Page 9 of 9

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:56 am
by Honeydewistania
[quote="Savoir";p="37216713"][/quote]
OOC: Please be ironic, please be ironic, please be ironic

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:03 am
by Heavens Reach
"Fellow fascists, all those who are voting against this proposal, I salute you!"


This is the strongest argument for a vote of "for" that we've seen.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:07 pm
by Araraukar
Heavens Reach wrote:
"Fellow fascists, all those who are voting against this proposal, I salute you!"

This is the strongest argument for a vote of "for" that we've seen.

OOC: I think that's their attempt, too. Not that it has much chance working well enough, given that most voters are unlikely to read this thread.

Reconsider your votes

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:59 am
by Devionsa
I know most voters won't read this forum but I am hoping there are enough of those who do that can change the predictable result.

I think most voters didn't even read the proposal but just read banning blood sports and voted against. The proposal clearly states banning sports where the participants haven't given their consent and are being forced. Also sports where death is a highly possible outcome which is clearly indirect murder by the organisers and the spectators. Bloodsports involving animals is even more troubling since they can neither give consent and are more than likely to be killed regardless if they win or not, if not immediately then probably after they can no longer be considered in a fighting condition.

Freedom and liberty are the most basic rights any living being deserves but the participants in the sports that this proposal is asking to ban aren't being allowed any freedom. It specifically states banning non-consensual events and/or events where deaths are highly likely to occur, which would entail murder, direct or indirect, which is illegal in most nations.

I ask everyone to reconsider their votes if they have voted against and/or vote "for" if they haven't voted yet.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:11 am
by Honeydewistania
Devionsa wrote:I know most voters won't read this forum but I am hoping there are enough of those who do that can change the predictable result.

I think most voters didn't even read the proposal but just read banning blood sports and voted against. The proposal clearly states banning sports where the participants haven't given their consent and are being forced. Also sports where death is a highly possible outcome which is clearly indirect murder by the organisers and the spectators. Bloodsports involving animals is even more troubling since they can neither give consent and are more than likely to be killed regardless if they win or not, if not immediately then probably after they can no longer be considered in a fighting condition.

Freedom and liberty are the most basic rights any living being deserves but the participants in the sports that this proposal is asking to ban aren't being allowed any freedom. It specifically states banning non-consensual events and/or events where deaths are highly likely to occur, which would entail murder, direct or indirect, which is illegal in most nations.

I ask everyone to reconsider their votes if they have voted against and/or vote "for" if they haven't voted yet.


While I agree that most voters should read the proposal text, and perhaps think about the rights of animals/slaves in captivity to fight for entertainment, a lot of people are voting against due to some big flaws here. Primarily the poor definitions and wording. While I don’t see a problem, the big delegates do and perhaps they’re right. Anyways it doesn’t matter if this fails, because I will keep working on this until one version eventually passes.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:45 am
by The Anarchic Collective of Z
“The Anarchic Collective of Z finds the intention of this law in good meaning, but finds the execution to be a bit inefficient. Perhaps we should change the law a bit, allowing blood sports but on the explicit condition that the involved parties are given care from their wounds? I don’t quite know where this care would come from but think it may be better for freedoms if allowed.”

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 9:22 am
by Wallenburg
"Restrictions On Blood Sports" was defeated 11,568 votes to 8,988.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:25 pm
by Honeydewistania
Wallenburg wrote:
"Restrictions On Blood Sports" was defeated 11,568 votes to 8,988.

Ah well, better luck next time.