[DEFEATED] Repeal 'Civilian Aircraft Accord' (author Bitely)

[Concrete Slab]

I am not the author, but I saw there was no thread for this proposal.

General Assembly Resolution #342 “Civilian Aircraft Accord” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

APPLAUDS the good intentions of this assembly for recognizing that "it is the duty of all nations to protect the lives of innocent civilians";

NOTING that this resolution was intended "to enact a sensible policy that allows for the safe and secure" oversight of civilian aircraft;

ALARMED that clause 2 section C requires member states to provide "Assistance to any civilian aircraft that declares itself to be in distress" even if there is sufficient evidence that the civilian aircraft is not in distress;

FURTHER alarmed that clause 2 section C requires member states to assist civilian aircraft in the airspace of potentially hostile neighbor nations airspace as long as it's "within ... communication range";

REALIZING clause 2 section C unintentionally opens up both member states military and civilian first responders to possible malicious enemy military action by requiring them to assist an enemy "civilian" aircraft potentially in hostile territory even if the call of distress is suspicious;

BELIEVING that by clause 2 section C requiring members to respond to all distress calls made by "civilian" aircraft within communication range, which could include hostile territory, this resolution has failed to enact a "sensible policy";

HEREBY this Assembly REPEALS "Civilian Aircraft Accord"

[Kenmoria]

“This all feels rather one-sided, given that just one clause is being mentioned in this repeal. Although it is perfectly valid for the delegation from Bitely to do so generally, it should be an exceptionally strong reason. However, I have a few issues with the arguments presented here.

Firstly, there is nothing to stop a member nation, or possibly the WA, from forbidding the making of spurious distress calls, as referred to in the ‘ALARMED’ clause. Indeed, I think most member nations would have already done so. It is far better to err on the side of caution and rescue all possibly-distressed ships than let some crew die to save on costs.”

(OOC: There has been a real bulge in the number of proposals recently. This is the second of three proposal in quorum.)

[Munkcestrian Republic]

I CANNOT BELIEVE someone cared about this so much they wrote a proposal on it, let alone believe nearly seventy people cared about it so much they supported it for the quorum or whatever

[Concrete Slab]

*picks up the NS newspaper of the day*
"Huh, there's a new proposal up for approval. I wonder what it-"
Bitely
*gets up and runs down the hall*
"Alistair, I swear to god, you better vote against this proposal!"

[Wallenburg]

Mikael Ogenbond enters the chamber, leading in a woman all-too-familiar to the Bitelian government.

"Look, Mikael, I'm not all too comfortable teasing their delegation like this. Could I at least leave the sword at the office?"

Ogenbond smiles mischievously. "The sword adds character! Now come on, I have two other proposals to attend to."

He gets the woman over to one of the desks preferred by his staff and exits the room before Trevanyika can offer up any more protests.

She looks around the room for a while and forces a smile. "Well, at least the authors aren't here yet. Maybe I'll be able to just vote against this thing and be done with it."

[Munkcestrian Republic]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

[WayNeacTia]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

No, Bitely seems to think it is the norm to simply buy resoultions by throwing as much money as possible at them. He had this shit down to a science long before Joco tried it.

[Kenmoria]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

(OOC: ‘All Bitely proposals are good’ isn’t quite accurate. This proposal does happen to be quite good, but I expect for almost everyone involved in the GA to vote against based on the bad reputation that Bitely created for himself. It’s not about fitting into a clique, more about fitting into an idea of acceptable behaviour.)

[Bitely]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

(OOC: ‘All Bitely proposals are good’ isn’t quite accurate. This proposal does happen to be quite good, but I expect for almost everyone involved in the GA to vote against based on the bad reputation that Bitely created for himself. It’s not about fitting into a clique, more about fitting into an idea of acceptable behaviour.)

Thank both of you for the compliments. Though, I think it's more a why should a few dozen nations dictate the "acceptable behavior" when there's over 20,000 member states in this World Assembly?

[Araraukar]

Thank both of you for the compliments. Though, I think it's more a why should a few dozen nations dictate the "acceptable behavior" when there's over 20,000 member states in this World Assembly?

OOC: So your argument is that the moderators and site admins shouldn't be allowed to tell you what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't? Yeah, nothing new from you. No-one here has to play with an unpleasantly acting person.

You're not even infamous, just tiresome.

[Bitely]

Thank both of you for the compliments. Though, I think it's more a why should a few dozen nations dictate the "acceptable behavior" when there's over 20,000 member states in this World Assembly?

OOC: So your argument is that the moderators and site admins shouldn't be allowed to tell you what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't? Yeah, nothing new from you. No-one here has to play with an unpleasantly acting person.

You're not even infamous, just tiresome.

I didn't say anything about mods. I said nations. So, far I haven't had issues with moderation or site admins. Please enlighten me as to what has happened to make you come to that assumption.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So your argument is that the moderators and site admins shouldn't be allowed to tell you what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't? Yeah, nothing new from you. No-one here has to play with an unpleasantly acting person.

You're not even infamous, just tiresome.

I didn't say anything about mods. I said nations. So, far I haven't had issues with moderation or site admins. Please enlighten me as to what has happened to make you come to that assumption.

Ooc: other than the WA multiing. Let us not forget that.

Ic:
"The C.D.S.P. has no strong opinions either way on the proposal. I anticipate an abstention."

[East Meranopirus]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

(OOC: ‘All Bitely proposals are good’ isn’t quite accurate. This proposal does happen to be quite good, but I expect for almost everyone involved in the GA to vote against based on the bad reputation that Bitely created for himself. It’s not about fitting into a clique, more about fitting into an idea of acceptable behaviour.)

If by “good” you mean “written in a comprehensible manner” or “better than his last one” then I suppose it is. But that’s not exactly my definition of “good”.

[Imperium Anglorum]

SVP add in brackets 'by Author' to the title.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

No, Bitely seems to think it is the norm to simply buy resoultions by throwing as much money as possible at them. He had this shit down to a science long before Joco tried it.

He should suck up to WA forum regulars like other aspiring resolution authors, clearly.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

(OOC: ‘All Bitely proposals are good’ isn’t quite accurate. This proposal does happen to be quite good, but I expect for almost everyone involved in the GA to vote against based on the bad reputation that Bitely created for himself. It’s not about fitting into a clique, more about fitting into an idea of acceptable behaviour.)

Thank both of you for the compliments. Though, I think it's more a why should a few dozen nations dictate the "acceptable behavior" when there's over 20,000 member states in this World Assembly?

OOC: So your argument is that the moderators and site admins shouldn't be allowed to tell you what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't? Yeah, nothing new from you. No-one here has to play with an unpleasantly acting person.

You're not even infamous, just tiresome.

I was there at the time and he seemed much less unpleasant than most people posting on the forum.

and didn't ya'll literally condemn the guy and then repeal it

[Bormiar]

and didn't ya'll literally condemn the guy and then repeal it

No.

There was an attempt but it was mainly treated as ridiculous.

[Ransium]

I’ve changed the thread title to clarify the actual author. This way, I, at least, won’t get confused when I need to sticky it.

[Borovan entered the region as he]

"No draft process by the ambassador? Well no support from me." turning away.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: ‘All Bitely proposals are good’ isn’t quite accurate. This proposal does happen to be quite good, but I expect for almost everyone involved in the GA to vote against based on the bad reputation that Bitely created for himself. It’s not about fitting into a clique, more about fitting into an idea of acceptable behaviour.)

If by “good” you mean “written in a comprehensible manner” or “better than his last one” then I suppose it is. But that’s not exactly my definition of “good”.

(OOC: I looked at the proposal for a while, partly out of presupposed expectations, and I couldn’t find anything wrong with it. It does seem to be quite a good repeal attempt. Of course I’ve found some issues, and there is at least one grammar mistake, but this is supportable. Therefore, I will be abstaining from vote,

No draft process, no support.

to a degree because of this.)

[Bitely]

I’ve changed the thread title to clarify the actual author. This way, I, at least, won’t get confused when I need to sticky it.

Did you really have to misspell my name?

[Ransium]

I’ve changed the thread title to clarify the actual author. This way, I, at least, won’t get confused when I need to sticky it.

Did you really have to misspell my name?

Fixed it.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

"No draft process by the ambassador? Well no support from me." turning away.

Why would Bitely want to get abuse from the clique?

[Wallenburg]

nvm going to vote for it, all Bitely proposals are good despite people here hating them because he doesn't fit in with their clique.

Trevanyika observes the Bitelian delegation walking in wearing fake moustaches, thick glasses, and very funny hats.

"No draft process by the ambassador? Well no support from me." turning away.

Why would Bitely want to get abuse from the clique?

"If by abuse you mean the standard sort of criticism authoring delegations receive on producing proposal ideas to the international community..."

Helen stops, thinking for a moment. "Actually, you may have me there, thank goodness I only work here part-time."

[Kranostav]

"No draft process by the ambassador? Well no support from me." turning away.

Why would Bitely want to get abuse from the clique?

What exactly do you mean by this "WA Clique"? And who exactly do you believe it's members are?