NationStates

Darrwyth, the votes are not in favor of the reapeal. Can't you do something to turn the vote around? Have you ever thought of condemning big delegates who didn't vote "correctly"?

Illu-chi wrote:Darrwyth, the votes are not in favor of the reapeal. Can't you do something to turn the vote around? Have you ever thought of condemning big delegates who didn't vote "correctly"?

OOC: And why would I do something as immature as that? if the vote is not turning in my favour, then that's that. WA legislation is determined by the majority, the majority doesn't want GAR #527 repealed. So be it, I accept that decision and move on. I put in the effort to try to persuade voters with argumentation and reasonable debate, yet it was not enough. That's okay, that's how things work. Sometimes you get your way, most of the times not. And thus, I move on to other projects.

Besides, there's no "correct" way to vote. I believe in the arguments that I have provided in the repeal, but apparently a majority of the WA didn't. Tough luck for me, I'll do my best to come up with better argumentation next time. But just because someone votes differently than you want doesn't mean they voted incorrectly, or that the other way around is correct. The majority speaks, and that's that.

Ehhhh I don’t know what the problem is with that resolution. I mean for example I prefer vague terminology so that we as a rather unique nation composed of sapient motor vehicles know best how to interpret those terms and apply them to our society. So yeah gotta vote against this one.

Enjuku's delegation has cast a resounding "AGAINST" vote on this resolution.

We hope in the future, any attempts to repeal Protected Working Leave will be rooted in a goal to protect workers. As the repeal legislation is written, it finds contradiction in workers receiving more leave than a supposed employer can manage. This supposed loophole is hardly worthy of taking Protected Working Leave away.

Enjuku reiterates its "AGAINST" vote.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Illu-chi wrote:Darrwyth, the votes are not in favor of the reapeal. Can't you do something to turn the vote around? Have you ever thought of condemning big delegates who didn't vote "correctly"?

OOC: And why would I do something as immature as that? if the vote is not turning in my favour, then that's that. WA legislation is determined by the majority, the majority doesn't want GAR #527 repealed. So be it, I accept that decision and move on. I put in the effort to try to persuade voters with argumentation and reasonable debate, yet it was not enough. That's okay, that's how things work. Sometimes you get your way, most of the times not. And thus, I move on to other projects.

Besides, there's no "correct" way to vote. I believe in the arguments that I have provided in the repeal, but apparently a majority of the WA didn't. Tough luck for me, I'll do my best to come up with better argumentation next time. But just because someone votes differently than you want doesn't mean they voted incorrectly, or that the other way around is correct. The majority speaks, and that's that.

Its not immature. Its called being very desperate. Also I think the majority of the world assembly didn't understand the repeal and also didn't know anything about the replacement. A large percentage of the world assembly electorate doesn't do any research into the proposals either and are the type of people who are on nation states for a short amount of time then leave for the day. I think a good example is the commend northern Borland episode.

Its not immature. Its called being very desperate.

Ummm... yeah it kinda is. What do you honestly think the reception to a GA regular going around writing condemnations of McM, Beepee, and Wischland over... how they voted on his proposal? I'll answer for you- people would start viewing Daar as an immature fool. I need you to understand that most people are not interested in being globally humiliated and viewed as a fool.

Illu-chi wrote:Its not immature. Its called being very desperate.

OOC: As I don't consider myself a desperate individual, I see no reason why I should do something like that.

Jedinsto wrote:Ummm... yeah it kinda is. What do you honestly think the reception to a GA regular going around writing condemnations of McM, Beepee, and Wischland over... how they voted on his proposal? I'll answer for you- people would start viewing Daar as an immature fool. I need you to understand that most people are not interested in being globally humiliated and viewed as a fool.

OOC: You took the words right out of my mouth. Or well, fingers in this case since I'm writing this on my phone (I know, bad joke).

Daarwyrth wrote:

Illu-chi wrote:Its not immature. Its called being very desperate.

OOC: As I don't consider myself a desperate individual, I see no reason why I should do something like that.

OK, after the repeal fails. Do you plan to try to repeal it again at a later date.

Illu-chi wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: As I don't consider myself a desperate individual, I see no reason why I should do something like that.

OK, after the repeal fails. Do you plan to try to repeal it again at a later date.

OOC: Tin is writing one: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=505212

Illu-chi wrote:Its not immature. Its called being very desperate. Also I think the majority of the world assembly didn't understand the repeal and also didn't know anything about the replacement. A large percentage of the world assembly electorate doesn't do any research into the proposals either and are the type of people who are on nation states for a short amount of time then leave for the day. I think a good example is the commend northern Borland episode.

As we all know, writing condemnations of your political "enemies" has a long and successful history of getting your GA bills to pass. Dude, no, the way to handle a failing resolution is to accept that it's failing and try again later.

Illu-chi wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: As I don't consider myself a desperate individual, I see no reason why I should do something like that.

OK, after the repeal fails. Do you plan to try to repeal it again at a later date.

OOC: Nope, I won't be trying a repeal of GAR #527 again. I've burned my hands on it once, and that's enough for me. If this resolution has to be repealed, then it should be repealed by someone who has had more time and experience in the World Assembly.

I have other projects that I want and need to take care of

Illu-chi wrote:Darrwyth, the votes are not in favor of the reapeal. Can't you do something to turn the vote around? Have you ever thought of condemning big delegates who didn't vote "correctly"?

Yes, not in favor. But turning around...?

Masere wrote:

Illu-chi wrote:Darrwyth, the votes are not in favor of the reapeal. Can't you do something to turn the vote around? Have you ever thought of condemning big delegates who didn't vote "correctly"?

Yes, not in favor. But turning around...?

OOC: It was clear for a while that no active effort would change it around. There was a moment where there might have been a chance, where after a conversation over TGs a delegate felt convinced enough to change their vote, but that was the only Delegate willing to hear my counter-arguments out. For which I was very grateful, of course!

But especially at the time Illu-chi posted that it was evident it would be impossible to turn it around.

Illu-chi wrote:Also I think the majority of the world assembly didn't understand the repeal and also didn't know anything about the replacement. A large percentage of the world assembly electorate doesn't do any research into the proposals either and are the type of people who are on nation states for a short amount of time then leave for the day.

Given that the delegation from Daarwyrth sent no less than twelve telegrams explaining exactly what this proposal was about, it would be very impressive for the delegates voting against to still not understand it.

Sylh Alanor wrote:

Illu-chi wrote:Also I think the majority of the world assembly didn't understand the repeal and also didn't know anything about the replacement. A large percentage of the world assembly electorate doesn't do any research into the proposals either and are the type of people who are on nation states for a short amount of time then leave for the day.

Given that the delegation from Daarwyrth sent no less than twelve telegrams explaining exactly what this proposal was about, it would be very impressive for the delegates voting against to still not understand it.

OOC: Twelve? As far as I know I sent 2 campaign telegrams during the approval phase (and during the last few hours a few targeted TGs to delegates that were online as a final push), and afterwards, during the vote, I sent 1 TG whether you'd be willing to hear my counter-arguments, which I sent with the hope to be able to convince a few delegates to vote 'for' instead. 12 is a vast exaggeration.

EDIT: There were 2 proposals mind you, yet the first one was ruled illegal due to an honest mistake during the approval phase, and thus there was a resubmission of a different draft. Obviously I sent a campaign telegram to notify delegates of the resubmission as I would under normal circumstances.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Sylh Alanor wrote:Given that the delegation from Daarwyrth sent no less than twelve telegrams explaining exactly what this proposal was about, it would be very impressive for the delegates voting against to still not understand it.

OOC: Twelve? As far as I know I sent 2 campaign telegrams during the approval phase (and during the last few hours a few targeted TGs to delegates that were online as a final push), and afterwards, during the vote, I sent 1 TG whether you'd be willing to hear my counter-arguments, which I sent with the hope to be able to convince a few delegates to vote 'for' instead. 12 is a vast exaggeration.

EDIT: There were 2 proposals mind you, yet the first one was ruled illegal due to an honest mistake during the approval phase, and thus there was a resubmission of a different draft. Obviously I sent a campaign telegram to notify delegates of the resubmission.

OOC: Ah sorry for miscounting, but I have a screenshot here showing what my inbox looks like. Five telegrams were sent to me for this specific repeal, five were sent for your previous proposal, and then two so far have been sent for Prairies and Grasslands. Five is still a bit excessive fwiw, as you admitted in your first telegram for this proposal, stating you wouldn't repeat the excessive campaigning before going on to send exactly the same amount.

Sylh Alanor wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: Twelve? As far as I know I sent 2 campaign telegrams during the approval phase (and during the last few hours a few targeted TGs to delegates that were online as a final push), and afterwards, during the vote, I sent 1 TG whether you'd be willing to hear my counter-arguments, which I sent with the hope to be able to convince a few delegates to vote 'for' instead. 12 is a vast exaggeration.

EDIT: There were 2 proposals mind you, yet the first one was ruled illegal due to an honest mistake during the approval phase, and thus there was a resubmission of a different draft. Obviously I sent a campaign telegram to notify delegates of the resubmission.

OOC: Ah sorry for miscounting, but I have a screenshot here showing what my inbox looks like. Five telegrams were sent to me for this specific repeal, five were sent for your previous proposal, and then two so far have been sent for Prairies and Grasslands. Five is still a bit excessive fwiw, as you admitted in your first telegram for this proposal, stating you wouldn't repeat the excessive campaigning before going on to send exactly the same amount.

OOC: I explained in the EDIT bit, but I will repeat myself. The first message was sent for the proposal that was ruled illegal, and thus had to be submitted. Once the proposal was re-submitted, I sent a new TG campaign explaining the situation. That is the 2nd one in the box you made. The third was when the proposal entered the final hour of the approval phase, and I was advised to send it as the proposal was missing between 10 - 15 approvals. The fourth one was a targeted TG, because the proposal missed like only a 4 or 5 approvals, and there was 1 hour left. As a last push I tried to approach delegates that were online at that time in the "Who's Online" page. The 5th was afterwards, during the vote itself, not a campaign, but a question whether you would be willing to hear my counter-arguments.

And as I have been active lately in the WA and submitted three proposals (four if you count the resubmission) in a relatively short time, it has racked up the number of campaign TGs, yes. But as you may have noted, I only sent one main TG campaign for the Prairies one, and a counter-argument TG to a counter-campaign after a few days.

I apologise if I caused an inconvenience with it, that was not my intent. Had it not been for the need to resubmit "Repeal Protected Working Leave", I wouldn't have sent as many TGs for that proposal, yet as the TG campaign for the Prairies repeal hopefully showed, it will not be a repeat incident.