Illegal GA Proposals 2nd edition

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Regarding what it's supposed to accomplish, it seems to be an attempt to close taxation loopholes (such as stuffing one's money in swiss Karabani banks) based on the body of the text. I have to confess it was kinda difficult to pick out what it was without going over it multiple times, and the title definitely doesn't help.

That should be up to the nation to close or not close "loopholes", not the WA using a badly worded one size fits nobody decree

Indeed. Even if this were to somehow make it to vote, it would get shot down very quickly.

[Grays Harbor]

Recognize roosters' holiness

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: 3 zuckerbrins

Description: Roosters are holy animals. We should recognize this fact and ban any violence against them.

woo-freaking-hoo. another joke proposal.

[Wallenburg]

woo-freaking-hoo

I think you meant "cock-a-doodle-doo".

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Recognize roosters' holiness

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: 3 zuckerbrins

Description: Roosters are holy animals. We should recognize this fact and ban any violence against them.

woo-freaking-hoo. another joke proposal.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's a joke with 100% certainty. Could be someone role-playing a militant theocracy.

Still, it's a bloggy one-liner and definitely isn't an international issue. I also have a gut feeling that it conflicts with something.

[Bears Armed]

I also have a gut feeling that it conflicts with something.

GA Resolution #267, 'Sensible Limits on Hunting'.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Nation's Border Security
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: AGENTS OF TRUTH

Description: Applauds the World Assembly for taking time and effort to pass laws that further the World's efforts to become better place.

Description: The World Assembly,

I. Recognizing, The rising threat of free travel between nations, as with the increase of terrorism,

II. Wanting to reduce this threat to all member states, by encouraging such member states to build ample border protections, such as a fence, or wall, where economically feasible,

III. Admits this resolution does not require, but only encourages member nations to protect themselves,

IV. Hopeful that further legislation that improves upon this base is made to help member nation states protect themselves from such threats acknowledged in II.

Thankful for the General Assembly for taking its time to review this piece of legislation
Co-Authored by member nation states from Nova Civicus

Approvals: 2 (AGENTS OF TRUTH, The Anarchic fascist republic of an isle)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 91 more approvals)
Voting Ends: in 2 days 15 hours

Wrong category, branding, no operative clause. I'll send the author a TG of advice.

Repeal "Freedom of Assembly"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#27
Proposed by: Civilisunio

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #27: Freedom of Assembly (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Nations of the world assembly,

NOTICING that, the resolutions author includes strict rules that prevent abuse of protest.

APPLAUDING The rules stated within the resolution.

NOTICING That this resolution caters to democratic nations and excludes the ideas of more "Radical" nations.

PROPOSING That this resolution be repealed due to it infringing the right of more "Radical" nations by not allowing them to run their.nation based on their ideas and values.

HEREBY Repealing GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 27

Approvals: 2 (The Anarchic fascist republic of an isle, NewTexas)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 91 more approvals)
Voting Ends: in 2 days 15 hours

Wouldn't that count as a NatSov-only argument?

[Wallenburg]

Wouldn't that count as a NatSov-only argument?

It probably also violates the Honest Mistake rule.

[Grays Harbor]

Gun Sales Regulation

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control

Decision: Tighten

Proposed by: Purple Rabbits

Description: Description: The General Assembly,

CONCERNED about the safety of citizens across national borders that could be jeopardized by gun violence,

FURTHERED CONCERNED that a fugitive or terrorist could purchase a weapon overseas to use violently,

RECOGNIZING that citizens within some countries need guns to protect themselves,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that different countries have rights to their own gun laws,

HEREBY

1. Opposes permitting fugitives from any nation purchasing rifles and other guns in nations apart of the World Assembly,

2. Promises that all nations will:

a) Run background checks on all potential gun owners,

b) Consider the risks that come with allowing criminals to possess weapons,

c) Forbid international terrorists from purchasing weaponry,

d) Protect their citizens adequately against questionable gun buyers,

3. Establishes that any measures that could potentially prevent gun violence should be taken,

4. Requires that all nations keep track of gun owners within their borders,

5. Further requires that all nations carefully investigate all foreigners interested in purchasing guns,

6. Promotes receiving sale records from private gun sellers within a nation,

7. Recognizes that each nation holds a right to their own gun laws.

How quaint. "Don't let criminals have guns, and Do Something!!! about legal guns."
Calling Dr Feelgood ...

Pretty much just vague-ish platitudes that would do not a thing.

[Calladan]

Gun Sales Regulation

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control

Decision: Tighten

Proposed by: Purple Rabbits

Description: Description: The General Assembly,

CONCERNED about the safety of citizens across national borders that could be jeopardized by gun violence,

FURTHERED CONCERNED that a fugitive or terrorist could purchase a weapon overseas to use violently,

RECOGNIZING that citizens within some countries need guns to protect themselves,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that different countries have rights to their own gun laws,

HEREBY

1. Opposes permitting fugitives from any nation purchasing rifles and other guns in nations apart of the World Assembly,

2. Promises that all nations will:

a) Run background checks on all potential gun owners,

b) Consider the risks that come with allowing criminals to possess weapons,

c) Forbid international terrorists from purchasing weaponry,

d) Protect their citizens adequately against questionable gun buyers,

3. Establishes that any measures that could potentially prevent gun violence should be taken,

4. Requires that all nations keep track of gun owners within their borders,

5. Further requires that all nations carefully investigate all foreigners interested in purchasing guns,

6. Promotes receiving sale records from private gun sellers within a nation,

7. Recognizes that each nation holds a right to their own gun laws.

How quaint. "Don't let criminals have guns, and Do Something!!! about legal guns."
Calling Dr Feelgood ...

Pretty much just vague-ish platitudes that would do not a thing.

Actually I thought it was kind of forceful and entirely contradictory

Clauses 1, 2c, 2d, 3, 4, 5 (ish) and 6 all require us to enact certain gun laws, but Clause 7 tells us "we have a right to our own laws" - meaning we can do what we want in relation to any laws about guns. So - which is it? Do we have to write a law stopping international terrorists from buying guns (And what about domestic terrorists, by the way? Do we just let them continue buying arms to shoot and kill our people?? And what is an international terrorist? Someone from Genovia who buys guns in Calladan then returns to Genovia to kill only Genovians? Or someone from Genovia who comes to Calladan to buy guns to kill Calladanians? Or someone from Genovia who buys guns in Genovia to come to Calladan to kill Calladanians?) or do we have the right - in our own gun laws - to not write a law stopping international terrorists?

(there is a chance I have put too much thought in to this)

[Grays Harbor]

Gun Sales Regulation

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.


Category: Gun Control

Decision: Tighten

Proposed by: Purple Rabbits

Description: Description: The General Assembly,

CONCERNED about the safety of citizens across national borders that could be jeopardized by gun violence,

FURTHERED CONCERNED that a fugitive or terrorist could purchase a weapon overseas to use violently,

RECOGNIZING that citizens within some countries need guns to protect themselves,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that different countries have rights to their own gun laws,

HEREBY

1. Opposes permitting fugitives from any nation purchasing rifles and other guns in nations apart of the World Assembly,

2. Promises that all nations will:

a) Run background checks on all potential gun owners,

b) Consider the risks that come with allowing criminals to possess weapons,

c) Forbid international terrorists from purchasing weaponry,

d) Protect their citizens adequately against questionable gun buyers,

3. Establishes that any measures that could potentially prevent gun violence should be taken,

4. Requires that all nations keep track of gun owners within their borders,

5. Further requires that all nations carefully investigate all foreigners interested in purchasing guns,

6. Promotes receiving sale records from private gun sellers within a nation,

7. Recognizes that each nation holds a right to their own gun laws.

How quaint. "Don't let criminals have guns, and Do Something!!! about legal guns."
Calling Dr Feelgood ...

Pretty much just vague-ish platitudes that would do not a thing.

Actually I thought it was kind of forceful and entirely contradictory

Clauses 1, 2c, 2d, 3, 4, 5 (ish) and 6 all require us to enact certain gun laws, but Clause 7 tells us "we have a right to our own laws" - meaning we can do what we want in relation to any laws about guns. So - which is it? Do we have to write a law stopping international terrorists from buying guns (And what about domestic terrorists, by the way? Do we just let them continue buying arms to shoot and kill our people?? And what is an international terrorist? Someone from Genovia who buys guns in Calladan then returns to Genovia to kill only Genovians? Or someone from Genovia who comes to Calladan to buy guns to kill Calladanians? Or someone from Genovia who buys guns in Genovia to come to Calladan to kill Calladanians?) or do we have the right - in our own gun laws - to not write a law stopping international terrorists?

(there is a chance I have put too much thought in to this)

(yeah, there MAY have been just a tad bit of over-thinking there.)

[Bears Armed]

or do we have the right - in our own gun laws - to not write a law stopping international terrorists?

See GA Resolution #25.

[Kryozerkia]

Actually I thought it was kind of forceful and entirely contradictory

Clauses 1, 2c, 2d, 3, 4, 5 (ish) and 6 all require us to enact certain gun laws, but Clause 7 tells us "we have a right to our own laws" - meaning we can do what we want in relation to any laws about guns. So - which is it? Do we have to write a law stopping international terrorists from buying guns (And what about domestic terrorists, by the way? Do we just let them continue buying arms to shoot and kill our people?? And what is an international terrorist? Someone from Genovia who buys guns in Calladan then returns to Genovia to kill only Genovians? Or someone from Genovia who comes to Calladan to buy guns to kill Calladanians? Or someone from Genovia who buys guns in Genovia to come to Calladan to kill Calladanians?) or do we have the right - in our own gun laws - to not write a law stopping international terrorists?

(there is a chance I have put too much thought in to this)

Indeed. I found it contradictory as well. Some elements are clearly about tightening existing gun laws, while others support relaxing. It also seems to contain elements that would fit neatly in International Security - background checks and tracking would likely involve the increase in police budgets and jurisdiction.

[Calladan]

or do we have the right - in our own gun laws - to not write a law stopping international terrorists?

See GA Resolution #25.

Okay - so we can't sell guns (or other weapons, although the proposal doesn't seem to care about anything other than guns, which is a bit odd because I would imagine a hand grenade or RPG in the hands of an international terrorist would probably do more damage than a rifle, but what do I know?) to international terrorists, but we can still sell them to domestic terrorists, providing they only use them against citizens of Calladan.

I realise it seems callous and cold, but if I were going to sell guns to terrorists, I would much prefer the terrorists go out and kill people who aren't Calladanian, since that will GREATLY reduce the chance of me, my wife, my seven children, my friends, my Tri-Arch and everyone else I know getting shot.

(Not that I would ever sell guns to terrorists. Mostly because I don't know any. And on the whole, terrorism is bad, m'kay?)

But anyway - since the proposal has vanished from the queue, there are probably better ways for me to spend my time than dissecting it any further, right?

[Alozia]

I think this one is both silly and illegal.

Abolish the WA
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Category: Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: Miarie

---

Description: You bean counting, pencil pushing bastards should all french kiss a shotgun.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1472154972

[De Dreamland]

Abolish the WA

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Strong

Proposed by:Miarie

Description: You bean counting, pencil pushing bastards should all french kiss a shotgun.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 91 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 6 hours

Umm.....

[Bears Armed]

See GA Resolution #25.

Okay - so we can't sell guns (or other weapons, although the proposal doesn't seem to care about anything other than guns, which is a bit odd because I would imagine a hand grenade or RPG in the hands of an international terrorist would probably do more damage than a rifle, but what do I know?) to international terrorists,

Well, if the sale takes place inside your nation then the clause about confiscating their equipment would presumably apply...

[Bears Armed Mission]

[b]Revitalization of agriculture
A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare
Proposed by: Aetulia

Description: As any nation in the world may have noticed, an increasing numer of farmers have started to use environmentally harmful substances sush as chemical fertilizers so their crops get richer, while the land they farm suffers from the toxic substances. Also, it has come to my attention as Emperor of Aetulia that, with every day that passes, more and more citizens of Aetulia and even more from abroad suffer from diverse diseases that affect their behaviour, their mind and, nevertheless, their lives.
While the argiculture might not benefit from our decision on this important matter, we cannot allow these harmful and dangerous substances to affect us any longer. The sulution we the people of Aetulia propose is that, firstly, farmers should no longer be allowed to use chemical fertilizers, but instead focuse on using natural fertilizers; secondly, the governments must periodically send authorized personell to check that our decision is respected, as many farmers will surely keep using their old methodes for a bigger profit; thirdly, the state authorities must get rid of all previously produced altered food so that it is no longer a threat to citizens.
That being said, we the people of Aetulia urge you to swiftly take action and ensure that public healthcare and well-being are top priotity.

Approvals: 1 (The Anarchic fascist republic of an isle)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 90 more approvals)
Voting Ends: in 3 days 4 hours

Branding and 'blogposal', at least, and whether it counts as having any effective operative clauses is questionable.
I'll be charitable, and presume that the spelling is correct according to that nation's own standard of English.

Also, I'll send the author a TG.

[Wallenburg]

Purge of corruption

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Aetulia

Description: The World Assembly, by the grace of God,
Shocked by the increasing number of corrupt politicians who take no interest in their nation's well-being,
Angered by these politicians' arrogance and selfish governance of their nations,
Recognising the future of a nation cannot be placed in the hands of corrupt politicians and governments,
Henceforth:
A. 1) defines "corrupt politicians" as any member of a political party or minister in a nation's government who either accepts or gives bribe, governs for his personal interest, commits tax evasion or steals money from the state;
2) defines "arrogant and selfish governance" as the way of governing for personal interest, showing no care for the citizens of the nation and their well-being;

B. 1) demands that every member of the World Assembly immediately arrest all known corrupt politicians and send them on trial;
2) demands that member nations issue a law to create Vigilantes, a division of police officers specialized in tracking down and arresting corrupt politicians;
3) demands that the newly formed Vigilantes be placed under the uncontested command of the Ministry of Justice;
4) demands that member nations cleanse their Ministries of Justice of any political influence repleces its members with specializez people with no political affiliation.

Category violation, bullshit understanding of member governments.

[Calladan]

Purge of corruption

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Aetulia

Description: The World Assembly, by the grace of God,
Shocked by the increasing number of corrupt politicians who take no interest in their nation's well-being,
Angered by these politicians' arrogance and selfish governance of their nations,
Recognising the future of a nation cannot be placed in the hands of corrupt politicians and governments,
Henceforth:
A. 1) defines "corrupt politicians" as any member of a political party or minister in a nation's government who either accepts or gives bribe, governs for his personal interest, commits tax evasion or steals money from the state;
2) defines "arrogant and selfish governance" as the way of governing for personal interest, showing no care for the citizens of the nation and their well-being;

B. 1) demands that every member of the World Assembly immediately arrest all known corrupt politicians and send them on trial;
2) demands that member nations issue a law to create Vigilantes, a division of police officers specialized in tracking down and arresting corrupt politicians;
3) demands that the newly formed Vigilantes be placed under the uncontested command of the Ministry of Justice;
4) demands that member nations cleanse their Ministries of Justice of any political influence repleces its members with specializez people with no political affiliation.

Category violation, bullshit understanding of member governments.

Also - if my Tri-Arch started governing in her personal interest, would that technically be a violation of this proposal since it is very specific about the gender of the person in Clause A1. (I am just asking out of interest - I am fairly sure Tri-Arch Doyle has no plans to start doing this).

[Grays Harbor]

Ban Male Genital Mutilation

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Jabrilia

Description: In many places, Female Genital mutilation is banned, or strictly frowned on. MGM isn't. Act 141 decreed that it was fine. This is outrageous as circumcision is harmful and every day hundreds of boys are put through this unnecessary torture. However, this is only part of the problem. Circumcision is the only surgery where amputation is performed before treatment, for a problem that doesnt exist yet. Doctors fail to properly and completely inform parents on the procedure. Parents should know the ins and outs of circumcision. They should be made to watch a video of the procedure before making their choice. Properly informed, many parents will not circumcise their sons and the movement to outlaw this barbaric practice will grow.
Many deaths happen yearly from complications. They do exist and here is a link that provides a list with what each complication is. Over 117 babies die yearly due to this.
Foreskin. Each gender has it. The foreskin adds more to the penis than just increased sexual functioning and pleasure. It keeps your baby’s penis safe, warm, clean, and moist. It allows the baby’s glans (head) to complete its development normally. The glans is meant to be an internal organ, covered and protected from the outside world.
No attempt should be made to retract the foreskin before the penis has fully developed. Premature retraction causes the glans to become dry, hard, and scarred. The foreskin protects the glans from injury simply by covering it. The first person to retract the foreskin and expose the glans should be the child himself, and only when the child is ready to do so. It is best that parents avoid concerning themselves with this natural process. All by themselves, little boys will make the discovery that their foreskin can be retracted.
To care for the foreskin is simple. It takes only a few more seconds in the shower or bath to clean. For a child that cant retract yet, pull the foreskin OUT, do not retract, if you absolutely have to clean it thoroughly. Otherwise leave it alone. Wash any crumbs, dirt, or other dirtiness off. This is the best form of washing until it can be retracted on its own (usually around puberty). By the time it retracts on it's own the owner of the penis should be able to clean himself efficiently. This is simpler than caring for a cut baby and uses half the time.
The foreskin doesn't get disposed of in a medical waste facility. Hospitals actually sell it. I decree that even for religious reasons, it should be banned. The only reason it should be used for, and only if direly needed, is for medical ONLY!

Get a blog

[Bears Armed]

Purge of corruption

Category violation, bullshit understanding of member governments.

Category violation brings it into 'Silly and Illegal', yes, but isn't your other comment really one to make [and explain, as politely as you can, to the author...] in a drafting & debate thread for the relevant proposal rather than here? Disagreeing with a proposal's basic presumptions doesn't automatically make them either silly or illegal, after all, and making such blunt comments [OOC] here seems more likely to deter new would-be authors than to encourage their improvement... and this author has improved their style significantly in the very short time since I TGed them about the problems with their previous proposal, so they might be one whose increased participation in the GA ia actually worth encouraging...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Purge of corruption

Category violation, bullshit understanding of member governments.

Category violation brings it into 'Silly and Illegal', yes, but isn't your other comment really one to make [and explain, as politely as you can, to the author...] in a drafting & debate thread for the relevant proposal rather than here? Disagreeing with a proposal's basic presumptions doesn't automatically make them either silly or illegal, after all, and making such blunt comments [OOC] here seems more likely to deter new would-be authors than to encourage their improvement... and this author has improved their style significantly in the very short time since I TGed them about the problems with their previous proposal, so they might be one whose increased participation in the GA ia actually worth encouraging...

(sarcasm) But isn't that the entire point! If we alienate anyone new from coming into the GA, we will have fewer alternate viewpoints to have to appease and fewer people who could write repeals of legislation I support!

[Hannasea]

But isn't that the entire point!

Yes, that has become the point of this thread, and has been for a long time.

[Bears Armed Mission]

But isn't that the entire point!

Yes, that has become the point of this thread, and has been for a long time.

But I'd rather try to salvage the thread than just have it ended, because I think that it could still be useful...

[Wallenburg]

Purge of corruption

Category violation, bullshit understanding of member governments.

Category violation brings it into 'Silly and Illegal', yes, but isn't your other comment really one to make [and explain, as politely as you can, to the author...] in a drafting & debate thread for the relevant proposal rather than here? Disagreeing with a proposal's basic presumptions doesn't automatically make them either silly or illegal, after all, and making such blunt comments [OOC] here seems more likely to deter new would-be authors than to encourage their improvement... and this author has improved their style significantly in the very short time since I TGed them about the problems with their previous proposal, so they might be one whose increased participation in the GA ia actually worth encouraging...

I don't think my assessment is all that harsh, and while I certainly don't want to scare away new potential authors, I felt that a candid assessment of this proposal was appropriate.