Repeal of the WAACS

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
Following the great deal of criticism all signatories of the WAACS have taken in GP, since the treaty was publicized by former Europeia delegate Mousebumples, both TNP and Euro have released this joint statement.

I move that the Regional Assembly repeal the World Assembly Accord on Campaign Spam.
 
I applaud the Delegate for the negotiations that led to this difficult but necessary action. When the Speaker schedules a vote to revoke ratification of the treaty, you can count on my support.
 
But but, I was just getting used to it and the name calling I've been getting since it was publicised.
 
A vote on a major treaty decision after only twelve hours' discussion? I'd like to think that democracy has not sunk quite that low in TNP.

I understand that the treaty has come in for some criticism on Gameplay. Stuff like this always will. But is the criticism justified? are we in the wrong by being signatories? When it was brought in it was heralded as a new benchmark in inter-regional cooperation. What has changed, apart from some whining on the game forums?
 
From a look over that thread it appears that a lot of people were real dicks towards Mousebumples when this was brought forward, despite all of her selfless efforts in helping people understand & participate in the world assembly generally. Generally the gameplay forum attracts the most confrontational and opinionated of players and I certainly don't think it is particularly representative of the wider community of regions. It still amazes me how some people can behave about this type of thing.

The statement by the signatories indicates quite clearly why this ought to be repealed. The opinion of those who frequent gameplay is irrelevant to that.

I would vote in favour of repealing this, though I agree with Flem that there is no urgent need to rush this to a vote.
 
Cadmus:
Can we motion for a vote now? I motion to vote.
Click to expand...
As Ash correctly notes, motions to vote on proposals to ratify or revoke the ratification of treaties cannot be made by any member. They must be made by the proposer, who must be the Delegate or an appropriate Executive Officer (so, here, the Delegate).

In any event, even if the motion had been in order, I would not have accepted it due to the exceptionally short time under consideration the proposal has so far had.
 
flemingovia:
I understand that the treaty has come in for some criticism on Gameplay. Stuff like this always will. But is the criticism justified? are we in the wrong by being signatories? When it was brought in it was heralded as a new benchmark in inter-regional cooperation. What has changed, apart from some whining on the game forums?
Click to expand...
It is more than the criticism. The Statment points out other issues. Such as the fact that the signatories are unwilling to vote against their partisan WA positions in an effort to discourage spam, thus rendering the treaty meaningless.
 
But it was always understood that the treaty did not remove the sovereign right of regions to vote as they chose. When we adopted the treaty that was emphasised. I do not see why this should now be a reason to repeal.
 
flemingovia:
But it was always understood that the treaty did not remove the sovereign right of regions to vote as they chose. When we adopted the treaty that was emphasised. I do not see why this should now be a reason to repeal.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. It seems to me that a lot of the naysayers on the forum are those that are traditionally against TNP maintaining influence in a large voting bloc. Regardless of the circumstances, many of those same nations would be speaking against us here.
 
I don't like the WAACS at all, and I'm glad to see it go.

With that said it is a little surprising how quickly a little criticism on NSGP can make popular opinion towards this treaty take a full 180.

Although given the minimal discussion that was had on the treaty in the first place perhaps it never had as much support as it's proponents would have liked to believe.
 
My sole issue about repealing this now is that it legitimises the abuse levelled at not just myself, but the other Delegates who signed this agreement which was then ratified by the respective bodies.

I am worried that this step will tell those people, the ones who that branded elected and democratically accountable delegates as dictators or worse, that these tactics are okay if they achieve their purpose.
 
The joint statement, specifically paragraphs two and three, clearly states the reasons for the repeal; those reasons have little to do with the NS GP criticism.

In particular:

1) After a few WA votes, it became clear that signatories were unwilling to enforce the Accords. It is true that the Accords, by design, did not create an obligation for signatories to vote on the opposite side of mass-TG campaigns. This does not change the fact that, for the Accords to have any effect, the signatories would still need to enforce them in the majority of cases. It was particularly important that the signatories enforce the Accords in symbolically loaded cases, such as politically contentious SC resolutions. The fact that they were not willing to do so meant that the Accords had no effect as a deterrent against campaign spam.

2) One could argue that, despite the above, the Accords did no harm and could be kept as a symbolic, if ineffective, statement against campaign spam. Yet, the Accords did do harm. Namely, they made it harder for us to counter mass-TG campaigns with our own, retaliatory mass-TG campaigns. The Accords placed constraints in terms of who could initiate the retaliatory campaign (constraints which, in at least one occasion, meant that a retaliatory campaign could not be launched from the nation most appropriate for that purpose). Additionally, based on responses from multiple medium-to-small delegates that were telegrammed individually about changing their vote, it became apparent that the Accords had the effect of making such retaliatory campaigns much less effective.

Therefore, not only were the Accords ineffective in discouraging campaign spam, but also they hindered our own ability to run retaliatory campaigns. As the statement says, instead of acting as a deterrent, the Accords acted as a unilateral disarmament.

Given the above, withdrawing from the Accords is the only reasonable choice.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
My sole issue about repealing this now is that it legitimises the abuse levelled at not just myself, but the other Delegates who signed this agreement which was then ratified by the respective bodies.

I am worried that this step will tell those people, the ones who that branded elected and democratically accountable delegates as dictators or worse, that these tactics are okay if they achieve their purpose.
Click to expand...
Post-truth politics has been a staple of NS since 2003. It isn't really that surprising.
 
Looking at the names of some of those on the NS forum who have been throwing a hissy-fit about the treaty, i wonder if the furore has more to do with dislike of TNP and some of the other signatories of the treaty than it does the principle.

The treaty has its flaws, worthy of a reform, but the treaty also politically gives TNP a powerful base. I am loath simply to repeal it and leave nothing in its place, especially when this panders to the tantrums of the likes of Unibot and Cormac.

I will be voting against repeal, in the hopes of a simple reform, and I urge others to do the same.
 
plembobria:
Seeing as discussion has died down on this, I move for a vote.
Click to expand...

The motion is noted. Formal debate commences now and will last for five days. After the conclusion of formal debate, a vote will be scheduled.

flemingovia:
By the way, why is this in the public halls when treaties etc are usually debated in the private halls?
Click to expand...

While treaties are more usually debate in the private halls, this revocation was introduced in the public chamber by the Delegate. The usual reasons for discussion in the private halls, foreign policy and security considerations, are a matter of judgement primarily for the executive and so I have left the matter here.
 
flemingovia:
Looking at the names of some of those on the NS forum who have been throwing a hissy-fit about the treaty, i wonder if the furore has more to do with dislike of TNP and some of the other signatories of the treaty than it does the principle.

The treaty has its flaws, worthy of a reform, but the treaty also politically gives TNP a powerful base. I am loath simply to repeal it and leave nothing in its place, especially when this panders to the tantrums of the likes of Unibot and Cormac.

I will be voting against repeal, in the hopes of a simple reform, and I urge others to do the same.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you are focusing so much on the "furore", and not on the actual reasons for the repeal of the treaty, as enumerated in the statement and explained above a few times.

You say that the treaty gives TNP "a powerful base". But given, as has become evident in the past couple of months, that half the signatories are not willing to enforce it when it matters, the treaty does not really offer TNP much of anything. The only other signatory that was willing to enforce it, Europeia, is a member of the WALL, through which we already closely collaborate on WA affairs. This treaty adds little to that relationship.
 
Unfortunately, this treaty just isn't very useful to TNP. I'm not privy to the private discussions the executives of the respective governments have had regarding it, but my guess is they came to the same conclusion I made. I don't see what tinkering would necessarily make the treaty better at this point. Better to simply admit that it hasn't worked out the way it was originally envisioned and move forward.

Regarding WA campaign spam, if there are issues that arise in the future that need to be addressed I have no doubt that we shall do so. Doubtless the lessons learned from this treaty will be taken into consideration in such a scenario.
 
Ash:
Regarding WA campaign spam, if there are issues that arise in the future that need to be addressed I have no doubt that we shall do so. Doubtless the lessons learned from this treaty will be taken into consideration in such a scenario.
Click to expand...
Worth noting that the statement makes it clear that, if campaign spam becomes again as serious an issue as when these Accords were conceived, TNP (and Europeia, the other partner in the statement) are willing to address it through internal initiatives.
 
r3naissanc3r:
I am not sure why you are focusing so much on the "furore"
Click to expand...
Perhaps because our delegate raised it as the motivator behind the statement and repeal in their very first sentence:

Following the great deal of criticism all signatories of the WAACS have taken in GP, since the treaty was publicized by former Europeia delegate Mousebumples, both TNP and Euro have released this joint statement.
Click to expand...
 
flemingovia:
r3naissanc3r:
I am not sure why you are focusing so much on the "furore"
Click to expand...
Perhaps because our delegate raised it as the motivator behind the statement and repeal in their very first sentence:

Following the great deal of criticism all signatories of the WAACS have taken in GP, since the treaty was publicized by former Europeia delegate Mousebumples, both TNP and Euro have released this joint statement.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And yet, as you can see in the statement, the "furore" was not among the reasons for repealing the treaty.

The internal discussions about repealing the treaty had begun, in both TNP and Europeia, well before the NS GP thread you keep referencing had even been created.

The discussions began following the conclusion of the first "Commend Benevolent Thomas" SC vote (September 22nd), which was the first time the treaty was invoked, and also the first time half the signatories refused to enforce it. We had our own discussion here in RA, as well as extensive discussions in the public and Cabinet-only WA discord channels. Europeia began discussing the limited utility of the treaty in their citizen-only and Senate forum at the same time.

Discussions in both regions resumed after the conclusion of the SC vote on "Liberate Social Liberal Union" (October 13th), which yet again demonstrated the critical issues with the treaty. As other Cabinet members can attest, by that time the consensus among the Cabinet was that the treaty was not only ineffective, but also harmful, and ought to be repealed. Similarly, in Europeia by that time the consensus among citizens seemed to be towards repealing the treaty.

The fact that opinion in both regions seemed to be against the treaty made it all the more surprising that, on November 9th, Europeia's delegate made a very conspicuous post announcing the treaty in the NS Gameplay forum. This was a treaty that both TNP and Europeia were already considering, if not had already determined, to repeal. And there it was, announced to the world.

It is true that the negative comments in the thread accelerated the discussion about repealing the treaty. TNP and Europeia were both taking criticism for a treaty they themselves no longer believed in, and intended to get rid of. However, that criticism was not among the reasons for the decision to repeal, and indeed the criticism came at a point where that decision was already inevitable.

You keep trying to turn the spotlight to the NS GP thread criticism, and present this as a situation where TNP is giving in to pressure from detractors and publicly retreating. But it has been pointed out several times, both in the statement and the thread, that the criticism is irrelevant to the repeal. In addition, you keep ignoring what the government has presented as the actual reasons for the decision to repeal the treaty.

These indicate to me that you are fundamentally misunderstanding the reality of the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top