[DEFEATED] Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"

[Wrapper]

"Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"" was defeated 13,737 votes to 5,692.

[Railana]

"Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"" was defeated 13,737 votes to 5,692.

I'd like to thank the delegates who did vote for this proposal and the GA regulars who expressed their support.

Rest assured, GAR #2 will be repealed eventually -- it's only a matter of time. See you in a few months!

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Astrolinium]

"Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"" was defeated 13,737 votes to 5,692.

I'd like to thank the delegates who did vote for this proposal and the GA regulars who expressed their support.

Rest assured, GAR #2 will be repealed eventually -- it's only a matter of time. See you in a few months!

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

This seems like an astoundingly clear mandate from the people that you should stop.

[Railana]

I'd like to thank the delegates who did vote for this proposal and the GA regulars who expressed their support.

Rest assured, GAR #2 will be repealed eventually -- it's only a matter of time. See you in a few months!

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

This seems like an astoundingly clear mandate from the people that you should stop.

((OOC: No, it really isn't. If enough delegates had initially stacked in favour, it would have passed by a landslide. Most people vote for the side that's winning -- that's how the GA works.))

[Linux and the X]

"Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"" was defeated 13,737 votes to 5,692.

I'd like to thank the delegates who did vote for this proposal and the GA regulars who expressed their support.

Rest assured, GAR #2 will be repealed eventually -- it's only a matter of time. See you in a few months!

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

So you admit that your plan is to keep wasting the WA's time with this until you manage to shove it through?

[Railana]

I'd like to thank the delegates who did vote for this proposal and the GA regulars who expressed their support.

Rest assured, GAR #2 will be repealed eventually -- it's only a matter of time. See you in a few months!

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

So you admit that your plan is to keep wasting the GA's time with this until you manage to shove it through?

I imagine you must oppose Responsible Arms Transfers on those grounds, then, since this is Sciongrad's third or fourth attempt?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Linux and the X]

I imagine you must oppose Responsible Arms Transfers on those grounds, then, since this is Sciongrad's third or fourth attempt?

Attempts that have resulted in substantive changes. You, on the other hand, have not — and cannot — make any substantive changes.

[Bears Armed]

Rest assured, GAR #2 will be repealed eventually -- it's only a matter of time.

Before or after 'NAPA'?

[Railana]

I imagine you must oppose Responsible Arms Transfers on those grounds, then, since this is Sciongrad's third or fourth attempt?

Attempts that have resulted in substantive changes. You, on the other hand, have not — and cannot — make any substantive changes.

"Substantive changes"? Sciongrad can't change the fact that they are ultimately proposing a form of World Assembly arms control, which is the root of the opposition to their proposal. But the reality is that Sciongrad is going to keep pushing forward with what they view as good policy -- regardless of what others think -- in the hope that the voters will eventually come to agree with them. I intend to do the same. This is simply how the GA works, and there really isn't anything more to discuss.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperium Anglorum]

in the hope that the voters will eventually come to agree with them

OOC: Well, they did, for like, eight days some time last year.

[Separatist Peoples]

Attempts that have resulted in substantive changes. You, on the other hand, have not — and cannot — make any substantive changes.

"Substantive changes"? Sciongrad can't change the fact that they are ultimately proposing a form of World Assembly arms control, which is the root of the opposition to their proposal. But the reality is that Sciongrad is going to keep pushing forward with what they view as good policy -- regardless of what others think -- in the hope that the voters will eventually come to agree with them. I intend to do the same. This is simply how the GA works, and there really isn't anything more to discuss.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

OOC: Ah, so the Nice Guy^TM Strategy? Does the campaign come with a matching Fedora and Friend-Zone shirt? Scion's proposals have been massively edited at every stage to adjust to criticism. This hasn't. I wouldn't complain so much if it went through the same kind of rewrites to adjust to criticism received.

[Linux and the X]

"Substantive changes"? Sciongrad can't change the fact that they are ultimately proposing a form of World Assembly arms control, which is the root of the opposition to their proposal. But the reality is that Sciongrad is going to keep pushing forward with what they view as good policy -- regardless of what others think -- in the hope that the voters will eventually come to agree with them. I intend to do the same. This is simply how the GA works, and there really isn't anything more to discuss.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

OOC: Ah, so the Nice Guy^TM Strategy? Does the campaign come with a matching Fedora and Friend-Zone shirt? Scion's proposals have been massively edited at every stage to adjust to criticism. This hasn't. I wouldn't complain so much if it went through the same kind of rewrites to adjust to criticism received.

As a repeal, though, it really can't go through substantive rewrites. The arguments may change, but the effect remains the same.

[Wallenburg]

"Oh shit oh shit oh shit!" shouts a Wallenburgian aide as he rushes into the chamber. "I'm late. So late! Oh, I'm so getting fired!"

He throws an envelope at a random desk and bolts out of the room.

Wallenburgian Cabinet of War
Message from Representative Mikael Ogenbond

---

Considering the gravity, precedence, and importance of "Rights and Duties of WA States", I am immediately reluctant to support any attempt to repeal it. The target of this repeal is the foundation upon which the concepts of compliance and national sovereignty rest. The target is a well-established law that guarantees the rights and equality of member nations, while holding them responsible to fulfilling their responsibilities under international law. I cannot accept flaws in repealing this resolution, or in replacing it with different laws.

As it stands, flaws, shortcomings, and controversies plague the history of this repeal. In the author's previous attempt to repeal the target, he also proposed a replacement--and a terribly-written one at that--under the false flag of a puppet government. The Secretariat also shot down his previous attempt at a repeal for illegalities. Since then, very few changes have been made to this repeal attempt, with the majority of the clauses identical to those of the resolution discarded years ago. Among those clauses that have changed, only slight alterations mask their original phrasing, with practically no change in meaning or effect. I see no reason to vote in favor of a resolution that copies almost the entirety of a previous resolution, even if the same ambassador has written both of them.

As to the text of this repeal, several clauses perplex me. It considers the allowance for mutually consensual warfare "morally repugnant", yet strongly suggests that member states should invade other member states under the auspices of "humanitarian intervention". Furthermore, the fifth and sixth clauses repeat the same message, a needless and verbose redundancy that greatly damages the quality of the overall text. Lastly, it claims that the target's prohibition of a World Assembly military force harms the international community, when it most certainly has guaranteed peace and kept countless citizens of World Assembly member nations alive, given the propensity of militaries to violate the rights of citizens, and to invade nations under false pretenses.

As I have explained, repealing "Rights and Duties of WA States" requires a very compelling argument to win my support. Not only does this repeal fail to offer such an argument, but it also highlights several facets of the target that make it indispensable as a piece of World Assembly legislation. Therefore, I cast the Wallenburgian vote against this misguided and lazily-written repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: (my own concluding thoughts on this matter) Combing through the archive, I believe the plagiarism basis was either dealt with at the time, though I lack evidence to that effect, or was simply not dealt with, which seems likely, given that no mention of plagiarism is made in any of the threads below. To that end, Frisbeeteria outright states, in the archives:

Frisbeeteria
12-02-2004, 07:51
The Genesis of Rights and Duties of UN States

I can't claim credit for a lot of this material. The original draft of this document was a very lightly adapted copy of an early draft from the real world United Nations, called "A Declaration on Rights and Duties of the United Nations." It started with 14 articles, including a significant one on human rights and quite a bit more on the topic of war. I'm sorry to say I've lost the original link, and http://www.un.org is just a bit too sweeping for me to find it again. (Source)

Frisbeeteria
02-04-2008, 21:20
This faintly worries me, but only to the extent of the fuzziness of "all its legal powers". Would I be right to assume that anything the WA passes a resolution to declare illegal is no longer a "legal power" that a member state has any right to exercise?

The original source of this document (since heavily modified for NS) was a UN document called A Declaration of Rights and Duties of UN Member States. That phrase survives unchanged from the source. I don't feel it needs additional fine-tuning, but I'll listen to suggestions. (Source)

I doubt that if plagiarism was a rule at the time, such a clear and upfront post, made shortly before the resolution was to go to vote, would have not been challenged. There is only one person in the threads above which seeks to have the author kicked from the UN. Naturally, that (1) did not happen and (2) that post made no relevant (in the UN Final Discussion thread) arguments on plagiarism anyway. Due to their relevance, however, I have provided links to all archived threads on the subject which I have found, in chronological order:

UN Draft: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/306349
UN Draft: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/307015
UN Final Drafting Thread: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/309312
UN Final Discussion: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/310660

UN Vote Against Thread: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/312732
UN Vote Against Thread: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/312804

UN Query Thread: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/506002

UN Repeal Draft: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/384073

2 GA Official Thread: https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/553178

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I doubt that if plagiarism was a rule at the time, such a clear and upfront post, made shortly before the resolution was to go to vote, would have not been challenged.

1) It was a rule,

2) I can't really say why Fris wasn't called on it. Not even gruen/quod/tdsr, who became one of R&D's biggest critics, raised a peep. Possibly because Fris indicated that it had been "heavily modified", possibly because no one wanted to challenge a mod on the rules. (I'm speaking of the '08 version; I wasn't around for the '04 one.)


EDIT: whoops, wasn't paying attention to the dates! Slight gravedig.

[John Turner]

I doubt that if plagiarism was a rule at the time, such a clear and upfront post, made shortly before the resolution was to go to vote, would have not been challenged.

1) It was a rule,

2) I can't really say why Fris wasn't called on it. Not even gruen/quod/tdsr, who became one of R&D's biggest critics, raised a peep. Possibly because Fris indicated that it had been "heavily modified", possibly because no one wanted to challenge a mod on the rules. (I'm speaking of the '08 version; I wasn't around for the '04 one.)


EDIT: whoops, wasn't paying attention to the dates! Slight gravedig.

Gravedig or not, it is still a legitimate concern. Plagiarism was a rule at the time, and this was pushed through pretty fast. Seeing as how the mods didn't have the discard function back then, there was nothing they could do about it, not that I am overly confident they would have anyway.

So let's sum this up shall we:

Fris passes a resolution that is heavily plagiarized and is a metagaming disaster, yet no actions are taken.

Auralia tries to repeal said resolution, using the WA Charter Working Group and said resolution is deemed illegal on a branding violation after it is passing in a landslide.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Plagiarism was a rule at the time, and this was pushed through pretty fast. Seeing as how the mods didn't have the discard function back then, there was nothing they could do about it, not that I am overly confident they would have anyway.

The author was a mod, and a senior one at that, and the thinking back then was likely, "If a mod can do it, it must be OK." So players didn't gripe, the mods of course weren't about to moderate a senior moderator, and the whole thing was just very messy. Which isn't to say Fris wasn't a spectacular mod. He was and is - head and shoulders above any of the current WA crop, and I dearly wish he were still actively modding the GA.

Besides which, I was eventually forced to agree with that discard ruling. Not that it was "advertising," but by choosing the name "World Assembly Charter Group" and using the WA flag the author really was trying to imply broad-based, top-level support that simply did not exist. As far as I know the only actual "members" of the so-called "working group" were Auralia and GR.

[Hostanea]

banana

[Railana]

Besides which, I was eventually forced to agree with that discard ruling. Not that it was "advertising," but by choosing the name "World Assembly Charter Group" and using the WA flag the author really was trying to imply broad-based, top-level support that simply did not exist. As far as I know the only actual "members" of the so-called "working group" were Auralia and GR.

"[I]mply[ing] broad-based, top-level support that simply did not exist" was not illegal, though.

[Louisistan]

Isn't that just desirable politicking?

[Losthaven]

Isn't that just desirable politicking?

Given that players get an official "World Assembly Compliance Commission" tg whenever something is passed, I believe part of the concern was that folks might think game mods, admins, or whathaveyou, were actively promoting the resolution. I seem to remember that being one of the issues.

Full disclosure: I was hard against repealing GA#2 back then though my position on that goal has reversed in more recent times.

[Sciongrad]

Isn't that just desirable politicking?

This is going to be one of those lines that people will whisper to each other and laugh at for years.