[DEFEATED] Repeal of Rights and Duties of WA States

[Frisbeeteria]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=323#p313

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #2
Proposed by: Keshiland

Description: Rights and Duties of WA States A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Argument: This resolution put an undue burden on the WA to work as a governing body. With too many regulations that impede the WA as a whole.

Noting: that this resolution fails to take into account what is needed for any governing body to be effective.

Noting that The Principle of National Sovereignty is far too vague and used as essentially a get out of jail free card for anyone to use against any resolution they want to not pass.

Regretting that this resolution fails to relies the difference between nations and how in some circumstances equality in the resolutions is not doable

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more effective version of this resolution to the World Assembly,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA States".

[Grays Harbor]

World Assembly Resolution #344, Minimum Standard of Living Act
World Assembly Resolution #43, WA Labor Relations Act

Read Me

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:
OOC: Keshiland, seriously, just stop it. Do not come up with anymore half-baked, ill thought out crusades and submit version after version. This is getting you a reputation as a badge hunter. Read the rules and guidelines, listen to advise, read the rules and guidelines again, participate in debate, read the rules and guidelines again (until you really understand them).

Similar sentiments have been echoed in every one of your other threads. it's time to KNOCK IT OFF and follow the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.

[Grays Harbor]

*sigh*

It is considered Bad Form to change a debate thread from the original to a completely unrelated topic.

That said, this repeal is flawed. badly. Just like everything else you have spammed on the the submissions. Stop it.

[Keshiland]

is it illegal no!

[Jarish Inyo]

is it illegal no!

Might as well be. After all, all you seem to do is write badly thought ouabain illegal proposals. And whine when everyone tells you so.

But for the sake of argument, how does GAR2 actually prevent the WA from functioning?

[Grays Harbor]

It is nothing but ad hominums without any supporting evidence. None. Rights and Duties is one of the more straight forward and concise resolutions on the books. To describe it as "vague" is ludicrous. Have an issue with it? Fine, whatever. But back up what you say. Give reason. Read the freaking rules and guidelines, for chrissakes.

[Thermodolia]

is it illegal no!

Well natsov isn't a get out of rail free card as you claim. All WA legislation applies to all members weather they like it or not.

[Keshiland]

But for the sake of argument, how does GAR2 actually prevent the WA from functioning?

It gives a reason for every proposal ever to be illegal basically letting everyone go on opinion with the sovereignty in boarders clause. I could say the abortion legalization one is in violation of that. I could say the helping the poor violates that. I could say equal rights violates that. I can say anything violates that cause it trespasses on sovereignty

[Grays Harbor]

But for the sake of argument, how does GAR2 actually prevent the WA from functioning?

It gives a reason for every proposal ever to be illegal basically letting everyone go on opinion with the sovereignty in boarders clause. I could say the abortion legalization one is in violation of that. I could say the helping the poor violates that. I could say equal rights violates that. I can say anything violates that cause it trespasses on sovereignty

You saying it doesn't make it so.
The Secretariat, Mods, and experienced GA authors saying it does, as a general rule, bear paying attention to.

You have deliberately misconstrued what #2 is because you have yet to write anything close to legal, as well as a demonstrated inability to listen to advise or learn from mistakes. When told something is illegal or a bad idea, that is what it is, illegal or a bad idea. Not a personal attack. Not obstructionism. Not "Vague Resolutions".

Read the rules and guidelines please. Stop submitting, withdrawing, and resubmitting half-baked ideas, please.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

OOC:

Is it just me, or does it stand to reason that if NatSov alone is not grounds for a repeal would not IntFed also not be grounds alone for a repeal. That being said, if this ever gets to the floor we'll be opposed. The argument simply isn't good enough.

[Keshiland]

It gives a reason for every proposal ever to be illegal basically letting everyone go on opinion with the sovereignty in boarders clause. I could say the abortion legalization one is in violation of that. I could say the helping the poor violates that. I could say equal rights violates that. I can say anything violates that cause it trespasses on sovereignty

You saying it doesn't make it so.
The Secretariat, Mods, and experienced GA authors saying it does, as a general rule, bear paying attention to.

You have deliberately misconstrued what #2 is because you have yet to write anything close to legal, as well as a demonstrated inability to listen to advise or learn from mistakes. When told something is illegal or a bad idea, that is what it is, illegal or a bad idea. Not a personal attack. Not obstructionism. Not "Vague Resolutions".

Read the rules and guidelines please. Stop submitting, withdrawing, and resubmitting half-baked ideas, please.

How does reguiring abortion rights not fall under illegal for not respecting sovereignty but banning guns does?

[Jarish Inyo]

But for the sake of argument, how does GAR2 actually prevent the WA from functioning?

It gives a reason for every proposal ever to be illegal basically letting everyone go on opinion with the sovereignty in boarders clause. I could say the abortion legalization one is in violation of that. I could say the helping the poor violates that. I could say equal rights violates that. I can say anything violates that cause it trespasses on sovereignty

I'm starting to think that you did not read GAR2. After all, it does clearly state the a nation's own laws are not an excepted reason for breaking international law.

And no nation needs a reason to ignore or break international law as the WA has no way of enforcing any of it.

[Keshiland]

It gives a reason for every proposal ever to be illegal basically letting everyone go on opinion with the sovereignty in boarders clause. I could say the abortion legalization one is in violation of that. I could say the helping the poor violates that. I could say equal rights violates that. I can say anything violates that cause it trespasses on sovereignty

I'm starting to think that you did not read GAR2. After all, it does clearly state the a nation's own laws are not an excepted reason for breaking international law.

And no nation needs a reason to ignore or break international law as the WA has no way of enforcing any of it.

So resolutions are mere suggestions? Basically like Congress under the Articles of Confederation? That sounds pointless.

[Essu Beti]

It gives a reason for every proposal ever to be illegal basically letting everyone go on opinion with the sovereignty in boarders clause. I could say the abortion legalization one is in violation of that. I could say the helping the poor violates that. I could say equal rights violates that. I can say anything violates that cause it trespasses on sovereignty

I'm starting to think that you did not read GAR2. After all, it does clearly state the a nation's own laws are not an excepted reason for breaking international law.

And no nation needs a reason to ignore or break international law as the WA has no way of enforcing any of it.

I'm just going to be OOC for this entire thread.

Yeah, NatSov has never been a justification for nations to violate WA law. The assumption is always that nations either make a good-faith effort to enforce the law, or mysterious gnomes enforce it for them. Because, barring a theoretical glitch in the actual game programming, a nation always gets the automatic stat-changes that occur. So clearly, something in the narrative has to be enforcing the WA laws.

[Jarish Inyo]

Gnomes don't enforce the laws, they just add them to a nation's legal system. Then it's up to the nation to actually enforce them or not. After all, the WA is not permitted to have an enforcement branch.

Keshiland,

Just like in RL, nations can choose the extent to which they enforce and abide international law. Or to completely ignore laws they do not wish to comply with. Though, it's much more assuming to find the loopholes of the laws and use them to not have to abide by the law but still be in compliance with them.

[Araraukar]

Though, it's much more assuming to find the loopholes of the laws and use them to not have to abide by the law but still be in compliance with them.

OOC: I think your autocorrect might be tripping you up there, but yeah, creative compliance rather than an outright "I won't do this, and you can't make me, nyah" is much preferred. So you might take your own advice there, Jarish.

---

101 minutes ago: The Democratic Republic of Keshiland submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Repeals Board entitled "Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"".

So why was it a good idea to submit this? Especially after a moderator told you to stop doing that?

[Jarish Inyo]

My IPhone and I are currently having communications issues. Now where is the fun in this after you find loopholes? Gotta do something. Plus, I do have a reputation to uphold.

[Grays Harbor]

My IPhone and I are currently having communications issues. Now where is the fun in this after you find loopholes? Gotta do something. Plus, I do have a reputation to uphold.

You know what is reputation? Is people talking, is gossip. I also have reputation; not so pleasant, I think you know.
(opens the door to show a man hanging upside-down from the ceiling)
Now for you, my reputation is not from gossip. You see this man? Ehh, he does not do the job. I show you what I do with him, and now for you my reputation is fact. Is solid.

[Jarish Inyo]

My IPhone and I are currently having communications issues. Now where is the fun in this after you find loopholes? Gotta do something. Plus, I do have a reputation to uphold.

You know what is reputation? Is people talking, is gossip. I also have reputation; not so pleasant, I think you know.
(opens the door to show a man hanging upside-down from the ceiling)
Now for you, my reputation is not from gossip. You see this man? Ehh, he does not do the job. I show you what I do with him, and now for you my reputation is fact. Is solid.

Where's the bat and sharp pointy things? Don't tell me you just hang people up.

[The New California Republic]

IC: Ambassador, it is in incredibly poor taste to go for a shotgun effect of submitting multiple proposals to get one passed. It is actually on the verge of belligerency at this stage, considering the sheer number of proposals you have made within a short time frame, despite the more-than-adequate feedback stating how bad your draft proposals are. Take a breather in the World Assembly Lobby, gather your thoughts, and work on a single draft proposal. Work on the draft for several weeks if necessary, and take any feedback on board, rather than ignoring it. Ignoring feedback from others is a surefire way of irritating the members of the World Assembly who will vote on - and ultimately decide the fate of - your proposal. We are here to help, so let us help.

[Bears Armed]

The submitted version

Repeal: “Rights And Duties Of WA States”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#2
Proposed by: Keshiland

General Assembly Resolution #2 “Rights and Duties of WA States” (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Description: Rights and Duties of WA States A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Argument: This resolution put an undue burden on the WA to work as a governing body. With too many regulations that impede the WA as a whole.

Noting: that this resolution fails to take into account what is needed for any governing body to be effective.

Noting that The Principle of National Sovereignty is far too vague and used as essentially a get out of jail free card for anyone to use against any resolution they want to not pass.

Regretting that this resolution fails to relies the difference between nations and how in some circumstances equality in the resolutions is not doable

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more effective version of this resolution to the World Assembly.


Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 113 more approvals)

has been inspected by two GenSec members so far, and although we might not have been entirely happy about its wording we are agreed so far that it does qualify [however narrowly] as legal.

GenSec Status: LEGAL
Info
Legal (2): Sierra Lyricalia, Bears Armed
20 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Legal
40 minutes ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Legal

[Imperium Anglorum]

It doesn't appear there is a repeals clause. Has that requirement been changed?

[The New California Republic]

OOC: I love it how Keshiland has cynically put {LEGAL} in the thread title now. It may be legal, but it is still a damn awful proposal that will never reach quorum. I wish that spelling mistakes and punctuation errors (which this proposal has) were enough to make a proposal illegal, just on the basis that such mistakes could potentially cause confusion in interpretation. Even so, having such mistakes does reduce the odds of a proposal reaching quorum, so I guess there is a silver lining in every cloud...

[Bears Armed]

It doesn't appear there is a repeals clause. Has that requirement been changed?

Some time ago. As a repeal only repeals, and so no other explanation of its effects is necessary, the boilerplate line automatically added saying that it repeals the target resolution is considered sufficient.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It doesn't appear there is a repeals clause. Has that requirement been changed?

Some time ago. As a repeal only repeals, and so no other explanation of its effects is necessary, the boilerplate line automatically added saying that it repeals the target resolution is considered sufficient.

I'm pleased. That is the correct decision, it should have been made when repeals were first introduced.