NationStates

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:42 pm**

Finappa wrote:
An interesting resolution.

OOC:Please don't quote the entire proposal just to reply with 3 words, it's spammy. At least spoiler the proposal.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:59 pm**

Sorry for the noob question, im new here. Does these resolutions effect the gameplay at all? Or is it purely for RP? :meh:

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:10 pm**

Primoriye wrote:Sorry for the noob question, im new here. Does these resolutions effect the gameplay at all? Or is it purely for RP?

OOC: Well, a GA resolution that passes, has an effect on your nation's stats. Which stats, depends on the category, and how big an effect, depends on the strength and also your nation's exisiting stats (if you have a very high Civil Rights stat already, a Mild strength Civil Rights resolution wouldn't affect your nation, but a Strong strength still would).

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:56 am**

The New California Republic wrote:Against. Even more so now that I received a telegram from the author accusing me of being a lemming for voting against it. You poisoned the well author, you poisoned the well.

I was not accusing you of being a lemming, but yes that was some very tactless marketing that I have now dropped. Apologies.

Unibot III wrote:This is an important issue and I’m surprised to see the resolution getting annihilated on the voting floor despite its flaws.

I wasn't expecting such a catastrophic failure.

Takasor wrote:Lmao.... What even is this.......?????

A GA resolution, that's what it is.

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:21 am**

Fecaw wrote:
Unibot III wrote:This is an important issue and I’m surprised to see the resolution getting annihilated on the voting floor despite its flaws.

I wasn't expecting such a catastrophic failure.

(OOC: The delegates did an early stomp, and from there the tide was irreversible. I didn’t expect for this to get such a negative reception, but there’s always the possibility. Lemming marketing didn’t help either.

Fecaw wrote:
Takasor wrote:Lmao.... What even is this.......?????

A GA resolution, that's what it is.

Technically, it isn’t a resolution until it passes, which is increasingly unlikely.)

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:51 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:Technically, it isn’t a resolution until it passes, which is increasingly unlikely.

OOC: Actually, it is a resolution when it gets to vote (and isn't discarded as illegal); if it passes, it'll become a passed resolution, if it doesn't, it'll become a failed resolution.

I'm fairly surprised at the big negative reaction, especially as practically no-one has explained why, and the few brief explanations given have varied wildly between "keep your hands off my corpse" to "against our burial customs" to "land development issues" - only the last of which is really a real concern.

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:56 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:Technically, it isn’t a resolution until it passes, which is increasingly unlikely.

OOC: Actually, it is a resolution when it gets to vote (and isn't discarded as illegal); if it passes, it'll become a passed resolution, if it doesn't, it'll become a failed resolution.

I'm fairly surprised at the big negative reaction, especially as practically no-one has explained why, and the few brief explanations given have varied wildly between "keep your hands off my corpse" to "against our burial customs" to "land development issues" - only the last of which is really a real concern.

(OOC: Much as Fecaw’s ‘lemming’ dispatch was poorly perceived, it did have a point. There was a big delegate stomp by WALL and others, which caused a lot of other regions and members to follow. It would be interesting to hear from a WALL representative as to why the legislation was unsatisfactory; they might provide some reasoning.)

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:06 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It would be interesting to hear from a WALL representative as to why the legislation was unsatisfactory; they might provide some reasoning.)

OOC: Isn't IA one of those?

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:08 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It would be interesting to hear from a WALL representative as to why the legislation was unsatisfactory; they might provide some reasoning.)

OOC: Isn't IA one of those?

(OOC: I believe so.)

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:19 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: However, clause 4c contains an exception for a ‘compelling situation’, which is vague enough that any government could exploit it via creative compliance.)

That is VW53ALand's problem with the vagueness as well. It is mostly due to this that the resolution will not add value. A vague resolution does not improve or supersede the unregulated situation from before the resolution.

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:28 pm**

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, are highly skeptical of anyone's claim to be an authority on "morality" and as such, We hereby vote against this legislation.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

Posted: **Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:46 pm**

A slender light skinned black haired woman walks over to the chamber room. She sees the clerk over at the table and heads to get her ballot. "For this very resolution I'll vote against because we want full control of how want to legislate on the dead. If a rich person makes unreasonable request then they can. Also while my country respects the graves burial of dead some countries don't which mean we should not go on and force upon them. I see the issue would not be enough." She then goes on and votes against. Her body then turns around and exits.

Posted: **Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:21 am**

"While the intent is noble, I do not believe that the WA should be the authority on matters such as this. A resolution like the one proposed, should be born within national legislative bodies that know the customs and traditions of their own people best. It is for this reason that - after careful consultation with members of our parliament - the People's Republic of the Blackcat Isles will not support this resolution and has voted against it. We take this stance not out of spite, malevolence or any form of intolerance, but out of concern for the protection of national identities and cultures."
- General Secretary Roberta van Zijl, during a press conference on the matter of the resolution at vote.

Posted: **Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:15 pm**

"I can see what they tried to do here, but leave the management of our dead to us. Creslonia will be voting against this resolution."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Posted: **Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:22 pm**

Creslonia wrote:"I can see what they tried to do here, but leave the management of our dead to us. Creslonia will be voting against this resolution."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“A critic could argue that the reason one joins the World Assembly is so that certain legislative matters are not left to individuals nations.” Ambassador Lewitt mutters, suddenly aware that a lot of the votes against were based on Natsov.

Posted: **Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:27 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:
Creslonia wrote:"I can see what they tried to do here, but leave the management of our dead to us. Creslonia will be voting against this resolution."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

“A critic could argue that the reason one joins the World Assembly is so that certain legislative matters are not left to individuals nations.” Ambassador Lewitt mutters, suddenly aware that a lot of the votes against were based on Natsov.

Ambassador Mercia, who stands nearby, just barely hears Ambassador Lewitt's soft utterance. "I am sure they understand that that is the case," she responds, softly, "but perhaps they feel that this is not one of those certain matters. All nations have powers they would rather not have taken away from them, after all."

Posted: **Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:31 pm**

"Well that was unfortunate."

Posted: **Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:50 pm**

"Treatment of the Deceased" was defeated 11,430 votes to 1,280.

Posted: **Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:33 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
"Treatment of the Deceased" was defeated 11,430 votes to 1,280.

It's dead. How should we treat it?

Posted: **Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:30 am**

The New California Republic wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:
"Treatment of the Deceased" was defeated 11,430 votes to 1,280.

It's dead. How should we treat it?

"How's about with some dignity? The resolution was sound, albeit with a few quirks."

Wayne

Posted: **Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:59 am**

Araraukar wrote:I'm fairly surprised at the big negative reaction, especially as practically no-one has explained why, and the few brief explanations given have varied wildly between "keep your hands off my corpse" to "against our burial customs" to "land development issues" - only the last of which is really a real concern.

OOC: Personally, due to clauses 2 and 3. I don't think it's reasonable to demand that relatives of the deceased foot the bill for any legal burial request, and like several European states, I am not going to dedicate unnecessary space for gravesites just because all plots are currently occupied. At the same time I recognise that those two elements were kind of central to the whole resolution, so I didn't have any suggestions to make - I was just opposed.

Posted: **Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:05 am**

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: I don't think it's reasonable to demand that relatives of the deceased foot the bill for any legal burial request,

OOC: That's how it is in RL. Why wouldn't it be so in NS? And if the relatives refused because the money needed would seriously impact their everyday living, then it would be impossible to finance. But you do have a point and if Fecaw has another go, they probably should put in something about the money the deceased had at their use at the time of their death, and if that wasn't enough, then the burial request would be considered unreasonable.

and like several European states, I am not going to dedicate unnecessary space for gravesites just because all plots are currently occupied.

Out of interest, which European states? And also, do note that a burial request is considered unreasonable if it does "contravene national or international legislation", so if your national legislation says that all bodies must be burned, then asking to be buried whole would be unreasonable.

Posted: **Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:12 am**

Usually the person who died allocates some portion of the estate to cover burial costs.

Posted: **Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:36 pm**

OOC:

Araraukar wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: I don't think it's reasonable to demand that relatives of the deceased foot the bill for any legal burial request,

OOC: That's how it is in RL. Why wouldn't it be so in NS? And if the relatives refused because the money needed would seriously impact their everyday living, then it would be impossible to finance. But you do have a point and if Fecaw has another go, they probably should put in something about the money the deceased had at their use at the time of their death, and if that wasn't enough, then the burial request would be considered unreasonable.

I don't know about Finland, but in Denmark it's commonly funded by the estate (Though what will happen in 30+ years with raising pension age and generations able to save less is unknown). Relatives can refuse for any reason, not just serious economic impact, though of course that's unlikely for most families.
Relatives will likely want a positive and memorable goodbye, and thus pay if the estate can't, but to demand it? Because someone who can no longer feel anything, and whose desires have ceased to be?

and like several European states, I am not going to dedicate unnecessary space for gravesites just because all plots are currently occupied.

Out of interest, which European states? And also, do note that a burial request is considered unreasonable if it does "contravene national or international legislation", so if your national legislation says that all bodies must be burned, then asking to be buried whole would be unreasonable.

Back on my Bachelor's, I had an assignment on various "moral" public policies where the absolute sanctity of cemetaries was part. I tried to look for it, but I have since lost the harddrive, so from memory it was several of the mainly Protestant Northern European nations (While not a scholarly source, BBC has an article, naturally). I know Denmark doesn't regard cemetaries with any greater favour anymore; the family has to pay for increasing the length the plot will be undisturbed. Otherwise, space constraints demand that the deceased get a roomie.

Edited to fix quote tag.

Posted: **Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:16 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: I don't think it's reasonable to demand that relatives of the deceased foot the bill for any legal burial request,

OOC: That's how it is in RL. Why wouldn't it be so in NS? And if the relatives refused because the money needed would seriously impact their everyday living, then it would be impossible to finance. But you do have a point and if Fecaw has another go, they probably should put in something about the money the deceased had at their use at the time of their death, and if that wasn't enough, then the burial request would be considered unreasonable.

OOC: Here in Germany, it is actually the heir that has to pay for the funeral, not necessarily the relatives (which still might have the power to decide the place and form of the funeral).

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Treatment of the Deceased