NationStates

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:13 pm**

Schwarznia wrote:The People's Republic of Schwarznia is apalled at all countries who oppose this piece of legislation. It essentially clarifies that those in debt to others still have basic human rights to not have their living space breached through means of force or without their/the owner's permission.

"Whether it does that or not, it is still terribly written, and the poor construction invites all sorts of counter-productive and harmful readings. If you're in favor of this kind of resolution, draft one that actually makes sense."

Th Ambassador has her head in her hands on her desk, and does not even look up.

"I mean, did you even read it? You have to, it's in GA #122, someone has to read it. I'm surprised they thought it contained complete sentences."

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:38 pm**

Schwarznia wrote:The People's Republic of Schwarznia is apalled at all countries who oppose this piece of legislation.

You clearly appall easily. The first question is whether this is a proper international issue. One may agree with an item on ones own national level, but fail the need to see the rusted iron fist of the festering snakepit crush all nations who are stupid enough to be its members in blatant uniformity.

The second question is whether or not it does anything. Actually all it does it hinders debt collectors from doing their job. Sooner or later you have to leave your house.

Ironically the part where the government is free do enter your house at will to collect money is lost on many people in this chamber.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:52 pm**

Allow me to submit that, although this would certainly be a good law to have in every nation (and indeed I cannot think of a reason why one nation would be against this idea, let alone 70% of them) maybe it is not the kind of thing to bring before the World Assembly, and instead should be left up to the individual nations to decide for themselves. What do all of you think?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:30 am**

Rosedell wrote:Allow me to submit that, although this would certainly be a good law to have in every nation (and indeed I cannot think of a reason why one nation would be against this idea, let alone 70% of them) maybe it is not the kind of thing to bring before the World Assembly, and instead should be left up to the individual nations to decide for themselves. What do all of you think?

1. Because it is badly written, if I ask three year old to write a proposal, it will be better written than this.
2. Because it is not an international issue and will never be one.
3. There are loopholes large enough to drive five heavy hauler through at once
4. The idea is crap. If you owe someone money, you should damn well pay it. You dont get to hide behind doors of your home when you make contract to pay back the money and fail to do so.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:05 am**

Schwarznia wrote:It essentially clarifies that those in debt to others still have basic human rights [...]

That is unnecessary.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:24 pm**

Honkong wrote:Clearly a question that is not worthy to be discussed in the amdiramle halls of the WA ..
Ashamed, we must confess to the fact , that also our Ambassador at the WA gave his blessing and his vote to this shameful Bill without reading it ...
In these minutes, The President of the Federal Republic deals with his letter of resignation...

The President himself has arranged to vote AGAINST now...

"The Pardesi Delegation is delighted to hear that the Coalition of Democratic States Delegation has seen the light, and wishes the President of the Federal Republic all the best and hopes he will appoint a talented and sensible new ambassador." Lady Malréd spoke politely, wishing especially that the new ambassador would not approve flawed proposals. "Best of luck to your outgoing ambassador in all his future endeavors, as well."

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:58 pm**

I personally find it revolting that so many people will judge the act based on how it's written and not the contents of the act. Perhaps a bit more revising to this to limit the specifics in the writing would've been beneficial, but even as it stands, debt collection is world renowned for being an aggressive, no-holds-barred type of industry. It should absolutely be regulated and debt collectors should have some of their common avenues of collection (such as false pretense) removed.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:00 pm**

I think this is a great Act. Children shouldn't let in strangers! Even if they do let in the debt collectors, who knows? Maybe they might make a habit of it! And if that happens, kidnapping and exposure to things kids shouldn't be exposed to will run rampant.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:01 pm**

Bongo Johnson wrote:I personally find it revolting that so many people will judge the act based on how it's written and not the contents of the act. Perhaps a bit more revising to this to limit the specifics in the writing would've been beneficial, but even as it stands, debt collection is world renowned for being an aggressive, no-holds-barred type of industry. It should absolutely be regulated and debt collectors should have some of their common avenues of collection (such as false pretense) removed.

Fine, we ignore the fact that this is worst than proposal written by three year old however, debt collection is not an international issue and nor is it an industry that needs regulation. If indivudal does not want to be harassed by debt collectors, they should pay the money they owe.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:03 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Bongo Johnson wrote:I personally find it revolting that so many people will judge the act based on how it's written and not the contents of the act. Perhaps a bit more revising to this to limit the specifics in the writing would've been beneficial, but even as it stands, debt collection is world renowned for being an aggressive, no-holds-barred type of industry. It should absolutely be regulated and debt collectors should have some of their common avenues of collection (such as false pretense) removed.

Fine, we ignore the fact that this is worst than proposal written by three year old however, debt collection is not an international issue and nor is it an industry that needs regulation. If indivudal does not want to be harassed by debt collectors, they should pay the money they owe.

But what if the person has no job? What then? Will that person still suffer abuse of basic human rights?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:04 pm**

Numen wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Fine, we ignore the fact that this is worst than proposal written by three year old however, debt collection is not an international issue and nor is it an industry that needs regulation. If indivudal does not want to be harassed by debt collectors, they should pay the money they owe.

But what if the person has no job? What then? Will that person still suffer abuse of basic human rights?

Should have thought about that prior to taking out a loan. We have term that describes taking money with agreement to repay it and not doing so, we call that "theft".

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:06 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Bongo Johnson wrote:I personally find it revolting that so many people will judge the act based on how it's written and not the contents of the act. Perhaps a bit more revising to this to limit the specifics in the writing would've been beneficial, but even as it stands, debt collection is world renowned for being an aggressive, no-holds-barred type of industry. It should absolutely be regulated and debt collectors should have some of their common avenues of collection (such as false pretense) removed.

Fine, we ignore the fact that this is worst than proposal written by three year old however, debt collection is not an international issue and nor is it an industry that needs regulation. If indivudal does not want to be harassed by debt collectors, they should pay the money they owe.

To see that the GA forum degenerates into needless insulting and harassing of the nation that wrote this act simply because they find the quality of it to be sub-par is absurd. If by "raising the bar in the General Assembly", you mean getting rid of bigots and people who will post solely to make fun of the act, then yes, Bongo Johnson is all for it.

Must we be reminded that there people who genuinely attempt to pay their loans and yet cannot? Where is the protection for those who, in good faith, toil each day just to make enough to keep their basic living essentials? I agree that they need to pay off whatever outstanding tickets there are, but why should we bulldoze basic human compassion to pave way for it?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:09 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Numen wrote:But what if the person has no job? What then? Will that person still suffer abuse of basic human rights?

Should have thought about that prior to taking out a loan. We have term that describes taking money with agreement to repay it and not doing so, we call that "theft".

OOC: Actually the proposal totally ignores the fact that in most civilized societies you can negotiate a payment schedule with your loan-giver, or ask for some time off from such a payment schedule, if you lose your job or whatnot.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:17 pm**

Bongo Johnson wrote:To see that the GA forum degenerates into needless insulting and harassing of the nation that wrote this act simply because they find the quality of it to be sub-par is absurd. If by "raising the bar in the General Assembly", you mean getting rid of bigots and people who will post solely to make fun of the act, then yes, Bongo Johnson is all for it.

I would like to congratulate the ambassador for the understatement of the year. The quality is not "sub-par", that would describe proposal by three year old. This one is much lower than that.
General assembly follows a convention in regards to its proposals, which includes its structure and professional quality.

Bongo Johnson wrote:Must we be reminded that there people who genuinely attempt to pay their loans and yet cannot? Where is the protection for those who, in good faith, toil each day just to make enough to keep their basic living essentials? I agree that they need to pay off whatever outstanding tickets there are, but why should we bulldoze basic human compassion to pave way for it?

We did not bulldoze any human rights, any loan agreement states roughly that should the loan not be paid, lender shall reserve full right to recollect the loan using any legal means. The indivudal signed it freely and they agreed to it.
Should they not be able to repay the loan, they can renegotiate the terms provided both parties agree.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:36 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Bongo Johnson wrote:To see that the GA forum degenerates into needless insulting and harassing of the nation that wrote this act simply because they find the quality of it to be sub-par is absurd. If by "raising the bar in the General Assembly", you mean getting rid of bigots and people who will post solely to make fun of the act, then yes, Bongo Johnson is all for it.

I would like to congratulate the ambassador for the understatement of the year. The quality is not "sub-par", that would describe proposal by three year old. This one is much lower than that.
General assembly follows a convention in regards to its proposals, which includes its structure and professional quality.

There's a reason we brutally tear apart poorly-written resolutions: they are the ones that allow loopholes to open up, and if it passes that means we have to go through the whole repeal process in order to rectify it, and frankly we have better things to do with our time. Hence, we try to nip the illiterate resolutions in the bud.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:40 pm**

Rosedell wrote:Allow me to submit that, although this would certainly be a good law to have in every nation (and indeed I cannot think of a reason why one nation would be against this idea, let alone 70% of them) maybe it is not the kind of thing to bring before the World Assembly, and instead should be left up to the individual nations to decide for themselves. What do all of you think?

Exactly, this is something that is not an international issue. And I'll admit that for me I wouldn't support this even if it were an international issue not because I necessarily disagree with it, but because the author didn't have to common courtesy to allow us to comment on it before it was submitted.

Bongo Johnson wrote:I personally find it revolting that so many people will judge the act based on how it's written and not the contents of the act. Perhaps a bit more revising to this to limit the specifics in the writing would've been beneficial, but even as it stands, debt collection is world renowned for being an aggressive, no-holds-barred type of industry. It should absolutely be regulated and debt collectors should have some of their common avenues of collection (such as false pretense) removed.

You know, it's comments like this that make me wish that the "repeal" option had never been introduced. Maybe then people would actually care about how proposals are written because we'd be stuck with them forever.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:45 pm**

Flibbleites wrote:
Rosedell wrote:Allow me to submit that, although this would certainly be a good law to have in every nation (and indeed I cannot think of a reason why one nation would be against this idea, let alone 70% of them) maybe it is not the kind of thing to bring before the World Assembly, and instead should be left up to the individual nations to decide for themselves. What do all of you think?

Exactly, this is something that is not an international issue. And I'll admit that for me I wouldn't support this even if it were an international issue not because I necessarily disagree with it, but because the author didn't have to common courtesy to allow us to comment on it before it was submitted.

Bongo Johnson wrote:I personally find it revolting that so many people will judge the act based on how it's written and not the contents of the act. Perhaps a bit more revising to this to limit the specifics in the writing would've been beneficial, but even as it stands, debt collection is world renowned for being an aggressive, no-holds-barred type of industry. It should absolutely be regulated and debt collectors should have some of their common avenues of collection (such as false pretense) removed.

You know, it's comments like this that make me wish that the "repeal" option had never been introduced. Maybe then people would actually care about how proposals are written because we'd be stuck with them forever.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

You're seriously telling me that you want Max Barry Day to still be in the international lawbooks? My god, Bob, what have you become?
~Ambassador Hardcastle (Who may or may not have just consumed four whole marijuanas)

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:50 pm**

San Leggera wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Exactly, this is something that is not an international issue. And I'll admit that for me I wouldn't support this even if it were an international issue not because I necessarily disagree with it, but because the author didn't have to common courtesy to allow us to comment on it before it was submitted.

You know, it's comments like this that make me wish that the "repeal" option had never been introduced. Maybe then people would actually care about how proposals are written because we'd be stuck with them forever.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

You're seriously telling me that you want Max Barry Day to still be in the international lawbooks? My god, Bob, what have you become?
~Ambassador Hardcastle (Who may or may not have just consumed four whole marijuanas)

Of course not, nor would I want a lot of the early Historical Resolutions that were repealed to still be around. But back before repeals were possible people tended to be a little more careful with how proposals were written and what they voted one (or at least some people were).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:51 pm**

San Leggera wrote:~Ambassador Hardcastle (Who may or may not have just consumed four whole marijuanas)

For the sake of clarity, how much marijuana is a 'whole marijuana'?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:05 pm**

Mesogiria wrote:
San Leggera wrote:~Ambassador Hardcastle (Who may or may not have just consumed four whole marijuanas)

For the sake of clarity, how much marijuana is a 'whole marijuana'?

(OOC: Beat me to it! In my head, the Ambassador has just eaten four entire plants :-)

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:07 pm**

Eireann Fae wrote:
Mesogiria wrote:For the sake of clarity, how much marijuana is a 'whole marijuana'?

(OOC: Beat me to it! In my head, the Ambassador has just eaten four entire plants :-)

(OOC: Or smoked the same equivalent. 'Four whole marijuanas' is a quasi-meme, and I don't quite understand its meaning myself.)

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:58 am**

Eireann Fae wrote:
Mesogiria wrote:For the sake of clarity, how much marijuana is a 'whole marijuana'?

(OOC: Beat me to it! In my head, the Ambassador has just eaten four entire plants :-)

OOC: I feel so tempted to make an IC joke about being horrified at that, but as the plant hivemind doesn't have any cannabis plants in it, it might not actually mind.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:21 am**

"Debt Collection Act" was defeated 9,523 votes to 3,693.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Debt Collection Act