NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Repeal "Responsible Arms Trading"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 10000
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon May 11, 2015 7:46 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:In what world is it not grossly offensive to suggest that non-developed countries are inherently barbaric?

OOC: It sounds like the textbook version of General's "All Xs are Y" trolling, honestly, so I'm even more flabbergasted that this ruling was made.

I wasn't involved in the original ruling but as far as "grossly offensive" is concerned, it certainly isn't.
Grossly Offensive

If you want to execute left-handed men named "Earl" in your country, that's fine. Don't go yammering about it in a Proposal. Yes, this includes screwing with a 'majority' group. Killing all whites is just as bad as killing all Jews. Or blacks. Or poor people. Things such as eliminating "all rights for $group", forced deportation of said group and the like fall under this too.

Arguing that there is a correlation between violence and developing nations may be somewhat offensive to some, but it does not reach the level of grossly offensive and it clearly wasn't an attempt to troll.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Tal and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Mall is following those weird beef-only diets now.

User avatar
Tevehas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 381
Founded: May 05, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Tevehas » Mon May 11, 2015 7:59 am

Finally those in the World Assembly who are tired of the pro-Marx status quo are standing up against the axis of evil that is the belt of Liberal Maoist Paradises that seems to dominate the world assembly.
Nation States stats are unbiased and infallible. Fact-books are supplementary reading material and should be treated as such.
In Memoriam to all those who gave their lives at Cascade Falls, WA, Dec. 1989
WACO WAS JUST PRACTICE

User avatar
The Foxfyre Islands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Feb 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Foxfyre Islands » Mon May 11, 2015 8:19 am

I support the repeal, The Foxfyre Islands voted against the original act due to the wording in the articles mentioned by the esteemed ambassadors.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17002
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon May 11, 2015 8:23 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Arguing that there is a correlation between violence and developing nations may be somewhat offensive to some, but it does not reach the level of grossly offensive and it clearly wasn't an attempt to troll.

OOC: But it really wasn't insinuating. Its right out there with the phrasing that developing countries are violent. I wasn't and I' still not making the argument that this should be trolling, but it sounds just like that All X's are Y standard to me.

Tevehas wrote:Finally those in the World Assembly who are tired of the pro-Marx status quo are standing up against the axis of evil that is the belt of Liberal Maoist Paradises that seems to dominate the world assembly.

"Where are you getting this claptrap from, ambassador? Not every nation supporting this is a socialist government. Plenty of capitalist states are invested in ensuring that reasonable precautions are taken when selling weapons. Turning this into a partisan conflict is just silly! And if the Left is so evil, and you want to fight it, wouldn't this resolution help you do so, as they are disarming themselves?"

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Mon May 11, 2015 9:30 am

We vote FOR the repeal. During the drafting process for "Responsible Arms Trading," we mentioned that the definition of an armament went too far by including every constituent part that goes into making a weapon. Even a mook knows that iron is not an armament, though it can be used to make armaments. When you have to redefine a word in such a fundamental way to make your proposal work, that should be a clue that you're making an error.

Unfortunately, the authoring delegation refused to hear reason on that issue. Our delegation, like many who tried to have input into this law, were simply ignored. We are glad to see that a solid majority of World Assembly nations are now recognizing that they enacted flawed legislation and are voting to be rid of it.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8633
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon May 11, 2015 9:33 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Arguing that there is a correlation between violence and developing nations may be somewhat offensive to some, but it does not reach the level of grossly offensive and it clearly wasn't an attempt to troll.

OOC: But it really wasn't insinuating. Its right out there with the phrasing that developing countries are violent. I wasn't and I' still not making the argument that this should be trolling, but it sounds just like that All X's are Y standard to me.

Since when is the Grossly Offensive rule in the GA rules the same as trolling? If you want to outlaw trolling in GA laws, that's one thing (and feel free to suggest that as a change to the rules or their interpretation in the Rules Discussion). However, that isn't currently a rule, so to say that this repeal shouldn't have gone to vote because it's trolling completely ignores the ruleset we are currently working with in the GA.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Celsuis
Envoy
 
Posts: 326
Founded: Mar 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Celsuis » Mon May 11, 2015 9:50 am

"The delegation of Celsuis would like to voice their wholehearted support for this resolution. We oppose any and all regulations or restrictions on the trade of arms."
Last edited by Celsuis on Mon May 11, 2015 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sir B. Zonwoods, libertarian voluntaryist
Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Republic of Celsuis
Pro: equality, liberty, austrian economics, capitalism, natural rights
Anti: corporatism, keynesian economics, gun control, socialism, interventionism

Political compass: Economic Right: 5.75, Social Libertarian: -6.05 https://www.politicalcompass.org/analys ... &soc=-6.05

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17002
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon May 11, 2015 10:24 am

Mousebumples wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: But it really wasn't insinuating. Its right out there with the phrasing that developing countries are violent. I wasn't and I' still not making the argument that this should be trolling, but it sounds just like that All X's are Y standard to me.

Since when is the Grossly Offensive rule in the GA rules the same as trolling? If you want to outlaw trolling in GA laws, that's one thing (and feel free to suggest that as a change to the rules or their interpretation in the Rules Discussion). However, that isn't currently a rule, so to say that this repeal shouldn't have gone to vote because it's trolling completely ignores the ruleset we are currently working with in the GA.

OOC: I know it isn't the same as trolling in a legal modly-rules sense, but I really would have thought that trolling would be considered offensive content in and of itself. Perhaps the issue I've been having is that I've a different weltumblick on how offensive trolling is than the mod team. I cant agree with the decision, but I can accept the explanation. :)

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 11, 2015 10:33 am

the first of which is irrespective of the violent nature of non-developed countries

OOC:
This isn't even trolling, this is grossly offensive.
This basically says:
Non-developed countries have a violent nature
and it enshrines that statement in a permanent, unrepealable resolution.
It is an insult and defamation for any peaceful but not developed country, whether it is IC, OOC, or even in the realm often named RL.
Please, mods, tell my why permanently enshrining this statement in a permanent, highly visible area is not defamatory, which would be forbidden under the FAQ.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
Senator
 
Posts: 4350
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon May 11, 2015 10:36 am

Losthaven wrote:We vote FOR the repeal. During the drafting process for "Responsible Arms Trading," we mentioned that the definition of an armament went too far by including every constituent part that goes into making a weapon. Even a mook knows that iron is not an armament, though it can be used to make armaments. When you have to redefine a word in such a fundamental way to make your proposal work, that should be a clue that you're making an error.

Unfortunately, the authoring delegation refused to hear reason on that issue. Our delegation, like many who tried to have input into this law, were simply ignored. We are glad to see that a solid majority of World Assembly nations are now recognizing that they enacted flawed legislation and are voting to be rid of it.


I don't know what mental gymnastics are required to believe that "parts" somehow encompasses raw materials, but I can hear the muscle tears and joint dislocations from all the way over here. Multiple delegations pointed out during drafting that that would be an absurd result, yet repeal supporters disingenuously insist on claiming this ultimate woe. Your crocodile tears are not wanted here, Ambassador.
Last edited by Sierra Lyricalia on Mon May 11, 2015 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral [fmr], The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Frustrated Franciscans
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 492
Founded: Aug 01, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Frustrated Franciscans » Mon May 11, 2015 10:54 am

Image
Image
The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade




I object to almighty God, and to all the delegates thus assembled, that we have to read and debate this pathetic repeal argument.

It’s all your fault! It’s all your fault! It’s all your fault!

And I ask all the delegates assembled, all the great delegates that vote based on offsite forums, and those fluffies that never even bother to read the resolution in contradiction of WA law, to vote this piece of trash down completely.

As a representative of a generally non developed country we strongly object to the notion that we have a violent nature. If you want to see our violent nature, just pass this repeal. I mean the Catholic Church gave you the Crusades and the Inquisition (well, actually they weren’t what you think they were) and I’m sure we can do that again (well perhaps not because it’s all fiction but ...) if you push us to the limit by passing this HORRIBLE UNREPEALABLE STATEMENT OF FACT IN THE WA RECORDS.
Proud Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 10000
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon May 11, 2015 11:08 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:Since when is the Grossly Offensive rule in the GA rules the same as trolling? If you want to outlaw trolling in GA laws, that's one thing (and feel free to suggest that as a change to the rules or their interpretation in the Rules Discussion). However, that isn't currently a rule, so to say that this repeal shouldn't have gone to vote because it's trolling completely ignores the ruleset we are currently working with in the GA.

OOC: I know it isn't the same as trolling in a legal modly-rules sense, but I really would have thought that trolling would be considered offensive content in and of itself. Perhaps the issue I've been having is that I've a different weltumblick on how offensive trolling is than the mod team. I cant agree with the decision, but I can accept the explanation. :)

Presumably any trolling attempt would fall under the Grossly Offensive category. I can't imagine any attempt to troll the GA that wouldn't be GO.
Old Hope wrote:
the first of which is irrespective of the violent nature of non-developed countries

OOC:
This isn't even trolling, this is grossly offensive.
This basically says:
Non-developed countries have a violent nature
and it enshrines that statement in a permanent, unrepealable resolution.
It is an insult and defamation for any peaceful but not developed country, whether it is IC, OOC, or even in the realm often named RL.
Please, mods, tell my why permanently enshrining this statement in a permanent, highly visible area is not defamatory, which would be forbidden under the FAQ.
Simply because you find yourself offended does not mean it is grossly offensive. If you don't like it in this case then I'd suggest that you campaign against it.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Tal and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Mall is following those weird beef-only diets now.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Mon May 11, 2015 11:23 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Losthaven wrote:We vote FOR the repeal. During the drafting process for "Responsible Arms Trading," we mentioned that the definition of an armament went too far by including every constituent part that goes into making a weapon. Even a mook knows that iron is not an armament, though it can be used to make armaments. When you have to redefine a word in such a fundamental way to make your proposal work, that should be a clue that you're making an error.

Unfortunately, the authoring delegation refused to hear reason on that issue. Our delegation, like many who tried to have input into this law, were simply ignored. We are glad to see that a solid majority of World Assembly nations are now recognizing that they enacted flawed legislation and are voting to be rid of it.


I don't know what mental gymnastics are required to believe that "parts" somehow encompasses raw materials, but I can hear the muscle tears and joint dislocations from all the way over here. Multiple delegations pointed out during drafting that that would be an absurd result, yet repeal supporters disingenuously insist on claiming this ultimate woe. Your crocodile tears are not wanted here, Ambassador.

A "part" is a very broad term, which can include "components" of a machine. But even if we change "iron" to "steel" or "sheet metal" or "computer chips" or any other manufactured part of a weapon, those things are still not armaments.

Incidentally, "crocodile tears" refers to a false display of emotion, not to an insincere argument.
Last edited by Losthaven on Mon May 11, 2015 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Sciongrad
Minister
 
Posts: 3060
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sciongrad » Mon May 11, 2015 11:42 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote: Simply because you find yourself offended does not mean it is grossly offensive. If you don't like it in this case then I'd suggest that you campaign against it.


This is probably the least important reason of those listed as to why this repeal is illegal, but I still have no idea how you can say that to claim people outside of the Western world are barbaric is anything but trolling. If someone posted something that explicitly said an entire group of people are uncivilized in general, that would punishable. I have no idea why the same principle doesn't apply here. If someone tried to repeal On Abortion, and their argument was that woman don't have to capacity to make decisions on their own, I have no doubt that would be removed. Yet dismissing the entire developing world as inferior is legitimate?

Losthaven wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
I don't know what mental gymnastics are required to believe that "parts" somehow encompasses raw materials, but I can hear the muscle tears and joint dislocations from all the way over here. Multiple delegations pointed out during drafting that that would be an absurd result, yet repeal supporters disingenuously insist on claiming this ultimate woe. Your crocodile tears are not wanted here, Ambassador.

A "part" is a very broad term, which can include "components" of a machine. But even if we change "iron" to "steel" or "sheet metal" or "computer chips" or any other manufactured part of a weapon, those things are still not armaments.


It doesn't matter. Even if raw materials were parts, they shouldn't be traded if they're being used to commit genocide. There is substantive distinction between trading guns to ethnic cleansers and trading material that will be made into a gun to ethnic cleansers.

Kryozerkia wrote:It's a common practice of repeal authors to twist words around. We don't see this as a honest mistake. An honest mistake is claiming that article seven of GAR#325: RAT prohibits any type of trading and prevents nations from procuring arms (an argument that has appeared in some of the illegal attempts).


No, it isn't. Interpreting words incorrectly, like the author has done here, is the very definition of an honest mistake. There is no room for interpretation because a reason to suspect does not mean the same thing as a possibility. And even if, hypothetically, it was acceptable to completely disregard the definitions of words when repealing legislation, no reasonable nation would interpret "reason to suspect" as a "possibility." The threshold for possibility is so wildly more restrictive than "reason to suspect" that any nation that interpreted it as meaning possibility would be unable to trade armaments ever. No reasonable nation would ever interpret it that way, especially considering a very explicit legal definition exists that prevents that type of interpretation from occurring. I'd say I'm shocked at the level of incompetency displayed here, but I'm not.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Mon May 11, 2015 11:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 10000
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon May 11, 2015 11:59 am

Sciongrad wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote: Simply because you find yourself offended does not mean it is grossly offensive. If you don't like it in this case then I'd suggest that you campaign against it.


This is probably the least important reason of those listed as to why this repeal is illegal, but I still have no idea how you can say that to claim people outside of the Western world are barbaric is anything but trolling. If someone posted something that explicitly said an entire group of people are uncivilized in general, that would punishable. I have no idea why the same principle doesn't apply here. If someone tried to repeal On Abortion, and their argument was that woman don't have to capacity to make decisions on their own, I have no doubt that would be removed. Yet dismissing the entire developing world as inferior is legitimate?

We make rulings on a case by case basis, and in this case you are simply incorrect that the single line from the proposal is grossly offensive. If it were a thread in the general forum it wouldn't get dinged for trolling as long as the op was structured properly to debate the point. You are shoving words into the author's mouth to make it more offensive than it really is.

I'll additionally point out that stating that, typically speaking, if a country is nondeveloped in the NS sense (which is the sense with which we interpret resolutions) then it probably has no security infrastructure and thus quite probably is more violent than those nations which have developed such institutions. So not only do I not find the line offensive, but on a simplistic level it may even be entirely accurate for the sake of this proposal. Making this into a West vs Everyone else issue is simply crazy. There isn't such a dichotomy in the IC GA.
Last edited by Mallorea and Riva on Mon May 11, 2015 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Tal and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Mall is following those weird beef-only diets now.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
Senator
 
Posts: 4350
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon May 11, 2015 12:42 pm

Losthaven wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
I don't know what mental gymnastics are required to believe that "parts" somehow encompasses raw materials, but I can hear the muscle tears and joint dislocations from all the way over here. Multiple delegations pointed out during drafting that that would be an absurd result, yet repeal supporters disingenuously insist on claiming this ultimate woe. Your crocodile tears are not wanted here, Ambassador.

A "part" is a very broad term, which can include "components" of a machine. But even if we change "iron" to "steel" or "sheet metal" or "computer chips" or any other manufactured part of a weapon, those things are still not armaments.


But surely you wouldn't claim the WA has no business stopping someone from shipping rifled barrels, bolts, and cartridge ejector assemblies to the Fascist Assimilocracy of Crapolastan? That may not be shipping them finished weapons, but it's giving them the most annoying pieces ready for assembly. That's a reasonable prohibition, and I can't see any reasonable nation claiming that it stops them from shipping raw metals or even sheet steel. You understand that finding ways around resolutions while remaining technically in compliance with the letter of the law is more popular than football, soccer, and cricket combined in this assembly, don't you? And yet here we are, with a fairly but not cripplingly broad window of interpretability here, and nations are crying that it's too restrictive.

Incidentally, "crocodile tears" refers to a false display of emotion, not to an insincere argument.


Political arguments are inherently emotional; I've never seen a terrible argument that wasn't accompanied by an embarrassing display of hystrionics.
Last edited by Sierra Lyricalia on Mon May 11, 2015 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral [fmr], The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 11, 2015 1:12 pm

From the rules:
Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a 'Repeal', it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

This rule was specificially designed to prevent unrepealable legislation, since repeals are not repealable themselves. Repeals were introduced to stop an eternal rule of resolutions,to allow member nations to remove legislation.
It seems like I have to ask for a new feature.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon May 11, 2015 1:14 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Making this into a West vs Everyone else issue is simply crazy. There isn't such a dichotomy in the IC GA.

OOC: Yeah, I mean it's not like anyone's ever invoked Cecil Rhodes to argue their case.

"I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives."

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 28029
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Capitalizt

Postby Frisbeeteria » Mon May 11, 2015 2:04 pm

Old Hope wrote:It seems like I have to ask for a new feature.

The "new" feature you seek already exists. It's called a Getting Help request. Note carefully that it's not called a Getting Help DEMAND.

The moderators are trained in making judgments based on GHRs according to site rules. The fact that you disagree with the outcome does not invalidate the system or require a new safeguarding method.

User avatar
New York Extreme
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Dec 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby New York Extreme » Mon May 11, 2015 2:07 pm

We as a country have decided to repeal this law. :) :) :D

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 11, 2015 2:18 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Old Hope wrote:It seems like I have to ask for a new feature.

The "new" feature you seek already exists. It's called a Getting Help request. Note carefully that it's not called a Getting Help DEMAND.

The moderators are trained in making judgments based on GHRs according to site rules. The fact that you disagree with the outcome does not invalidate the system or require a new safeguarding method.

I meant something that enables the WA to remove repeals, not a GHR demand.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 28029
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Capitalizt

Postby Frisbeeteria » Mon May 11, 2015 2:34 pm

Old Hope wrote:I meant something that enables the WA to remove repeals, not a GHR demand.

I didn't misunderstand you. The way to remove a problem repeal is to file a GHR and catch it before it goes to vote. One was filed, on time. A ruling was made. You didn't like it.

That's not a justification for a new feature.

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 11, 2015 2:48 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Old Hope wrote:I meant something that enables the WA to remove repeals, not a GHR demand.

I didn't misunderstand you. The way to remove a problem repeal is to file a GHR and catch it before it goes to vote. One was filed, on time. A ruling was made. You didn't like it.

That's not a justification for a new feature.

I think this should be discussed in technical, and not here, so I'll drop it here.
Back to the proposed resolution:
I agree with the definition problems, especially when looking at the definition of what could be legitimately construed as being parts(Not metal though)
and would support a resolution like that, were it not for the clause I mentioned earlier.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Sciongrad
Minister
 
Posts: 3060
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sciongrad » Mon May 11, 2015 6:02 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:We make rulings on a case by case basis, and in this case you are simply incorrect that the single line from the proposal is grossly offensive. If it were a thread in the general forum it wouldn't get dinged for trolling as long as the op was structured properly to debate the point.


OOC: With all due respect, if I started a thread in general about how barbaric and violent the developing world is, I doubt it would remain open long. But at this point, I guess this we're digressing from discussing the absolute nonsense presented in the text of the repeal. Judging by the lack of a response from Imperium Anglorum, however, I'm assuming that even he acknowledges the entire resolution is specious, and rebutting criticism is unnecessary now that it's essentially passed.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Mon May 11, 2015 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
United Provinces of Low-Lying Nations
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Apr 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby United Provinces of Low-Lying Nations » Mon May 11, 2015 7:48 pm

Now seeing as this is an infringement on one's freedoms I'm all for the repeal people have the right to sell their weapons to whoever they want and now my economy can get back to normal

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads