[PASSED] WA Development Foundation

[Cowardly Pacifists]

*snip*

For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to point out that it was Glen-Rhodes, not I, who said "major investment into developing countries would have a significant impact on the world economy."

[Glen-Rhodes]

Legality, thankfully, was never the issue. I already have one RECOMMENDS-esque clause that makes the proposal legal. The concern was whether I could submit it as Significant as opposed to Mild.

Ah, yes, I meant legality with regards to the Significant rating. Having one solid, universal mandate will make it unquestionably Significant. My own resolution provides precedent, but there is ample support for it if one searches the forums. Besides, it's good policy, and I'd like to see the clause become law anyways.

Even if it's investement using funds that would otherwise be invested in the lending nations' own economies instead? Even if it helps the developing nations to compete with the developed ones, and thereby hurts relevant businesses in the developed nations?

Competition may affect the bottom-line profit of monopolistic companies. But promoting competition is ultimately helpful to businesses in general. It's the entire purpose of free trade, really.

[Auralia]

Ah, yes, I meant legality with regards to the Significant rating. Having one solid, universal mandate will make it unquestionably Significant. My own resolution provides precedent, but there is ample support for it if one searches the forums. Besides, it's good policy, and I'd like to see the clause become law anyways.

Done.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Ah, yes, I meant legality with regards to the Significant rating. Having one solid, universal mandate will make it unquestionably Significant. My own resolution provides precedent, but there is ample support for it if one searches the forums. Besides, it's good policy, and I'd like to see the clause become law anyways.

Done.

I agree that prohibiting member nations from defaulting on their debts is a significant act.

The slap-dash way it was included in a proposal that's supposed to be about voluntarily lending a helping hand to developing nations does not leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. The fact that it was added for the purely political purpose of making an otherwise optional proposal "significant" is equally distasteful.

[Free South Califas]

Is that the smell of political capital burning up? My, but it does reek of something in here, doesn't it?

[Auralia]

The slap-dash way it was included in a proposal that's supposed to be about voluntarily lending a helping hand to developing nations does not leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. The fact that it was added for the purely political purpose of making an otherwise optional proposal "significant" is equally distasteful.

No, it actually fits quite well. Nations should not be allowed to unilaterally absolve themselves of WA loan debt; the clause included is broader, but as GR pointed out, it's good policy anyways.

[Bears Armed]

*snip*

For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to point out that it was Glen-Rhodes, not I, who said "major investment into developing countries would have a significant impact on the world economy."

Oops! Fixed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The slap-dash way it was included in a proposal that's supposed to be about voluntarily lending a helping hand to developing nations does not leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. The fact that it was added for the purely political purpose of making an otherwise optional proposal "significant" is equally distasteful.

There is nothing Auralian delegation can change that will earn your delegation's support, so your words fall upon deaf ears. We are all well-aware that your delegation's concern over this proposal's legality has always been based in your delegation's staunch opposition to the very concept of international investment.

[Free South Califas]

The slap-dash way it was included in a proposal that's supposed to be about voluntarily lending a helping hand to developing nations does not leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. The fact that it was added for the purely political purpose of making an otherwise optional proposal "significant" is equally distasteful.

There is nothing Auralian delegation can change that will earn your delegation's support, so your words fall upon deaf ears. We are all well-aware that your delegation's concern over this proposal's legality has always been based in your delegation's staunch opposition to the very concept of international investment.

Perhaps the Cowardly delegation objects to what they see as illegal government interference in international investment, and would consider a differently structured proposal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Perhaps the Cowardly delegation objects to what they see as illegal government interference in international investment, and would consider a differently structured proposal.

An international organization helping to facilitate development loans is not "illegal government interference." The absurdity of the opposition is astounding...

[Tanular]

The slap-dash way it was included in a proposal that's supposed to be about voluntarily lending a helping hand to developing nations does not leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. The fact that it was added for the purely political purpose of making an otherwise optional proposal "significant" is equally distasteful.

There is nothing Auralian delegation can change that will earn your delegation's support, so your words fall upon deaf ears. We are all well-aware that your delegation's concern over this proposal's legality has always been based in your delegation's staunch opposition to the very concept of international investment.

Or, more likely, the Pacifistic delegation simply feels, as I myself, that this proposal has gone from being serious to being farcical because, instead of simply adjusting the proposal's strength, the author decided to patch another issue that has its own merits into this proposal for the sole purpose of justifying the strength categorization. In other words, it isn't being included because its relevant or a good idea, but SOLELY for the purpose of paperwork.

And that, quite frankly, is poppycock and insulting to the WA itself.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Perhaps the Cowardly delegation objects to what they see as illegal government interference in international investment, and would consider a differently structured proposal.

An international organization helping to facilitate development loans is not "illegal government interference." The absurdity of the opposition is astounding...

The slap-dash way it was included in a proposal that's supposed to be about voluntarily lending a helping hand to developing nations does not leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. The fact that it was added for the purely political purpose of making an otherwise optional proposal "significant" is equally distasteful.

There is nothing Auralian delegation can change that will earn your delegation's support, so your words fall upon deaf ears. We are all well-aware that your delegation's concern over this proposal's legality has always been based in your delegation's staunch opposition to the very concept of international investment.

It's good to see that Glen-Rhodes is continuing its righteous crusade to improve the quality of debate by marginalizing others and knocking over straw men. Keep up the good work.

Your blustering aside, I was opposed to this proposal being submitted as significant based on my correct assessment that it is largely optional. Now that you've given up on your ridiculous argument about the proposal's possible effects and actually included a universal mandate, that issue is resolved.

But the fact that you included that provision simply so this proposal would be legal if submitted as "significant" is distasteful politicking that would produce shame in any respectable delegation. Of course, I'm beginning to understand that Auralia and Glen-Rhodes are not above such maneuvers if it means they can look back and guffaw about this "significant" optional loan and insurance proposal.

[Discoveria]

...I was opposed to this proposal being submitted as significant based on my correct assessment that it is largely optional. Now that you've given up on your ridiculous argument about the proposal's possible effects and actually included a universal mandate, that issue is resolved.

But the fact that you included that provision simply so this proposal would be legal if submitted as "significant" is distasteful politicking that would produce shame in any respectable delegation. Of course, I'm beginning to understand that Auralia and Glen-Rhodes are not above such maneuvers if it means they can look back and guffaw about this "significant" optional loan and insurance proposal.

"While I also find the distasteful politicking somewhat ... distasteful, I wish to point out that the new mandate is quite sensible and arguments against it should not be based solely on the genetic fallacy. I am also not particularly concerned with whether this proposal should be Mild or Significant, but for the record, Glen-Rhodes' arguments sound more convincing to me based on my guess at the likely impact of this 'optional' resolution. At this point, we are provisionally in favour of the proposal."

[Cowardly Pacifists]

...I was opposed to this proposal being submitted as significant based on my correct assessment that it is largely optional. Now that you've given up on your ridiculous argument about the proposal's possible effects and actually included a universal mandate, that issue is resolved.

But the fact that you included that provision simply so this proposal would be legal if submitted as "significant" is distasteful politicking that would produce shame in any respectable delegation. Of course, I'm beginning to understand that Auralia and Glen-Rhodes are not above such maneuvers if it means they can look back and guffaw about this "significant" optional loan and insurance proposal.

"While I also find the distasteful politicking somewhat ... distasteful, I wish to point out that the new mandate is quite sensible and arguments against it should not be based solely on the genetic fallacy. I am also not particularly concerned with whether this proposal should be Mild or Significant, but for the record, Glen-Rhodes' arguments sound more convincing to me based on my guess at the likely impact of this 'optional' resolution. At this point, we are provisionally in favour of the proposal."

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the new debt-absolution provision based on the reason for its inclusion. I simply find it astounding that the provision was included not because it is good policy, but because the author and proponents of this legislation desperately want it to have a "significant" strength.

As always, my opposition to this is based on my philosophical disagreement with using the WA to furnish loans and provide investment insurance.

[Glen-Rhodes]

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the new debt-absolution provision based on the reason for its inclusion. I simply find it astounding that the provision was included not because it is good policy, but because the author and proponents of this legislation desperately want it to have a "significant" strength.

So you are just going to ignore how both Auralia and I have said it's good policy (using that exact term)? It both good policy and a way to end your rules lawyering.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

So you are just going to ignore how both Auralia and I have said it's good policy (using that exact term)? It both good policy and a way to end your rules lawyering.

I'm willing to admit that it's good policy. Frankly I'm surprised something like it wasn't included earlier when I was pointing out the danger of default and the historical problem of nations failing to honor their debts. Though at the time I seem to remember that certain nations were content to pretend that would never happen.

I'm really just outraged and disappointed that Glen-Rhodes is more interested in seeing this proposal be "significant" than in making good policy. You didn't care about policy when you proposed the amendment. It was solely for your own gratification, so that you could see this proposal submitted with a "significant" strength:

But I doubt anybody here is going to be convinced one way or the other, and at least one mod is a sure-fire "illegal" vote. So I suggest Auralia just borrow from my old resolution and say that no member state can unilaterally absolve their debt. Including one feckless mandate will unquestionably make the proposal legal. (And if you believe that words are magic in the WA, then it isn't even a feckless mandate!)

In any case, shouldn't we go further and prohibit nations from defaulting, unilaterally restructuring, or otherwise failing to honor their debts? If we did, we could remove the provision in Article IV:1 regarding "governmental failure to honour financial obligations." I don't see why we should insure against something that we could simply avoid by direct legislation.

Though I'm sure my suggestion will be dismissed as just another example of crazy opposition thinking...

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm really just outraged and disappointed that Glen-Rhodes is more interested in seeing this proposal be "significant" than in making good policy. You didn't care about policy when you proposed the amendment. It was solely for your own gratification, so that you could see this proposal submitted with a "significant" strength.

As a substantive matter, I don't really care what strength it is. I argued its legality as a significant resolution because I believe the interpretation of the rules the mods were about to accept was absolutely illogical and horrendous. I am interested in fighting against what I believe is a perpetual bastardization of game mechanics by a few mods who have no consistent logical understanding of what game mechanics is and why the rules actually exist. I'm interested in pushing against stupid and arbitrary interpretations of the rules, of which (no personal insult intended) your legality argument is part and parcel.

In any case, shouldn't we go further and prohibit nations from defaulting, unilaterally restructuring, or otherwise failing to honor their debts? If we did, we could remove the provision in Article IV:1 regarding "governmental failure to honour financial obligations." I don't see why we should insure against something that we could simply avoid by direct legislation.

Not entirely, for reasons I will expand upon once I'm not limited by my phones keyboard. I'll say now, though, that unilateral restructuring is just a creative way to say default.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

As a substantive matter, I don't really care what strength it is. I argued its legality as a significant resolution because I believe the interpretation of the rules the mods were about to accept was absolutely illogical and horrendous. I am interested in fighting against what I believe is a perpetual bastardization of game mechanics by a few mods who have no consistent logical understanding of what game mechanics is and why the rules actually exist. I'm interested in pushing against stupid and arbitrary interpretations of the rules, of which (no personal insult intended) your legality argument is part and parcel.

In any case, shouldn't we go further and prohibit nations from defaulting, unilaterally restructuring, or otherwise failing to honor their debts? If we did, we could remove the provision in Article IV:1 regarding "governmental failure to honour financial obligations." I don't see why we should insure against something that we could simply avoid by direct legislation.

Not entirely, for reasons I will expand upon once I'm not limited by my phones keyboard. I'll say now, though, that unilateral restructuring is just a creative way to say default.

Whatever. I'm sick of the whole business. You just keep patting yourself on the back and reminding yourself how you're always right and anyone who disagrees is just a moron.

As to that last bit, it was you who suggested earlier that restructuring and defaulting were two different things. Though as slippery as your logic is I'm not surprised to hear you say the exact opposite now.

For what it's worth, restructuring occurs far more often than defaults. There's a lot of difficulty getting statistics on this, though, because defaults and debt restructuring are almost always grouped together. Both entail being unable to make scheduled debt payments, but restructuring means changing the debt agreements so that the debtor can continue to make payments, whereas default is actually failing to meet the agreements altogether.

Historically, all government restructuring is unilateral. Whenever the French monarchs would run out of money they would just call their creditors and explain France's new terms. Who can complain? They're a fricken nation; there's no court to sue them in. There's nothing you can do about it short of declaring war. And even then, going to war is no way to ensure that money will magically become available.

[Auralia]

In any case, shouldn't we go further and prohibit nations from defaulting, unilaterally restructuring, or otherwise failing to honor their debts? If we did, we could remove the provision in Article IV:1 regarding "governmental failure to honour financial obligations." I don't see why we should insure against something that we could simply avoid by direct legislation.

I would not change IV.1 in any event because of the controversy over mandatory compliance.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Whatever. I'm sick of the whole business. You just keep patting yourself on the back and reminding yourself how you're always right and anyone who disagrees is just a moron.

I haven't called anyone a moron. I have a legitimate disagreement with how various mods and players believe the World Assembly works, and I engage in the debate whenever I see their interpretation gaining ground. You engaged in the very same activity, even if you don't have an over-arching goal of pushing back against a paradigm you find illogical and arbitrary. I don't think you're a moron for assuming the World Assembly works the way mods and the "Old Guard" have been saying it works. And I hope you don't think I'm a moron for having a different viewpoint.

As to that last bit, it was you who suggested earlier that restructuring and defaulting were two different things. Though as slippery as your logic is I'm not surprised to hear you say the exact opposite now.

No, I did not say that. No, I am not saying the opposite now. Restructuring isn't unilateral. It's an agreement between governments to establish new payment rules for debt, so that a default doesn't happen. Unilaterally deciding that you're not going to fully meet your existing payment obligations, or that you're not going to make a payment this month or this year, is called a default. That's why the term "unilateral restructuring" is just a creative way to say "defaulting."

Historically, all government restructuring is unilateral. Whenever the French monarchs ...

A time period no longer relevant... Regardless, your scenario is not "unilateral restructuring." The French monarchy came to an agreement with their debtors, even if it was more of a coercion than a negotiation. The second party agreed to the restructuring. Unilateral entails that the second party doesn't come into play at all. Also, a developing country can't exactly tell developed states and international financial institutions to shove it.

But again, this is entirely irrelevant, because the post-19th century global financial system does not work in any way like the pre-19th century global financial system, nor does the 21st century global financial system bear much resemblance to any before it.

[Auralia]

I plan to submit this within 24 hours.

[Auralia]

Submitted.

EDIT: Quorum.

[United Federation of Canada]

Wow that made quorum FAST! Congratulations and nice work on such a nicely written and well worded proposal. United Federation of Canada vote in favor of the resolution.

[NERVUN]

viewtopic.php?p=11493007#p11493007

Removed and I will be smacking people to get an answer back to you as fast as possible.

[The Dourian Embassy]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=11493007#p11493007

Removed and I will be smacking people to get an answer back to you as fast as possible.

I thought they already modified the language since y'all didn't get back to them in time?

Edit: I completely oppose this piece of legislation, and will be unlikely to be persuaded to support it, but the inclusion of the line "No member nation shall unilaterally absolve itself of its sovereign debt." should make it significant in strength, shouldn't it? It was, I believe included for exactly that reason, and I'm fairly certain it passes muster on that count.

Since we're back to a drafting phase, I'll be offering some viewpoints tomorrow, but as for now, I'm completely mystified as to why this got deleted. Hopefully some light gets shed on it.

I'm not a moderator, so what do I know? As an author though, this sucks to see.