[DEFEATED] Promoting Ethnic and Cultural Equality

[Wallenburg]

I'm referring to Wallenburg; people's current dislike seems to be a result of a comment in late 2022 so obviously resolutions before that do not disprove my point. The one which did pass in the meantime was apparently because people didn't notice it, eg as said by Varanius in the WA Discord; "A proposal, which I didn’t notice"; separately, referring to Wallenburg being co-author on this resolution, "Shame too. You could actually pass the thing if you took a hint".

TNP's voting thread has a number of voters opposing explicitly because of the co-author. Vara has repeatedly gloated about defeating Wallenburg's proposals, specifically citing that rationale, since the aforementioned 2022 comment. He has even reached out to voters asking them to oppose because "Wallenburg...'s a real piece of work". I don't understand why people are denying this obvious fact.

First time checking in on a WA debate here, but what exactly happened in 2022 to result in this mess?

I challenged the idea that toxic players are only toxic as a "persona". Specifically, I asked what then keeps such players from doing all sorts of bad things in the community and simply claiming it's part of their persona.

The particulars of GP drama aren't relevant to the resolution, though. If you want to discuss the matter you can send me a TG, I suppose.

[Lysandrion]

The problem isn't the idea of the proposal, it's the execution which isn't exactly perfect.

Perhaps that's part of it, but I think the problem is more so the fact that I credited as co-author a player who powerful Gameplayers don't like.

As a nation that has been resting peacfully in CTE in 2022 and that opposed both iterations of this proposal, I can't help but view this explanation as a coping mechanism. Wording flaws and authors' impressive degree of resistance to meaningful amendments (such as removing obvious logical fallacies reconstructing the necessity test) in favour of minor, incremental word-by-word corrections seem much more relevant to creating the opposition aginst the proposal than some behind-the-scenes meddling by the powers that be. Yet, since we see genuine progress in the draft being made only once the previous iteration is defeated, then maybe a change of approach would be in order.

[Elwher]

The language of the bill makes it sound like it would end affirmative action or any other protections put in place by individual powers to combat racism.

And one of the reasons Elwher opposed this measure was that it did not prohibit such programs. Discriminatory laws are discriminatory, no matter what group they enhance or penalize.

[The Overmind]

The language of the bill makes it sound like it would end affirmative action or any other protections put in place by individual powers to combat racism.

And one of the reasons Elwher opposed this measure was that it did not prohibit such programs. Discriminatory laws are discriminatory, no matter what group they enhance or penalize.

Not this again.

[The Marineri Islands]

I am not at all enmeshed in WA politics and the minutiae of its workings, but I do believe that an "egalitarian" system does not have a resolution that fails when the number of "for" voters is over 2 000 more than the number of "against" voters. I understand that the endorsement system is what it is, but at what point is the discrepancy between actual number of votes for either side too large to ignore?

[The Overmind]

I am not at all enmeshed in WA politics and the minutiae of its workings, but I do believe that an "egalitarian" system does not have a resolution that fails when over the number of "for" voters is over 2 000 more than the number of "against" voters. I understand that the endorsement system is what it is, but at what point is the discrepancy between actual number of votes for either side too large to ignore?

If you're referring to my telegram campaign, that was about this vote, which ended with a margin of approximately 100 votes difference fifty minutes after I sent the telegram. Neither that telegram nor this thread is about the current at-vote.

[The Marineri Islands]

If you're referring to my telegram campaign, that was about this vote, which ended with a margin of approximately 100 votes difference fifty minutes after I sent the telegram. Neither that telegram nor this thread is about the current at-vote.

I understand what happened. My comment has nothing to do with you or your telegram (although I do appreciate it as I would have missed this vote without your 'kick to the backside').
I'm complaining into the void about the way the WA works in general. Votes like these are statistical edge cases, but as we have seen in real life, these edge cases are popping up more frequently...

[Fishelle]

I'm still against the resolution, with Astrobolt being the only possible link to my decision and the whole drama.

The proposal had a bit of ambiguity, which can lead to serious consequences if someone were to misinterpret or take it literally in character.

[Kenmoria]

I'm still against the resolution, with Astrobolt being the only possible link to my decision and the whole drama.

The proposal had a bit of ambiguity, which can lead to serious consequences if someone were to misinterpret or take it literally in character.

(OOC: I would take into account GA #654, Civil Charter of the World Assembly, the third clause of which mandates interpretation in good faith. While this doesn’t mean that ambiguity is completely fine, it does mean that a small amount of leeway isn’t fatal to a draft.)

[Ignis Ferreus]

OOC: Very disappointed to see a tag WA TG was sent to XKI members without our approval, in contravention of the Respect Our Vote Act.

Apologies; it was marked as a campaign telegram, so I was under the impression that it would not go to anyone who had campaigns blocked.

Who does this apply to exactly? I'm intrigued now.

[Lysandrion]

I'm still against the resolution, with Astrobolt being the only possible link to my decision and the whole drama.

The proposal had a bit of ambiguity, which can lead to serious consequences if someone were to misinterpret or take it literally in character.

(OOC: I would take into account GA #654, Civil Charter of the World Assembly, the third clause of which mandates interpretation in good faith. While this doesn’t mean that ambiguity is completely fine, it does mean that a small amount of leeway isn’t fatal to a draft.)

I do not think good faith is aactually an issue here. Like with the predecessor, though to a lesser extent, the draft is shaped in a way which can result in even good faith interpretations coming out awkwardly problematic in the ocntext of what the resolution tries to prevent e.g. the necessity to demonstrate a strict, objective and natural relation between race/ethnicity and a given role/responsibility, which favours reductionist and stereotype-based approaches to, among others, employment criteria.