NationStates

DiFruscio wrote:As some of you may have saw I reposted the Conscientious Objector act (with author's consent). I telegrammed The Kingdom of Otrenia and they are the author, I just reposted it since the current one at vote doesn't have enough votes to pass. It was well written if I may add.

*Looks at the DiFruscioian representative*

Hey, Is that my pen!?

Oh, and what they said.

NewCalifornia-Republic wrote:After calmly watching this disgraceful series of events, Joseph Briggs, stand ups and makes a plea

Hiriaurtung Arororugul and sintas, stop acting like children, you have turned the WA into a school playground with you childish actions, who are we to condemn other nations if you fight over a bill, we are meant to be setting an example for the rest of the world showing that peaceful discussions are an appropriate subsitute for voilence and your twisting peoples words, chucking people out of windows and punching people. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!

You're kidding right? This is a good day in the GA. This is one of our more calm and reasoned discussions.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:

Cardoness wrote:
*Lord Andras sends a page to Ambassador Hiriaurtung Arororugul with a small pouch and a note*

Compliments of the Kingdom of Cardoness. Word has reached us of your powerful state and we wish to start diplomatic relations out on the left foot. Please accept this pouch, hand made by the Kings own daughter, which contains 50oz of the finest leaf grown in our lands. It is illegal in over 90% of the world and only the Fae are known to grow better. This is sure to "lighten" any mood you are in. Strength be yours, A.V.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul opens the pouch and breathes in the leafy goodness. He then assembles a pouch to return to Lord Andras, filled with the finest Turfani hashish along with some Yortani deleriant hallucinogens. In the pouch he also places a note.

Thank you, Lord Andras. I am forever in your debt. I hope that you will find the enclosed goods adequate for your enjoyment.

May your herd carry you through the winter and many foals dance in the spring rains,
Arororugul

*Lord Andras examines the pouch, which seems to be of good quality, and its contents, which seems to be of great quality, then sends the page (a tall redhead whose ID badge says Paige, Paige the page) back with another note*

You are most generous. I am certain that I will enjoy this gift immensely, and soon if this and the blasted debates on abortion don't bloody end.

May your enemies know your might, A.V.

Holy cheddar cheesy Christ on a cracker, it's within one vote. I'll start marinating my hat, just in case...

Embolalia wrote:Holy cheddar cheesy Christ on a cracker, it's within one vote. I'll start marinating my hat, just in case...

Holy crap.

Conscientious Objector Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

For: 4,219. Against: 4,219.

Voting ends in 12 hours.

In all the time I've been part of this organization and its predecessor I've never seen that before.

Bob Flibble

Conscientious Objector Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

For: 4,222. Against: 4,221.

Voting ends in 12 hours.

It's a tight voting. What would happen if it ended in a tie?

4224 to 4221 atm. So close... THE TENSION IS KILLING ME!

Nah, jk. But this'll be interesting.

Flopping back toward against... 4222 : 4225

I actually had to pick a side on this. Voted against.


EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

Flibbleites wrote:

Conscientious Objector Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

For: 4,219. Against: 4,219.

Voting ends in 12 hours.

In all the time I've been part of this organization and its predecessor I've never seen that before.

Bob Flibble

Certainly never within 12 hours of the end of voting. This is going to be *very* close.

Considering the weight of Delegate votes and the very close total count on either side, this proposal's fate may yet rely on regional politics... I do believe we have another update coming prior to the floor vote's close.

Intellect and the Arts wrote:Flopping back toward against... 4222 : 4225

I actually had to pick a side on this. Voted against.


EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

It would fail, as there is no "tie breaker" vote in the GA . It is universal that you need a majority of "something" to pass a bill, resolution, act, treaty, whatever.

Cardoness wrote:

Intellect and the Arts wrote:Flopping back toward against... 4222 : 4225

I actually had to pick a side on this. Voted against.


EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

It would fail, as there is no "tie breaker" vote in the GA . It is universal that you need a majority of "something" to pass a bill, resolution, act, treaty, whatever.

That's the thing... excepting extraordinary circumstances, a tie tally in the WA, whether GA or SC (*ptooie!*), isn't a literal tie. If one were to break down how many actual clicks of the "for" and "against" buttons there were, there would be a clear majority of nations on one side or the other. To be honest, Delegate vote weight only really makes sense in the event that either those who endorsed the Delegate abstained from voting themselves or they voted against the Delegate's vote. Otherwise, you're effectively allowing people who endorse a Delegate to vote twice, once with their endorsement and once with their own vote.

Otrenia wrote:I would like to point out the irony between your above statements and (what I'm assuming is) your national motto, "The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice."

There is no irony present, ambassador. You are perceiving a contradiction. A non-existent one. I believe strongly that the strongest principle of growth lies in human choice. However, I also am of the objectively correct position that people need to be alive to make choices. Your response does nothing to refute the points I made, therefore, I can only assume that you have nothing to refute my points.

Birrapex wrote:How exactly does removing soldiers from the military defense protect civilians?

The nations committing genocide are not within the WA and won't be following these guidelines. Weakening WA military only hinders us from preventing genocide when it occurs.

I would ask to ambassador from Birrapex to learn to read. I am arguing AGAINST this resolution. The point I am making is that this resolution is too liberal and that it gives too much leeway to conscientious objectors, which could potentially cripple a nation's military and lead to widespread death and destruction.

Birrapex wrote:]:blink: People lie about their belief every Sunday, if not every day. Unless you have telepathy of some sort, you can't proclaim to know what any of us think or believe. If you have telepathic powers, I motion we take you in to custody to protect the WA security and disect.... er study you to assess how we can exploit... er I mean..... to fully understand how to develop this ability for the greater good of the WA.

No, people don't tell the truth about their belief every Sunday but they don't outright lie. And bear in mind that this is lying while under sustained questioning from a trained interrogator. I find it very difficult to believe that the majority of people could answer questions on a belief system they don't adhere to under sustained interrogation.

Intellect and the Arts wrote:That's the thing... excepting extraordinary circumstances, a tie tally in the WA, whether GA or SC (*ptooie!*), isn't a literal tie. If one were to break down how many actual clicks of the "for" and "against" buttons there were, there would be a clear majority of nations on one side or the other. To be honest, Delegate vote weight only really makes sense in the event that either those who endorsed the Delegate abstained from voting themselves or they voted against the Delegate's vote. Otherwise, you're effectively allowing people who endorse a Delegate to vote twice, once with their endorsement and once with their own vote.

Unless they vote against their delegate, in which case the two votes neutralise each other and become an effective abstain.

Intellect and the Arts wrote:

Cardoness wrote:
It would fail, as there is no "tie breaker" vote in the GA . It is universal that you need a majority of "something" to pass a bill, resolution, act, treaty, whatever.

That's the thing... excepting extraordinary circumstances, a tie tally in the WA, whether GA or SC (*ptooie!*), isn't a literal tie. If one were to break down how many actual clicks of the "for" and "against" buttons there were, there would be a clear majority of nations on one side or the other. To be honest, Delegate vote weight only really makes sense in the event that either those who endorsed the Delegate abstained from voting themselves or they voted against the Delegate's vote. Otherwise, you're effectively allowing people who endorse a Delegate to vote twice, once with their endorsement and once with their own vote.

OOC: I guess this is a mechanism to allow you to dissent. If you reagional delegate votes FOR and you are AGAINST a given subject, you can "reduce" his regional vote by one by voting on the other side.

Mousebumples wrote:

DiFruscio wrote:As some of you may have saw I reposted the Conscientious Objector act (with author's consent). I telegrammed The Kingdom of Otrenia and they are the author, I just reposted it since the current one at vote doesn't have enough votes to pass. It was well written if I may add.

If the current draft fails at vote, I believe some changes would need to be made before resubmission in order for such submission (even by the original author) to be viewed as "legal." After all, if the current assembly rejects the proposal as written, why should they have to have a revote on the same exact text within the next few days? Why would anyone change their opinion of the draft within the few days that may pass before (theoretical) duplicate votes?

As Sedge stated, your reproposal of the *exact* draft that is currently at vote is not the greatest idea. I'm sure you'll be getting more details on that from the mods, if you haven't already.

Just to let everyone know I have spoken to Grays Harbor and we will revise the proposal before re-submitting it. That is, of course, if the current one fails. Are there any suggested revisions (ones that i would really care to hear please, naysayers can save their breath) ?

Teshuva wrote:

Intellect and the Arts wrote:That's the thing... excepting extraordinary circumstances, a tie tally in the WA, whether GA or SC (*ptooie!*), isn't a literal tie. If one were to break down how many actual clicks of the "for" and "against" buttons there were, there would be a clear majority of nations on one side or the other. To be honest, Delegate vote weight only really makes sense in the event that either those who endorsed the Delegate abstained from voting themselves or they voted against the Delegate's vote. Otherwise, you're effectively allowing people who endorse a Delegate to vote twice, once with their endorsement and once with their own vote.

OOC: I guess this is a mechanism to allow you to dissent. If you reagional delegate votes FOR and you are AGAINST a given subject, you can "reduce" his regional vote by one by voting on the other side.

Exactly, but that neutralizing then becomes moot when those who endorsed the Delegate vote on the same side as the Delegate. Really, the only way to effectively dissent is to withdraw your endorsement AND vote against the Delegate, but that only works if your Delegate either casts their vote or makes their intended vote known prior to an update so that your withdrawn endorsement actually has an effect.

It would be interesting if people actually exercised their voting power that way on a regular basis. Regional politics as we know them would undergo a drastic change, I think...

Otrenia wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:If the current draft fails at vote, I believe some changes would need to be made before resubmission in order for such submission (even by the original author) to be viewed as "legal." After all, if the current assembly rejects the proposal as written, why should they have to have a revote on the same exact text within the next few days? Why would anyone change their opinion of the draft within the few days that may pass before (theoretical) duplicate votes?

As Sedge stated, your reproposal of the *exact* draft that is currently at vote is not the greatest idea. I'm sure you'll be getting more details on that from the mods, if you haven't already.

Just to let everyone know I have spoken to Grays Harbor and we will revise the proposal before re-submitting it. That is, of course, if the current one fails. Are there any suggested revisions (ones that i would really care to hear please, naysayers can save their breath) ?

Well I suppose you could give national governments the option of imprisoning those who refuse military service...

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Well I suppose you could give national governments the option of imprisoning those who refuse military service...

Yeah, that would fall under "please save your breath"

Intellect and the Arts wrote:EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

Uh, you know, that's a good question.

Flibbleites wrote:

Intellect and the Arts wrote:EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

Uh, you know, that's a good question.

We originally voted against this resolution because this Act needs improvement. For example, it is not clear whether a conscientious objector is disobeying orders whilst serving in the military or simply not turning up. In our nation if a militia in the 'Red Guard' has three absences without excuse, they will simply be expelled. If they serve in the military and disobey orders, they will face a jury of workers. It is also not clear if the objector is has already accepted military service and then declined or simply declined immediately.

We decided to vote for this resolution anyway as we do not force anyone to join, and if anyone does join, but then backs out they have the option of either not turning up
or informing the elected officers why they do not feel up to being a part of the 'Red Guard', in which case, they will be let go,(of course, we prefer the latter). However, should the militia member object to military service and be disruptive whilst remaining in the 'Red Guard', that person will likely face punishment.

Spokesperson on behalf of Parti Ouvrier.

Otrenia wrote:Just to let everyone know I have spoken to Grays Harbor and we will revise the proposal before re-submitting it. That is, of course, if the current one fails. Are there any suggested revisions (ones that i would really care to hear please, naysayers can save their breath) ?

You're free to do so. However, I fully intend to submit my own in the near future. If you think you can do a better job, have at it. Just bear in mind that mine is the result of literally months of discussion, debate, compromises, fine-tuning, and examination of gray-area, while yours is, well, not.

Flibbleites wrote:

Intellect and the Arts wrote:EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

Uh, you know, that's a good question.

I would imagine a tie would fail. The pass/fail mechanism is probably nothing more than if (for > against) {passes}. It might be if (for >= against) {passes}, but I would, as a programmer, probably pick the former.

Flibbleites wrote:

Intellect and the Arts wrote:EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

Uh, you know, that's a good question.

Any time a Mod answers with "that's a good question", I tend to get very nervous and ask "Are you telling me none of the higher-ups considered this might happen, or are you rather saying you personally haven't checked?"

Intellect and the Arts wrote:EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

That would result in a tear in the fabric of space time through which the universe would drain into nothingness. Paradox would build upon paradox as our existence shifted into anti-existence and that internet game "Real Life" would become reality. We would wake up believing this to have been a dream.

Teshuva wrote:

Intellect and the Arts wrote:That's the thing... excepting extraordinary circumstances, a tie tally in the WA, whether GA or SC (*ptooie!*), isn't a literal tie. If one were to break down how many actual clicks of the "for" and "against" buttons there were, there would be a clear majority of nations on one side or the other. To be honest, Delegate vote weight only really makes sense in the event that either those who endorsed the Delegate abstained from voting themselves or they voted against the Delegate's vote. Otherwise, you're effectively allowing people who endorse a Delegate to vote twice, once with their endorsement and once with their own vote.

OOC: I guess this is a mechanism to allow you to dissent. If you reagional delegate votes FOR and you are AGAINST a given subject, you can "reduce" his regional vote by one by voting on the other side.

And if you've endorsed your WA delegate, withdraw the endorsement. That's a net 2-1 for your side.

Cardoness wrote:

Intellect and the Arts wrote:EDIT: Wait... what would happen if it ended in a tie?

That would result in a tear in the fabric of space time through which the universe would drain into nothingness. Paradox would build upon paradox as our existence shifted into anti-existence and that internet game "Real Life" would become reality. We would wake up believing this to have been a dream.

I want Max Barry to fiat this.

Ossitania wrote:I would ask to ambassador from Birrapex to learn to read. I am arguing AGAINST this resolution. The point I am making is that this resolution is too liberal and that it gives too much leeway to conscientious objectors, which could potentially cripple a nation's military and lead to widespread death and destruction.

I saw that you were arguing against, however I could not help but ask due to your obviously flawed reasoning. Mental restraint is not something you find in Birrapex. So, forgive my outbursts.

Ossitania wrote:]
No, people don't tell the truth about their belief every Sunday but they don't outright lie. And bear in mind that this is lying while under sustained questioning from a trained interrogator. I find it very difficult to believe that the majority of people could answer questions on a belief system they don't adhere to under sustained interrogation.

I disagree. In fact, most that claim a particular religion do not actually practice the religion. They will, under questioning, proclaim that they do practice the religion and that their shortcomings in doing so do not exist. Under fervid questioning they are in such denial and feel such pressure to conform that they will accuse the questioner of atrocities that have never happened and/or proclaim the questioner is the liar in hopes to avoid being detected. Short of physical or mental torture there is nothing that will convince these individuals to tell the truth, and even those extents are unlikely to produce a result. They lie to themselves as much as to others.