Advertisement
by Auralia » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:06 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:01 pm
Auralia wrote:We reiterate our prior condition for our support: punishments for non-compliance must be proportionate to the violation.
Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
by States of Glory WA Office » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:01 pm
by Kenmoria » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:26 am
by Port Solent » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:43 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:53 pm
Port Solent wrote:First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?
Kenmoria wrote:"For the 'giving credence' clause, 'damning' is slightly informal for a law. Perhaps 'incriminating' would be a better word choice."
by The Candy Of Bottles » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:55 pm
Port Solent wrote:First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?
Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal
by Port Solent » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:30 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Port Solent wrote:First, I'm new to this side of the game, so please be gentle with me, but isn't this a HoC violation, not because #GAR390 is mentioned, but because Article 1 of the current draft establishes a subcommission of the commission set up in #GAR390 so quite literally relies on it. If 390 is repealed, then this subcommission falls apart as it's got nothing to be "sub" to?
Not per the current reading of the rule. See the ongoing challenge.
The Candy Of Bottles wrote:Actually, no. The rules for Committees:Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal
viewtopic.php?p=8133407#p8133407
Emphasis mine.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:40 am
by Greater Gilead » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:46 pm
Deropia wrote:Jason can't help but laugh as the scotch bottle, followed soon after by the pie, fly through the air of the chamber. "Ah, this place may be a mad-house...but its the best damn posting I've ever had...".
The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Ambassador Conklin reads the proposal, blinks twice, and mutters "There ain't enough whiskey to deal with this crap."
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:50 pm
Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.
by Greater Gilead » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:01 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.
"I don't understand your point. This hasn't passed, so of course there have been no consequences. Frankly, your protest means nothing to me."
Deropia wrote:Jason can't help but laugh as the scotch bottle, followed soon after by the pie, fly through the air of the chamber. "Ah, this place may be a mad-house...but its the best damn posting I've ever had...".
The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Ambassador Conklin reads the proposal, blinks twice, and mutters "There ain't enough whiskey to deal with this crap."
by Stoskavanya » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:05 pm
Greater Gilead wrote:Currently there are no consequences. If there were, I might be a bit more creative than blatant non-compliance.
That's what I meant.
by Liagolas » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:38 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:50 pm
by Kenmoria » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:10 pm
Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:03 pm
Liagolas wrote:"It is the pleasure of the Dominion to report that it sees no glaring problems in the draft's content," the Mouth says. "It seems legal, and it looks effective. It does, however, offer the following grammatical feedback.
"The first sentence (the preambulatory clauses) lacks a subject. The proposal ought either to start with 'The World Assembly' or some other like nominative, or the 'Hereby enacts' clause ought to include such at the beginning.
"Additionally, in Article II, the third clause ('Coordinate...') ends with a period instead of a semicolon. As the Dominion understands it, there ought to be a semicolon, as otherwise the fourth clause ('Remain...') demarcates a new sentence that now lacks a subject. However, it is the concession of the Dominion that list under the third clause may be introducing some grammatical nuance it is unfamiliar with. If so, the Dominion asks that its error be forgiven.
"The very last clause ('No member...') is missing an apostrophe and should read 'No member states' sanction of any kind...'
"Finally, as a stylistic point, the Dominion would be interested in seeing the use of either 'Article' or 'Art' made consistent across the entire draft. As it is, half the articles read 'Article [X]' and half read 'Art. [X]', and it is the confusion of the Dominion as to why."
"That aside, however, the Dominion sees no other error. It finds this legislation rather interesting and it is the thought of the Dominion that it is a worthy aim. Thus, the Dominion offers its moral support."
"Of course, the Dominion argues that there are soft-power incentives for compliance regardless, but that is neither here nor there, and evidently has not been true for all member states."
Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."
(OOC: I was a bit unsure whether this post was IC or OOC, but I've answered in IC)
"On the subject of the draft, the character limit for proposals is something this delegation believes to be 3500, however your draft currently clocks in at 3,687."
by Greater Gilead » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:29 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Greater Gilead wrote:I have been holding my peace, but I will now speak. Have you ever heard the term "Civil Disobedience"? That is half the reason I violate the ones I do.
The other half of the reason is there aren't any real consequences. I haven't gotten embargoed, or anything.
"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."
Deropia wrote:Jason can't help but laugh as the scotch bottle, followed soon after by the pie, fly through the air of the chamber. "Ah, this place may be a mad-house...but its the best damn posting I've ever had...".
The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Ambassador Conklin reads the proposal, blinks twice, and mutters "There ain't enough whiskey to deal with this crap."
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:35 am
"You already lost that pathetic argument. Your particular religious beliefs ought to be not just restricted, but made entirely illegal to act upon. Your 'freedom of religion' arguments are illogical, inconsistent and inhuman. Just like your home nation, your arguments are complete failures."Greater Gilead wrote:Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."
One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Aclion » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:09 am
Greater Gilead wrote:Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."
One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.
by Wallenburg » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:17 am
Greater Gilead wrote:Kenmoria wrote:"I would hardly call breaching basic human rights law 'civil disobedience'; the term is usually applied when the rules are unjust, not the entity refusing to follow them, ambassador."
One could say resolutions like On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms unjustly restrict freedom of religion, ambassador.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:39 am
by Liagolas » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:59 am
Coordinate with the WA General Accounting Office (GAO) to assess and levy a fine and schedule calculated proportionately to the violation but in no case less than what will reasonably coerce compliance from member states;
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:36 am
Liagolas wrote:OOC:
A justification within the game to tell people "Your roleplay is wrong, you can't be non-compliant" which hardly seems like it would end well.
The proposal both acknowledges and thus to some degree legitimizes deliberate non-compliance while simultaneously trying to make it so that you can say no, you can't not comply, and by so doing it inadvertently makes this bizarre tension between assumptions about committees in legislation and the way in which some persons play the game. This feels... weird.
by Araraukar » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:31 pm
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