[DEFEATED] Don't Shoot Strangers Act

[Gastash]

"Remember that this proposal only applies when encountering entities outside your national territory."

"It never says that."

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. a "first contact" as a meeting between two or more nations or other comparable legal entities in which at least one party has not previously encountered or communicated with the other;
   2. an "act of hostility" towards an entity as any of the following:
      1. firing a weapon at the entity,
      2. charging the entity's position,
      3. violating the entity's national borders, or
      4. entering an area that the entity has issued clear, universal warning signals to not enter;
2. Prohibits member nations from committing an act of hostility during a first contact if no acts of hostility have been committed by any other parties involved in the first contact;

See? It's right there.

[Paeoniae]

"The nation of Paeoniae collectively believes that in a situation in which a fledgling nation is encountered, the best policy is to react with kindness. How many pointless and bitter rivalry's have been created from violence committed out of ignorance and fear between two stranger nations? How much pointless death? This Act would allow us to prevent such conflicts in future, and keep more... aggressive nations, in check."

[Empyia]

"I, Emperor Sjet on behalf of the Stellar Hegemony of Empyia have voted against this flawed proposal. The writer of this resolution has demonstrated that they do not care for the sovereignty of WA nations and their irrefutable right to protect themselves and their inhabitants from threats both domestic and foreign

This policy opens up WA nations to first strikes by inhibiting military preparedness in addition to granting terrorist organisations, separatist movements and religious cults legal immunity to any action taken against them in the interest of national security until they have already attacked.

The writer of this proposal is out of touch with the realities of border friction and hostile nation states as evident by publicly available documentation that shows the proposing nation doesn't even fund defence. The fact that this nation is that out of touch is a reason in itself to oppose this bill.

I encourage any nation who cares about their national security to vote against this flawed proposal"

[Marxist Germany]

"It never says that."

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. a "first contact" as a meeting between two or more nations or other comparable legal entities in which at least one party has not previously encountered or communicated with the other;
   2. an "act of hostility" towards an entity as any of the following:
      1. firing a weapon at the entity,
      2. charging the entity's position,
      3. violating the entity's national borders, or
      4. entering an area that the entity has issued clear, universal warning signals to not enter;
2. Prohibits member nations from committing an act of hostility during a first contact if no acts of hostility have been committed by any other parties involved in the first contact;

See? It's right there.

"That is an OR list, meaning that separatists count as entities."

[Gastash]

"That is an OR list, meaning that separatists count as entities."

"It's a definition of an act of hostility, not a definition of an entity."

[Gastash]

[statwank!]

OOC: Why are you so determined to fight this proposal? The vote's going your way. And do you really think that you can discredit me based on a button I clicked in an online game?

IC: "Your arguments have no basis in reality. Nowhere in the proposal is legal immunity granted to anyone, and most religious cults and other such organizations cannot possibly be a legal entity comparable to a nation-state. If you would read the proposal-" Azaven stops himself. "No, I don't suppose you'll ever do that."

[Siiberia]

Hereby prohibits member nations from attacking another nation during the nations' initial encounter without the knowledge that the encountered nation is hostile.

OOC: So basically you're taking away first strike capability from WA nations? Or just when you first come across them? How much death and destruction should there be before the other nation can be classified as hostile? I mean, I'm all for making WA nations less effective at warfare, but how do you know you've encountered another nation and not just some bunch of pirates who have their base on an island and don't react too kindly to you coming to snoop around? Could you add some requirement of the explorers needing to at least try to communicate, before deciding on hostility?

I completely agree with this statement. Sometimes, pre-emptive strikes can actually save lives. That doesn't mean we all wish to go to war, but having the ability to prevent a full-scale conflict from breaking out by nipping the potential chaos in the bud before something breaks out is essential.

[Gastash]

OOC: So basically you're taking away first strike capability from WA nations? Or just when you first come across them? How much death and destruction should there be before the other nation can be classified as hostile? I mean, I'm all for making WA nations less effective at warfare, but how do you know you've encountered another nation and not just some bunch of pirates who have their base on an island and don't react too kindly to you coming to snoop around? Could you add some requirement of the explorers needing to at least try to communicate, before deciding on hostility?

I completely agree with this statement. Sometimes, pre-emptive strikes can actually save lives. That doesn't mean we all wish to go to war, but having the ability to prevent a full-scale conflict from breaking out by nipping the potential chaos in the bud before something breaks out is essential.

That statement was made in regards to the first draft - in the ensuing weeks I made a large number of edits to address those concerns.

[Empyia]

[statwank!]

OOC: Why are you so determined to fight this proposal? The vote's going your way. And do you really think that you can discredit me based on a button I clicked in an online game?

IC: "Your arguments have no basis in reality. Nowhere in the proposal is legal immunity granted to anyone, and most religious cults and other such organizations cannot possibly be a legal entity comparable to a nation-state. If you would read the proposal-" Azaven stops himself. "No, I don't suppose you'll ever do that."

OOC: Welcome to debate. Sorry to burst your bubble put people disagree with others. If you cannot handle the fact that this forum isnt an echo chamber hugbox for your own views then maybe you shouldnt participate in the WA in the future. Consider it. If you don't use NS-Stats in an IC context then you should consider stating that in your sig like I have and other nations that dont use NS-Stats have, since you havent stated it the default is that NS-Stats = Canon. I get you have only been here since late 2017 but come on, you should know that much by now.

IC: "Your own proposal uses the very broad umbrella term of "comparable legal entity" which can be applied to quite literally anything in the context of this suggestion. I have read the proposal which is why I was able to expertly pick it apart.
I think you need a reality check ambassador, I understand that you are not a subject matter expert given that based on your own budget statistics you don't even have a proper defence force, so I can acknowledge that perhaps you personally have had no need to secure your borders against foreign threats. However, not all nations have the luxury of being in such a position and based on the votes against your flawed proposal, its clear I am not the only one."

[Gastash]

OOC: Welcome to debate. Sorry to burst your bubble put people disagree with others. If you cannot handle the fact that this forum isnt an echo chamber hugbox for your own views then maybe you shouldnt participate in the WA in the future. Consider it.

There you go again, cranking up the heat for no apparent reason. Calm down man.

If you don't use NS-Stats in an IC context then you should consider stating that in your sig like I have and other nations that dont use NS-Stats have, since you havent stated it the default is that NS-Stats = Canon.

That's not how RP works. If I explicitly tell you that my character has had experience with border disputes, you can't just say "no he doesn't because I found a statistic in a completely different part of the game that suggests otherwise." Part of the reason why I'm not posting as Lockwood is because I felt I needed a different character to properly convey this proposal's message. In character, this proposal was submitted by Gastash, not Umeria, and Gastash does have a defense force. These decisions are mine to make, and by posting them here I make them canon. I don't put that stuff in my sig because I'd prefer for it to remain just that - a simple signature.

My character, my backstory. Deal with it.

I get you have only been here since late 2017 but come on, you should know that much by now.

I find it amusing that despite your thorough attempts to statwank at me through my main nation, you failed to notice that Umeria was founded in March 2016, two months before you in fact. EXP Surpassed! I Win!

IC: "Your own proposal uses the very broad umbrella term of "comparable legal entity" which can be applied to quite literally anything in the context of this suggestion.

Are you sure, because I don't see the words "quite literally anything", I see "comparable legal entities". The organizations you mentioned are almost never legally recognized as independent bodies, so they are not legally comparable to nation-states and are therefore not recognized by this proposal.

I have read the proposal which is why I was able to expertly pick it apart.

You have not "picked it apart", in fact you have not cited a single word from the proposal to back up your arguments. Perhaps you read the words "Global Disarmament" but I have yet to see evidence of you having read anything else.

I think you need a reality check ambassador, I understand that you are not a subject matter expert given that based on your own budget statistics you don't even have a proper defence force, so I can acknowledge that perhaps you personally have had no need to secure your borders against foreign threats. However, not all nations have the luxury of being in such a position

OOC: More statwank. As I said before, you simply cannot dictate what my character has or has not experienced.

Here, I'll try a statwank of my own: Your character is possessed by demons, so his opinion cannot be trusted. I know it's true because you didn't deny it in your sig!

based on the votes against your flawed proposal, its clear I am not the only one."

Alas, there are indeed many misinformed voters such as yourself. It seems I failed to convey what the proposal actually does clearly enough.

[Empyia]

Metagame rambling

I believe I have already made my point clear and since there are already many thousands who stand against your flawed, misinformed and poorly written proposal already I see no reason to continue this discussion, especially if you are going to resort to combining OOC and IC to avoid having to address IC debate points (in other words, metagaming)

Democracy has already sided against you and therfor I have no reason to continue debunking your points. Have a Merry Christmas.

[Kaiserholt]

As a supporter of the last GA bill regarding mapping of national waters, Kaiserholt supports this proposal. No reason at all, I can assure the WA that the Most Serene Republic has no associates black market organizations which would...and I repeat ever...exploits this WA proposal to its logical conclusion. Rumors that Kaiserholt’s aristocracy has close ties to black market syndicates and would this profit from this proposal is sheer hearsay and of course false. Scout’s honor.

[PotatoFarmers]

[snip]
Hereby

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. a "first contact" as a meeting between two or more nations or other comparable legal entities in which at least one party has not previously encountered or communicated with the other;
   2. an "act of hostility" towards an entity as any of the following:
      1. firing a weapon at the entity,
      2. charging the entity's position,
      3. violating the entity's national borders, or
      4. entering an area that the entity has issued clear, universal warning signals to not enter;
   -
2. Prohibits member nations from committing an act of hostility during a first contact if no acts of hostility have been committed by any other parties involved in the first contact; and
   
3. Clarifies that member nations shall not claim new territory as a means of circumventing the previous clause.

"I have a few things to ask about this proposal. Firstly, noting the clause highlighted in red, if more than 3 parties, including our people, meet together in uncharted territories for the first time, and one of the other party opens fire on us, wouldn't it give us permission to open fire on all other parties since the other bystander parties are technically an act of hostility has been committed by "any other parties involved"? Secondly, wouldn't the clause in blue be a problem if 2 nations have conflicting claims over land that were previously unknown until the nations meet for the first time during the first contact? Thirdly, how would your proposal apply to territories in the air on on water? Who is to decide whether that part of the water is a "national border"?"

[Kenmoria]

“This delegation hereby votes for this proposal, as Kenmoria is not a violent state and maintains a position of armed neutrality. It is also Christmas, a time for peace and goodwill.”

[Roklinda]

From the offices of the delegation of The Most Serene Republic of Roklinda:

Our delegation strongly advises against enactment of this bill. We do not believe it is the right of WA General Assembly to mandate first contact conduct, especially with such little specificity. We value the autonomy of our fellow countries and delegations. First contact protocol cannot be so widely regulated without meticulous attention paid to the definitions within this proposal.

We need not dictate how a government develops its military strategy. That is not for this council to decide in such sweeping terms. Section III of this proposal is, for us, the most problematic portion of this proposal. While the Republic of Roklinda was borne out of the refuge of interventionism and we are, by no means, interventionists, we cannot in good faith submit in to law a void of preemptive tactical strikes. Especially when such proposal invariably disregards different types of altercations, assuming all expeditionaries are good faith actors.

There are ancillary problems with this proposal as well. This is global disarmament with the express purpose of “Slashing military spending worldwide.” Global disarmament is not the same as allowing countries to lie defenseless. This bill is short-sighted, and we hope many of you will see that, too.

Thank you for your time,
Rudolph L. Adams
WA Delegate & President
The Most Serene Republic of Roklinda

[Gastash]

Our delegation strongly advises against enactment of this bill. We do not believe it is the right of WA General Assembly to mandate first contact conduct, especially with such little specificity. We value the autonomy of our fellow countries and delegations. First contact protocol cannot be so widely regulated without meticulous attention paid to the definitions within this proposal.

Too vague and too specific. That's a new one.

There are ancillary problems with this proposal as well. This is global disarmament with the express purpose of “Slashing military spending worldwide.” Global disarmament is not the same as allowing countries to lie defenseless.

You know I didn't write that subtitle, right? Every single resolution in the Global Disarmament category says that.

Firstly, noting the clause highlighted in red, if more than 3 parties, including our people, meet together in uncharted territories for the first time, and one of the other party opens fire on us, wouldn't it give us permission to open fire on all other parties since the other bystander parties are technically an act of hostility has been committed by "any other parties involved"?

That is correct, although it is unlikely you'd find the time to shoot bystanders while another party is attacking you.

Secondly, wouldn't the clause in blue be a problem if 2 nations have conflicting claims over land that were previously unknown until the nations meet for the first time during the first contact?

The clause does not prohibit claiming territory, it prohibits attacking another entity because they "invaded" land you just planted a flag on.

Thirdly, how would your proposal apply to territories in the air on on water? Who is to decide whether that part of the water is a "national border"?"

Member nations have the right to interpret, within reason, what counts as their airspace or national waters.

[snip]

I'm glad we could agree on one thing, that there is really no point in continuing this argument. Merry Christmas to you too.

[Roklinda]

Yes, I did know that. My point still stands.

Thank you for being combative and condescending in defense of your bill. Perhaps that explains its resounding success before the delegates now.

Reconsider your tact next time, perhaps. Also feel free to read my complaints again. I realize you might have missed the salient points in favor of your emotions.

[Gastash]

An important note about the Global Disarmament category:

"International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by a nation's police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

That is all the category does. The "Slash Worldwide Spending!" subtitle is flavor text and has no effect on the actual proposal.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Just a question, does contact between Byzantium and Greece, and the Ottomans mean that Greece invading Turkey in the Turkish war of independence is prohibited under this? What about the invasion of Israel the very day it gained independence by all of its neighbours?

[Aclion]

OOC: Just a question, does contact between Byzantium and Greece, and the Ottomans mean that Greece invading Turkey in the Turkish war of independence is prohibited under this? What about the invasion of Israel the very day it gained independence by all of its neighbours?

No. Because none of them are WA nations :^)

[The Palentine]

While I have no real problem with the proposal at vote and bear no ill will towards its author, I must cast the Palentine's vote against it. We in the glorious frozen hellhole known as the Antarctic Oasis are rather skittish around strangers and prefer a shoot first and let God sort it all out afterwards policy of first contact. After all the strangers could be damned revenuers looking for our stills, Encyclopedia Salesmen, Dr. Castro, or Compliance Gnomes from the Festering Snakepit.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla.

[Quirinum]

On a screen projected before the Assembly can be seen Lictor No 1 (axe in fasces). He yells 'His honour, the proconsul Publius Licinius Crassus!'. Crassus, sitting on a curule chair, unrolls a proclamation to the Assembly and reads it.

The specific provision of knowing the borders of a foreign 'power' or 'state' is not feasible in the Iron age, barring some kind of magical or telepathic communication. We will not suffer a witch. That shouldn't be a problem. However, even if we were members of this World Assembly, it seems this resolution would not stop slave capture raids human resource acquisition operations conducted by the publicani in uncontacted future provinces of the Republic. Nor would it apply to anything that is not the Republic: there are no comparable nations to ours. The only sovereign nations are those which swear fealty to the Roman people and derive their sovereignty from our munificence.

I will remind the peregrines that any attempt, successful or otherwise, to capture a Roman citizen for any reason will be met with overwhelming force. The perpetrators will be crucified. No body is competent to judge a Roman citizen for any action except that of the comita in Rome or those empowered to act on the comitia's behalf.

Io Saturnalia.

[JuliusTheOrange]

This act if passed will lead to more deaths in our nations occurring before we can classify a target as a threat. Our policy is anything is a threat until proven otherwise, not the other way around. Very impractical and strips our rights as nations. No.

[Gastash]

This act if passed will lead to more deaths in our nations occurring before we can classify a target as a threat. Our policy is anything is a threat until proven otherwise, not the other way around. Very impractical and strips our rights as nations. No.

Another one who didn't read the part that says firing a weapon, among other things, is an act of hostility and allows you to strike back. Deaths cannot occur if no weapon is fired.

[Morover]

"Why can weapons only be fired? Under this proposal, if an individual from a nation that has not yet been met by the home nation starts stabbing civilians outside of the home nation's territory, there is nothing the home nation can do in response. The proposal seems to assume that all weapons are firearms or something similar."