NationStates

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:30 am**

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: I'm afraid that the author is no longer hearing arguments on that clause, Ara.

OOC: Wallenburg, if you don't like how the author is running their draft thread, don't participate. Your needling is to the point where I'm going to start doing the same thing.

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:35 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:OOC: I'm afraid that the author is no longer hearing arguments on that clause, Ara.

OOC: Wallenburg, if you don't like how the author is running their draft thread, don't participate. Your needling is to the point where I'm going to start doing the same thing.

OOC: I was simply notifying them of the OPs limitations on the argument. However, I concluded that my post was incorrect, and that Sciongrad might accept parts of Araraukar's argument, and so I removed my post. I'm not sure how you are quoting something that doesn't exist, but you are.

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:29 pm**

"It's good to see you back, Ms. Santos. I wanted to reiterate, in case the transcript got muddled, our support for this resolution; and our suggestion to alter the word 'parts' in Paragraph 1 to something like 'subassemblies' or 'specialized components.' While we would love to believe that the kind of false impressions and statements driving most of the arguments against this proposal, including those used to justify its original repeal, are honest errors that mere debate can sort out, we do want to help avoid any repeated 'mistakes,'" Steph says, finishing her statement with emphatic air quotes.

Posted: **Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:06 am**

I do not believe I could support such a bill in the assembly. It is a good idea yes but bit doesn't guarantee the people the right to have they're weapons. Instead it would damper the domestic weapon manfacture and sales within ones country.

Posted: **Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:42 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:Your needling is to the point where I'm going to start doing the same thing.

OOC: From my POV, you already did. Also, resorting to bad debate tactics just because someone else is using them, is never a good idea.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: I was simply notifying them of the OPs limitations on the argument.

OOC: The limitations of the debate is the fucking annoying back-and-forth bitching going on among some of the posters here, and your name is on that list. (So are Scion and SP, if it makes you feel any better.) I'm not interested in partaking that, hence making my posts OOCly.

I'm not sure how you are quoting something that doesn't exist, but you are.

He quoted it before you deleted it - that lets him keep the quote despite the original post having ceased to exist. It's why the mods don't like people quoting offending posts, as they have to round up all the quotes too, not simply delete the original post.

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:15 pm**

Crimetopolis will vote NO on this proposal. We just got a new Cabelas.

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:47 pm**

"Changes have been made. Comments are welcome."

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:07 pm**

"We're extremely pleased to see this alive and kicking, Ms. Santos. I hope the winds are blowing right for getting this back on the books soon."

Steph examines the draft in front of her.

"Clause 4 might read a bit smoother if the three exceptions were given in a list format - or, maybe semicolons replacing the commas would be enough. As is it's an incredibly long sentence and I don't want voters to give up partway through it."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:17 am**

Sciongrad wrote:"Changes have been made. Comments are welcome."

Your proposal still contains significant provisions restricting the civilian firearms market as mentioned before. Simply denying this and telling me to read the proposal has not changed this fact.

As it stand this proposal will not receive our support and we will be advising the WA member nations in our region to vote against it. Additionally if this proposal is submitted in its current category and strength we will be submitting a GHR complaint.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:44 am**

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:"Changes have been made. Comments are welcome."

Your proposal still contains significant provisions restricting the civilian firearms market as mentioned before. Simply denying this and telling me to read the proposal has not changed this fact.

As it stand this proposal will not receive our support and we will be advising the WA member nations in our region to vote against it. Additionally if this proposal is submitted in its current category and strength we will be submitting a GHR complaint.

"I actually apologize, the representative of Bears Armed noted the same flaw I presume you're referring to, but I never edited the main draft. Here's the adjustment I told them I'd make. Tell me if it satisfies your concerns:"

Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"We're extremely pleased to see this alive and kicking, Ms. Santos. I hope the winds are blowing right for getting this back on the books soon."

Steph examines the draft in front of her.

"Clause 4 might read a bit smoother if the three exceptions were given in a list format - or, maybe semicolons replacing the commas would be enough. As is it's an incredibly long sentence and I don't want voters to give up partway through it."

"Sciongrad is humbled by your support. I've changed clause three into a list. Hopefully, that will make it read better."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:58 am**

"Please eliminate the contraction in clause 7.b."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:04 am**

Wallenburg wrote:"Please eliminate the contraction in clause 7.b."

"Fine, but only because you said please."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:13 am**

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:"Changes have been made. Comments are welcome."

Your proposal still contains significant provisions restricting the civilian firearms market as mentioned before. Simply denying this and telling me to read the proposal has not changed this fact.

As it stand this proposal will not receive our support and we will be advising the WA member nations in our region to vote against it. Additionally if this proposal is submitted in its current category and strength we will be submitting a GHR complaint.

ARI: Hmm? Which category do think this belongs in? The way we read it, it places safeguards and barriers on the exportation and transfer of military weapons; such barriers, in the long run, will reduce the number of weapons in the world. (Ahume begins to whisper in his ear.) No, I want to hear his answer.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:42 am**

Could we please change the name? Responsible Arms Transfers. Accountable Arms Trading. (By the way, I would support an addition to the game code which prevented titles from being used again.)

a. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,

Yea. This is always acceptable.

b. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, except in instances where the transfer is absolutely necessary in protecting national security, so long as even those transfers do not violate the other provisions of this resolution, or,

Given the removal of a clause in an earlier section, this is acceptable. However, there's something off about the wording here. It ... feels (?) weird.

c. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest which, for the purpose of this resolution, will not include reclaiming lost territory;

There has to be a way to word this better too. But today is not the best day. I can't think of any suggestions.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:16 am**

"Several months ago, at my personal request, Excidium Planetis engaged in a consensual war, as under GA#2, with fellow WA member nation Aeiouia. The war was fought in a safe manner to ensure the lowest possible number of casualties (roughly 200 or so occurred when Aeiouian forces fired on starfighters they mistakenly thought were unmanned), but a planet, Olber III was at stake. As a result of the conflict, we gained the rights to the planet.

"Now then, if this resolution were in place, would our own arms manufacturing companies be prohibited from selling to us because we were the aggressors in a war of conquest?"

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:46 am**

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Several months ago, at my personal request, Excidium Planetis engaged in a consensual war, as under GA#2, with fellow WA member nation Aeiouia. The war was fought in a safe manner to ensure the lowest possible number of casualties (roughly 200 or so occurred when Aeiouian forces fired on starfighters they mistakenly thought were unmanned), but a planet, Olber III was at stake. As a result of the conflict, we gained the rights to the planet.

"Now then, if this resolution were in place, would our own arms manufacturing companies be prohibited from selling to us because we were the aggressors in a war of conquest?"

"Indeed it would, Ambassador."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:48 am**

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Several months ago, at my personal request, Excidium Planetis engaged in a consensual war, as under GA#2, with fellow WA member nation Aeiouia. The war was fought in a safe manner to ensure the lowest possible number of casualties (roughly 200 or so occurred when Aeiouian forces fired on starfighters they mistakenly thought were unmanned), but a planet, Olber III was at stake. As a result of the conflict, we gained the rights to the planet.

"Now then, if this resolution were in place, would our own arms manufacturing companies be prohibited from selling to us because we were the aggressors in a war of conquest?"

"Assuming the planet belonged to Aeiouia in the first place and the war was fought with the understanding that territorial claims would be at stake, then yes, it would. If the planet was not their territory, and you were competing in a war for an uninhabited planet or a planet that no nation laid claim to, then no, it wouldn't. And I would prefer if his Excellency from Wallenburg refrained from answering questions on my behalf if he does not intend to answer them thoughtfully."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Could we please change the name? Responsible Arms Transfers. Accountable Arms Trading. (By the way, I would support an addition to the game code which prevented titles from being used again.)

"Yes, we can do that. I'll change the title to 'Responsible Arms Transfers.'"

a. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,

Yea. This is always acceptable.

b. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, except in instances where the transfer is absolutely necessary in protecting national security, so long as even those transfers do not violate the other provisions of this resolution, or,

Given the removal of a clause in an earlier section, this is acceptable. However, there's something off about the wording here. It ... feels (?) weird.

c. There is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest which, for the purpose of this resolution, will not include reclaiming lost territory;

There has to be a way to word this better too. But today is not the best day. I can't think of any suggestions.

"I agree, I wasn't on my game when I wrote those. I just wanted to convey the ideas behind them. I'll refine the wording shortly, but suggestions are always welcome."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:31 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:"Several months ago, at my personal request, Excidium Planetis engaged in a consensual war, as under GA#2, with fellow WA member nation Aeiouia. The war was fought in a safe manner to ensure the lowest possible number of casualties (roughly 200 or so occurred when Aeiouian forces fired on starfighters they mistakenly thought were unmanned), but a planet, Olber III was at stake. As a result of the conflict, we gained the rights to the planet.

"Now then, if this resolution were in place, would our own arms manufacturing companies be prohibited from selling to us because we were the aggressors in a war of conquest?"

"Assuming the planet belonged to Aeiouia in the first place and the war was fought with the understanding that territorial claims would be at stake, then yes, it would. If the planet was not their territory, and you were competing in a war for an uninhabited planet or a planet that no nation laid claim to, then no, it wouldn't. And I would prefer if his Excellency from Wallenburg refrained from answering questions on my behalf if he does not intend to answer them thoughtfully."

"Ah. Well, as the planet was Aeiouoan territory, and was inhabited, and at the start of the war the stakes were known, then as you say it would be a war of conquest.

"As such, Excidium Planetis remains opposed on the grounds that such a safe, effective, and mutually agreeable war would be effectively impossible to carry out with the prohibitions of this proposal."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:40 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:"Assuming the planet belonged to Aeiouia in the first place and the war was fought with the understanding that territorial claims would be at stake, then yes, it would. If the planet was not their territory, and you were competing in a war for an uninhabited planet or a planet that no nation laid claim to, then no, it wouldn't. And I would prefer if his Excellency from Wallenburg refrained from answering questions on my behalf if he does not intend to answer them thoughtfully."

"Ah. Well, as the planet was Aeiouoan territory, and was inhabited, and at the start of the war the stakes were known, then as you say it would be a war of conquest.

"As such, Excidium Planetis remains opposed on the grounds that such a safe, effective, and mutually agreeable war would be effectively impossible to carry out with the prohibitions of this proposal."

"It is regrettable that we cannot count on the support of Excidium Planets, but I'm afraid we disagree on a fundamental level."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:47 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:And I would prefer if his Excellency from Wallenburg refrained from answering questions on my behalf if he does not intend to answer them thoughtfully."

"I will speak whenever I damn well please. It was quite clear that your proposal would prohibit domestic arms trading--which is not an international issue, mind you--under the circumstances outlined by the Ambassador from Excidium Planetis, and so I offered a clear answer. Simple questions do not require complex answers. And I am no 'Excellency', Ambassador. Please do not insult me again with that bourgeois title."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:03 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:And I would prefer if his Excellency from Wallenburg refrained from answering questions on my behalf if he does not intend to answer them thoughtfully."

"I will speak whenever I damn well please. It was quite clear that your proposal would prohibit domestic arms trading--which is not an international issue, mind you--under the circumstances outlined by the Ambassador from Excidium Planetis, and so I offered a clear answer. Simple questions do not require complex answers. And I am no 'Excellency', Ambassador. Please do not insult me again with that bourgeois title."

"Speak whenever you want, your most venerable Excellency - I have no intention of stopping you - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't plan on behaving like a proper ambassador. Although I'll note, it was not 'quite clear' that this proposal would restrict domestic arms trading in the situation outlined by the good ambassador of Excidium Planets because they never specified whether or not the planet belonged to Aeiouia. It was a common complaint that this proposal would impugn on the ability of nation's to settle uninhabited territory, and it was certainly possible that his Excellency of Excidium Planets was raising a similar complaint.

It is also disappointing that you'd resort to such an insipid argument - that the domestic transfer of weapons is somehow not an international issue - when the issue is so complex. The domestic transfer of weapons can, and does, have consequences of an international scale, even though the actual transfer process may not have an international element. I guess Douria has done its damage to the intellectual sophistication of National Sovereignty."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:35 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:"I actually apologize, the representative of Bears Armed noted the same flaw I presume you're referring to, but I never edited the main draft. Here's the adjustment I told them I'd make. Tell me if it satisfies your concerns:"

Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

It certainly helps. I'll have to give the whole thing another read through when I'm slightly more sober.

Thank you for addressing it btw. I'm sorry for being so harsh before.

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:
We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:snip

ARI: Hmm? Which category do think this belongs in? The way we read it, it places safeguards and barriers on the exportation and transfer of military weapons; such barriers, in the long run, will reduce the number of weapons in the world. (Ahume begins to whisper in his ear.) No, I want to hear his answer.

The most important part of this doesn't apply with the changes, but I'll bet some of it still does.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:45 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:Although I'll note, it was not 'quite clear' that this proposal would restrict domestic arms trading in the situation outlined by the good ambassador of Excidium Planets because they never specified whether or not the planet belonged to Aeiouia. It was a common complaint that this proposal would impugn on the ability of nation's to settle uninhabited territory, and it was certainly possible that his Excellency of Excidium Planets was raising a similar complaint.

"I am a woman." Cornelia Schultz interjects. "Not a 'his Excellency'. And while it is true that there was ambiguity and the question was not as clear cut as Ambassador Ogenbond would like, there is significant un-Ambassador-ness to this discussion between you two.

"Now, as for our fundamental disagreement, Miss Santos, this is truly the case. We have a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of war, in which you seem to hold the opinion that all war in which the purpose is to conquer another nation or otherwise benefit, is wrong. I hold to the opinion that any war which has net profits across all involved parties is acceptable. This includes 'just wars' and mutually agreeable wars in which there is a net gain in benefits compared to costs. There can be no reconciliation between these opinions, I fear, as you would hold even a war in which no lives were lost as unacceptable as long as it was a war of conquest."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:52 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:"I am a woman." Cornelia Schultz interjects. "Not a 'his Excellency'."

"O meu deus, the devil is playing tricks with my eyes again." She removes rosary beads from her pocket and begins to pray on both knees. "Creio em Deus Pai Todo-Poderoso, Criador do céu e da terra e em Jesus Cristo..."

"Now, as for our fundamental disagreement, Miss Santos, this is truly the case. We have a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of war, in which you seem to hold the opinion that all war in which the purpose is to conquer another nation or otherwise benefit, is wrong. I hold to the opinion that any war which has net profits across all involved parties is acceptable. This includes 'just wars' and mutually agreeable wars in which there is a net gain in benefits compared to costs. There can be no reconciliation between these opinions, I fear, as you would hold even a war in which no lives were lost as unacceptable as long as it was a war of conquest."

"Yes, this is a correct assessment of my nation's attitude towards warfare. Sciongrad believes there are greater considerations in war than lives lost or benefits gained. Conquest is inherently incompatible with the idea of national sovereignty, and for this reason alone, wars of conquest, regardless of the levels of violence, are crimes against humanity."

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:55 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:Although I'll note, it was not 'quite clear' that this proposal would restrict domestic arms trading in the situation outlined by the good ambassador of Excidium Planets because they never specified whether or not the planet belonged to Aeiouia. It was a common complaint that this proposal would impugn on the ability of nation's to settle uninhabited territory, and it was certainly possible that his Excellency of Excidium Planets was raising a similar complaint.

"I am a woman." Cornelia Schultz interjects. "Not a 'his Excellency'. And while it is true that there was ambiguity and the question was not as clear cut as Ambassador Ogenbond would like, there is significant un-Ambassador-ness to this discussion between you two.

"Now, as for our fundamental disagreement, Miss Santos, this is truly the case. We have a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of war, in which you seem to hold the opinion that all war in which the purpose is to conquer another nation or otherwise benefit, is wrong. I hold to the opinion that any war which has net profits across all involved parties is acceptable. This includes 'just wars' and mutually agreeable wars in which there is a net gain in benefits compared to costs. There can be no reconciliation between these opinions, I fear, as you would hold even a war in which no lives were lost as unacceptable as long as it was a war of conquest."

"Ambassador, the delegation of Sciongrad has made clear, several times, their opposition to any warfare that is not purely defensive in nature. While the Imperium shares similar objections to your own, there is little chance that the veracity, or validity, of the opposition will sway the minds of them or or their Government.

Save your words for its inevitable arrival at vote, I am certain the voting, when informed of the true effects of this legislation, will see it crushed quite soundly."

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Responsible Arms Transfers