After further consideration, I have edited the draft bill to remove the fail-safe clause. As has been pointed out in the discussion thus far, the fail-safe has the potential to produce adverse unintended consequences. And the potential upside–ensuring that the Delegate does not vote against the overwhelming majority of regional WA members without good reason–would be better achieved by other means. Specifically, if the OWL and/ or Delegate (or anyone, really) notice that the OWL recommendation is far out of line with the regional vote, then they should surface that issue for discussion in the appropriate OWL forum. That fact may cause OWL voters to change their minds, which, in turn, could change the OWL recommendation. On the other hand, if OWL voters believe that there is a good reason for the Delegate to ignore the regional vote, then that decision should be respected. That is, after all, the point of having the OWL program.
I’m confused, what exactly is the difference between the two? It seems contradictory to me.
And what “within twenty-four hours of the close of gameside voting on any World Assembly resolution” exactly means? Twenty-four hours before WA voting closes?
These provisions are about two different things–WA votes vs. approvals. A proposed WA resolution must secure the approval of at least 6% of WA Delegates to reach a quorum and be put to vote. Section 2.(3) governs the Delegate’s votes on WA resolutions, while 3.(2) governs the Delegate’s authority to approve proposed resolutions such that they can be put to a vote.
Yes, exactly. Twenty-four hours before the gameside vote on any WA resolution closes.
You’re looking at the WA from a technical perspective, not a gameplay perspective. A significant portion—maybe around two-thirds or three-quarters—of WA resolutions are decided in the first 24 hours, and sometimes even the first 12 hours. Waiting until the fourth day of a WA resolution is effectively throwing away our voting power. The most effective solution here would likely be to mandate that OWL post the debate and voting thread for forum-drafted WA proposals as soon as they get posted to the GA/SC proposals page. Then the OWL vote can run for a while and everyone can have input, then the Delegate can vote for or against depending on which way the OWL vote goes. Then, as a fail-safe, we can mandate that the Cabinet gives a recommendation to the Delegate if the OWL is unable to for whatever reason.
Minor quibble, but not every forum-drafted proposal gets quorum. Not every proposal that gets quorum is forum-drafted.
More major quibble here is that right now we’re precisely spelling out what to do if the OWL/PM refuses to make a recommendation/start a voting thread. So this is irrelevant.
EDIT: I’ll maybe spell out the rationale of the “last 24 hours” rule more clearly - it is a deliberate gameplay choice. We’re explicitly incentivizing that the OWL/PM to actually be on top of WA proposals and create voting threads (without “legislating” the exact details of when a voting thread needs to be posted and other such minutiae, which I don’t think is a good idea) by making the “cost” of not posting a voting thread (unless there’s already a valid diplomatic/security reason to mandate a recommendation one way or another) basically the loss of our voice in the WA. In practice, if the PM actually cares to make the OWL function properly (which they should), this is obviously moot. If they fail at this, it’s the Assembly’s duty to keep the PM to account for their responsibilities.
I can get around to swallowing the updated provisions, save 2.3.
Waffle points out the reality that most votes are decided within 24 hours. If we won’t allow Delegate discretion to vote in line with the initial voters (say after 12 hours or in line with my previous explanation of my rationale), then we need to provide another mechanism allowing our influence to be used promptly.
Ah. Now I understand. I’d still feel better if the Delegate was able to exercise the powers the game grants to them, but I see the rationale.
I move this to a vote.
I second.
The two motions are recognised, however, it has come to the attention of the Chair that it is explicitly stated in the relevant draft post that the draft in question “would repeal and replace the current WA Act”. Noting this, and the fact that there is no mention in the draft itself of any repeal or replacement of the current World Assembly Act. I have come forward today to provide the following resolution to be included in a potential future vote to allow for this process to take place:
Whilst many may feel this to be a rather strange approach with regards to updating legislation. Noting that this is a rather large update to already pre-existing legislation, and the fact that the draft was not proposed as an “amendment” to the current World Assembly Act. I do not feel confident to put this draft in its current form to a vote. As such:
-
It is the view of the Chair that the following draft does not meet rule c of sub-section 2 of section 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act. Hence the draft in its current form may not be brought to a vote.
-
The Chair uses sub-section 9 of section 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act and delays voting on this draft until 2024-06-07T13:35:00Z→2024-06-10T13:35:00Z (3 days from now which is the minimum debate time before this bill could again be put to a vote, after considering the above resolution) to allow for active debate to take place on the above proposed resolution.
Whilst this may not be a popular decision within the Assembly, it is my highest hope that each and every legislator is able to see this from my view and is able to respect my decision.
Yours faithfully,
BlockBuster2K43, Chair of the Assembly
Why do we need a separate resolution for every change to existing law? Would a motion to repeal the WA Act and replace it with the existing proposed legislation not suffice now?
I’m also not sure why we need a resolution on the books forever just to do a repeal-and-replace. Would this work?
World Assembly Act
An act to define the World Assembly procedures of the Coalition of the South Pacific
1. The Office of World Assembly Legislation
(1) The Office of World Assembly Legislation is a permanent executive office, led by the Prime Minister, or an appointed Director, who is responsible for coordinating the Coalition’s activities in the World Assembly, providing assistance in drafting resolutions, and issuing voting recommendations on World Assembly proposals.
- The appointed Director, should one be in office, is to be considered an appointed member of the Cabinet.
2. Powers
(1) The Delegate shall cast their vote on proposed World Assembly resolutions according to voting recommendations issued by the Office of World Assembly Legislation, except under circumstances in which the Office issued a recommendation for the Delegate to abstain from voting. If the Office’s recommendation is contrary to the vote of all World Assembly nations in the South Pacific, the Delegate may choose to change their vote in collaboration with the Office.
(2) In the absence of a recommendation, the Delegate shall consult with the Prime Minister to determine which direction to vote in. If the direction is contrary to the vote of all World Assembly nations in the South Pacific, the Delegate may choose to change their vote in collaboration with the Prime Minister.
(3) The Prime Minister may override a vote on a World Assembly resolution for security and diplomatic purposes.
3. Approval voting
(1) The Delegate may give an approval vote on proposed World Assembly resolutions freely or based on the instruction of the Office of World Assembly Legislation.
(2) The South Pacific Special Forces are prohibited from engaging in approval raiding, except as prescribed in the Charter.
4. Voting
(1) The Office of World Assembly Legislation shall determine the medium for voting on proposed World Assembly resolutions.
(2) Nations of the South Pacific that are World Assembly members or members of the South Pacific Special Forces may not be barred from eligibility in having their votes counted.
(3) If a nation resigns from the World Assembly or their membership in the South Pacific Special Forces before the voting period ends, their vote shall not count.
5. Legal Impact of Security Council Declarations
(1) “Security Council” is an official organ of the World Assembly, to which the Delegate serves as the South Pacific’s representative.
(2) “Declaration” is an official resolution adopted by the Security Council that attempts to express the will of the Security Council on any issue under its jurisdiction.
(3) No declaration adopted by the Security Council will be recognized, abided by, or considered law within areas subject to the jurisdiction of the South Pacific, unless sent to the Assembly by the Prime Minister and ratified by a majority vote of the Assembly.
(4) No vote cast by the Delegate on a declaration of the Security Council will be considered implicit or explicit approval or disapproval of the declaration by the South Pacific itself.
World Assembly Act
An act to define the World Assembly procedures of the Coalition of the South Pacific
1. The Office of World Assembly Legislation
(1) The Office of World Assembly Legislation shall be a permanent executive department that shall be responsible for coordinating the Coalition’s activities in the World Assembly, providing assistance in drafting resolutions, and issuing voting recommendations on World Assembly proposals.
(2) The Office of World Assembly Legislation shall be led by a Director chosen by the Prime Minister.
- The Director must be a citizen of the Coalition.
- The Director shall not be a member of the Cabinet unless expressly appointed by the Prime Minister as a Cabinet minister and confirmed by the Assembly.
- The Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister and shall remain in office until dismissed by the Prime Minister.
2. Voting on World Assembly Resolutions
(1) The Office of World Assembly Resolution shall adopt a voting recommendation on each World Assembly resolution.
- The Director shall consult with the Prime Minister in a timely fashion regarding the security and diplomatic implications of each World Assembly resolution.
- The Prime Minister may, for legitimate security or diplomatic reasons only, instruct the Office of World Assembly Legislation to adopt a particular voting recommendation.
- If the Prime Minister instructs the Office of World Assembly Legislation to adopt a particular voting recommendation, then the Director shall adopt and issue that recommendation to all members of the Coalition via a public forum.
- If the Prime Minister gives no instruction to the Office of World Assembly Legislation, then the Director shall adopt and issue a voting recommendation as determined by the results of a vote open to all members of the Coalition with World Assembly nations currently resident in the South Pacific, or who are currently members of the South Pacific Special Forces. The Office of World Assembly Legislation may determine the appropriate medium and method of voting on recommendations.
(2) Provided that the Office of World Assembly Legislation has adopted a voting recommendation pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section, the Delegate shall cast their vote on proposed World Assembly resolutions according to such recommendations.
(3) If the Office of World Assembly Legislation fails to adopt a voting recommendation pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section within twenty-four hours of the close of gameside voting on any World Assembly resolution, then the Delegate shall cast their vote on such proposed World Assembly resolutions in accordance with the current majority vote of World Assembly members in the South Pacific as reflected in the World-Assembly-administered gameside poll at the time the Delegate casts their vote. If said gameside poll is tied, then the Delegate shall abstain from voting on the resolution.
3. Approvals
(1) The Office of World Assembly Legislation may instruct the Delegate to approve a proposed World Assembly Resolution.
(2) In the absence of an instruction from the Office of World Assembly Legislation, the Delegate may approve proposed World Assembly resolutions in their discretion.
(3) The Delegate shall inform both the Director of the Office of World Assembly Legislation and the Prime Minister in a timely fashion upon approving a proposed World Assembly Resolution.
(4) The Prime Minister may, for legitimate security or diplomatic reasons only, instruct the Delegate to withdraw their approval of a proposed World Assembly resolution.
4. Legal Impact of Security Council Declarations
(1) Declarations adopted by the World Assembly Security Council shall not be recognized, abided by, or considered law within areas subject to the jurisdiction of the South Pacific unless adopted as law by the Assembly.
Of course yes! This would work fine. It is what I would consider to be properly formatted.
I wasn’t proposing that there needs to be a resolution for every change to existing legislation. All I was stating was that the draft that was motioned, was not an amendment and did not state anything with regards to repealing or replacing the current World Assembly Act.
See here.
That isn’t located within the draft proposal that was motioned and seconded.
How isn’t it? The draft that was motioned to vote was located in the same post.
It may be in the same post, but it isn’t in the legislation that was motioned and seconded. This is the legislation here:
To me personally it doesn’t make sense to put legislation to a vote, when there is no other mechanism in place to ensure any prerequisites are taken care of before legislation that is passed is put into effect. In this instance, legislation which is titled the same and similar in a sense to pre-existing legislation, what Pronoun has posted above is perfectly fine to me, as it strikes out the old act and writes in the new text, in what can be considered to me at least, as an amendment.
Noting that Pronoun has introduced an amendment style draft of the proposal in question alongside my resolution based draft. It is the view of the Chair that there is no need for a voting delay. Considering the fact that the original draft that was motioned and seconded does not meet the proper formatting requirements as mentioned in rule c of sub-section 2 of section 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act. Therefore preventing this draft from being brought to a vote.
As such the voting delay that was placed upon this draft here until 2024-06-07T13:35:00Z→2024-06-10T13:35:00Z is now revoked.
If the delay is revoked, then will we be seeing a voting topic created?