by Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:29 am
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:29 am
by Wrapper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:37 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production, namely GA#66 Endangered Species Protection, GA#291 Sustainable Forest Management and GA#403 Trade of Endangered Organisms;
by Wrapper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:48 am
Celebrating past achievements in ensuring sustainable and responsible timber production;
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:45 am
by Araraukar » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:57 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:*snip*
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:00 am
Araraukar wrote:argument.
by Araraukar » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:04 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:All I see are facts.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wrapper » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:12 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:How could that list possibly 'rely on the existing resolutions to support it'? What, would repeal of those resolutions wipe their existence from history so thoroughly that nobody can remember that they never existed? The fact that legislation was passed in the past on some topic is not a mutable fact.
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:48 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Wouldn't Environmental - Logging be a more appropriate AoE?
Araraukar wrote:Uan, have you checked the last 2-3 times this has been tried? The same arguments are likely to come up. Arguments about the draft contents, I mean, not rules technicalities.
by New Fakeland » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:05 am
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:56 pm
New Fakeland wrote:I feel that this resolution doesn't really achieve much; all it seems to require, is that wood cannot be mislabelled as WAFC wood, when it is not. The rest of the resolution (the "urge" statement) are simply recommendations, and have no power.
Secondly, I'm not familiar with the WAFC. Is this an organisation you intend to create, or one that has been created by a previous resolution, and if so, what failsafe do you have in place, if that previous resolution is repealed?
by Ransium » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:11 pm
by Tzorsland » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:23 pm
House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent.
Wrapper wrote:What are you going on about? The HoC rule has been interpreted the same way since its inception. Unless GenSec suddenly wants to change its interpretation, the unrevised clause is illegal.
Araraukar wrote:Give it a rest. There's a whole discussion for that somewhere, you don't need to use someone's drafting thread to restart the argument.
by Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:00 am
Tzorsland wrote:OOC: This really needs to go to Gen Sec, enough is too much.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sciongrad » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:41 am
by Tzorsland » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:37 am
Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I would definitely encourage a challenge on the HoC rule. The wording of the rule doesn't seem to match how we have historically interpreted it. This is ripe for clarification.
by Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:59 am
Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I would definitely encourage a challenge on the HoC rule. The wording of the rule doesn't seem to match how we have historically interpreted it. This is ripe for clarification.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:27 am
Tzorsland wrote:OOC: Unfortunately, the author was eager to strike it out, and I don't have "standing" to force him to include it, so the challenge is moot unless the author wants to make such a challenge.
by Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:33 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Then, I'll go for this, until such time that a challenge on this proposal is ruled upon: I will vote against this proposal if the author does not include that line. I will vote for this proposal if the author does include that line.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wrapper » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:47 am
by Sciongrad » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:53 am
Araraukar wrote:Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I would definitely encourage a challenge on the HoC rule. The wording of the rule doesn't seem to match how we have historically interpreted it. This is ripe for clarification.
OOC: USE THE DEDICATED DISCUSSION THREAD. Please.
by Bananaistan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:26 pm
Araraukar wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Then, I'll go for this, until such time that a challenge on this proposal is ruled upon: I will vote against this proposal if the author does not include that line. I will vote for this proposal if the author does include that line.
OOC: Stooping to vote blackmailing as a bully tactic is a new low even for you.
by Araraukar » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:35 pm
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: At the moment, I can't see anything here that mandates or urges any action by member states completely independent of the committee.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement