[PASSED] Repeal 'World Assembly Central Medicinal [...]'

[Chus Kruthe]

I always just throw my vote on the loosing side if I don't care or can't be bothered to actually fully understand a proposal. Gets rid of the red circle, and it won't have much impact on the outcome.

Personally when I don't take interest in a proposal, either side of it, I always vote "No" following a version Speaker Denison's rule (see link) about maintaining the statues quo as I believe if my no vote really impacts the outcome than not enough people wanted the proposal to pass so it really shouldn't be passed. This lets me get rid of that red circle when I don't have an opinion. I find myself doing this a lot with the SC resolutions, they just get tedious and make me wish that you could remain in the GA while resigning from the SC.



Speaker Denison's rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_Denison%27s_rule

[Uan aa Boa]

The proposal makes a number of valid points, particularly concerning the medical/medicinal confusion. When the original resolution passed, however, there was a clear positive effect. Does this indicate that the resolution actually is effective and doesn't simply replicate past resolutions? Or perhaps the analysis that led to the repeal proposal is too subtle for the game mechanics. I don't know, but it leaves a strong pragmatic case for not repealing.

[Excidium Planetis]

The proposal makes a number of valid points, particularly concerning the medical/medicinal confusion. When the original resolution passed, however, there was a clear positive effect. Does this indicate that the resolution actually is effective and doesn't simply replicate past resolutions? Or perhaps the analysis that led to the repeal proposal is too subtle for the game mechanics. I don't know, but it leaves a strong pragmatic case for not repealing.

OOC
No. Resolution effects are determined by category. Even if the resolution advocated mass genocide, by virtue of being in Health: Research, it would have had a positive effect on health and scientific advancement.

Repeals are always based on the text of the resolution, not on the stat effects, because the stat effects are literally the same for every resolution in a category.

[Helaw]

This is now at vote.

[The Rakdos Coalition]

We just passed this into action a few days ago, I think that we should keep it around due to the affect it had on my people, and all others. It saved our nation from having to do research that wasn't required, and most likely anyone who is in the world assembly. This allows the more primitive nations to get the healthcare that they need. Some nations need this medical knowledge to survive, so are we going to take this away from them? I would be willing to give my nation as a vault for the vaccines, and a storage unit for all medical knowledge if the fools who want to pass it get their way. We need a unified medical system to bring the world into united peace for the greater good.

[Helaw]

We just passed this into action a few days ago, I think that we should keep it around due to the affect it had on my people, and all others. It saved our nation from having to do research that wasn't required, and most likely anyone who is in the world assembly. This allows the more primitive nations to get the healthcare that they need. Some nations need this medical knowledge to survive, so are we going to take this away from them? I would be willing to give my nation as a vault for the vaccines, and a storage unit for all medical knowledge if the fools who want to pass it get their way. We need a unified medical system to bring the world into united peace for the greater good.

"As detailed in this repeal, there are existing resolutions that collectively obtain the same results. Would it not be wise to avoid wasting WA funding by abandoning the individual flawed resolution? Furthermore, the problems with this resolution actually hinder healthcare in many instances, with the potential for disinformation and very notable individual interpretation being present. You also make reference to primitive nations benefiting from this resolution: this only applies if they have access to a digital connection. Of course, they could obtain information via a more advanced proxy, but there is much potential for deliberate misinformation and sabotage there."

[Vaflunia]

As a nation that is apart of a region leads in Public Healthcare, I believe that repealing this resolution will pave a way to a better Medicinal Base Compact.

[Covenstone]

If there are other resolutions that achieve the same ends, why was this not ruled illegal for duplication?

Surely this must have some saving grace to have been left alone and allowed to pass into law, otherwise why would it have been left alone and allowed to pass into law?

I the reasons stated in the proposed repeal are laughable and petty and (if I may use such language on the floor of The WA) idiotic at best, and that is the politest term I can find for them.

So, if it is not obvious, I oppose.

[Celtayoshi]

This is just ridiculous. This resolution has only just passed and is now subject to a repeal vote. Why bother having a for/against vote the first time round? Why do we not have a mandatory implementation phase during during which resolutions cannot be repealed? Particularly so as yet again the author of the repeal is essentially having a moan about some slight discrepancies in grammar which make virtually no difference to the text . I am also not sure how you can possibly interpret the original Resolution as excluding specific medical cases but there you go.

Once again another utter waste of time from the world assembly.

[Celtayoshi]

I the reasons stated in the proposed repeal are laughable and petty and (if I may use such language on the floor of The WA) idiotic at best, and that is the politest term I can find for them.

So, if it is not obvious, I oppose.

You have the full support of The Allied States for your language!

[Helaw]

If there are other resolutions that achieve the same ends, why was this not ruled illegal for duplication?

Surely this must have some saving grace to have been left alone and allowed to pass into law, otherwise why would it have been left alone and allowed to pass into law?

"Because it does accomplish other things. Only, those things have nothing to do with the point that I was replying to. To illustrate, I was replying to a point that was quite clearly aimed towards the database part of the resolution, whilst the latter part - in regards to business regulation - is separate. Regardless, this regulative section is beyond the remit of the resolution, and has no right being included in it as an afterthought."

I the reasons stated in the proposed repeal are laughable and petty and (if I may use such language on the floor of The WA) idiotic at best, and that is the politest term I can find for them.

So, if it is not obvious, I oppose.

"Please, do explain why you find them laughable."

This is just ridiculous. This resolution has only just passed and is now subject to a repeal vote. Why bother having a for/against vote the first time round?

"Because the electorate saw fit to pass it the first time. Now, we are pointing out exactly why the resolution is flawed, and offering them the chance to use this knowledge in a second vote."

Why do we not have a mandatory implementation phase during during which resolutions cannot be repealed?

OOC: If you're serious about this, take it to Technical.

Particularly so as yet again the author of the repeal is essentially having a moan about some slight discrepancies in grammar which make virtually no difference to the text .

"Are you referring to the differences in terminology? I am not sure how acquainted you are with the term 'loopholes', but defining a term and going on to use a different one creates them."

I am also not sure how you can possibly interpret the original Resolution as excluding specific medical cases but there you go.

OOC: Because the resolution said exactly that. I don't actually see how you could interpret it otherwise. Observe:

Clarifies that "Medicinal Knowledge" does not refer to patient records, histories, and information, information pertaining to specific employees and patients of hospitals and treatment facilities throughout the WA, information pertaining to specific medical cases and records, technological research, and the research of biological weapons.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't understand why people don't like it when the WA passes and then repeals legislation. Considering the massive structural discrepancies between any For and Against side, e.g. the For side gets the first mover advantage, easy communication to the voters, presentation of all their arguments at once, etc., it is little wonder bad legislation in need of repeal gets passed. The minuscule amount of discussion that actually reaches the voters (along with the fact that the voters only get one side of the argument) really ought be reason to doubt the permanence or even legitimacy of any passed resolution.

[Emmetz]

How come these objections weren't raised at the time?

[Imperium Anglorum]

How come these objections weren't raised at the time?

They were.

[Covenstone]

If there are other resolutions that achieve the same ends, why was this not ruled illegal for duplication?

Surely this must have some saving grace to have been left alone and allowed to pass into law, otherwise why would it have been left alone and allowed to pass into law?

"Because it does accomplish other things. Only, those things have nothing to do with the point that I was replying to. To illustrate, I was replying to a point that was quite clearly aimed towards the database part of the resolution, whilst the latter part - in regards to business regulation - is separate. Regardless, this regulative section is beyond the remit of the resolution, and has no right being included in it as an afterthought."

That wasn't my point. I have only been here a short while, but I am able to look back through previous debates, and if there is even the WHIFF of a possibility of one resolution duplicating another, people generally bounce up and down like my sister on a Shake 'em Shock 'em Pogo Stick and call for them to be disqualified immediately. So I am suggesting that if that was the case in this case, that if "everything this does can be done by existing resolutions" why was it not declared illegal and burned?

Unless you are trying to mislead us to gain votes for a repeal?

I the reasons stated in the proposed repeal are laughable and petty and (if I may use such language on the floor of The WA) idiotic at best, and that is the politest term I can find for them.

So, if it is not obvious, I oppose.

"Please, do explain why you find them laughable."

I really thought I had, but it turns out in arguing in support for the original resolution, I covered most of the objections in this proposed repeal. Then again it was only five seconds ago that it was passed by a large majority, so you can see how I might have thought it was during this debate and not a different one.

[Helaw]

"Because it does accomplish other things. Only, those things have nothing to do with the point that I was replying to. To illustrate, I was replying to a point that was quite clearly aimed towards the database part of the resolution, whilst the latter part - in regards to business regulation - is separate. Regardless, this regulative section is beyond the remit of the resolution, and has no right being included in it as an afterthought."

That wasn't my point. I have only been here a short while, but I am able to look back through previous debates, and if there is even the WHIFF of a possibility of one resolution duplicating another, people generally bounce up and down like my sister on a Shake 'em Shock 'em Pogo Stick and call for them to be disqualified immediately. So I am suggesting that if that was the case in this case, that if "everything this does can be done by existing resolutions" why was it not declared illegal and burned?

OOC: Congratulations, you have witnessed an instance of something not happening. Seriously though, I don't know. I don't know why you're asking me this.

Conclusion: The resolution was passed, and whether or not Gensec or the regulars felt at the time that it was duplication is now irrelevant. Either way, something does not need to be legally duplication to be redundant.

"Please, do explain why you find them laughable."

I really thought I had, but it turns out in arguing in support for the original resolution, I covered most of the objections in this proposed repeal. Then again it was only five seconds ago that it was passed by a large majority, so you can see how I might have thought it was during this debate and not a different one.

"I don't understand the point of your response. It certainly didn't give the explanation that I asked for."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Seeing this resolution leading by, at the time, less than two hundred votes, my office prepared and dispatched a campaign interstelegram two hours ago to all World Assembly Delegates." Blackbourne remarks. "It is difficult to measure the effects of this, but I wish this repeal good luck."

That wasn't my point. I have only been here a short while, but I am able to look back through previous debates, and if there is even the WHIFF of a possibility of one resolution duplicating another, people generally bounce up and down like my sister on a Shake 'em Shock 'em Pogo Stick and call for them to be disqualified immediately. So I am suggesting that if that was the case in this case, that if "everything this does can be done by existing resolutions" why was it not declared illegal and burned?

OOC
Maybe because nobody was paying attention? It wouldn't be the first time an illegal proposal went through.

[Covenstone]

That wasn't my point. I have only been here a short while, but I am able to look back through previous debates, and if there is even the WHIFF of a possibility of one resolution duplicating another, people generally bounce up and down like my sister on a Shake 'em Shock 'em Pogo Stick and call for them to be disqualified immediately. So I am suggesting that if that was the case in this case, that if "everything this does can be done by existing resolutions" why was it not declared illegal and burned?

OOC: Congratulations, you have witnessed an instance of something not happening. Seriously though, I don't know. I don't know why you're asking me this.

Conclusion: The resolution was passed, and whether or not Gensec or the regulars felt at the time that it was duplication is now irrelevant. Either way, something does not need to be legally duplication to be redundant.

<ooc>I was asking because it was a suggestion you are making things up to support this repeal. How was that not clear?</ooc>

I really thought I had, but it turns out in arguing in support for the original resolution, I covered most of the objections in this proposed repeal. Then again it was only five seconds ago that it was passed by a large majority, so you can see how I might have thought it was during this debate and not a different one.

"I don't understand the point of your response. It certainly didn't give the explanation that I asked for."

I know.

[Helaw]

OOC: Congratulations, you have witnessed an instance of something not happening. Seriously though, I don't know. I don't know why you're asking me this.

Conclusion: The resolution was passed, and whether or not Gensec or the regulars felt at the time that it was duplication is now irrelevant. Either way, something does not need to be legally duplication to be redundant.

<ooc>I was asking because it was a suggestion you are making things up to support this repeal. How was that not clear?</ooc>

OOC: Seriously, what am I actually making up here in your eyes? I have said that the legislation is redundant, and I just pointed out that this does not mean that it is necessarily duplication.

"I don't understand the point of your response. It certainly didn't give the explanation that I asked for."

I know.

"I... well, alright then."

[Covenstone]

<ooc>I was asking because it was a suggestion you are making things up to support this repeal. How was that not clear?</ooc>

OOC: Seriously, what am I actually making up here in your eyes? I have said that the legislation is redundant, and I just pointed out that this does not mean that it is necessarily duplication.

<ooc>I am suggesting that we have different points of view. And that depending on your point of view, what you see as redundant, I don't.

And the entire purpose of redundancies, by the way, is to duplicate a process. Redundant power supplies, redundant processors, redundant hard drives. They are all there to provide backup and duplication in the event that the primary system fails.

But, semantics aside, I think you are providing an interpretation that supports your desire to repeal this, and I am providing an interpretation that supports my desire to keep it.</ooc>

[Helaw]

OOC: Seriously, what am I actually making up here in your eyes? I have said that the legislation is redundant, and I just pointed out that this does not mean that it is necessarily duplication.

<ooc>I am suggesting that we have different points of view. And that depending on your point of view, what you see as redundant, I don't.

And the entire purpose of redundancies, by the way, is to duplicate a process. Redundant power supplies, redundant processors, redundant hard drives. They are all there to provide backup and duplication in the event that the primary system fails.

But, semantics aside, I think you are providing an interpretation that supports your desire to repeal this, and I am providing an interpretation that supports my desire to keep it.</ooc>

OOC: Alright, let me make something clear here. As evidenced earlier in this thread, I was not the one that interpreted it that way in the first place. I included it in this repeal because I agreed that the interpretation was a perfectly valid way to see things. You are barking up the wrong tree if you want to debate with the person that initially interpreted it that way.

Again, GenSec does not have to note every redundancy as being illegal duplication. For the record, I am a native English speaker, and thus understand how do are words defining. You don't need to explain what 'redundancy' means, particularly if your definition misses a crucial element: redundancy does not necessarily lead to the presence of 'backup and duplication', as something can be rendered redundant (useless, outdated) whilst still being different from what now exists. We would not consider dialup internet a duplicate of standard broadband, but it would still be outdated.

If you have a different interpretation, that is completely fine. There are other points in the resolution that are open for you to take note of, many of which are objective and thus not open to interpretation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The question of whether this resolution is necessary to back up medical data is a silly one, at best. The ULC already collects and distributes that data in a fault-redundant and distributed manner. If anything, having a single centralised database, like this resolution does, is worse than the decentralised system adopted in the ULC.

[Nativista]

Lynn Costa, Nativista's Director of Health and Welfare, sets down a copy of the repeal proposal in braille on the table. She runs her fingers over the document. "How and why would we repeal the whole database? Not only has it already been started, but this database could save millions."

[Excidium Planetis]

Lynn Costa, Nativista's Director of Health and Welfare, sets down a copy of the repeal proposal in braille on the table. She runs her fingers over the document. "How and why would we repeal the whole database? Not only has it already been started, but this database could save millions."

"Because the database contains misleading or false information that could kill millions." Blackbourne says. "And it is inferior to existing resolutions."

[Breezelandia]

"Hey guys, let's repeal something we just passed with overwhelming support!"

The World Assembly in a nutshell.