Advertisement
by Ainocra » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:40 pm
I've already told you, imperialism is not an ideology covered by GAR#2. Furthermore, this has less to do with how a colony is governed and more to do with the conditions on which it was created and whether or not its inhabitants find it acceptable.
by Sciongrad » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:46 pm
Ainocra wrote:I see little difference. I still suspect that the imposed democracy advocated in this proposal would amount to little more than this body forcing a form of government on a political subdivision of a sovereign nation.
You are incorrect, just because you may not like or approve of a particular form of government does not mean it is not covered.
oocly:
as for the confusion, your previous statements have read like a snake eating it's own tail. I suggest simplicity.
by Ainocra » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:49 pm
"Obviously there are nuances in this situation, but colonies that enjoy the same political equality as other, native regions of the Ainocran empire would likely not be covered by this resolution. This would be true for almost all instance of land that was previously unsettled. Provided that settled land was integrated into your empire, the WABD would have to make a determination based on demographics, whether or not the territory and its people consented to the process, etc. But I don't think it's too unclear. The definition on its own may include things that it shouldn't and vice versa, but the WABD is empowered to prevent this by making certain exceptions based on guidelines provided in the proposal."
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:00 pm
by Sciongrad » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:01 am
Ainocra wrote:Imperialism is not a form of government?
Are you denying the existence of Empires and Emperors in general?
If so I can provide you with many well documented historical examples Ambassador.
oocly:
nah it's cool I got it, but this it the one that read like you were both agreeing and disagreeing with me."Obviously there are nuances in this situation, but colonies that enjoy the same political equality as other, native regions of the Ainocran empire would likely not be covered by this resolution. This would be true for almost all instance of land that was previously unsettled. Provided that settled land was integrated into your empire, the WABD would have to make a determination based on demographics, whether or not the territory and its people consented to the process, etc. But I don't think it's too unclear. The definition on its own may include things that it shouldn't and vice versa, but the WABD is empowered to prevent this by making certain exceptions based on guidelines provided in the proposal."
I read it a few minutes after you posted it, but took nearly a day and a half to reply
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"You probably need a participle in Article 4 - hey, we need a clean-up in the kitchen area - such as 'assessing', 'overseeing', 'verifying', so as to read - onion rings are currently included in our jumbo offer - 'expanded to include assessing the legitimacy of'."
~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger
by Ainocra » Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:14 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:19 pm
Ainocra wrote:Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
by Sciongrad » Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:26 pm
Ainocra wrote:yes but I'm not declaring it to be an ideological ban ...
... but rather it violates GA2 by attempting to deny a sovereign nation it's choice of government under article 1
Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
by Ainocra » Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:36 am
by Sciongrad » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:42 am
Ainocra wrote:you're not trying to ban one type, you're trying to ban them all.
You're trying to tell a nation that it cannot govern it's territory in the manner it sees fit for no other reason than where it might be located.
I could under this proposal have 5 different colonies, one that was a democracy because the people there liked it that way, one a theocracy, because the people there were pious in the extreme, one a military base because security!
And they would all be illegal.
oocly:
no coffee yet this morning, but seriously there is no way to make this legal without repealing ga2.
by Defwa » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:54 pm
Ainocra wrote:you're not trying to ban one type, you're trying to ban them all.
You're trying to tell a nation that it cannot govern it's territory in the manner it sees fit for no other reason than where it might be located.
I could under this proposal have 5 different colonies, one that was a democracy because the people there liked it that way, one a theocracy, because the people there were pious in the extreme, one a military base because security!
And they would all be illegal.
oocly:
no coffee yet this morning, but seriously there is no way to make this legal without repealing ga2.
by Ainocra » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:30 pm
OOC: You're misinterpreting GAR#2. The clause you're citing is literally an IC representation of the ideological ban rule, which is not violated by this resolution because it doesn't make any ideology impossible. GAR#2 has nothing to do with this at all, and even if I repealed GAR#2 (assuming you were right), the rule would still exist. Furthermore, colonies are not automatically illegal under this resolution. The only absolutely illegal action is expropriating territory from other people.
by Sciongrad » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:36 pm
Ainocra wrote:
OOC: You're misinterpreting GAR#2. The clause you're citing is literally an IC representation of the ideological ban rule, which is not violated by this resolution because it doesn't make any ideology impossible. GAR#2 has nothing to do with this at all, and even if I repealed GAR#2 (assuming you were right), the rule would still exist. Furthermore, colonies are not automatically illegal under this resolution. The only absolutely illegal action is expropriating territory from other people.
oocly:
say it with me, the law does what the law says.
While I don't deny your aim, I'm telling you that you are missing the mark as it is written.
This, as written would serve to impose a democratic vote on the colonies of sovereign nations,
regardless of how they came to be colonies and regardless of the nation's form of government.
in essence, forcing democracy onto parts of a nation.
Even if you force it into a narrow set of circumstances unless GA2 gets a repeal then this simply can't be legal.
both from an ooc and an ic perspective.
I suggest a different approach, if you want to prevent hostile annexation of territory then write something mandating the return of occupied territory once the war/unrest/disaster/(insert circumstance of choice here) is over, dealt with and stability restored.
Sorry I wasn't too clear earlier, I plead industrial lack of caffeine.
by Ainocra » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:42 am
by Sciongrad » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:13 am
Ainocra wrote:oocly:
No you are missing the point, just because it has an OOC application doesn't mean we get to ignore it IC.
From an IC point nations get to pick their form of government , it's fairly straightforward. forcing a form of governance onto them they didn't choose simply isn't allowed, even in small doses.
I do agree with you though, we should get a mod ruling on it.
Ardchoille wrote:But if a series of resolutions seems to gradually make it more and more difficult to keep a nation on a particular [ideology], it's a player problem. There's plenty that can be done in-game about it and plenty of time to do it. It's not a one-proposal problem, it's not a one-proposal solution, and (again, IMHO) mods should keep our noses out of it. We're not supposed to play the game for you.
by Ainocra » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:40 am
by Sciongrad » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:28 pm
Ainocra wrote:oocly:
I don't think that ruling would apply in this case, this (as currently written) doesn't chip away at, it would serve to bypass entirely a protection guaranteed to nations even if on a small scale.
I say kick over to the mods and see what they say.
Though honestly given the level of opposition this has already garnered you might be better off dropping the idea.
Unless of course you wanna keep arguing
by Mousebumples » Sun May 04, 2014 8:50 am
by The Eternal Kawaii » Sun May 04, 2014 8:01 pm
by Sciongrad » Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:48 pm
The Eternal Kawaii wrote:In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised
We are very hesitant to support this legislation due to the makeup of the Kawaiian nation. Our people are a "stateless nation", existing in exile on lands borrowed or rented from other nation-states. As a result, the Kawaiian people are scattered about the world in what could be argued as tribal "colonies", each bound to the central Church authority.
We have worked long and hard to sustain the unity of Kawaiian nationhood through the enforcement of Church law in each tribal land. Can the Ambassador assure us that this resolution cannot be interpreted such that a tribe could declare independence from the mother Church, thus creating schism and threatening the integrity of Kawaiian culture?
by Ainocra » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:17 pm
by Jarish Inyo » Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:22 am
by Lexicor » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:31 pm
by Mundiferrum » Sat Aug 09, 2014 11:58 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement