All significant discussions had in #cabinet-office between 21 June 2021 and 21 October 2021
Please note that the posted times are provided in Pacific Daylight Time

Table of contents
16 July 2021 – the Cabinet discusses ratifying Security Council declarations
28 and 29 August 2021 – the Cabinet discusses overriding "Liberate New Western Atlantic"

16 July 2021 – the Cabinet discusses ratifying Security Council declarations
[8:13 PM] Jay: After the passage of the World Assembly Act amendment, are we all good with sending the first two declarations off for ratification by the Assembly?
[8:44 PM] Luca: Uh, what.
[8:44 PM] Luca: No lol
[8:45 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: not interested in ratificating everything the SC declares as TSP law
[8:45 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: and yes i made up that word
[8:47 PM] HumanSanity: I reviewed the language on both again and I guess I’m not opposed but I am a tad concerned about the precedent
[8:48 PM] HumanSanity: In my mind as well, the “we’ll actually ratify it” clause of Glen’s proposal was for fairly infrequent use
[8:49 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: yeah i thought the same
[8:49 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: ie. we're not bound by SC declarations in any way shape or form unless we decide to be in specific instances
[8:49 PM] Luca: I don't believe that the passage of Glen's proposal makes any indication of what should be done about resolutions that were passed before that point.
[8:50 PM] Luca: You can raise it as a legal question if you wish
[8:50 PM] HumanSanity: Hmm… it does not clarify that fair
[8:50 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: i mean if they were passed and not repealed... yeah that's a good LQ actually ?
[8:50 PM] Jay: From my perspective, it's a safeguard against any batshit declaration like "Declaration of Neutrality".
[8:51 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: i'm not sending every single bullshit piece of badge hunting crap to the assembly lmao
[8:51 PM] Jay: However, the declaration that's already on the books and the one that is currently at vote is non-problematic for us.
[8:51 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: "non-problematic" doesn't cut it for me.
[8:51 PM] Luca: I mean, I don't recognise an SC declaration as being valid TSP law.
[8:51 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: we should actually ahve some desire to be bound by it
[8:52 PM] Luca: The amendment at vote legally clarifies that to be the case.
[8:52 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: (did you know WS is skeptical of the sc???)
[8:52 PM] HumanSanity: … unless we send it to the Assembly as Jay suggests and they approve
[8:52 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: ?
[8:52 PM] Luca: If we wish to make TSP law, we are well able to do it here. But that is independent of the SC.
[8:52 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: yeah. it 's not a requirement
[8:52 PM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: it's more like "do we actually want to recognize this as our own law"
[8:53 PM] HumanSanity: Jay, can you make the case for why these specific versions of these principles are something we should bind ourselves to?
[8:53 PM] Luca: So you have two questions, "should the declarations in the SC be positions in TSP" and "should declarations be positions in TSP because they are SC declarations", the answer to the latter is no. The answer to the former is "if you want to write them up, idc"
[8:54 PM] Luca: Legally, I think if you want to put the recognition of the GA into the assembly, we'll have to go through TSP nations that have the capital punishment policy ?
[8:54 PM] Luca: Etc
[8:55 PM] Jay: I was already under the impression that there was nothing in the existing declarations that we don't already do.
[9:00 PM] HumanSanity: I don’t think Recognizing the GA makes much sense to incorporate because it doesn’t really impose regional obligations or advocate regional action. So, if we incorporated it I’m not sure what it would do. For the Anti-fascist Action one I see some argument, I’m happy with a lot of the language but I want to go through it with a fine tooth comb more before we sign off on it
[9:03 PM] Luca: I mean I'm not a legal expert / TSP court person, but if you feel like you MUST legally ratify SC declarations because they are binding treaties, then a resolution that says the GA is a co-equal chamber with equal influence and authority seems to me like that requires enforcement of WA policy on all WA nations.
[9:04 PM] HumanSanity: I don’t think so because the resolution acknowledges nations do not have to be WA members and doesn’t state WA members must actually comply with GA resolutions (… I think?)
[9:05 PM] Luca:
> The General Assembly is formally recognized as the adjacent chamber to the Security Council, under the overarching organization of the World Assembly;

> The General Assembly is responsible for the passage of international legislation affecting all members of the World Assembly, to be voted on and debated by these members in its entirety;

> As an entity, the General Assembly and the Security Council remain equal in their overall power and influence, regardless of the way that this influence is disbursed or otherwise utilized;
[9:05 PM] Luca: Relevant text.
[9:06 PM] Luca:
> and doesn’t state WA members must actually comply with GA resolutions
The GA as a concept does state this though.
[9:06 PM] Jay: I think I need to clear something up. At no point did I ever suggest that every declaration should be put up for a vote in the Assembly nor did I ever suggest that we must ratify them. Idk where these ideas came from.
[9:06 PM] HumanSanity: Yeah, I don’t think you said that
[9:07 PM] Luca: I don't think that thought was expressed. You did seem to imply by invoking Glen's amendment that the two resolutions that would be passed before that amendment should be treated differently than they would be after the amendment though.
[9:07 PM] Luca: Is that not the case?
[9:07 PM] HumanSanity: My concern is more about the norm/precedent
[9:10 PM] Jay: Could you elaborate on that? I don't understand how you worded the sentence.
[9:11 PM] Jay: I believed the precedent would be that we pick and choose what declarations we ratify.
[9:11 PM] Luca: You stated
After the passage of the World Assembly Act amendment, are we all good with sending the first two declarations off for ratification by the Assembly?

So what is the relevance of the amendment being brought up? Are you suggesting we are required to ratify the two declarations passed to this point?
[9:12 PM] Jay: I only brought up Glen's proposal in the context that it outlines the process of ratifying declarations.
[9:13 PM] Luca: I don't understand why we would do this.
[9:13 PM] Luca: If we want to create law in TSP then we can do that independently of someone's political aims in the SC.
[9:14 PM] Jay: So what is the point of passing Glen's proposal?
[9:14 PM] Luca: To...clarify that an SC declaration is not legally binding for TSP
[9:15 PM] Jay: Yet, it outlines a process to ratify declarations. Why do that if we're not gonna do that?
[9:15 PM] Luca: There is a bus ticket on the table behind me, yet I have no intention of travelling this evening. Option's there tho
[9:17 PM] Luca: If this is a thing you want to take up on your own, that's fine. But I don't see this grand scheme of international unity through each individual region hit-or-miss ratifying generally IC-themed content from the perspective of the WA being the norm.
[9:24 PM] HumanSanity: I didn’t think that was the argument Jay made … I thought it was just “so we do those things so why not?”
[9:26 PM] HumanSanity: That said, I do generally agree with the concept of retaining as much sovereignty as possible. So I’m very wary of the provision of the amendment that allows us to incorporate Declarations into our law, and I think we should use it sparingly.
[9:27 PM] Luca: The concept of TSP ratifying a declaration written by Cormac does amuse me considerably, though
[9:28 PM] Luca: I imagine there would be number of words written on the concept.
[9:34 PM] HumanSanity: There would be although that’s the one I could be persuaded to do it

---

28 and 29 August 2021 – the Cabinet discusses overriding "Liberate New Western Atlantic"
[10:27 PM] HumanSanity: Alright @Cabinet Ministers, FAC has been having a discussion about Liberate New Western Atlantic --

tldr = NWA = fash/OOC problematic region that someone is doing an offensive lib on. Our OWL vote is heavily for. SPSF won't defend the region if this passes

Author = Andusre, founder of Thaecia, which is a mil we work with. August (of the AA) has a long running issue with Thaecia and said he was opposed bc "who in my opinion is just as objectionable as his former compatriots from NWA" (source: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1585815). There's no basis to that claim in actuality, even back when Thaecia had real issues.

the discussion being had is about overriding the vote in support of our current "For" voting position with a short addendum to our normal OWL reco about August's comment, calling it out as baseless and a smear on a valuable partner of our's

... anyways, this is a weird spot, I'm personally leaning for overriding but honestly could be convinced either way, but we think it's time to move the discussion over here, so here we are
[10:27 PM] HumanSanity: here's a draft
> The proposal at-vote "Liberate New Western Atlantic" removes password protection from a founderless region which has harbored fascists, doxxers (those who share other player's private personally identifying information), blackmailers, and known site rule-breakers among its members in order to open the region up to invasion and attack. While the South Pacific is an ardent defender region, its protection does not extend to fascists and regions which systematically fail to protect their members from out-of-character harm and the South Pacific Special Forces would not defend New Western Atlantic if the region were invaded. The Office of WA Legislation vote is already heavily "For" this proposal on these grounds, however the Cabinet has chosen to further override the vote "For" in response to additional information.

> August has stated that he has voted against "due to the author, who in my opinion is just as objectionable as his former compatriots from NWA". In this comment, August equated the author Andusre and his region Thaecia with a region that has harbored fascists and doxxers. There is no evidence to support this claim and making these characterizations against a legitimate region is completely unacceptable.

> The Coalition stands firmly in support of Thaecia in light of this unjustified character assassination, and the Cabinet has overriden the vote to "For" to further corroborate the existing voting decision in light of these recent comments and developments.
[10:28 PM] Quebecshire: Does this require an override? The vote is the same, am I missing a procedural issue where we can't just let OWL use the content?
[10:28 PM] Quebecshire: Especially since August's comment the OWL vote is vastly in favor.
[10:28 PM] HumanSanity: the only reaosn to do it as a formal override vote would be as a show of decision/resolve
[10:29 PM] HumanSanity: obviously the OWL vote is currently in favor, the only reason to override in favor with the statement is to make our position clear
[10:29 PM] HumanSanity: but I think that's a good point we could just ask anjo to put the words in the reco
[10:29 PM] HumanSanity: and try to get OWL to do the reco fast
[10:30 PM] Quebecshire: I'm obviously in favor of getting this in either way. If the FAC thinks a formal override is necessary/important to our position, I support that.
[10:30 PM] Quebecshire: Otherwise at the very least we can just ask Anjo/OWL to put it in.
[10:30 PM] HumanSanity: I actually think that's a good point XD
[10:31 PM] HumanSanity: a statement in the OWL reco carries weight too, ultimately for FA purposes an override isn't a relevant concept for signaling resolve/intent, a statement in regional literature is just as important
[11:04 PM] Moon: I think we can just ask Anjo to add an addendum from thr Cabinet regarding August's comment.
[11:04 PM] Moon: I don’t see any reason for a formal override, especially when it’s the same recommendation we want.
[11:15 PM] Moon: But I'm not opposed to it either.
— 08/29/2021
[1:25 AM] anjo: Yea adding in a statement from the Cabinet wouldn't be a problem, override or no
[1:25 AM] anjo: I'll prepare the rest of the reco right now as you said it's important to get it out quickly
[2:08 AM] anjo: I'm wondering whether there should even be a separate analysis - in past override cases, the Cabinet statement took the place of the original analysis, so I could just insert the above message from the Cabinet as analysis in case the override happens
[6:55 AM] HumanSanity: I’ll need to edit it to make sense, give me a second. But also the consensus seems to be “no override”, which makes sense and I’m actually more persuaded by than doing an override
[6:56 AM] HumanSanity: Give me a moment and I’ll fix the statement into something that makes sense in context, then OWL can use it as the analysis
[7:06 AM] HumanSanity: @anjo @Jay how is this for a non-override but still-taking-a-position OWL recommendation chunk?
> The proposal at-vote "Liberate New Western Atlantic" removes password protection from a founderless region which has harbored fascists, doxxers (those who share other player's private personally identifying information), blackmailers, and known site rule-breakers among its members in order to open the region up to invasion and attack. While the South Pacific is an ardent defender region, its protection does not extend to fascists and regions which systematically fail to protect their members from out-of-character harm and the South Pacific Special Forces would not defend New Western Atlantic if the region were invaded. As a result, the Office of WA Legislation finds that the opening up and destruction of this particular region may be desirable.

> Additionally, August has stated that he has voted against "due to the author, who in my opinion is just as objectionable as his former compatriots from NWA". In this comment, August equated the author Andusre and his region Thaecia with a region that has harbored fascists and doxxers. There is no evidence to support this claim and making these characterizations is irresponsible and reprehensible.

> Due to the combination of these factors, the Office of WA Legislation recommends a vote for "Liberate New Western Atlantic".

[7:13 AM] anjo: Last sentence should be "Office" (not "Officer") but other than that it looks good!
[7:14 AM] HumanSanity: Words are difficult, fixed.
[8:46 AM] anjo: I'll post the recommendation with the above as analysis when the resolution reaches the floor then
[8:55 AM] HumanSanity: Awesome
[9:04 AM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: Awesome
[9:05 AM] Witchcraft & Sorcery: I’m ok with this. Just catching up now
[9:05 AM] Quebecshire: Beautiful. I did a little campaigning for the stomp personally, myself.
[9:05 AM] Quebecshire: It has gone quite well.
[12:09 PM] Jay: Looks good