Advertisement
by Opaloka » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:01 pm
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:08 pm
by Unibot II » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:10 pm
Knootoss wrote:It will be funded by whatever mechanism a majority of the World Assembly decides upon. I don't have special powers.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:13 pm
by Ossitania » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:05 pm
Knootoss wrote:It will be funded by whatever mechanism a majority of the World Assembly decides upon. I don't have special powers.
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:08 pm
by Opaloka » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:13 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Knootoss wrote:My ancient General Fund Replacement is already public, as a matter of fact. However, I expect that the World Assembly will be energised by a vibrant debate on funding in the event of a repeal. My proposal will not be alone.
That proposal is also patently illegal. Even if it was legal, Knootoss would be attempting to replace an assured source of funding with private investment. Sorry, but Glen-Rhodes does not believe that private investment can pay all of the World Assembly's expenditures.
Furthermore, that is a situation we especially do not want to find the World Assembly in. If we are going to repeal the General Fund, then we need a viable replacement before submitting the repeal. Going months without a replacement is not acceptable.
- Dr. B. Castro
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:18 pm
by Ossitania » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:30 pm
Knootoss wrote:OOC: Go ask a mod. Honestly, though, this sort of arcane question about what will happen to the imaginary money of the imaginary programmes really isn't as important as the text of the resolution and the text of the repeal.
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:44 pm
by Opaloka » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:01 pm
by Ossitania » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:03 pm
Knootoss wrote:OOC: No, because there is no way that Aram wouldn't know unless nations were forced to hand over secret amounts of their own money, to some unknown place, to spend on programmes that they would have no earthly idea about. You are asking me to answer a question that is impossible to answer in an effort to prevent anything from ever being done about the WA general fund. That is fearmongering, pure and simple.
Knootoss wrote:Gameplay-wise, the World Assembly does not spend money. The taxes that are raised as a consequence of social justice proposals etc. are always spent in nations' own jurisdictions, resulting in more welfare, better education etcetera. Those effects will not go away if WAGFA is repealed. Does that answer your question?
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:10 pm
Ossitania wrote:I've asked for a mod opinion, as you suggested, not a ruling, just an opinion.
by Mahaj » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:13 pm
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations
by Opaloka » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:37 pm
by Astrolinium » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:39 pm
by Connopolis » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:41 pm
Opaloka wrote:Ooc: so imaginary, imaginary imaginary the point is this is very bad role-play , in reality international organisations have to be funded. The game won't allow us to amend existing legislation which is the way real legislations work. Here knootos you don't have a viable legal replacement, yet you lie in tg's that you have.
There should be consequences to repeals, if you stop the funding of a body you kill it. You wouldn't be allowed a 'abolish WA' proposal yet this the same thing.
The mods should have declared this illegal.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:43 pm
Astrolinium wrote:On the off chance that this passes, there will be a replacement proposed. Perhaps by me. Perhaps the Mahaji Ambassador. Maybe even Bob Flibble.
And I daresay you won't like it, Koopman.
by Opaloka » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:43 pm
Connopolis wrote:Opaloka wrote:Ooc: so imaginary, imaginary imaginary the point is this is very bad role-play , in reality international organisations have to be funded. The game won't allow us to amend existing legislation which is the way real legislations work. Here knootos you don't have a viable legal replacement, yet you lie in tg's that you have.
There should be consequences to repeals, if you stop the funding of a body you kill it. You wouldn't be allowed a 'abolish WA' proposal yet this the same thing.
The mods should have declared this illegal.
The WAGF would still exist in order to fulfill obligations in resolutions where it's referenced directly, however, the difference would be that member-states would not be forced to fund the World Assembly. Bear in mind, all of this is besides the point, because there are viable replacements that would ensure a reliable method of funding; although Your Excellency has shown time and time again that he has no interest in using any sort of logic or reason when considering the arguments prevented by Mr. Koopman.
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:08 am
Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:Knootoss wrote:Becausepublic spending without fairness, transparency and honesty is prone to corruption and bereft of responsibility.
We agree. However, you have not answered our question. Why is a fair, transparent and honest debate necessary?The fact that several authors who are keen on big spending resolutions are outright stating that they like the fact that WA General Fund cheats the voters out of their money is deeply disturbing.
Have they? Could you give us a few examples, please?
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Astrolinium » Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:59 am
Knootoss wrote:Astrolinium wrote:On the off chance that this passes, there will be a replacement proposed. Perhaps by me. Perhaps the Mahaji Ambassador. Maybe even Bob Flibble.
And I daresay you won't like it, Koopman.
I'm still opposed to repeal and replace. Anyway, what I like is immaterial. A majority of the voters would have to like the replacement, and that is heartening.
by Knootoss » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:14 am
by Ainocra » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:55 am
by Flibbleites » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:43 am
Knootoss wrote:Go rant somewhere else, comrade. How you draw the inference that the whole nation of Knootoss "hates friendship" from the fact that we'd like a less deceptive bill to regulate revenue from the WA is beyond me... but I don't really care to hear it either.
(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss
by Frisbeeteria » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:06 am
Ossitania wrote:Again, I'm curious about international organisations like the ICC and ITA that presumably draw their funding from the WAGF. I've asked for a mod opinion, as you suggested, not a ruling, just an opinion.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement