Merni wrote:It does not require, it requests. Here's the difference.
To require "x" means that WA nations must do "x". There is no choice.
To request "x" means that WA nations are encouraged and asked to do "x", but they still have the choice not to do "x".
Sorry if I sounded a bit condescending there.
Calladan wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:
I see at least one of you looks at Oxford Dictionaries. A pity neither of you bothered to read its entry on the verb request, which lists demand as a synonym for request.
Even the author of this proposal acknowledged that.
So, you are saying Oxford is wrong if you deny that they are synonyms.
Oxford is wrong.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"The Confederate Dominion delegation suggests that the definition of "request" be changed to the dictionary version:"an act of asking politely or formally for something.
Herby wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"The Confederate Dominion delegation suggests that the definition of "request" be changed to the dictionary version:"
Oooh oooh while you're at it you should add the dictionary definitions for "affirm", "require", "forbid" and oooh since you use it in the first three clauses you should define "define" too.
Or ehhhhhh, you know, not.
There ain't no sense in puttin' dictionary definitions into this, we all know what the dictionary definition is, and if it's the dictionary definition that you're following, then you don't need it. Nor do the dozens of other resolutions that use the word. Right? Right!
Louisistan wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Are you going to explain your objections to the definition? I'm not a psychic, you know.
No. I am not going to indulge your notion that "request" is some sort of technical term to be defined within the scope of a resolution. Instead of listening to the advice you were given, you decided to passive-agressively redefine a word that's commonly used in resolutions.
Max Becker
WA Ambassador, Louisistan
Separatist Peoples wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: I appreciate your, um, request, but I must politely decline. That said, I may save that definition for a future proposal. You never know when it might come in handy.
"I really must insist that we not go about turning definitions of common words on their head when they aren't being used as a term of art, ambassador. It promises to set a very bad precedent."
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Good stuff, Ambassador Nitro - this would close a loophole that's been too tiny to spend serious time on, but big enough to cause headaches among human rights watchers. You can take out the unnecessary definition of 'request,' especially since a recommendation is actually a different thing, and be assured of our support."
OOC: Seriously, I would take it out. I think the "confusion" is insufficient to be feared as a repeal hook, though I appreciate the similarity to the space debris resolutions (where I was proved wrong on a similar point). The difference here is that the request isn't the linchpin of the whole resolution the way "debris" was there.
And the most insightful advice was here:
Tahkranul wrote:"Ancestors, lend me your strength and patience.
"Neville, darling, look at what's going on here. The delegation from Excidium Planetis doesn't like your proposed resolution, but they've thus far failed to convince you or anyone else to abandon it, so -- failing logic -- the darlings have resorted to outright mockery to derail the proceedings. It's a -- oh what's the term, devaluing tactic? By presenting an argument blatantly absurd, they're trying to shift the focus of discussion off of any actual merits and flaws of your draft and onto a fabrication.
"A request is politely and formally asking for something. A demand is forcibly insisting upon a certain something. A recommendation is advising a particular course of action. None of these mean the same thing and everyone here knows it -- including the very darlings whose insistence otherwise started this whole circus! Don't play their little games by their rules -- especially not when it's rigged so that mere participation means you lose. You're better than that, Neville dear."
On those 5 pages (from page 2 to page 6), I only saw one person arguing the opposite of all these.
So on the one hand, you're moaning that some people disagree you on a matter of policy: whether clause 8 should be mandatory or not, but never said anything. There's going to be three points of view on that particular issue: it should be mandatory, it shouldn't be mandatory, it should even be in the proposal. I don't particularly care what you do. However, I pointed it out as an issue, and lo and behold it is issue.
On the other hand, you have the far greater problem as outlined in the above quotes where loads of people advised you against this requests nonsense, which I also advised against but didn't quote above. But against their advice, you left it in.
So you're crying that people never said something and you could have changed the proposal had they said it while on another issue, you just ignored the advice of the vast majority of contributors to the thread. Exactly why should they have rushed to your assistance when you had just ignored them?
Edit: My advice now is to try again if Auralia doesn't get his proposal passed first. We can have a genuine discussion about whether clause 8 should be mandatory. If anyone filibusters on the meaning of the word request, ignore them.
