[PASSED] Rights of Neutral States

[Araraukar]

we agree with it in general but if i practically insulted someone , i could just declare myself neutral and get away with it . so i think you redraft it.

I think that insulting another nation on the international level badly enough that they would feel the need to do something about it, would count as the first step of aggression. Once you've launched aggression, you can't back out of it by saying you're neutral, since you clearly aren't.

[Sciongrad]

Submitted for a test run. Don't forget to leave criticism before it's campaigned for the next time around.

[United Federation of Canada]

we agree with it in general but if i practically insulted someone , i could just declare myself neutral and get away with it . so i think you redraft it.

OK, OK, OK....

I know what your thinking here, but I have to ask anyway.

WHAT THE FUCK IS A "LOOPHALL"?

And now that I have insulted you, AND GOT AWAY WITH IT!!!! What is your point?

Now back to the proposal. Remaining fairly "Neutral" on this one. If it goes to vote, will probably just go with the flow on it. Nicely written though.

[Free South Califas]

we agree with it in general but if i practically insulted someone , i could just declare myself neutral and get away with it . so i think you redraft it.

OK, OK, OK....

I know what your thinking here, but I have to ask anyway.

You don't "have" to abuse anyone over their spelling, even if you find it distasteful. You have options, like being decent even to people who seem not to have had the same educational privileges as you.

[Ponderosa]

we agree with it in general but if i practically insulted someone , i could just declare myself neutral and get away with it . so i think you redraft it.

OK, OK, OK....

I know what your thinking here, but I have to ask anyway.

WHAT THE FUCK IS A "LOOPHALL"?

And now that I have insulted you, AND GOT AWAY WITH IT!!!! What is your point?

Now back to the proposal. Remaining fairly "Neutral" on this one. If it goes to vote, will probably just go with the flow on it. Nicely written though.

You might want to calm yourself down there, Canada.

EDIT: Let me just spoiler that, to cut down on the smiley face spam.

[Euroslavia]

we agree with it in general but if i practically insulted someone , i could just declare myself neutral and get away with it . so i think you redraft it.

OK, OK, OK....

I know what your thinking here, but I have to ask anyway.

WHAT THE FUCK IS A "LOOPHALL"?

And now that I have insulted you, AND GOT AWAY WITH IT!!!! What is your point?

Now back to the proposal. Remaining fairly "Neutral" on this one. If it goes to vote, will probably just go with the flow on it. Nicely written though.

Knock it off.

[Debyshrier]

OK, OK, OK....

I know what your thinking here, but I have to ask anyway.

You don't "have" to abuse anyone over their spelling, even if you find it distasteful. You have options, like being decent even to people who seem not to have had the same educational privileges as you.

i know you were trying to help but im actually a bit dyslexic

[Araraukar]

i know you were trying to help but im actually a bit dyslexic

In that case you'll definitely want to see about getting a spellchecker for your browser.

[Hadrania]

The Government of Hadrania would be willing to support this resolution should it come to a vote; however, we would like an adjustment to be made. Rather than limiting the definition of a neutral state to one that has declared neutrality for a specific conflict, if the definition were expanded to include states that have declared general neutrality across all conflicts or all conflicts of a certain type, the proposal would be improved.

[Sciongrad]

The Government of Hadrania would be willing to support this resolution should it come to a vote; however, we would like an adjustment to be made. Rather than limiting the definition of a neutral state to one that has declared neutrality for a specific conflict, if the definition were expanded to include states that have declared general neutrality across all conflicts or all conflicts of a certain type, the proposal would be improved.

Your Excellency, the current definition already includes such a measure.

[Leutria]

I noticed one small thing. Clause 1 mentions that a neutral state must be in compliance with the duties of a neutral state, but later in the proposal (Clause 3) it talks about the obligations of a neutral state. It is my opinion that it would be better if you only used one word or the other.

[Sciongrad]

I noticed one small thing. Clause 1 mentions that a neutral state must be in compliance with the duties of a neutral state, but later in the proposal (Clause 3) it talks about the obligations of a neutral state. It is my opinion that it would be better if you only used one word or the other.

Nicely spotted. I've made the change so that both use "obligations" rather than duties. Hopefully that will make it read a bit clearer. Thanks for the input, ambassador.

[Sciongrad]

Alright, barring any unforeseen dilemmas, this will be submitted tomorrow at the minor update.

[Sciongrad]

Submitted, and doing surprisingly well considering I've yet to begin the TG campaign.

[Damanucus]

While I would love to support this resolution, I'm going to get majorly nitpicky:

The state must not sell or otherwise supply war materiel to a belligerent, or allow anybody within its borders to do so, or allow its agencies or businesses to transport war materiel for belligerents, or (except as any other WA law specifies) allow war materiel for belligerents to cross its territories;

I could actually see the situation now...

Miss Orman begins to enact, as best as she can as one person, the situation in her mind.

"Is this war material?"
"Yes, it is."
"You do know it's illegal to sell war material to our country."
"Actually, if you read the law, it's illegal to sell war materiel; this is war material, perfectly legal..."

Nitpicky though it is, and while I understand the intention of the clause, it's the one thing that can prevent the intention being broken.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[The Akashic Records]

While I would love to support this resolution, I'm going to get majorly nitpicky:

The state must not sell or otherwise supply war materiel to a belligerent, or allow anybody within its borders to do so, or allow its agencies or businesses to transport war materiel for belligerents, or (except as any other WA law specifies) allow war materiel for belligerents to cross its territories;

I could actually see the situation now...

Miss Orman begins to enact, as best as she can as one person, the situation in her mind.

"Is this war material?"
"Yes, it is."
"You do know it's illegal to sell war material to our country."
"Actually, if you read the law, it's illegal to sell war materiel; this is war material, perfectly legal..."

Nitpicky though it is, and while I understand the intention of the clause, it's the one thing that can prevent the intention being broken.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

With all due respect Miss Orman, war material would have been very well covered by materiel,

ma·te·ri·el /məˌti(ə)rēˈel/

Noun
Military materials and equipment.

Synonyms
equipment - outfit - rig

[Damanucus]

While I would love to support this resolution, I'm going to get majorly nitpicky:



I could actually see the situation now...

Miss Orman begins to enact, as best as she can as one person, the situation in her mind.

"Is this war material?"
"Yes, it is."
"You do know it's illegal to sell war material to our country."
"Actually, if you read the law, it's illegal to sell war materiel; this is war material, perfectly legal..."

Nitpicky though it is, and while I understand the intention of the clause, it's the one thing that can prevent the intention being broken.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

With all due respect Miss Orman, war material would have been very well covered by materiel,

ma·te·ri·el /məˌti(ə)rēˈel/

Noun
Military materials and equipment.

Synonyms
equipment - outfit - rig

Due respect noted. I stand corrected.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I must be spending too much time in the Silly/Illegal Proposals threads; I'm seeing errors where they do not exist. I...think I need a lie down...and maybe a holiday...

[Novo Wagondia]

Hi everybody- I'm rather confused about this last part of the proposal, being explained as such:

"Member nations that form military alliances with any non-member nation must make full compliance with the provisions of this resolution by that ally a term of the alliance."

Here are my questions-

1. Who is being referred to under the title 'Member Nations'? Are the aforesaid nations WA nations, and are the 'non-member nations' nations not involved in the WA?

2. On topic with the above, it seems rather overreaching to be directly influencing non-WA nations simply by their association with WA nations. Am I getting the full picture here, or am I missing something?

[Sciongrad]

Thank you, your Excellency, for taking the time to ask for clarification prior to making a decision. If I don't answer your questions in a way that you find satisfactory, feel free to tell me.

1. Who is being referred to under the title 'Member Nations'? Are the aforesaid nations WA nations, and are the 'non-member nations' nations not involved in the WA?

The term "member nations" generally refers to World Assembly nations, while "non-member nations" are nations not within the World Assembly.

2. On topic with the above, it seems rather overreaching to be directly influencing non-WA nations simply by their association with WA nations. Am I getting the full picture here, or am I missing something?

I wouldn't say this affects member nations directly. Member nations are not allowed to form an alliance with non-member nations that don't respect the neutrality of member nations, so perhaps they're being influenced indirectly. However, they aren't being forced to obey World Assembly law. I think it's reasonable to prevent World Assembly member nations from forming alliances with nations that are unwilling to respect neutrality, or (in a more sinister situation) from having member nations use non-member nations to circumvent the law - it would be a glaring loophole if member nations could have their non-member allies violate an enemies neutrality on the behalf of said member nation.

[Novo Wagondia]

Thank you, your Excellency, for taking the time to ask for clarification prior to making a decision. If I don't answer your questions in a way that you find satisfactory, feel free to tell me.

1. Who is being referred to under the title 'Member Nations'? Are the aforesaid nations WA nations, and are the 'non-member nations' nations not involved in the WA?

The term "member nations" generally refers to World Assembly nations, while "non-member nations" are nations not within the World Assembly.

2. On topic with the above, it seems rather overreaching to be directly influencing non-WA nations simply by their association with WA nations. Am I getting the full picture here, or am I missing something?

I wouldn't say this affects member nations directly. Member nations are not allowed to form an alliance with non-member nations that don't respect the neutrality of member nations, so perhaps they're being influenced indirectly. However, they aren't being forced to obey World Assembly law. I think it's reasonable to prevent World Assembly member nations from forming alliances with nations that are unwilling to respect neutrality, or (in a more sinister situation) from having member nations use non-member nations to circumvent the law - it would be a glaring loophole if member nations could have their non-member allies violate an enemies neutrality on the behalf of said member nation.

Thank you for this- I appreciate your answer. I will certainly think on the matter.

[Slafstopia]

Sigh. I think most people took one look at the words "global disarmament" and "rights" and screwed this proposal.

[Abacathea]

The sad part is, I actually like this proposal and would love to vote yes for it but I'm obligated to vote as the region majority does, so unless I can sway them....

[Sciongrad]

Sigh. I think most people took one look at the words "global disarmament" and "rights" and screwed this proposal.

That, and Gatesville's growing influence and their habit of voting against everything, as soon by Osiris' dissenting vote. As the vote draws on, I feel as if the tide of the vote will turn, however.

[Abacathea]

Sigh. I think most people took one look at the words "global disarmament" and "rights" and screwed this proposal.

That, and Gatesville's growing influence and their habit of voting against everything, as soon by Osiris' dissenting vote. As the vote draws on, I feel as if the tide of the vote will turn, however.

You need to get 10ki on your side. They can swing the lemming vote.

[Svornost]

Sigh. I think most people took one look at the words "global disarmament" and "rights" and screwed this proposal.

Or we just don't see the point, after having read it carefully.

So sell it to me: why is it in Svornost's best interest to vote for this proposal?