NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: how many ambassadors do you know that, as currently roleplayed, seem like they can read?

OOC: Most, from what I can tell. Whether they are sober enough to read correctly is another question.
OOC: I can recall one off hand who was illiterate and that nation isn't active anymore.
OOC: Well two if you assume that potted plants have no visual organs whatsoever. But what if it was in braille?

Most, how is that relevant to this topic?

Percussionland wrote:Most, how is that relevant to this topic?

OOC: ah. I see you are against humor in the drafting process. Odd that you'd resist that when even supporters of a repeal of the target resolution don't support your draft...if you'd prefer we not soften our criticism with jokes, I, at least, will oblige.

Percussionland wrote:A better proposal would mandate the delegate in charge of voting on behalf of the nation read the resolution, not just some lowly intern. As it is, this resolution is unenforceable, useless, and a waste of time.

Spending eight days of voting time (repeal + replacement) debating how ambassadors make voting decisions is an even bigger waste of time. The resolution has made its point -- someone should be reading these things we enact -- so let's just leave it there. No need to compound the problem further with a lengthy debate over who should be doing the reading.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Percussionland wrote:Most, how is that relevant to this topic?

OOC: ah. I see you are against humor in the drafting process. Odd that you'd resist that when even supporters of a repeal of the target resolution don't support your draft...if you'd prefer we not soften our criticism with jokes, I, at least, will oblige.

I am fine with jokes, provided they do not mock other ambassadors trying to assist me in the drafting process.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Percussionland wrote:A better proposal would mandate the delegate in charge of voting on behalf of the nation read the resolution, not just some lowly intern. As it is, this resolution is unenforceable, useless, and a waste of time.

Spending eight days of voting time (repeal + replacement) debating how ambassadors make voting decisions is an even bigger waste of time. The resolution has made its point -- someone should be reading these things we enact -- so let's just leave it there. No need to compound the problem further with a lengthy debate over who should be doing the reading.

If a low level intern with no say reads the resolution, then how does whether or not a resolution is read make any difference? Nobody who votes has to read it! This legislation is riddled with loophole and is completely useless at best.

Percussionland wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: ah. I see you are against humor in the drafting process. Odd that you'd resist that when even supporters of a repeal of the target resolution don't support your draft...if you'd prefer we not soften our criticism with jokes, I, at least, will oblige.

I am fine with jokes, provided they do not mock other ambassadors trying to assist me in the drafting process.

OOC: As soon as I see any, I'll be sure not to joke with them.

Very funny, I do have some support from this draft, and I will hopefully gather more as I improve this during the drafting process.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Percussionland wrote:Most, how is that relevant to this topic?

OOC: ah. I see you are against humor in the drafting process. Odd that you'd resist that when even supporters of a repeal of the target resolution don't support your draft...if you'd prefer we not soften our criticism with jokes, I, at least, will oblige.

OOC: I won't.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Percussionland wrote:While allowing a better written proposal on the same topic to be written that will improve democracy from where it is now in WA member states.

Wait. You're doing this so you can write another proposal about reading the resolution?!? Whatever point the WA was trying to make with RTRA has already been proved...what what be the purpose of another one?

And did you read my response to your argument at all?

Kenny and I don't agree on much, but I will agree with him in this case. RTRA was pointless, but it's even more pointless to repeal it so that Percussionland can author a replacement. I'll be against such a waste of GA's time.

I now see that a new law would be illegal by the WA rule not to force roleplay on others, so I have abandoned that. I would like to ask the more experienced ambassadors supporting a repeal, is there a way to point this out about GA #122 without breaking the rule itself in doing so?