[PASSED] Debtor Voting Rights

[Prydania]

The shortest resolution passed since 2008 was at least 5 lines. You really can't pass a one sentence resolution in 2019.

And yet here we are.

Dare to dream.

[Atlantiona]

Vote against the proposal

[The New California Republic]

Vote against the proposal

Why?

[Falcania]

Vote against the proposal

Why?

I do not think it is fair to ask someone to provide their reasoning for voting on this proposal when the author of the proposal itself has given us no reasons why one should vote for it.

[The New California Republic]

Why?

I do not think it is fair to ask someone to provide their reasoning for voting on this proposal when the author of the proposal itself has given us no reasons why one should vote for it.

You clearly missed the second post in the thread.

[Falcania]

I do not think it is fair to ask someone to provide their reasoning for voting on this proposal when the author of the proposal itself has given us no reasons why one should vote for it.

You clearly missed the second post in the thread.

The second post has lots of reasons why the proposal is legal. The second post has no reason why anybody should vote for it.

[Prydania]

You clearly missed the second post in the thread.

The second post has lots of reasons why the proposal is legal. The second post has no reason why anybody should vote for it.

Do you think debtors should have voting rights?

[Falcania]

The second post has lots of reasons why the proposal is legal. The second post has no reason why anybody should vote for it.

Do you think debtors should have voting rights?

Why should I think that debtors should have voting rights? Are you arguing that it is self-evident?

[Prydania]

Do you think debtors should have voting rights?

Why should I think that debtors should have voting rights? Are you arguing that it is self-evident?

No, I'm asking you. You want to know why you should vote for this proposal. So rather than whinge about the length I figured we'd talk about what the proposal hopes to accomplish.

So again, do you think debtors should have voting rights? And why or why not? You want a discussion on why people should support this proposal? Let's have it.

[The New California Republic]

You clearly missed the second post in the thread.

The second post has lots of reasons why the proposal is legal. The second post has no reason why anybody should vote for it.

It covers things like shortness, vagueness, and badge hunting; things that are not clearly covered by legality issues. However, they are being given to dispel criticism, hence reasons to vote for it.

[Falcania]

Why should I think that debtors should have voting rights? Are you arguing that it is self-evident?

No, I'm asking you. You want to know why you should vote for this proposal. So rather than whinge about the length I figured we'd talk about what the proposal hopes to accomplish.

So again, do you think debtors should have voting rights? And why or why not? You want a discussion on why people should support this proposal? Let's have it.

I believe that the following statements are true:

1) Debtors should be able to vote

2) That I should make my support or lack of support for a proposal at the World Assembly based on what I believe should be International Law, not on my own personal beliefs.

In the Free Kingdom certain things are legal which are illegal in other nations. Duelling, for example. We would not support a General Assembly proposal that legalised duelling in all member nations - though we agree that duelling should be legal, we would not state that every nation in the World Assembly be compelled to legalise it, not unless the proposal could convince me why.

I do not believe it is self-evident that debtors should always be allowed to vote. I have not seen or heard a compelling material or moral justification that debtors should always be allowed to vote. The legislation proposed does not provide any such justification.

[Prydania]

No, I'm asking you. You want to know why you should vote for this proposal. So rather than whinge about the length I figured we'd talk about what the proposal hopes to accomplish.

So again, do you think debtors should have voting rights? And why or why not? You want a discussion on why people should support this proposal? Let's have it.

I believe that the following statements are true:

1) Debtors should be able to vote

2) That I should make my support or lack of support for a proposal at the World Assembly based on what I believe should be International Law, not on my own personal beliefs.

The WA is very much not the UN
I say that because if you look at all the WA resolutions on the books? You'll realize that the WA is not bound by the limits of what we would consider the limits of international law in the real world.

In the Free Kingdom certain things are legal which are illegal in other nations. Duelling, for example. We would not support a General Assembly proposal that legalised duelling in all member nations - though we agree that duelling should be legal, we would not state that every nation in the World Assembly be compelled to legalise it, not unless the proposal could convince me why.

Not being allowed to duel is not at the same level as one's democratic rights being infringed upon.

I do not believe it is self-evident that debtors should always be allowed to vote. I have not seen or heard a compelling material or moral justification that debtors should always be allowed to vote. The legislation proposed does not provide any such justification.

You said...

1) Debtors should be able to vote

...and now you're saying it's not self-evident. Sorry, I disagree. I think it's very much self-evident.

See, I'm a teacher. And my students, they always ask me "how long should the essays be on the test?" And I tell them "as long as it needs to be for you to convey all the information you need to convey."
Now obviously you're not going to be able to answer an essay question in one or two sentences. A WA Resolution, however, is not an essay question. It needs to convey far less information. So if a properly worded resolution can convey all it needs to convey in a single sentence? That is enough.

It is not poorly written. It's legal by the rules of the game. Your only issue seems to be that you do not believe that debtors having the right to vote is a self-evident position. And I would say that if you believe in democratic principals? It very much is self-evident. One's financial burdens should not deprive them of the franchise. That seems quite apparent to me.

[Falcania]

I believe that the following statements are true:

1) Debtors should be able to vote

2) That I should make my support or lack of support for a proposal at the World Assembly based on what I believe should be International Law, not on my own personal beliefs.

The WA is very much not the UN
I say that because if you look at all the WA resolutions on the books? You'll realize that the WA is not bound by the limits of what we would consider the limits of international law in the real world.

In the Free Kingdom certain things are legal which are illegal in other nations. Duelling, for example. We would not support a General Assembly proposal that legalised duelling in all member nations - though we agree that duelling should be legal, we would not state that every nation in the World Assembly be compelled to legalise it, not unless the proposal could convince me why.

Not being allowed to duel is not at the same level as one's democratic rights being infringed upon.

I do not believe it is self-evident that debtors should always be allowed to vote. I have not seen or heard a compelling material or moral justification that debtors should always be allowed to vote. The legislation proposed does not provide any such justification.

You said...

1) Debtors should be able to vote

...and now you're saying it's not self-evident. Sorry, I disagree. I think it's very much self-evident.

See, I'm a teacher. And my students, they always ask me "how long should the essays be on the test?" And I tell them "as long as it needs to be for you to convey all the information you need to convey."
Now obviously you're not going to be able to answer an essay question in one or two sentences. A WA Resolution, however, is not an essay question. It needs to convey far less information. So if a properly worded resolution can convey all it needs to convey in a single sentence? That is enough.

It is not poorly written. It's legal by the rules of the game. Your only issue seems to be that you do not believe that debtors having the right to vote is a self-evident position. And I would say that if you believe in democratic principals? It very much is self-evident. One's financial burdens should not deprive them of the franchise. That seems quite apparent to me.

Every proposal that crosses my desk is a sales pitch. "Support my proposal", they all say. You've got to sell it to me; this proposal hasn't. I don't think this proposal has even tried to sell it to me.

[The New California Republic]

Every proposal that crosses my desk is a sales pitch. "Support my proposal", they all say. You've got to sell it to me; this proposal hasn't. I don't think this proposal has even tried to sell it to me.

To be honest in my experience it is the ones that really push it in your face that you need to be weary of...

[Falcania]

Every proposal that crosses my desk is a sales pitch. "Support my proposal", they all say. You've got to sell it to me; this proposal hasn't. I don't think this proposal has even tried to sell it to me.

To be honest in my experience it is the ones that really push it in your face that you need to be weary of...

I mean, absolutely, and I get the hard sell filling up my inbox far, far too often. But there's a lot of blue sky between over-pitched proposals and gnomic one-liners.

[Prydania]

Every proposal that crosses my desk is a sales pitch. "Support my proposal", they all say. You've got to sell it to me; this proposal hasn't. I don't think this proposal has even tried to sell it to me.

It hasn't tried because it's in favour of a self-evident truth even you admitted to believing in.

[Falcania]

Every proposal that crosses my desk is a sales pitch. "Support my proposal", they all say. You've got to sell it to me; this proposal hasn't. I don't think this proposal has even tried to sell it to me.

It hasn't tried because it's in favour of a self-evident truth even you admitted to believing in.

I fear our definitions of self-evident may differ.

[Prydania]

It hasn't tried because it's in favour of a self-evident truth even you admitted to believing in.

I fear our definitions of self-evident may differ.

Obviously.

[Wallenburg]

Vote against the proposal

Well when you put it that way...

[The New California Republic]

Vote against the proposal

Well when you put it that way...

Watch out, supposedly it isn't fair to make such comments.

[Falcania]

Well when you put it that way...

Watch out, supposedly it isn't fair to make such comments.

I said I don't think it's fair. I think we can all agree that the things that I think and the things that are fact are not always the same thing.

[Waltrea]

Fellow members of the council, I am confused that our community should allow this to even be a thought among us. Debtors can't be trusted due to their irresponsibility and foolish actions. They must prove themselves in order to make an educated vote that will affect the country in a good way.

[Separatist Peoples]

Fellow members of the council, I am confused that our community should allow this to even be a thought among us. Debtors can't be trusted due to their irresponsibility and foolish actions. They must prove themselves in order to make an educated vote that will affect the country in a good way.

"This is idiotic. One can be an upstanding member of the community, with a valid political voice, and still be terrible at managing debt."

[Waltrea]

Atlantonia, I am glad you agree with me. But I will not show Bias, I propose that both sides DIRECTLY respond to me with the best evidence you can muster.

Thank you - Kaiser Walter I

[The New California Republic]

Watch out, supposedly it isn't fair to make such comments.

I said I don't think it's fair. I think we can all agree that the things that I think and the things that are fact are not always the same thing.

Read the word supposedly again.