Advertisement
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:38 pm
by Unibot III » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:02 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Flib never intended NAPA (Nuclear Arms Possession Act) to legalize deployment or use of nuclear weapons, just their possession as a deterrent. He was not a mod when he wrote it, either. In fact, he keeps threatening to pass a even broader NAPA if the first were ever repealed, allowing nations to use nukes as well as possess them.
Flib wrote:There is another option that would not require repealing this proposal, should it pass. The World Assembly could pass a resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Possession would be legal, and any member of the World Assembly could stockpile as many as desired. Using them, however, would not be allowed while preserving the right to possess.
This omission of a "right to use" has been noted in the discussion and announced to be a deliberate omission. ("Yeah, that's a bone I throw the anti-nuke crowd, not that they ever notice.") A future resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't therefore be considered a back-door repeal as the "right to use" has purposefully been left out.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:05 am
Unibot III wrote:For some reason, I recalled Flib being peeved when the mods ruled that usage was still allowed to be discussed.
Nonetheless, there's a lot of conceptual problems with banning usage but not banning possession -- there's no deterrence effect if your enemies know you can't use them and so it's just an invitation to stockpile dangerous weapons which can be stolen.
by Unibot III » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:18 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Not exactly helping your case that this isn't simply troublemaking for the sake of it.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:30 pm
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:48 pm
by Unibot III » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:02 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Unibot III wrote:
Personally, I don't like blockers, I find they're a cop-out and I would like to see Clean Prostitute Act off the books.
OOC: Which has absolutely no relation to your original complaint, which was that Clean Prostitute Act didn't do a good enough job of being a blocker.
So, thanks, for making me regret taking you seriously for even half a second.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by The Dourian Embassy » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:07 pm
Unibot III wrote:That is however, not really relevant to the discussion.
by Unibot III » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:06 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Bears Armed » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:47 am
Unibot III wrote:Nonetheless, there's a lot of conceptual problems with banning usage but not banning possession -- there's no deterrence effect if your enemies know you can't use them and so it's just an invitation to stockpile dangerous weapons which can be stolen. :S
by Unibot III » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:04 am
Bears Armed wrote:Unibot III wrote:Nonetheless, there's a lot of conceptual problems with banning usage but not banning possession -- there's no deterrence effect if your enemies know you can't use them and so it's just an invitation to stockpile dangerous weapons which can be stolen. :S
Except that you can -- and your enemies know that you can -- drop out of the WA and then, without any delay, use them...
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Unibot III » Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:22 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Ardchoille » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:06 pm
by Unibot III » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:48 pm
Ardchoille wrote:Bump noted. Hang in there, please, things have been a little hectic.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Unibot III » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:53 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Ardchoille » Wed May 14, 2014 6:38 am
Unibot III wrote: <snip>This critical sentence can be interpreted in two different senses:1) In international law, member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over the question of prostitution's legalization within each of their own nations.
2) The question of prostitution's legalization shall be decided by member-nations within the confines of international law -- this is to say, that member-nations shall be the arbiters of the issue, but not necessarily for each of their own nations.
Unibot III wrote:<snip>On Prostitution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong
Believing that whether to legalize prostitution or not should be left to member nations to make within the confines of international law,
Understanding that this resolution seeks the approval of member-nations within the confines of international law,
Hereby,
1. Legalizes prostitution in all member-nations.
2. Decriminalizes prostitution in all member-nations.
Reference Questions:
1. Would this draft contradict the "Clean Prostitute Act"?
2. Would C.1 contradict "Clean Prostitute Act"?
3. Would C.2 contradict "Clean Prostitute Act"?
Ardchoille wrote:As we all know, the only legal way to totally reverse or amend an existing, international Resolution is to repeal it.
However, many nations use ingenious roleplayed national approaches to regulate, mitigate, enthusiastically promote, or even cancel out, the effects of Resolutions on their citizens.
But these are notoriously difficult to translate to international law because of the risk of contradiction, duplication or amendment of the existing Resolution. Or they may push the Assembly into more than it agreed to, as with recent attempts to regulate circumcision after the approval of the blocker Permit Male Circumcision.
<snip> ... the overall ruling is that authors cannot regulate an existing Resolution out of existence or into reversal. You may regulate, particularly if the original Resolution contains some “does not exclude further legislation” wording. But mods may still make the call that X amount of regulation goes too far. This did.
CPA wrote:DECREES that the decision regarding whether or not to legalize prostitution shall be left to member nations to make within the confines of international law
by Percussionland » Wed May 14, 2014 9:23 am
by Defwa » Wed May 14, 2014 9:36 am
Percussionland wrote:There is a proposal to repeal this resolution gathering approval now.
by Mousebumples » Wed May 14, 2014 12:23 pm
Percussionland wrote:There is a proposal to repeal this resolution gathering approval now.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement