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

[Kaboomlandia]

I personally don't see an issue with a region blocking telegrams from a source that has generally proven to be inaccurate and free-spending. Players are entirely allowed to send campaign telegrams, and nations and regions are entirely free to block them for doing it.

[Bananaistan]

The ability of the people to determine their policies should be respected. You disagree with this statement. I support it. That is the main point of clash. Maybe discuss it. If you think I'm attacking you, report me.

Ofc they can determine their policies. There's a button to disable the receipt of campaign TGs. If they wish to do so, they can do so. They don't need some small group of people from many years ago trying to dictate how they run their inbox. Said small group of people didn't amount to 10% of your region at the time either.

Also campaign TGs =/= spam.

And referring to my position on GenSec and how I was voted onto it appears to be utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Forgive me for perceiving the jibe about 5 voters being some form of personal attack or attempt to shout me down. If I'm wrong, you might explain the relevance, perhaps without the hyperbole.

Edit: Also I’m not at all having a go at people jointly determining some policy. People criticise policies all the time without also criticising the procedure for creating the policy.

I personally don't see an issue with a region blocking telegrams from a source that has generally proven to be inaccurate and free-spending. Players are entirely allowed to send campaign telegrams, and nations and regions are entirely free to block them for doing it.

If it was just about Bitely, I'd have said nothing. But it's not. Their policy is clear: unvetted TGs from any source, regardless of reliability, are blocked.

[Deropia]

The creak of a chair is heard from the general direction of the Deropian delegations desk in the debate hall.

"Ugh, my neck..." Jason mumbles as he rubs his eyes and rolls his head from side to side, trying to crack the facet joints connecting the vertebrae in his neck. "What's everyone going on...?" the Lieutenant-Commander goes silent as he fixes his glasses, the text of the proposal at vote coming into focus for the first time since he woke up. "BITELY?! Oh gods no, not again...please tell me this isn't a repeat of that whole WSA debacle 4 years ago?" he says, half to himself, half to any of the nearby delegations. "Ok, it's only a repeal... maybe it's..." Jason falls silent again as he reads over the body of the repeal itself.

MacAlister rises as the red light on his microphone blinks on, showing that it is now active.

"Alright, this repeal was written by someone who obviously has absolutely no idea how aviation or Air Traffic Control works.

So, let me start out by saying that the Deropian delegation most certainly will...not be voting for your proposal! You seem to have written this entire repeal from a bad-faith reading of the target resolution! I have a feeling you know absolutely nothing about aviation or ATC and it shows. You know sending out an aircraft to intercept an aircraft in distress is pointless, right? There is literally NOTHING another aircraft can do to help the aircraft in distress, except maybe watch it drop out of the sky.

All any reasonable nation is going to do is give the aircraft in distress priority ATC handling, clearing the airspace in the flight path of the aircraft so they can perform any emergency maneuvers they may need to execute and giving priority vectors given to the nearest airport when requested. There are other ATC procedures that I could go on and on about, but, I think they would be wasted on the delegation from Bitely, as whatever is told to them, will be wrong. We have decided to vote AGAINST your proposal."

Lt.-Cmdr MacAlister slams the red AGAINST button as he returns to his seat.

"Bloody Bitely, I thought this was over when the Secretariat ejected their delegation 4 years ago"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ofc they can determine their policies. There's a button to disable the receipt of campaign TGs. If they wish to do so, they can do so. They don't need some small group of people from many years ago trying to dictate how they run their inbox. Said small group of people didn't amount to 10% of your region at the time either.

I can check that. Recorded quorums on both sides of the Act were 59 and 57 for a 20 per cent quorum of WA residents. No quorum requirement was specified for the Act itself, as now-core policies were not yet established. With 41 respondents, however, that clearly meets the quorum requirement specified under current law (10 per cent), which has by convention backdated previous legislative questions.

Also campaign TGs =/= spam.

Spam is whatever the people have defined it to be. My region says it is spam.

And referring to my position on GenSec and how I was voted onto it appears to be utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Forgive me for perceiving the jibe about 5 voters being some form of personal attack or attempt to shout me down. If I'm wrong, you might explain the relevance, perhaps without the hyperbole.

The clash revolves around what policy a delegate should follow. I think the answer is one with stronger support from the people. I think it is the one enacted by the will of the people, which the people thought ought be binding. It seems to me that if you did not think that your authority was unimportant to this question, you would have used before condemning Kuriko and XKI's policies, in the same way that SL and GH both used puppets when discussing gameplay. Insofar as you wanted to make that a point, I think it ought to be discussed. Unless, of course, you are making these points as a private individual, in which case, please make that clear.

[Bananaistan]

Ofc they can determine their policies. There's a button to disable the receipt of campaign TGs. If they wish to do so, they can do so. They don't need some small group of people from many years ago trying to dictate how they run their inbox. Said small group of people didn't amount to 10% of your region at the time either.

I can check that. Recorded quorums on both sides of the Act were 59 and 57 for a 20 per cent quorum of WA residents. No quorum requirement was specified for the Act itself, as now-core policies were not yet established. With 41 respondents, however, that clearly meets the quorum requirement specified under current law (10 per cent), which has by convention backdated previous legislative questions.

Also campaign TGs =/= spam.

Spam is whatever the people have defined it to be. My region says it is spam.

And referring to my position on GenSec and how I was voted onto it appears to be utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Forgive me for perceiving the jibe about 5 voters being some form of personal attack or attempt to shout me down. If I'm wrong, you might explain the relevance, perhaps without the hyperbole.

The clash revolves around what policy a delegate should follow. I think the answer is one with stronger support from the people. I think it is the one enacted by the will of the people, which the people thought ought be binding. It seems to me that if you did not think that your authority was unimportant to this question, you would have used before condemning Kuriko and XKI's policies, in the same way that SL and GH both used puppets when discussing gameplay. Insofar as you wanted to make that a point, I think it ought to be discussed. Unless, of course, you are making these points as a private individual, in which case, please make that clear.

So effectively when some group of people have a vote, no one can then ever criticise that decision or the resulting policy? I’ll remind you of this the next time you’re criticising a GenSec decision. Speaking of which, there is no proposal legality question in this discussion. Exactly how might I be acting in some non-private capacity which requires clarification?

[Ghostopolis]

The sound of a sputtering engine pierces the room, though many fail to hear it in the clamor of angry arguments still ensuing in the chamber. The troubled engine sound is accompanied by thick, acrid black smoke, which instead of dispersing throughout the room coalesces and shrinks down into the shape of a black-suited man donning a small black hat. The sound fades away as Ambassador Geist finishes clearing his throat.

"Apparently I am not the only ghost haunting these hallowed halls. Condemnations of elites, Bitely-folk running amok, it's like old times. Though I am retired, I would be remiss if I did not throw my own wisps of insight into this largely-pointless exercise. Typically if one is going to repeal a resolution based on only a single factor, that factor should lend itself to unintended consequences, or be so fundamentally flawed as to render the rest inoperative or undermined so severely that it cannot work as designed. Given a simple read of the target resolution, let alone common sense understanding of all the words in it, one simply cannot conclude that this single argument holds any water. Existing WA legislation and existing sapient beings (by virtue of their having the ability to think and reason) already prevent the scenarios this resolution is concerned with. Should the vast majority of nations in this assembly be dismissed as too gullible or incapable of understanding just how obviously inadequate this resolution is? It strikes me as rather elitist to give an "elite" all the credit for this failure when the ambassador has earned all the credit for its flaws and the nations voting on it deserve credit for rendering a sound judgment.

It is the loser in a debate who asks not 'what might I have done wrong, or done better, so that my argument might be improved', but asks instead 'who is to blame for my folly and my failure?' Such a mind naturally crafted this resolution, which is just as myopic and focused on only one thing as to miss everything else, including the answers to the problems it purportedly seeks to solve. It is rare to see such a perfect storm of point-missing, and yet this resolution, its tired retread of an ambassador, and the arguments and explanations he has offered have managed to pull it off. I lament the fact the target resolution only applies to civilian aircraft, as I feel this resolution is itself a distress call and more magnanimous minds and selfless individuals ought to offer their aid. Sadly, I am literally and figuratively heartless, and lack the compassion or the patience to be of much use to the ambassador except as an arbiter of what some refer to as the 'tough love' approach. I promise him this: I will always be there for you. I will vote against and discourage your attempts to exercise your frustrations through World Assembly legislation. It may (and probably will) take an eternity, but seeing as I'm already here forever, I am willing to do it. I only hope that my eternity is longer than yours."

Ambassador Geist tips his hat and fades from sight until all that remains is the hat, which is carried away by an unexpected and extremely localized wind.

[THX1138]

If it was just about Bitely, I'd have said nothing. But it's not. Their policy is clear: unvetted TGs from any source, regardless of reliability, are blocked.

If residents of XKI wish to seek a variety of outside opinions on any resolution, including those of the author, the presence of this forum is no secret. The objection is to direct p2p lobbying, which has nothing to do with 'infantilizing' residents, and more to do with preserving regional autonomy, for residents.

It is worth noting that direct lobbying does not occur within the region, either: Not from authors of resolutions generated from inside the region, to residents, and not from the Delegate or WA Secretary of the region, indicating or suggesting how residents should vote. There is no attempt, ever, to whip or control the vote on any resolution.

If an author wishes to expand on or explain certain ideas in their resolutions that they feel they couldn't include in the body because of, say, character limitations, and if they seek forum with residents, then approaching the Delegate, first, is a simple matter of protocol. This sort of communication is a fair ask. However, if an author sends an unsolicited TG to residents, many of whom may be new to the WA, encouraging them to vote a certain way on a proposal, then they are acting in a manner that is contrary to a principle of autonomous and unmolested voting that is sacrosanct in 10000 Islands.

There is a difference.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ah, so you mean not to make any claim of authority over the General Assembly and its functionings outside of the rules. I'll be happy to accept that and walk back my remarks on your election. You win no elections and somehow I am the one with the democratic deficit.

I make no claim as to whether the policy can be criticised. I would argue that doing so is well within your rights, if you were an elector in Europe. I, and the people, enshrined that into our laws with the Privilege Act 2017.

You are the one who is arguing that I treat my region's assembly with contempt and distrust, that I am infantilising them, that our laws are not really laws. The democratic deficit is the clash. So then, why should I ignore the expressed will of the people and break the laws fashioned by the people and voted in by the people to vote in favour of proposals themselves opposed by the people? On the word of a private citizen who has a clear interest in subverting the preferences expressed by the people? Why should I ignore the people, who have already weighed these arguments and decided in its favour?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

If you disagree with its content, you are free to also canvass voters. Although I'd be careful. Some regions might vote in favour just to spite you!

I was under the impression that it was wrong to vote a certain way just to spite someone who's spreading annoying advertisements and that we should feel bad for doing it. Or is it only wrong if you make it clear that that's what you're going to do beforehand and have a codified policy for doing so?
Oh right, I forgot the real answer. It's wrong when it's convenient for you, and you don't have any interest in holding yourself to the standards you want Kuriko to follow.

<snip>

Telling someone you will act against their interests, when you have significant power to so, if they take some action is a limit on their actions. Or in this case, not telling them and only acting against after the fact. This isn't just about this proposal and this TG. It's about all proposals, all authors and any TG they might want to send.

You're right in that this is about all proposals and all advertisement TGs, but I'm afraid you got the rest wrong:
First, no, informing someone of how you will react to their actions is not a limit on those actions unless your reaction actually stops them from executing the action or retaliates against them for trying. This isn't a retaliation any more than your "For" vote was, and arguably your vote should be more of one because the decision was yours alone, not based on codified rules and existing precedent like Kuri's was, and you in no way informed us that following the ROVA would result in a counter-vote from you. As I have repeatedly said, either stop holding us to this ridiculous standard or start holding yourself to it.
Second, do you seriously expect us to manually TG each proposal author an explanation of the ROVA just so they're aware that we'll vote against them? The only thing keeping that from being laughable is the fact that it's not particularly funny. Ridiculous, maybe, but not funny.
Third, do you realize that you are effectively saying that regions should not react to TG campaigns? That's what your argument is if you take it to its logical conclusion, and I've gotta say, this particular logical conclusion isn't very logical.

[Bitely]

You can always block Telegrams from me or Campaign Telegrams in general. I'm surprised how upset some seem to be because I'm buying Stamps which help this site financially in if just a little. That's the main reason I send mass TGs to contribute to the site.

[Bananaistan]

If it was just about Bitely, I'd have said nothing. But it's not. Their policy is clear: unvetted TGs from any source, regardless of reliability, are blocked.

If residents of XKI wish to seek a variety of outside opinions on any resolution, including those of the author, the presence of this forum is no secret. The objection is to direct p2p lobbying, which has nothing to do with 'infantilizing' residents, and more to do with preserving regional autonomy, for residents.

It is worth noting that direct lobbying does not occur within the region, either: Not from authors of resolutions generated from inside the region, to residents, and not from the Delegate or WA Secretary of the region, indicating or suggesting how residents should vote. There is no attempt, ever, to whip or control the vote on any resolution.

If an author wishes to expand on or explain certain ideas in their resolutions that they feel they couldn't include in the body because of, say, character limitations, and if they seek forum with residents, then approaching the Delegate, first, is a simple matter of protocol. This sort of communication is a fair ask. However, if an author sends an unsolicited TG to residents, many of whom may be new to the WA, encouraging them to vote a certain way on a proposal, then they are acting in a manner that is contrary to a principle of autonomous and unmolested voting that is sacrosanct in 10000 Islands.

There is a difference.

OOC: Come on now. I wasn’t born yesterday. It’s an accepted fact that the vast majority of WA member nations never even glance at this forum.

Perhaps you can explain why receiving a TG from an author would mean that the resident’s vote is somehow compromised? Follow your third paragraph through to its conclusion. If a resident receiving a campaign TG is contrary to the principle of autonomous and unmolested voting aren’t you effectively saying that you don’t trust your residents to be able to read this TG and assess its content for themselves?

Otherwise, there’s no point in repeating myself.

Ah, so you mean not to make any claim of authority over the General Assembly and its functionings outside of the rules. I'll be happy to accept that and walk back my remarks on your election. You win no elections and somehow I am the one with the democratic deficit.

I make no claim as to whether the policy can be criticised. I would argue that doing so is well within your rights, if you were an elector in Europe. I, and the people, enshrined that into our laws with the Privilege Act 2017.

You are the one who is arguing that I treat my region's assembly with contempt and distrust, that I am infantilising them, that our laws are not really laws. The democratic deficit is the clash. So then, why should I ignore the expressed will of the people and break the laws fashioned by the people and voted in by the people to vote in favour of proposals themselves opposed by the people? On the word of a private citizen who has a clear interest in subverting the preferences expressed by the people? Why should I ignore the people, who have already weighed these arguments and decided in its favour?

If you think I have abused my GenSec authority take it up with the higher-ups.

I also like how you say that I cannot criticise your policy unless I’m a member of your region. Did you also use this line when your anti-“spam” treaty was initially publicised?

I’m not and haven’t told you to ignore anything. I’ve criticised the policy enacted by 10000 islands. And think about what you’re saying. Unless you are also a member of the group which made the decision, GTFO and don’t criticise. That’s offensive. I have every entitlement to criticise any decision made by any region. I will continue to do so despite your efforts.

If you disagree with its content, you are free to also canvass voters. Although I'd be careful. Some regions might vote in favour just to spite you!

I was under the impression that it was wrong to vote a certain way just to spite someone who's spreading annoying advertisements and that we should feel bad for doing it. Or is it only wrong if you make it clear that that's what you're going to do beforehand and have a codified policy for doing so?
Oh right, I forgot the real answer. It's wrong when it's convenient for you, and you don't have any interest in holding yourself to the standards you want Kuriko to follow.

What are you on about?

Telling someone you will act against their interests, when you have significant power to so, if they take some action is a limit on their actions. Or in this case, not telling them and only acting against after the fact. This isn't just about this proposal and this TG. It's about all proposals, all authors and any TG they might want to send.

You're right in that this is about all proposals and all advertisement TGs, but I'm afraid you got the rest wrong:
First, no, informing someone of how you will react to their actions is not a limit on those actions unless your reaction actually stops them from executing the action or retaliates against them for trying. This isn't a retaliation any more than your "For" vote was, and arguably your vote should be more of one because the decision was yours alone, not based on codified rules and existing precedent like Kuri's was, and you in no way informed us that following the ROVA would result in a counter-vote from you. As I have repeatedly said, either stop holding us to this ridiculous standard or start holding yourself to it.
Second, do you seriously expect us to manually TG each proposal author an explanation of the ROVA just so they're aware that we'll vote against them? The only thing keeping that from being laughable is the fact that it's not particularly funny. Ridiculous, maybe, but not funny.
Third, do you realize that you are effectively saying that regions should not react to TG campaigns? That's what your argument is if you take it to its logical conclusion, and I've gotta say, this particular logical conclusion isn't very logical.

This is nonsense and you know it.

Your delegate has some large amounts of votes. Your region says that because Bitely took some action you don’t like, your region will automatically vote against his proposal. It’s a bit like how any normal RL law works: people should not take some action, if they take that action, they’re punished for it by some person who has the power to punish them. Do you also suggest that RL laws do not limit the actions of people? Or are you arguing from some obscure meaning of the word limit? In which case I have no interest in enabling your pedantry.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I do not understand what is so outrageous about not wanting people to spam the region's residents with TGs. All Bitely had to do was request permission from the delegate to send the mass TG or just exclude XKI from the mass TG by using -region:10000 islands in the 'to' tab. The dispatch is posted right there in the WFE, if he had bothered to even check the WFE he would've known; but he didn't. Clearly, Bitely doesn't care about regional rules on mass TGs, therefore it is entirely justified to oppose his proposal.

Now the problem with sending unsolicited TGs is that Bitely could've theoretically swung the XKI forum vote if it was a more controversial proposal with a 50/50 divide, however, since this resolution a worldwide failure, it didn't affect the poll. Why is affecting the regional poll important? Because that is foreign interference in a regional matter. I agree with Kuriko in her decision to blacklist Bitely and vote against all his proposals. If Bitely actually cares about the XKI vote he would at least attempt to apologise but he didn't.

[Maowi]

OOC: I do not understand what is so outrageous about not wanting people to spam the region's residents with TGs. All Bitely had to do was request permission from the delegate to send the mass TG or just exclude XKI from the mass TG by using -region:10000 islands in the 'to' tab. The dispatch is posted right there in the WFE, if he had bothered to even check the WFE he would've known; but he didn't. Clearly, Bitely doesn't care about regional rules on mass TGs, therefore it is entirely justified to oppose his proposal.

OOC: I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing but I would note that it's unreasonable to expect a campaigner to check every single region's WFE - or even all the GCRs and major UCRs, there're still quite a lot of them - before sending their telegram. On the XKI, the dispatch in question is pinned to the WFE and it's titled "Respect our Vote Act" which could frankly mean anything; it could refer to internal voting procedures, not necessarily the WA.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I do not understand what is so outrageous about not wanting people to spam the region's residents with TGs. All Bitely had to do was request permission from the delegate to send the mass TG or just exclude XKI from the mass TG by using -region:10000 islands in the 'to' tab. The dispatch is posted right there in the WFE, if he had bothered to even check the WFE he would've known; but he didn't. Clearly, Bitely doesn't care about regional rules on mass TGs, therefore it is entirely justified to oppose his proposal.

Now the problem with sending unsolicited TGs is that Bitely could've theoretically swung the XKI forum vote if it was a more controversial proposal with a 50/50 divide, however, since this resolution a worldwide failure, it didn't affect the poll. Why is affecting the regional poll important? Because that is foreign interference in a regional matter. I agree with Kuriko in her decision to blacklist Bitely and vote against all his proposals. If Bitely actually cares about the XKI vote he would at least attempt to apologise but he didn't.

OOC: This argument that TGs somehow contaminate the vote is facile. Do you abstain from voting if you've read the debate thread on here? After all, if you see any argument for or against the proposal, then your opinion might has been influenced.

And what's wrong with individuals deciding for themselves whether they wish to receive campaign TGs? I mean, if the option to block them did not exist, your argument about a regional position on them might hold water.

Also, the allegation that campaign TGs are automatically spam is unproven.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Regardless of what rules or moderators say, Short, Pointless, Annoying Message = SPAM.

I certainly find campaigns for at vote resolutions to be spam as per the very acronym. And Bitely being in contempt with some region's rules is a much lesser offence than them being in contempt with the GA in general. So the latter reason is why I'm going to vote against any repeal of theirs, unless it is a repeal of a resolution I detest more than I detest their inability to put their ego aside.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I do not understand what is so outrageous about not wanting people to spam the region's residents with TGs.

OOC: Bear in mind that the region's residents already have the power to reject "spam" themselves, individually, by setting their TG 'preferences' as they choose. This regional policy does seem to imply that the regional leadership thinks its other residents insufficiently wise to make decisions for themselves...

[Araraukar]

OOC: Bear in mind that the region's residents already have the power to reject "spam" themselves, individually, by setting their TG 'preferences' as they choose. This regional policy does seem to imply that the regional leadership thinks its other residents insufficiently wise to make decisions for themselves...

OOC: To be fair, a lot of people complain of something they can stop themselves, in NS and life in general...

[Church Of The Almighty Dollar]

Jeff Bezos in a baritone voice "Alexa, how is the World Assembly going to steal my money today?'
Alexa replies "Cheapskates that purchase tickets on fly-by-night airlines want your money to fix their problems."
*Bezos turns red with anger*
"BUCK DINERO GET IN HERE!"
*The Chief Accountant of Spending and Hoarding (C.A.S.H.) Buck Dinero enters.
"I am not spending one cent to rescue these ungrateful mooches," barks Bezos.
In a sniveling voice the leader of The Church of the Almighty Dollar says, "But we are a new nation and I think it's best if we.."
Bezos cuts him off abruptly "Take your free month of Prime and don't let me see you again until you cut my taxes."
Bill Gates and Elon Musk chuckle in the background while Mark Zuckerberg's monotone voice asks "But you do not pay taxes."
"Mark, calculate pi for us," snickers Rupert Murdoch.
"3.14159265359..." Zuckerberg recites as the chorus of laughter from the rich old men grows louder.

[Separatist Peoples]

Jeff Bezos in a baritone voice "Alexa, how is the World Assembly going to steal my money today?'
Alexa replies "Cheapskates that purchase tickets on fly-by-night airlines want your money to fix their problems."
*Bezos turns red with anger*
"BUCK DINERO GET IN HERE!"
*The Chief Accountant of Spending and Hoarding (C.A.S.H.) Buck Dinero enters.
"I am not spending one cent to rescue these ungrateful mooches," barks Bezos.
In a sniveling voice the leader of The Church of the Almighty Dollar says, "But we are a new nation and I think it's best if we.."
Bezos cuts him off abruptly "Take your free month of Prime and don't let me see you again until you cut my taxes."
Bill Gates and Elon Musk chuckle in the background while Mark Zuckerberg's monotone voice asks "But you do not pay taxes."
"Mark, calculate pi for us," snickers Rupert Murdoch.
"3.14159265359..." Zuckerberg recites as the chorus of laughter from the rich old men grows louder.

Ooc: this is my second favorite national roleplay ever.

[Sethtekia]

Sethtekia is in favor for this to be repealed. As Sethtekia employs a Zero Tolerance Airspace edict. Any aircraft in our airspace without expressed permission is to be shot down regardless. And any nation that enters our airspace to aid said aircraft will be destroyed as well.

[Maowi]

Sethtekia is in favor for this to be repealed. As Sethtekia employs a Zero Tolerance Airspace edict. Any aircraft in our airspace without expressed permission is to be shot down regardless. And any nation that enters our airspace to aid said aircraft will be destroyed as well.

"Ambassador, in that case, Sethtekia is already in non-compliance with extant World Assembly legislation and will be whether or not this resolution is repealed."

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote FOR this repeal in concert with Our regional delegate, Bran Astor. We believe that being required to assist all civilian aircraft, even in potentially belligerent airspace, would be contrary to Our interests, specifically Our interest in not getting shot.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

[Republic of Satherland]

Greetings,

The Satherlandic delegation is appalled that this resolution is even coming to a vote. The fact that the Bitelians have the gall to attempt the repeal of an entire resolution based on the dubious interpretation of a single sub-clause is reason enough to condemn this bill to the ash heap of Bitely's failed WA proposals.

Furthermore, the Bitelian government dares to send a mass telegram to every WA member nation on the planet to promote this ridiculous bill to the annoyance to many of the good people from my region, who overwhemlingly disagree with the joke of a resolution that has been presented to this esteemed establishment.

The Satherlanders have said their peace. Thank you for your time.

[Krioval]

The Imperial Chiefdom feels that nations able to communicate with aircraft should be reasonably expected to distinguish civilian aircraft from military aircraft. As such, we have no problems with the resolution as passed. Further, even if we were to entertain a hypothetical situation wherein a terrorist commandeers a civilian aircraft, it is not as if we would allow the craft unrestricted access to our airspace - though one would definitely classify the aircraft in question as "in distress". We would intercept the craft and compel its diversion away from sensitive targets. If that proved impossible, then a difficult decision would be made. That said, nothing in the resolution precludes such a course of action, making the hypothetical situation irrelevant to the argument of repeal.

Tau Kriov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Superbunny]

We in Superbunny are just starting to come around to fighter planes and such, but we've noticed that it's rather easy to distinguish, say, a 747 Boeing from something like a Warthog or one of those death machines I'm sure all those insane dictatorships have. It should also be pretty easy for even the most basic of military aircraft to retreat or return fire if attacked.

Speaking of fire, should I call 911? This room is getting heated with the fire everyone seems to be throwing around. Especially, you, Bananastan. Those look like some nasty burns.