Repeal "WA General Fund" (Looking for AProvals)

[GraVandius]

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #17: WA General Fund (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Argument:This Assembly,

HAS THE OBLIGATION to fund all of it's programs created under approved resolutions.

IS CONCERNED that GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 17 would generate insufficient funds to support all the programs of the World Assembly.

THE SYSTEM of relying on the good will of member nations and private organizations to fund programs that are necessary to provide rights and justice to those who have been victims of tyranny is irresponsible.

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #17 "WA General Fund"

[Kaboomlandia]

It's a good idea to draft these things on the forum before submitting them.

[GraVandius]

It's a good idea to draft these things on the forum before submitting them.

yea but i write a bunch of political papers in real life so i figured i'd be fine.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's a good idea to draft these things on the forum before submitting them.

yea but i write a bunch of political papers in real life so i figured i'd be fine.

OOC: I hope they don't pay you too much for that.

IC: "The reasoning behind this is terrible. "Theres no way the General Fund can pay for everything, so we're better off having nothing!" is a terrible way to improve upon the perceived problem. The donations are not ruled to be voluntary, for all that the phrasing is meant to lull one into that mindset. The GA is not allowed to levy taxes on member's citizens, and any attempt to require membership fees will simply make the World Assembly less attractive to developing and non-member states."

[Jarish Inyo]

It's debatable if the donations are voluntary or mandatory. I've yet to see it actually stated that is mandatory. Many believe and state that it is mandatory. The text as written, with the common definition of the words, clearly states its voluntary. As fenestrated by this appeal.

To the author, you're opening a can of worms with this. Good luck. I look forward to seeing the debate on this appeal.

[GraVandius]

The Resolution says "Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states" Donation usaly means it is voluntary. The donations should be mandatory with a minimum requirement.

[Jarish Inyo]

I argued that myself. Many said that that part doesn't matter. Many point to clause 4 as to making it mandatory.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It's debatable if the donations are voluntary or mandatory. I've yet to see it actually stated that is mandatory. Many believe and state that it is mandatory. The text as written, with the common definition of the words, clearly states its voluntary. As fenestrated by this appeal.

To the author, you're opening a can of worms with this. Good luck. I look forward to seeing the debate on this appeal.

He's opening a can of worms? You're the one deliberately trying to start yet another "donations are voluntary"/"No they're not!" threadjack.

[GraVandius]

It's debatable if the donations are voluntary or mandatory. I've yet to see it actually stated that is mandatory. Many believe and state that it is mandatory. The text as written, with the common definition of the words, clearly states its voluntary. As fenestrated by this appeal.

To the author, you're opening a can of worms with this. Good luck. I look forward to seeing the debate on this appeal.

He's opening a can of worms? You're the one deliberately trying to start yet another "donations are voluntary"/"No they're not!" threadjack.

Since you wrote it why dont you settle the argument?

[GraVandius]

I argued that myself. Many said that that part doesn't matter. Many point to clause 4 as to making it mandatory.

"4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;" The clause donent really state that donation are mandatory justt that they will be assessed. I think it need to be clearer.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

...and earlier in the resolution it states that the GAO "collects" said assessments. I don't think it could be clearer than that.

[Jarish Inyo]

He's opening a can of worms? You're the one deliberately trying to start yet another "donations are voluntary"/"No they're not!" threadjack.

Since you wrote it why dont you settle the argument?

He can't. We had this debate a few months ago. He tried using definitions that weren't common to the words to prove it was mandatory. He states that the content of clause 4 makes it mandatory. I countered using what he refers to 'the most common definitions' which showed that it was voluntary. I also pointed out that the entire content of GAR#17 shows that it is voluntary.

How is is threadjacking when considering the repeal is based on the resolution stating that is is voluntary? The author sees donations as voluntary. Others are stating that they are not. So, the "donations are voluntary"/"No they're not!" is already part of this repel. Trying to deny that it isn't and blame me for starting it is fallacy.

Again, because you and many others state its mandatory doesn't make it so. I've never seen a ruling that it is mandatory. By consensus of the majority, it is stated that it is mandatory. Not by what is written in the resolution. There are flaws in GAR#17. It doesn't do what it was intended to do.

[Jarish Inyo]

...and earlier in the resolution it states that the GAO "collects" said assessments. I don't think it could be clearer than that.

Actually, it doesn't state that the GAO "collects" said assessments. It states collects donations. Nothing about collecting the assessments mentioned in clause 4.

[GraVandius]

...and earlier in the resolution it states that the GAO "collects" said assessments. I don't think it could be clearer than that.

That's actualy not that clear. to collect donations still means the are voluntary. they may be "encouraged" but still voluntary.

[Separatist Peoples]

...and earlier in the resolution it states that the GAO "collects" said assessments. I don't think it could be clearer than that.

That's actualy not that clear. to collect donations still means the are voluntary. they may be "encouraged" but still voluntary.

OOC: it helps to poit out that Jarish Inyo was the only individual taking that position, the long established interpretation being that those donations, while potentially voluntary, are not always. This is something players would have helped you addressed had you bothered posting on the forums before submitting.

[Jarish Inyo]

That's actualy not that clear. to collect donations still means the are voluntary. they may be "encouraged" but still voluntary.

OOC: it helps to poit out that Jarish Inyo was the only individual taking that position, the long established interpretation being that those donations, while potentially voluntary, are not always. This is something players would have helped you addressed had you bothered posting on the forums before submitting.

Actually. I wasn't. Others supported the idea that it was voluntary. It is just that I was the most vocal. Most fell inline with donations are mandatory.

As Separatist People points out, the majority interpret donations as mandatory. But as the general rule is that the law does what it states it does. As such, a few of us do not agree with the majorities established interpretation.

There are valid arguments on both sides to support either interpretation.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

...and earlier in the resolution it states that the GAO "collects" said assessments. I don't think it could be clearer than that.

That's actualy not that clear. to collect donations still means the are voluntary. they may be "encouraged" but still voluntary.

Maybe the actual text of the resolution might help clear things up:

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Nothing whatsoever about "encouragement" of donations. However, it does state that the GAO "assesses" donations and "collects" them from member states. In other words, it doesn't matter if it specifically tells member states to pay, because it requires the GAO to collect - meaning one way or another, someone's going to be demanding their money.

Seems quite clear to me.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it doesn't mean anyone someone is going to be demanding 'their money'. It authorizes the GAO to collect donations. That is no different the a organization authorizing someone to go door to door or a side walk Santa to soliciting donations. Donations are freely given, not coerced. It also authorize the GAO to set a estimate the amount of the value of a donation based on the according to donors' national wealth and ability to give. And while the GAO can easily determine a nation's wealth, it can not determine a nation's ability to give. A nation's ability to give is determined by the nation.

Again, it comes down to one's interpretation based on what the text says.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

That's actualy not that clear. to collect donations still means the are voluntary. they may be "encouraged" but still voluntary.

Maybe the actual text of the resolution might help clear things up:

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Nothing whatsoever about "encouragement" of donations. However, it does state that the GAO "assesses" donations and "collects" them from member states. In other words, it doesn't matter if it specifically tells member states to pay, because it requires the GAO to collect - meaning one way or another, someone's going to be demanding their money.

Seems quite clear to me.

Now, we've been over this before. As we commented in the previous discussion on this issue, the preamble to GAR #17 makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

We are aware of the counter-argument that preambulatory clauses are not operative. However, as we stated earlier, preambulatory clauses establish the context by which the operative clauses can be understood. The problem with GAR #17 is the word "assessed" in Clause 4. "Assess" can have two meanings: "to calculate the value or worth of something", or "to impose a charge". To resolve this ambiguity, we have to determine the context in which that the word is being used. And, based on the preamble, the context implies that it is the former, not the latter meaning that should be used.

All that having been said, we are not in support of repealing GAR #17. As ambiguous as its wording may be, it still serves a useful purpose. Given the sheer size of the economy spanned by the nations in this Assembly, even a voluntary donation program can provide the WA with the all of the funding it needs. Our bottom line: It ain't broke, so don't try to "fix" it.

[GraVandius]

Maybe the actual text of the resolution might help clear things up:


Nothing whatsoever about "encouragement" of donations. However, it does state that the GAO "assesses" donations and "collects" them from member states. In other words, it doesn't matter if it specifically tells member states to pay, because it requires the GAO to collect - meaning one way or another, someone's going to be demanding their money.

Seems quite clear to me.

Now, we've been over this before. As we commented in the previous discussion on this issue, the preamble to GAR #17 makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

We are aware of the counter-argument that preambulatory clauses are not operative. However, as we stated earlier, preambulatory clauses establish the context by which the operative clauses can be understood. The problem with GAR #17 is the word "assessed" in Clause 4. "Assess" can have two meanings: "to calculate the value or worth of something", or "to impose a charge". To resolve this ambiguity, we have to determine the context in which that the word is being used. And, based on the preamble, the context implies that it is the former, not the latter meaning that should be used.

All that having been said, we are not in support of repealing GAR #17. As ambiguous as its wording may be, it still serves a useful purpose. Given the sheer size of the economy spanned by the nations in this Assembly, even a voluntary donation program can provide the WA with the all of the funding it needs. Our bottom line: It ain't broke, so don't try to "fix" it.

8 people have aporved it thogh

[Separatist Peoples]

Now, we've been over this before. As we commented in the previous discussion on this issue, the preamble to GAR #17 makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

We are aware of the counter-argument that preambulatory clauses are not operative. However, as we stated earlier, preambulatory clauses establish the context by which the operative clauses can be understood. The problem with GAR #17 is the word "assessed" in Clause 4. "Assess" can have two meanings: "to calculate the value or worth of something", or "to impose a charge". To resolve this ambiguity, we have to determine the context in which that the word is being used. And, based on the preamble, the context implies that it is the former, not the latter meaning that should be used.

All that having been said, we are not in support of repealing GAR #17. As ambiguous as its wording may be, it still serves a useful purpose. Given the sheer size of the economy spanned by the nations in this Assembly, even a voluntary donation program can provide the WA with the all of the funding it needs. Our bottom line: It ain't broke, so don't try to "fix" it.

8 people have aporved it thogh

OOC: 8 out of, what, 1200 delegates? Even the Rubber Stamp Brigade, who approve anything for fun, didn't touch it. Sorry, but I don't think you can get this anywhere.

[GraVandius]

8 people have aporved it thogh

OOC: 8 out of, what, 1200 delegates? Ben the Rubber Stamp Brigade, who approve anything for fun, didn't touch it. Sorry, but I don't think you can get this anywhere.

yea i figured

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: 8 out of, what, 1200 delegates? Ben the Rubber Stamp Brigade, who approve anything for fun, didn't touch it. Sorry, but I don't think you can get this anywhere.

yea i figured

I could post one about "public assistance for goth dolphins" and could get 8 approvals. There are a handful of delegates who approve, literally, anything posted.

[Shazbotdom]

"Can I just burn this one? Please?"

*looks up at the Secretariat*

[Caracasus]

yea i figured

I could post one about "public assistance for goth dolphins" and could get 8 approvals. There are a handful of delegates who approve, literally, anything posted.

To be fair, if you posted "Public assistance for goth dolphins" we believe it would get significantly more votes than 8. Our bet would be that at least 30 or so delegates would approve it.