance of a legal version reaching quorum. It should also make it a lot clearer where any potential illegalities lie.

The original one is a bit too "elegant" for this game.
Not for any definition of "elegant" with which I'm familiar.

Probably not (I like this diplomatic "I am not going to compromise myself with any statement" thingy). Now, seriously, if I have to say something I will. And that does not hurt/affect/change any proposal I do. It just changes the perception of me!
::blinks:: You have no conception of politics, have you?

How is that lack of compromise with the proposal? Defending the proposal is now some sort of way of denying it? Please enlighten me!
What on earth are you talking about? Nobody has talked about "compromise with the proposal." Nobody has accused you of denying it. Nobody has even accused you of defending it, since all you've done is to attack the very experienced people who've explained why it has no chance of passing.

Youteria, you have a proposal that basically says "Nations shouldn't make up laws as they go along, and nations shouldn't punish people for breaking a law that isn't already established."

I don't know if that's a serious enough of an issue to get it's own resolution, complicated language or not.

Maybe combined with some other things, but not all on it's own.

Edit: And you misspelled "basis" as "bases" in the subject line.

Bases is the plural of Basis, old bean ;)

Ok. I dind´t read that whole thing a couple posts behind because it was too long. So I´ll tell you something about the first and last lines, which are all that I read:
1- Face offs with a moderator/authority are just fun. So I don´t mind who is right or not.
2- The proposal was attacked because I didn´t say what category I wanted it to be in. And it wasn´t that I didn´t knew where to put it (when I originally wrote it on the proposal writing screen, I labeled it as Human Rights. I asked to get a little advice, not an attack from very experienced player who basically could not or would not understand it. And writing "I don´t understand" would have been a lot more useful than "when I see proposals like this...pick the category it's going to be filed under and rewrite it". How is that helpful? He probably didn´t even read the proposal, because (and considering that book-keeping is out of bounds, even when I could pick that category when I first wrote the proposal) choosing between one or the other category wasn´t too difficult, and it would not affect the proposal at all. I already wrote why I considered that the proposal fitted in any of them. Experience should be used to help others, not to criticize their ideas.
3- Yes, the proposal does something. Not punishing someone who has not broken an already established law is a development of human rights, since it gives the people security that their governments won´t be able to punish them for everything they do. Imagine you go to the mall and buy a pair of socks and the next day the government passes a law that punishes everyone who has bought socks with death penalty. If the principle of legality is valid in that country, then they wouldn´t be able to do anything to you, since you bought the socks before the law was passed (non retrospective law). Do you now see how it would work?
Oh, and: basis ['beɪsɪs] n (pl bases ['beɪsɪ:z])

OOC: All they're saying is that it would be helpful for the proposal to be a bit clearer, because not everyone is going to be familiar with the language that is used. A tiny minority of WA members visit the forums, and I would guess the number who spend more than 5 minutes on each proposal at vote is equally low. Hence it's worth making it clear.

No Ex Post Facto Laws was filed under "Human Rights", so this could work in that category as well. I suggested FoD for that one, as well, and they also went for HR instead, so it's perhaps not surprising!

While it will be important to get the category right before you submit, right now I would concentrate more on the text. For example, would it be possible to change 'no normative disposition has been sanctioned' to 'the government has not recognised as illegal'? Does that preserve the basic sense?

Ok. I dind´t read that whole thing a couple posts behind because it was too long.

So when you asked to be enlightened, you were in fact lying?

2- The proposal was attacked because I didn´t say what category I wanted it to be in.Inquiring as to your intended category is not an attack on your proposal. The category a proposal in filed under is important as proposals filed under the wrong category get deleted.
And it wasn´t that I didn´t knew where to put it (when I originally wrote it on the proposal writing screen, I labeled it as Human Rights.And yet here, you simply stated that you didn't know what it should be filed under.
I asked to get a little advice, not an attack from very experienced player who basically could not or would not understand it. And writing "I don´t understand" would have been a lot more useful than "when I see proposals like this...pick the category it's going to be filed under and rewrite it". How is that helpful?Simple, it's much easier to file a proposal in the correct category when you choose the category prior to writing it.
He probably didn´t even read the proposal, because (and considering that book-keeping is out of bounds, even when I could pick that category when I first wrote the proposal) choosing between one or the other category wasn´t too difficult, and it would not affect the proposal at all.First off, I did read the proposal, however I found my eyes glazing over due to the amount of legalese used.
I already wrote why I considered that the proposal fitted in any of them. Experience should be used to help others, not to criticize their ideas. Sometime the best way to help someone is to tell them their idea sucks.

But of course, who am I kidding. Since you've already stated that you don't read long posts, you probably aren't even reading this. See if I try to help you again, ingrate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Flib's gonna get a new person on his ignore list(I hope)! And everyone walks away happy... ok angry... but not any angrier!

This is really a fairly humorous thread.

Is anyone here really concerned about our moderators feelings? Yes, I encourage respect of, moderators, but, being divine beings, they are quite immune to the petty insults of smaller entities.

Overall, I support the idea of the draft, but, as everyone else has stated, you must rewrite it. Give it a category first, and incorporate the fuzzier points as less central to your proposal.

Lastly, chill. Its a game.