[DEFEATED] Extrajudicial Punishment Ban

[Christian Democrats]

Well would the current proposal be in violation of the optionality rule? If so should the GenSec rerule? Should I pull?

Don't pull.

[Bakhton]

Well would the current proposal be in violation of the optionality rule? If so should the GenSec rerule? Should I pull?

Don't pull.

THEN LETS GO!! FOUR TO GO!!!

[Bakhton]

"WE'RE IN!"

[Wallenburg]

"WE'RE IN!"

And not a moment too soon! Congrats!

[Imperium Anglorum]

A note, the general tag is [IN QUEUE].

[Odd Republic]

The Office of the Acting President put forth a short statement in strong support of the proposal, and contacted the Social Liberal Union's Delegate, Austerain, in favor of the proposal.

"This proposal, which has rightfully reached quorum in the World Assembly, is what Acting President Emmanuel Arymous looks for in legislation by the General Assembly. Protecting the judicial rights of people is certainly something Oddians prize, and to expand that to others is, in the eyes of this nation, excellent. Arymous hope Austerain will give its support, if only symbolic."

[Bakhton]

The Office of the Acting President put forth a short statement in strong support of the proposal, and contacted the Social Liberal Union's Delegate, Austerain, in favor of the proposal.

"This proposal, which has rightfully reached quorum in the World Assembly, is what Acting President Emmanuel Arymous looks for in legislation by the General Assembly. Protecting the judicial rights of people is certainly something Oddians prize, and to expand that to others is, in the eyes of this nation, excellent. Arymous hope Austerain will give its support, if only symbolic."

"Thank you for your steadfast and honorable support."

[Aclion]

"WE'RE IN!"

*Celice pulls out a bottle of champagne*
Adrianne: "Isn't it a bit early to celebrate? It's not even gone to vote yet"
Celice: "Celebrate?... I was just thirsty."

OOC: but yes, congrats to you and good luck. I'm looking forward to seeing this one move forward.

[Wallenburg]

Well would the current proposal be in violation of the optionality rule? If so should the GenSec rerule? Should I pull?

Don't pull.

So it's only illegal if you don't like the author. Good to know.

[Sciongrad]

Don't pull.

So it's only illegal if you don't like the author. Good to know.

CD has explicitly laid out the rationale behind his opinion. I'm sorry that doesn't satisfy you, but it is a very serious accusation to make that CD is abusing his GenSec power. Take complaints of bias to moderation. This is not the place for sour grapes.

[Wallenburg]

So it's only illegal if you don't like the author. Good to know.

CD has explicitly laid out the rationale behind his opinion. I'm sorry that doesn't satisfy you, but it is a very serious accusation to make that CD is abusing his GenSec power. Take complaints of bias to moderation. This is not the place for sour grapes.

This isn't a case of sour grapes. I personally believe that both my resolution and Bakhton's do not violate the optionality rule. I am simply identifying a situation under which CD has decided that it is illegal for one of my resolutions to exempt certain member states, and that it is legal for Bakhton's prospective resolution to exempt certain member states.

However, since you insist that I move this to Moderation, I will do what you ask.

[Bakhton]

CD has explicitly laid out the rationale behind his opinion. I'm sorry that doesn't satisfy you, but it is a very serious accusation to make that CD is abusing his GenSec power. Take complaints of bias to moderation. This is not the place for sour grapes.

This isn't a case of sour grapes. I personally believe that both my resolution and Bakhton's do not violate the optionality rule. I am simply identifying a situation under which CD has decided that it is illegal for one of my resolutions to exempt certain member states, and that it is legal for Bakhton's prospective resolution to exempt certain member states.

However, since you insist that I move this to Moderation, I will do what you ask.

OOC: They're not asking me to pull it because they already ruled it's legal, once informally on the topic of duplication, and on the approval process. It would be rather out there for them to pull it in those circumstances. Regardless, I haven't had any correspondence with CD, if your alleging that he has some bias towards me I'm not sure where that's coming from.

[Wallenburg]

This isn't a case of sour grapes. I personally believe that both my resolution and Bakhton's do not violate the optionality rule. I am simply identifying a situation under which CD has decided that it is illegal for one of my resolutions to exempt certain member states, and that it is legal for Bakhton's prospective resolution to exempt certain member states.

However, since you insist that I move this to Moderation, I will do what you ask.

OOC: They're not asking me to pull it because they already ruled it's legal, once informally on the topic of duplication, and on the approval process. It would be rather out there for them to pull it in those circumstances. Regardless, I haven't had any correspondence with CD, if your alleging that he has some bias towards me I'm not sure where that's coming from.

I don't think CD has any bias in favor of you. He does, however, have reason to dislike me. I'm not sure if that affects his official judgement or not, but I won't rule it out as a possibility. It is just as possible that he has simply changed his interpretation of the rules.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A delayed and mismanaged stack, given the broken and then delayed update. (Posted, and then it arrived, 3:37:48.) However it is, this is now at vote.

[Easonkobborpriusetchia]

The Armed Republic of Easonkobborpriusetchia has decided to vote against this resolution. For it hinders our goal of eliminating crime. At home and abroad.

[Christian Democrats]

We've decided to vote against this proposal because we're concerned that its definitions are too broad and that they could be construed to cover legitimate acts of school discipline or workplace discipline.

[Bakhton]

We've decided to vote against this proposal because we're concerned that its definitions are too broad and that they could be construed to cover legitimate acts of school discipline or workplace discipline.

"They could not possibly cover the immense physical or mental distress woven into the definition. This argument doesn't make much sense."

[Christian Democrats]

We've decided to vote against this proposal because we're concerned that its definitions are too broad and that they could be construed to cover legitimate acts of school discipline or workplace discipline.

"They could not possibly cover the immense physical or mental distress woven into the definition. This argument doesn't make much sense."

Demoting or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct or expelling a student from a university for academic fraud or personal misconduct can both cause "immense distress" to the individuals so punished.

[Bakhton]

"They could not possibly cover the immense physical or mental distress woven into the definition. This argument doesn't make much sense."

Demoting or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct or expelling a student from a university for academic fraud or personal misconduct can both cause "immense distress" to the individuals so punished.

When I speak of immense distress and psychological trauma I don't think these are things people usually think of. As well neither of those would cause physical harm, a part you're coincidentally overlooking.

[Excidium Planetis]

Demoting or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct or expelling a student from a university for academic fraud or personal misconduct can both cause "immense distress" to the individuals so punished.

When I speak of immense distress and psychological trauma I don't think these are things people usually think of. As well neither of those would cause physical harm, a part you're coincidentally overlooking.

"They don't need to cause physical harm. You consistently use 'and/or' in your definition clauses." Blackbourne points out.

[Mundiferrum]

Iffy on what "immense" means when it comes to the psychological -- physical is obvious, but say a child had psychological conditions so far undetected, and the punishment applied to the child would be considered appropriate in most other situations, would said punishment be considered liable? What exactly constitutes "proper parenting"? And I'm not sure how this affects military service.

All that said, since the activities of our secret police all fall under the law (L'ETAT C'EST MOI, PROPER PARENT F***ERS), once these issues are addressed, we may vote for.

OOC: Batman is as much an agent of the man he seems to work against, at the very least because where exactly did his wealth come from if not from working within, or even for, the man? He propagates the broken system that constantly drives Gotham to the edge by arriving, like some abusive policeman, to keep the peace, rather than to totally change and overthrow the system, either by providing a proper, peaceful example to his community, or by actively waging war not only against the criminals whom, he must realize, is a fundamental part of Gotham City's psyche, but also against the broken socioeconomic systems wholly external to Gotham City. His actions are effectively the same as that of the extrajudicial killings currently being buried underneath a pile of raw sewage over here, only at once less socially responsible -- how much money, exactly, has he cost the city in property damage, not to mention the overpopulation of prisons -- and more spectacular. Ie, Bane can go break Batman's back over and over and over again.

[Regele Baular]

Demoting or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct or expelling a student from a university for academic fraud or personal misconduct can both cause "immense distress" to the individuals so punished.

When I speak of immense distress and psychological trauma I don't think these are things people usually think of. As well neither of those would cause physical harm, a part you're coincidentally overlooking.

It is for this reason that the Supreme Dominion of Regele Baular, our Proud and Strong Nation which has now served its people faithfully for generations and which has consistently upheld its promise to govern with the interest of its citizens and the people in mind, votes against this unlawful, unjust, dictatorial imposition of will upon our great and humble sovereign nation.

Under the wording of the law, all military action of any kind, including the traditional punishment run for disobedient recruits, would become a violation of this mandate. In no way, shape or form will Regel Baular or its citizens support the additional, unnecessary burden on out legal system that this proposal would create.

If our strong military practices offend you, let me then personally remind you that it is not the property of any soil to bear both good fruit, and strong men.

Regele Baular casts a strong vote for no. It encourages all other free nations, who strongly believe in their own morality and self-determination, to do the same.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Our Delegation will not allow you to ban Batman. Opposed.

[Railb]

The wording of the proposal, as aforementioned, would be go to far into the military actions of WA nations.

This would also effect my nation's commitment to policing failed states and to defend the Railbite way of life. Therefore, we will change our vote and join Regel Baular and many others in opposing this motion.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Neville: Our Delegation will not allow you to ban Batman. Opposed.

ARI: What does this have to do with... with... what's that sport, with the batman and the thrower? (Ahume whispers in his ear.) A "vigilante"? (More whispering.) Really now? What a horrid concept. Anyway, all this talk about military punishment, and, and "vigilantes", and so-called "school discipline", which no doubt may involve a violent act on a child's bottom-- (Ari shudders, and after a moment, Ahume shudders a bit as well) -- has convinced us to vote in favor of this proposal.