OOC: I thought you were defending Urgench.
Advertisement
by Nulono » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:30 pm
The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.
Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.
by Coxnord » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:36 pm
Nulono wrote:(to The Cat-Tribe) You are correct. My bad.
by Nulono » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:42 pm
Coxnord wrote:Nulono wrote:OOC: I thought you were defending Urgench.
OOC: Defending? No. Agreeing with? Yes. The character I RP asked your character to argue against Urgench rather than just calling him "anti-life". I don't understand what you meant by "I was responding to Urgench." I thought both of your last comments were directed at my character since you quoted him/me.
The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.
Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.
by Urgench » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:49 pm
Nulono wrote:Urgench's arguments against embryo adoption also apply to infant adoption.
by Kulaloe » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:32 pm
by Kulaloe » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:34 pm
Urgench wrote:Nulono wrote:Urgench's arguments against embryo adoption also apply to infant adoption.
No they don't the two things are totally different, one adopts a born child which has a right as a citizen to expect that it be properly cared for, and has rights in law as a citizen both in national law and in international law.
The foetus has none of these things and is not an orphan unless the state forces it to become one by farming it instead of allowing it to be aborted. The state has no interest in and no moral right to farm millions of foetuses to become orphans.
We do not recognise the concept of foetal adoption.
Yours,
by Coxnord » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:03 pm
3.2 Provide citizens of nations unwilling or unable to develop such technologies the opportunity to visit nations with such technologies so that they may have the services aforementioned. Such voyages shall be paid for by the World Assembly in cases where this is not financially feasible
Nulono wrote:(to The Cat-Tribe) You are correct. My bad.
by The Cat-Tribe » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:29 pm
Kulaloe wrote:I would like to bring to everyone's attention a certain fact. There are nations in this organization that have faster-than-light technology. The resources necessary to build and maintain one vessel capable of this feat is - pardon the pun - astronomical! Most of these faster-than-light capable nations have militaries with thousands if not [/i]millions[/i] of such vessels. I sincerely doubt that any civilization that can handle the construction and upkeep of one thousand starships would have any issue with financing a few million incubators. Hell the intergalactic travelling nations could probably handle trillions of them when you consider how advanced a culture would need to be to pull that off. The economics of this program is a non-issue.
As for duplication of GA 44, the only clauses I can see as being an issue are the ones calling for sharing the technology and advancing it. Yes, this is a pre-natal procedure, but so is abortion, and yet resolutions have been passed post-44 on this issue. What are your thoughts on changing the sharing and advancement clauses to include merely registering a nation's capabilities in this field? I would have to make it a social justice issue for sure then. Does this satisfy those who see it as a duplication? Cat-Tribe, as the WA's unofficial law expert, what are your thoughts?
Then there's the nationality issue. Does a clause mandating the citizenship of the resultant child be determined by the mother, between her own citizenship or the procedure performing nation? Or should it be up to each nation to treat this side of it as they see fit?
by Scolville Units » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:42 am
by Urgench » Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:01 am
Kulaloe wrote:I would like to bring to everyone's attention a certain fact. There are nations in this organization that have faster-than-light technology. The resources necessary to build and maintain one vessel capable of this feat is - pardon the pun - astronomical! Most of these faster-than-light capable nations have militaries with thousands if not [/i]millions[/i] of such vessels. I sincerely doubt that any civilization that can handle the construction and upkeep of one thousand starships would have any issue with financing a few million incubators. Hell the intergalactic travelling nations could probably handle trillions of them when you consider how advanced a culture would need to be to pull that off. The economics of this program is a non-issue.
by Urgench » Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:04 am
Kulaloe wrote:
Your Excellency, your nation must not have ever had surrogate mother or handmaid contracts in its past, has it?
by Ardchoille » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:25 am
Community Property wrote: I recognize OOC'ly that FT and PMT nations exist, as do PT nations. Up until now, most WA resolutions have been written with the implicit understanding that they must be (somewhat) relevant to all milieus. But what I haven't seen (although I have been fairly inactive of late) is a proposal that essentially requires us to blur the lines between milieus and introduce PMT or FT technology into MT or PT nations ... <snip> ... Consequently, I'll vote against this thing just because of the meta-gaming consequences of its passage from an RP perspective ...
by The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:56 am
Ardchoille wrote:(emphasis added)
I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to see a request for a mod ruling in this thread. I've been suffering such a glut of abortion proposals that I've been avoiding indigestion by looking mostly at the ones that get submitted.
Kulaloe, your proposal does duplicate #GA44. TCT's proposal is written in sufficiently inclusive language to cover the legislative issues you describe in your proposal. That is, the GA doesn't need legislation to say this can be done because it already has legislation that says this can be done. Therefore, if it were submitted I would have to rule it illegal because of duplication.
The second problem is the point Community Property (whose SF bookshelf evidently duplicates mine) raised (my emphases):Community Property wrote: I recognize OOC'ly that FT and PMT nations exist, as do PT nations. Up until now, most WA resolutions have been written with the implicit understanding that they must be (somewhat) relevant to all milieus. But what I haven't seen (although I have been fairly inactive of late) is a proposal that essentially requires us to blur the lines between milieus and introduce PMT or FT technology into MT or PT nations ... <snip> ... Consequently, I'll vote against this thing just because of the meta-gaming consequences of its passage from an RP perspective ...
That is, your proposal tries to create a roleplay scenario that all WA members have to take part in, and that's something the GA can't do. As CP correctly said, it's metagaming. It might make more sense if I call it "forced roleplay".
Think about it in terms of what players are given by the mechanics of the game: a nation with a population. The game doesn't tell us what the population's made up of. Players are free to roleplay anything they choose or not roleplay any more than that very basic level.
The game mechanics also give players the power to directly affect the laws of other people's nations, via the WA. You can see the effect of changes to those laws in the way WA member nations' statistics change.
But the game doesn't let players change the history or the surroundings or the costumes or the species or the technology or the time period of other players' nations.
As a result, the WA sticks with only the in-game powers that game mechanics give it. Its resolutions are part of the game mechanism. They're allowed to change only the things the game actually, OOCly, lets them change. It can't say, "All nations must have air transport". It can say, "If you have air transport, here are some air transport laws."
In a way, all GA resolutions force roleplay to a very limited extent by pretending that situations exist and that laws are needed to deal with them. The trick is to describe those situations and phrase those laws in a way that applies to the widest possible number of nations.
GA#44 forces nations to recognise that there may have been, may now be, or will in the future be "abortion reduction technology", and if/when it exists they're encouraged to share it.
Your proposal forces to them to recognise that there is such a thing as "an artificial womb", and that they should either share it, learn about it and make it themselves, or allow their populations to travel to share it.
by Nulono » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:23 am
Scolville Units wrote:Memorandum:
From the desk of The Exalted Pep of the Heat Indexed Theocracy of Scolville Units,
It is our nations intent to strike this bill down at all costs for the following reasons.
1) Passing the Artificial Womb Act into law will place a de-facto definition on the nature of when a human being is a human being. By requiring that all known unwanted zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are transplanted it establishes the definition spiritual or otherwise that human life starts at conception.
2) Passing the Artificial Womb Act will eliminate a patient's right to choose what body parts are to be retained or removed. This calls into question which parts of a living person's body actually belong to him/her. This could set a precedent leading to legislation where other organs or body parts, DNA, blood, stem cells etc... could be forcibly removed from a living human being.
3) The financial strain caused by the passing of Artificial Womb Act would be considerable for developing counties such as the Heat Indexed Theocracy of Scolville Units. It would force us to alter our trade policies in the field of biotechnology and others. Without serious financial aid this law would ensure that money better spent on growing an economy would be spent growing a very specific part of the economy which would not be competitive because all nations would be forced to develop this technology.
4) Our closed border country would lose its border integrity by being forced to allow our females across borders into territory not controlled by the Exalted Pep. Our isolationist country is isolationist because of the discrimination against our national religion. For a people to remain pure in the eyes of God a people must maintain a religiously endogamous integrity.
1 Vote Against,
Jean Claude VI
Ardchoille wrote:As a result, the WA sticks with only the in-game powers that game mechanics give it. Its resolutions are part of the game mechanism. They're allowed to change only the things the game actually, OOCly, lets them change. It can't say, "All nations must have air transport". It can say, "If you have air transport, here are some air transport laws."
The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.
Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.
by Urgench » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:08 am
Nulono wrote:Ardchoille wrote:As a result, the WA sticks with only the in-game powers that game mechanics give it. Its resolutions are part of the game mechanism. They're allowed to change only the things the game actually, OOCly, lets them change. It can't say, "All nations must have air transport". It can say, "If you have air transport, here are some air transport laws."
That's all this proposal does. If you have artificial wombs, you have to share them.
by Nulono » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:16 am
Nulono wrote:Ardchoille wrote:As a result, the WA sticks with only the in-game powers that game mechanics give it. Its resolutions are part of the game mechanism. They're allowed to change only the things the game actually, OOCly, lets them change. It can't say, "All nations must have air transport". It can say, "If you have air transport, here are some air transport laws."
That's all this proposal does. If you have artificial wombs, you have to share them.
The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.
Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.
by The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:19 am
by Coxnord » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:21 am
Nulono wrote:(to The Cat-Tribe) You are correct. My bad.
by Urgench » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:24 am
Nulono wrote:No, these are the same.
by Ardchoille » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:28 am
3. The CRT shall:
3.1 Ensure that all nations wanting the ability to adhere to the above clauses shall have access to this knowledge for development ...
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:12 am
Ardchoille wrote:As a result, the WA sticks with only the in-game powers that game mechanics give it. Its resolutions are part of the game mechanism. They're allowed to change only the things the game actually, OOCly, lets them change. It can't say, "All nations must have air transport". It can say, "If you have air transport, here are some air transport laws."
by Community Property » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:22 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I'm sorry Ard, but I disagree with this. There are some examples of resolutions that require all nations have a certain level of technology/technical knowledge. Food and Drug Standards and the Clean Water Act comes immediately to mind. I could likely find more instances, if I read through other resolutions.
If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, please for the love of God tell me. I think we all remember the last time I got into a prolonged argument with mods over their views of game mechanics.
by Scolville Units » Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:39 pm
Nulono wrote: 1.) This proposal does not mandate anything of the sort. If the mother wants an abortion, she can still get one. This is only offering another option.
2.) I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. We aren't removing anyone's body parts. This is a complete non sequitur.
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:29 pm
Community Property wrote:But given that MT nations predominate (they're the largest single group) and that a great many adamantly assert that they exist only in something roughly approximately the Real World™, you will almost always run into problems when you draft a resolution that assumes that everybody has access to PMT or FT technology.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ankuran
Advertisement