[DRAFT] Convention on Local Demilitarisation

[The Ice States]

I challenge the legality of the resolution on the grounds that the "staff" ruling in the queue has not been handed down yet and whether the gnomes are Helldiving(TM) in whatever uniform (clause 5a of this resolution) is also NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the GA, if their employment conditions are not subject to it in the first place.

Admittedly I don't understand the issue; requiring committee members to wear some uniform is a duty of the committee. Establishing some duty on a committee is not illegal.

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

At this point, as it's April Fool's Day*, here's choreographers for the dance of the Survivors of Catherine Gratwick's Gnome Guillotine™️ . Make-up. Directors. Costumes. Rehearsals. A full orchestra.

At this point the songs started:


"How members are chosen is up to us"
"It's not for the GA to just tell us"

"And Cathy G says "off with your heads!"
"But here we are cos we can't be dead"

"We can't go on Cathy's new warfare
cos they want us to wear headwear"

"We want GA to give the go-ahead"
"To join IPF though we don't have heads"


(OOC)
Yes there's a legality challenge that gnomes don't necessary need to have heads (happy April Fool's Day by the way), so the argument is essentially that (1) there's forced imposition of RP and (2) violation of the committee rule that 'how members are chosen' is not up to GA.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=548642

*Christmas Island as of the posting of this message.

[Fachumonn]

I personally don't know what you're on, but personally I just don't see this as illegal.

[The Ice States]

It appears this missed quorum, so it would be resubmitted in the next days.

[Simone Republic]

I still think gnomes don't need heads (or headwear) to serve in the WA army. Robots don't necessarily have to have heads either.

[The Ice States]

I still think gnomes don't need heads (or headwear) to serve in the WA army. Robots don't necessarily have to have heads either.

No other committee employs headless gnomes, so it should be fine that the IPF doesn't either.

[Simone Republic]

I still think gnomes don't need heads (or headwear) to serve in the WA army. Robots don't necessarily have to have heads either.

No other committee employs headless gnomes, so it should be fine that the IPF doesn't either.

Your discrimination against headless gnomes is shocking.

More important, robots also don't need heads. The fact that robots have heads is simply to make them more palatable to cartoons.

[The Ice States]

No other committee employs headless gnomes, so it should be fine that the IPF doesn't either.

Your discrimination against headless gnomes is shocking.

More important, robots also don't need heads. The fact that robots have heads is simply to make them more palatable to cartoons.

The robots can just install themselves heads if they want to serve.
-----
On a serious note, I intend to submit this weekend; any last-minute comments would be appreciated!

[Simone Republic]

Your discrimination against headless gnomes is shocking.

More important, robots also don't need heads. The fact that robots have heads is simply to make them more palatable to cartoons.

The robots can just install themselves heads if they want to serve.
-----
On a serious note, I intend to submit this weekend; any last-minute comments would be appreciated!

Obviously you can reverse my argument and say that gnomes being mystical can wear whatever they want using such means as whatever Catherine Gratwick determines. It's a mystical story anyway.

[The Ice States]

Any final objections?

[Tigrisia]

I am also unconvinced by the final argument; this instantly changes the scope of the IPF's mandates from 'observance of the zone' to 'waging war'; the purpose of the IPF in this resolution is squarely the former."

Ambassador, do I see it correctly that IPFs are not allowed to defend oneselves?

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

[The Ice States]

I am also unconvinced by the final argument; this instantly changes the scope of the IPF's mandates from 'observance of the zone' to 'waging war'; the purpose of the IPF in this resolution is squarely the former."

Ambassador, do I see it correctly that IPFs are not allowed to defend oneselves?

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

"We do not believe they would be prohibited from self-defense, so long as this does not include hostility towards to a member nation."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Ooc: As a note, given that NS is down I would be open to withdrawing and resubmitting when it comes back up, if there is an issue raised now.

[Tigrisia]

"We do not believe they would be prohibited from self-defense, so long as this does not include hostility towards to a member nation."

That means that if a member state would attack IPF soldiers, they are not allowed to defend themselves and conduct defensive operations? Please be aware that such operations may include "firing back" and are not neccesarily limited to deflective actions such as the downing of attacking missiles, e.g. you may need to disable the tank to stop a tank from attacking your base.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

[The Ice States]

"We do not believe they would be prohibited from self-defense, so long as this does not include hostility towards to a member nation."

That means that if a member state would attack IPF soldiers, they are not allowed to defend themselves and conduct defensive operations? Please be aware that such operations may include "firing back" and are not neccesarily limited to deflective actions such as the downing of attacking missiles, e.g. you may need to disable the tank to stop a tank from attacking your base.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

"Thank you for the elaboration, Ambassador. With this further argumentation I am now inclined to agree. We planned on withdrawing the proposal regardless due to the recent apocalypse until the bureaucracy is fully functional again; as such, the resubmitted version will include an exception for self-defense."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Orcuo]

Unsupport; you power-hungry WA elitists have no bounds! I’ll violate all the demilitarized zones I want and there is nothing y’all can do to stop me!

[Simone Republic]

"ersonnel" isn't a thing. Also the mystical creatures can't wear helmets thing still hasn't been sorted.

Also I am opposed to new resolutions while access to the forum is choppy at best. I barely managed to connect after having to switch from a WiFi to a fixed line and waited for like an hour and a half.

[The Ice States]

"ersonnel" isn't a thing. Also the mystical creatures can't wear helmets thing still hasn't been sorted.

Thanks for the pointing out that typo! Admittedly I didn't notice that until now given that it was a last-minute change to accomodate Tigrisia's comments while remaining under the character limit. I probably won't withdraw this to fix that as the campaign is already halfway-through and this has already been withdrawn and resubmitted enough times anyway. As to gnomes I still don't think that's an issue; the last paragraph of the relevant ruling [1] would seem to reject this argument.

Also I am opposed to new resolutions while access to the forum is choppy at best. I barely managed to connect after having to switch from a WiFi to a fixed line and waited for like an hour and a half.

The forums will likely be fine by the time this hits vote.

[The Overmind]

Unsupport; you power-hungry WA elitists have no bounds! I’ll violate all the demilitarized zones I want and there is nothing y’all can do to stop me!

Yeah, there is.

[Simone Republic]

"ersonnel" isn't a thing. Also the mystical creatures can't wear helmets thing still hasn't been sorted.

Thanks for the pointing out that typo! Admittedly I didn't notice that until now given that it was a last-minute change to accomodate Tigrisia's comments while remaining under the character limit. I probably won't withdraw this to fix that as the campaign is already halfway-through and this has already been withdrawn and resubmitted enough times anyway. As to gnomes I still don't think that's an issue; the last paragraph of the relevant ruling [1] would seem to reject this argument.

(OOC)

Actually I have the exact opposite reading, but need to ask Imperium Anglorum on what he means here. I would have read "(i)nner workings and logistics of committees" (in paragraph 12 of the ruling) to rule out the specification of blue helmets. This is different to IRL about sticking a Red Cross or Red Crescent on things.

Also there's the issue about whether the blue helmets are a bit too close to UN standards, although the United Nations Blue is a bit closer to azure than blue given the color (2925, C80 M20 Y0 K0). This is needlessly skating close to UN branding.

(IC)

"No, the headless gnomes ain't coming back even though The Ice States wrote that RP." An ursine assistant says. "Don't do the same joke twice in the same thread, unless it's cannibalism."

[The Ice States]

Snip

Ooc: The challenge seems to have been dismissed and withdrawn now anyway, so this matter is moot.

[The Ice States]

Bump.