Silly and/or Illegal GA Proposals. zOMG!

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Knowing that only trained military officials will be put in command of the militias

Realizing that the nations' government will issue the weapon to the members of the militias will be allow to bring their own weapons

Knowing that all militia members will have background checks before they are allow to join

Understanding that the nations' government will have complete control over the militias and the weapon that are provide

Those are all operative clauses. Also why would this need to be Intsec? Does this increase police or military budgets? Kaboom you really need to stop now. You do not understand the categories it is clear, and now you are just posting for the sake of posting.

[Kaboomlandia]

Knowing that only trained military officials will be put in command of the militias

Realizing that the nations' government will issue the weapon to the members of the militias will be allow to bring their own weapons

Knowing that all militia members will have background checks before they are allow to join

Understanding that the nations' government will have complete control over the militias and the weapon that are provide

Those are all operative clauses. Also why would this need to be Intsec? Does this increase police or military budgets? Kaboom you really need to stop now. You do not understand the categories it is clear, and now you are just posting for the sake of posting.

Gun control only addresses private gun ownership. The proposal in question deals with military ownership of guns.

[Bezombia]

Knowing that only trained military officials will be put in command of the militias

Realizing that the nations' government will issue the weapon to the members of the militias will be allow to bring their own weapons

Knowing that all militia members will have background checks before they are allow to join

Understanding that the nations' government will have complete control over the militias and the weapon that are provide

Those are all operative clauses. Also why would this need to be Intsec? Does this increase police or military budgets? Kaboom you really need to stop now. You do not understand the categories it is clear, and now you are just posting for the sake of posting.

How on earth is 'creating militias' the same as gun control? The proposal makes no effort to actually relax gun control like the catagory states...in fact it implies the opposite, with the line "only members of the militias will be armed" pointing to a distinctly anti-relaxation intent. It most certainly is the wrong category.

Also, the entire proposal was just written...wrongish. Having four operative clauses that aren't even written as such isn't really proper syntax. Not illegal, but certainly silly. A nice "Hereby puts the above into effect" would certainly add to make the whole thing more professional.

Also, there's no reason to be so condescending, especially considering you're wrong. You either didn't read the proposal in question or are just looking for reasons to be argumentative.

[Defwa]

Knowing is not an operative clause as whether or not the WA knows something has zero impact on nations. Nations can be mandated to do things, they can be urged and then can not resist being urged, but I am unaware of any point in English in which one can know at another.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Also, there's no reason to be so condescending, especially considering you're wrong. You either didn't read the proposal in question or are just looking for reasons to be argumentative.

As I said earlier if one cannot take the time to craft their own legal proposal, whether or not it passes, they should not have the time to sit in this thread and point and laugh at people who are trying. Now take that as you will.

[The Lanthanides]

Knowing that only trained military officials will be put in command of the militias

Realizing that the nations' government will issue the weapon to the members of the militias will be allow to bring their own weapons

Knowing that all militia members will have background checks before they are allow to join

Understanding that the nations' government will have complete control over the militias and the weapon that are provide

Those are all operative clauses. Also why would this need to be Intsec? Does this increase police or military budgets? Kaboom you really need to stop now. You do not understand the categories it is clear, and now you are just posting for the sake of posting.

Gun control only addresses private gun ownership. The proposal in question deals with military ownership of guns.

This looks like a reference to the U.S. Constitution (Amendment 2) by a n00b who doesn't understand that such a thing does not exist in NationStates.

[Ardchoille]

I went with "no operative clause". Knowing, Understanding and Realizing are all things the WA is doing in that proposal, but there is no direct instruction to nations on what to do as a result of the WA knowing, understanding and realising -- ie, no active clause.

I agree that it's not a Gun Control proposal, as Gun Control says, "This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms." If it had had active verbs, the declared requirement to protect boarders (sic) and resist invading armies would move it out of GC. I think I'd try writing it as Disarmament, rather than IntSec, though -- you could argue that, by using militias who look after themselves and provide their privately-owned equipment, you are cutting the budget for provisioning, training, transporting and maintaining official troops.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I went with "no operative clause". Knowing, Understanding and Realizing are all things the WA is doing in that proposal, but there is no direct instruction to nations on what to do as a result of the WA knowing, understanding and realising -- ie, no active clause.

I agree that it's not a Gun Control proposal, as Gun Control says, "This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms." If it had had active verbs, the declared requirement to protect boarders (sic) and resist invading armies would move it out of GC. I think I'd try writing it as Disarmament, rather than IntSec, though -- you could argue that, by using militias who look after themselves and provide their privately-owned equipment, you are cutting the budget for provisioning, training, transporting and maintaining official troops.

I would disagree. This could be interpreted as requiring nation to know and realize. I agree the category may be a stretch, but even then.... I would have went with "honest mistake", and I hope you did not smash the author. This was very close to being a legal resolution, Was it a passable one? Hell no, but it was very close to legal.

[Bears Armed Mission]

I think the guy asked to have it yanked.

I sent him a polite TG explaining some of the illegalities, and the "three strikes" rule, and suggesting that he ask to have it removed.

[Bears Armed Mission]

]Peacekeeping Force
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The 2nd French Empire

Description: I would like to form a Peacekeeping Force to intervene in any Wars and keep Peace in the World

Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 90 more approvals)
Voting Ends: in 2 days 19 hours

Would break the "No WA Military" rule if it was actually written from the WA's viewpoint & had an operative clause...

[Bezombia]

Also, there's no reason to be so condescending, especially considering you're wrong. You either didn't read the proposal in question or are just looking for reasons to be argumentative.

As I said earlier if one cannot take the time to craft their own legal proposal, whether or not it passes, they should not have the time to sit in this thread and point and laugh at people who are trying. Now take that as you will.

Well that's your personal opinion, and your personal opinion doesn't write the rules of the thread. My point stands.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Nail and Hammer to the Barrel
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Losium

Description: We propose, for the sake of national security, lessened crime rates, lessened gun-associated death, and overall safety to the population of the world, that Gun Control is taken seriously.

-Should this resolution come to pass:

Crime rates would decrease.

-Murder rates would decrease.

-National Security would be able to focus on protection from foreign powers rather than domestic issues.

It is imperative that gun control is heavily tightened, for the safety of the world and the protection of the basic human right to safety

Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 90 more approvals)
Voting Ends: in 3 days 4 hours

Doesn't actually explain how it's supposed to reach the projected results...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I think the guy asked to have it yanked.

I sent him a polite TG explaining some of the illegalities, and the "three strikes" rule, and suggesting that he ask to have it removed.

There's a three-strikes rule?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I sent him a polite TG explaining some of the illegalities, and the "three strikes" rule, and suggesting that he ask to have it removed.

There's a three-strikes rule?

In general, you get two "freebies" before you're chucked. Usually, after your second deleted Proposal, you'll get a little note letting you know you're on your last chance (but if you don't, don't come crying to the Mods, ignorance of the law and all...). After the third deleted Proposal, you're out.

Exceptions to the Above

Exceptionally minor infractions will not receive a warning. Also, if you've accidentally posted your Proposal three times you probably won't be warned. Same if you realise your error and ask for it to be deleted before a Mod sweeps the list. The definition of "minor" is up to the Mod doing the sweep, of course.

Exceptionally severe infractions will earn you an instant kick. Usually these are Proposals that fall under the 'Grossly Offensive' group or have been plagiarised. Also, you may be ejected for a second infraction if you submit the exact same Proposal after having it be deleted by the Mods. Unless we expressly told you it was okay to repost, don't.

[Kaboomlandia]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
ID: khagland_1428971350

Universal Healthcare

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.


Category: Health

Area of Effect: Healthcare

Proposed by: Khagland

Description: It has come to my attention that some WA members don't have high healthcare in your nation this proposal is for safety and wellbeing of our citizens.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 90 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 2 hours

This does absolutely nothing, and seems like a "bloody stupid".

[Imperium Anglorum]

I really don't think it is a 'bloody stupid'. Its about healthcare, something which is a serious issue. If the inflatable Gandalf were proposed today, that would probably fall under the label, however hilarious it would be. Bloody stupid is about stuff like: 'murder all people who eat mushrooms and enslave all mushroom farmers', not 'we should increase healthcare funding'.

[Grays Harbor]

I really don't think it is a 'bloody stupid'. Its about healthcare, something which is a serious issue. If the inflatable Gandalf were proposed today, that would probably fall under the label, however hilarious it would be. Bloody stupid is about stuff like: 'murder all people who eat mushrooms and enslave all mushroom farmers', not 'we should increase healthcare funding'.

Saying you should increase healthcare, then listing how to do so, is reasonable.
Saying increase healthcare, and nothing else, is indeed bloody stupid

[Imperium Anglorum]

So you would extend the concept of 'bloody stupid' onto the eloquence of the speech and the veracity of its conveyance instead of the idea itself?

[Alotopia]

So you would extend the concept of 'bloody stupid' onto the eloquence of the speech and the veracity of its conveyance instead of the idea itself?

*SLOW CLAP*

[Grays Harbor]

So you would extend the concept of 'bloody stupid' onto the eloquence of the speech and the veracity of its conveyance instead of the idea itself?

I would extend it to when there is no idea. Just saying "more healthcare now!" is not a proposal, it is a bumpersticker.

[The Miskatonic Valley]

We need a resubmission of Inflatable Gandalf.

[Separatist Peoples]

We need a resubmission of Inflatable Gandalf.

Go for it.

[Grays Harbor]

We need a resubmission of Inflatable Gandalf.

Go for it.

Oy. That is all i have to say about that.

[Inflatable Gandalf]

We need a resubmission of Inflatable Gandalf.

Did someone knock?

[Flibbleites]

Novice Rights Act

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: Furtherment of Democracy


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Automobilius

Description: The World Assembly

Acknowledging that nations which have repeatedly violated the Rules for World Assembly Proposals are subject to ejection from this hallowed organisation,

Understanding the merits of such regulations,

Yet is Concerned by the unjust condemnation and ultimate ejection of fledgling nation-states for such violations which their founders have yet to understand,

Hereby Declares

1. A nation belonging to the World Assembly for less than nine days may be pardoned from ejection should they commit a third violation of proposal rules.
2. All novice states which commit such violations are subject to a thorough explanation of their wrongdoings.
3. Any nation, upon admission to the World Assembly, shall be notified of the three-strike system and their liberties granted by this act.

Hmm, looks like someone got ejected for submitting too many illegal proposals (which I said to myself prior to pulling up said nation in the modcentre).

Ban on WMD

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Navastrovia

Description: Defining WMD (weapons of mass destruction) as chemical, biological or radioactive weapons capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Understanding that these weapons indiscriminately target civilians.

Highlighting the need for a global ban on the development and use of these weapons.

Mandating the Establishment of the WMDNO (Weapons Of Mass Destruction Nonproliferation Organization) to investigate countries believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction.

Mandating that nations currently processing weapons of mass Destruction must destroy their chemical nuclear and biological arsenals within six months after the passing of this resolution.

Calling for the international condemnation of nations who fail to comply with this resolution.

Illegal, contradicts the NAPA.