[BRIBED] Repeal: WA General Fund

[Opaloka]

Marx's beard!!!

If delegates pass this there will be no funding for various activities that member nations have democratically descided are of importance. Please read the original act, it is clearly based on ability to pay thus even the smallest nation can join for what is a reasonable fee.

What is likely to replace this ? Case by case funding & attendant additional bureaucracy? Flat fees to exclude the poor?

As we have said in reply to his 3! Tgs if you don't want to pay the entrance fee don't join.

The Workers' & Soldiers' Government looks forward to news that ambassador koopman will be spending more time with his train set.

[Knootoss]

"Excuse me, but this is moon logic. Considering that the World Assembly has been passing mandates to spend money left and right and the WAGF is compelled to fund it all, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the amount imposed upon nations would be 'reasonable'. In fact, the WAGF does not make it at all clear what kind of mechanism it uses to determine what is 'reasonable' and even pretends that its donations are not mandatory. All we really know right now is that we do not know."

OOC: I sent my 3! telegrams to answer your insulting remarks so I'm not sure what is bad about that. Would you prefer that I not answer your telegrams in the future? Because that can be arranged.

[Unibot II]

It will be funded by whatever mechanism a majority of the World Assembly decides upon. I don't have special powers.

What if it agrees to a mandatory donation system?

[Knootoss]

A donation is a gift. Mandatory gifting is a contradiction in terms. So a "mandatory donation system" is merely an attempt to deceive the voter. (Knootoss, for the record, does not fork over its "donation" for precisely this reason.)

[Ossitania]

It will be funded by whatever mechanism a majority of the World Assembly decides upon. I don't have special powers.

By this do you mean that its funding will be defined in a new resolution or are you taking a "sure, it'll sort itself out" view on the matter? If it's the former, how will it be funded until the new resolution is passed? If it's the latter, aren't you taking a big risk with some of our international infrastructures?

[Knootoss]

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.

[Opaloka]

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

Well ambassador koopman has accused our delegate of insulting him, well here is another based on the exchange quoted above:

Ambassador Koopman is a barefaced liar! The fascist entity 'knootos' is an enemy of international co-operation & friendship & should be wiped from the face of the nationstates universe!

Nonetheless the long suffering but peacefull people of opaloka are reasonable and will be prepared to accept the entity 'knootos' exiting the WA.

Ooc: can't take insults don't send tg's!

[Knootoss]

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.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Ossitania]

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.

OOC: My questions about what will happen to the imaginary money of the imaginary programmes are just as valid as your complaints about the way the imaginary money of the imaginary programmes is imaginarily taken from your imaginary nation by the imaginary enforcers of the imaginary laws of the imaginary international organisation which imaginarily governs much of the imaginary world. I was querying IC an ambiguity that I felt was created by the somewhat unique nature of the WAGF, you didn't have to go OOC to inform me that you haven't a clue. Would it have really killed Koopman that much just to say "I don't know"?

[Knootoss]

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.

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?

[Opaloka]

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.

[Ossitania]

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.

OOC: Your claims might hold weight if I'd never actually expressed any opposition to this resolution. As it is, I'm asking these questions to formulate a position on this proposal based on what it would actually do. If I am right and this repeal would not alter the mechanism by which the WAGF is funded, then it doesn't actually do anything. if I'm wrong and it does alter the mechanism, I want to know if it will affect the continuation of existing services. I could care less about the WAGF, I'm curious about the international organisations it funds. If it will impede their functioning, I am opposed. If it will not, then hooray, full support, down with WA taxes (assuming it actually gets rid of them).

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?

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.

[Knootoss]

OOC: I've placed Opaloka on ignore because he has now started to out of character accuse me of "lying" (false), saying that I do not have a viable replacement (false), that repealing Wafga would somehow kill the entire WA (false) and that the mods should have declared this illegal for that reason. (Hasn't happened.)

If someone else wants to argue with him, be my guest, but I don't really care to argue with those types of OOC accusations.

I've asked for a mod opinion, as you suggested, not a ruling, just an opinion.

Good. That's where those types of questions should go.

[Mahaj]

What? nooooo


and that was all that could be heard from the office.

[Opaloka]

'Did he not call our original arguement moon logic?'

'Yes comrade ambassador'

'Did he not imply in his tg that there were multiple replacements being considered?' 'Yes!'

'And his own proposal refered in the quote is illegal?' 'Yes!'

'Well I have an appointment with some opalokan ale and with any luck this will die the death it deserves and we have the promise of no more communications from the wooden headed cretin, all in all a result.'

[Astrolinium]

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.

[Connopolis]

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.

[Knootoss]

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.

[Opaloka]

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.

If member states do not fund the WA who does? Ambassador koopman's fairies perhaps? I suggest the opponents of this nonsense are the only ones employing reason & logic.

Nice flag by the way, black bird in a white circle on a red flag how very appropriate. (We also love reason & logic 'prevented' by koopman- spellcheckers don't yer love 'em)

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Yes, Koopman is easily the most annoying, blunt, and unkind ambassador in the WA. Now, in case he's forgotten:

Because public 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?

[Astrolinium]

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.

Actually, if what I suspect about the lemmings is correct, a few delegates would have to like it and a majority of players would have to like the title.

[Knootoss]

Libraria and Ausitoria: If you consider fairness, honesty and transparency to be unimportant, then you have very little standing indeed to call anyone out on their "niceness". As for delegates that have stated that they like the fact that WA General Fund cheats the voters out of their money, just read what has been said in the transcript. If you are unwilling to actually read through the debates, I find myself unwilling to do the nosecount for you..

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra supports this repeal.

[Flibbleites]

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

Mr. Koopman, a less deceptive bill was tried and it failed. What makes you think that a less deceptive bill would pass now?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Frisbeeteria]

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.

All WA resolutions are funded (or repeals de-funded) at the time of their passage by making one-time adjustments to national budgets and laws. The WA has no independent source of funds to maintain committees, promote projects, fund grants, or pretty much anything else. The existence of WA internal organizations is therefore the collective responsibility of member nations (i.e. via roleplay and per the content of passed resolutions) and not of the Secretariat.