NationStates

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:25 am**

Urgh, we just noticed that

Refrain from the detainment, whether in medical facilities or otherwise, of people with disabilities, excluding the legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others;

does not apply to people being suspected criminals with flight risk and other related situations.

We will prepare a repeal if this passes.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:01 pm**

Old Hope wrote:Urgh, we just noticed that
Refrain from the detainment, whether in medical facilities or otherwise, of people with disabilities, excluding the legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others;

does not apply to people being suspected criminals with flight risk and other related situations.

We will prepare a repeal if this passes.

"Most legal systems impute a risk to others inherent in a fleeing criminal based on the historical risk of desperate acts committed in such circumstances. This is a poor argument, as usual."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:29 pm**

who cares about people with disabilities, they are useless and do nothing and use their disabilities as a way to have other people do things for them. they are low lying scum and should be executed, i don't care for them.

Free Las Pinas wrote:
Supporting People with Disabilities
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Noting the importance of accessible infrastructure - particularly in the spheres of health, education, and communications - in allowing people with disabilities to effectively exercise their rights,

Concerned that, in addition to ableism, many people with disabilities regularly face discrimination and disadvantage on other grounds (such as race, sex, age, and - for most - low income), and

Recognising that - while legislation alone cannot serve to completely eradicate discrimination - an internationally recognized disability code to remedy the social disadvantages of people with disabilities and promote their equal participation in all spheres of life would be of at least some benefit in achieving that goal:

Defines “people with disabilities” to be those that have a physical or mental impairment which, within their own, their guardian’s, or their doctor’s jurisdiction, has a detrimental or consequential effect on their capabilities to execute day-to-day activities;
Requires member states to:
Ensure that people with disabilities, within their jurisdiction, can conveniently access assistive technologies, housing programs, and mental health support services, relevant to their disability;
Provide, in law and in practice, that no qualified applicants for any job receive worse terms and conditions, incentives, or allowances in their employment due to being disabled;
Guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to all available, and relevant details regarding their personal medical condition; granted it is within their doctor’s capacity to provide such information;
Refrain from the detainment, whether in medical facilities or otherwise, of people with disabilities, excluding the legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others;
Encourages member states to:
Establish systems of special education for those with visual, hearing, or intellectual disabilities;
Uphold a positive and inclusive stance on disability, particularly in mainstream media, schools, and workplaces;
Utilise and conduct research to allow products and facilities to be used by anyone without the need for significant reworks and modifications; and
Reaffirms the right to not be discriminated on the grounds of disability.

Co-authored by Tinhampton

> Draft 9 was submitted 28 November 2020, and reached 76 approvals of the 63 required on 30 November 2020, when it was pulled, due to major flaws that were missed.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:16 pm**

Big Belly Empire wrote:>:( who cares about people with disabilities, they are useless and do nothing and use their disabilities as a way to have other people do things for them. they are low lying scum and should be executed, i don't care for them.

*** Warned for trolling ***

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:27 pm**

I retain my opinion that people with disabilities must consent to being given rehab/medical treatment, and that they must instead receive help from social services.

Kharon wrote:The first clause of this proposal, “Defines “people with disabilities” to be those that have a physical or mental impairment which, within their own, their guardian’s, or their doctor’s jurisdiction, has a detrimental or consequential effect on their capabilities to execute day-to-day activities;” is a bit off in my opinion.

I believe that a person with disabilities can not, under rule of law, state themselves as such, as many people have misconceptions and misunderstandings of what a mental illness is, as well as what most physical disabilities are, and as such, I believe that only a legal guardian or state-approved doctor is able to say that oneself is a “person with disabilities.”

Except, they don’t get to define the physical/mental impairment themself. They’re defining whether said physical/mental impairment as a detrimental or consequential effect, which would then render them a person with disability. For instance, the American Disabilities Act defines a psychiatric disability to be a “mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual ...”.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:01 pm**

Big Belly Empire wrote:>:( who cares about people with disabilities, they are useless and do nothing and use their disabilities as a way to have other people do things for them. they are low lying scum and should be executed, i don't care for them.

No we don’t. We aren’t useless, we aren’t low lying scum, or whatever it is you think we are. We are normal people who just happen to have a disability.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:27 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Old Hope wrote:Urgh, we just noticed that

does not apply to people being suspected criminals with flight risk and other related situations.

We will prepare a repeal if this passes.

"Most legal systems impute a risk to others inherent in a fleeing criminal based on the historical risk of desperate acts committed in such circumstances. This is a poor argument, as usual."

No, it is not. You'd need to prove that the disabled person is a danger to others.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:18 am**

Old Hope wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Most legal systems impute a risk to others inherent in a fleeing criminal based on the historical risk of desperate acts committed in such circumstances. This is a poor argument, as usual."

No, it is not. You'd need to prove that the disabled person is a danger to others.

"There is no requirement for a preemptive hearing. Penalties can follow where an entity is wrong. Poorly considered, as usual."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:55 am**

This is my first time to express my thought about the WA proposal. I have been watch WA proposals for a long time after I joined as a WA member.

Cancel death penelty, human right protection...these proposal creators provide an ideal viewpoint to the world. However, it's just an illusion. WA actually can't limit any nation to follow new added principle.

A nation ambarrsor already mention about the education problem. Every nations have their owned situation. How WA can offer to these nations? Economy or technique support? I never see a proposal creator try to figure out to solve these problems.

You banned Capital punishment? But our law still has it. And WA can't do nothing to us. I am sure about that.

2.c, Provide, in law and in practice, that no qualified applicants for any job receive worse terms and conditions, incentives, or allowances in their employment due to being disabled;

That will cause 2 problems, healthy workers will feel distress and lower their willing to hard work. Furthermore, what if someone criple him/herself for cheat insurance or better terms?

If a leader can't think about people from different angles and viewpoints. I don't think him or her can served the citizens well.

Sincerely,
Eugenia von Habsburg-Lothringen
Novitiate Princess Regent of Einnstadt

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:30 am**

Einnstadt wrote:
You banned Capital punishment? But our law still has it. And WA can't do nothing to us. I am sure about that.

Sincerely,
Eugenia von Habsburg-Lothringen
Novitiate Princess Regent of Einnstadt

"Extant law empowers the WA to fine your nation into compliance. Failure to pay coercive fines triggers an obligation for all member states to use the most punitive sanctions available. Including embargo and diplomatic isolation. The WA has notably potent tools."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:12 pm**

I see, you don't want to discuss the solution of 2.c. Instead, you thrown another illusion bomb as the reply.

Economy embargo? How?

It's nothing but like I said: "Hey! I am gonna ruin your nation with my 99999999999999999999999 soldiers.

What? You said you don't have any feeling about it! Well, I guess so. Because this is just b*llshit. Can I really reach to your nation?

NO!

So how do you enforce the law.

Should I give you some tips?

1)Kick out all nations which against WA's policy.

Hmm...lots of nations will need to quit then. And rest of nations can keep playing, pretending everything are ideal and acceptable.

2)Tag all member nations and ask them to publish embargo dispatches about all against WA policy.

Should cost many time......

3) Condemn all illegal nations by create new proposal and ask them to change their policy.

Hard to archeve the goal.

4) Or you want to use dueling to claim justice. I can accept that too. You can choose any Bytro games you like and start a fair fight.

Please let me see what kind of authority WA have.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:20 pm**

Einnstadt wrote:I see, you don't want to discuss the solution of 2.c. Instead, you thrown another illusion bomb as the reply.

Economy embargo? How?

It's nothing but like I said: "Hey! I am gonna ruin your nation with my 99999999999999999999999 soldiers.

What? You said you don't have any feeling about it! Well, I guess so. Because this is just b*llshit. Can I really reach to your nation?

NO!

So how do you enforce the law.

Should I give you some tips?

1)Kick out all nations which against WA's policy.

Hmm...lots of nations will need to quit then. And rest of nations can keep playing, pretending everything are ideal and acceptable.

2)Tag all member nations and ask them to publish embargo dispatches about all against WA policy.

Should cost many time......

3) Condemn all illegal nations by create new proposal and ask them to change their policy.

Hard to archeve the goal.

4) Or you want to use dueling to claim justice. I can accept that too. You can choose any Bytro games you like and start a fair fight.

Please let me see what kind of authority WA have.

Can I ask what's the point you're making here?

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:10 pm**

Einnstadt wrote:I see, you don't want to discuss the solution of 2.c. Instead, you thrown another illusion bomb as the reply.

Economy embargo? How?

It's nothing but like I said: "Hey! I am gonna ruin your nation with my 99999999999999999999999 soldiers.

What? You said you don't have any feeling about it! Well, I guess so. Because this is just b*llshit. Can I really reach to your nation?

NO!

So how do you enforce the law.

Should I give you some tips?

1)Kick out all nations which against WA's policy.

Hmm...lots of nations will need to quit then. And rest of nations can keep playing, pretending everything are ideal and acceptable.

2)Tag all member nations and ask them to publish embargo dispatches about all against WA policy.

Should cost many time......

3) Condemn all illegal nations by create new proposal and ask them to change their policy.

Hard to archeve the goal.

4) Or you want to use dueling to claim justice. I can accept that too. You can choose any Bytro games you like and start a fair fight.

Please let me see what kind of authority WA have.

((OOC: This seems to be an ooc response more than an IC one, so I'll explain in those terms.
The WA assumes good-faith compliance from the majority of members. Obviously, this is a roleplay game and you have control of what goes on within your nations borders, we can't actually force you to accept that what happens happens. In the same sense, if we rp a war in which my nation conquered yours you can (though it's considered bad form) just say that never happened. So, what happens if you don't comply with WA resolutions is you get fined, economic embargos, all of that. You, the player, need to say why that has no effect on your nation if you want to continue breaking the resolutions, or obviously you could just ignore it but that's considered bad form. Does that answer your question?))

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:35 pm**

By publish ideal concepts without reality support. Why should we waste time to vote these proposals. This WA shouldn't like to be Garden of Eden. What I think is, every proposals should consider about every nations situations. Like WA try to ban death penelty.

Is it possible if this is reality?

You see, the purpose of League of Nations was supposed to prevent WWII. However, WWII still happened and LoN can't do nothing about it.

WA just give the feeling like LoN. Funny and ridiculous.

Many nations vote "Against" not just because they don't like the idea. However, it doesn't suitable for every nations.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:53 pm**

Einnstadt wrote:I see, you don't want to discuss the solution of 2.c. Instead, you thrown another illusion bomb as the reply.

Economy embargo? How?

It's nothing but like I said: "Hey! I am gonna ruin your nation with my 99999999999999999999999 soldiers.

What? You said you don't have any feeling about it! Well, I guess so. Because this is just b*llshit. Can I really reach to your nation?

NO!

So how do you enforce the law.

Should I give you some tips?

1)Kick out all nations which against WA's policy.

Hmm...lots of nations will need to quit then. And rest of nations can keep playing, pretending everything are ideal and acceptable.

2)Tag all member nations and ask them to publish embargo dispatches about all against WA policy.

Should cost many time......

3) Condemn all illegal nations by create new proposal and ask them to change their policy.

Hard to archeve the goal.

4) Or you want to use dueling to claim justice. I can accept that too. You can choose any Bytro games you like and start a fair fight.

Please let me see what kind of authority WA have.

Einnstadt wrote:By publish ideal concepts without reality support. Why should we waste time to vote these proposals. This WA shouldn't like to be Garden of Eden. What I think is, every proposals should consider about every nations situations. Like WA try to ban death penelty.

Is it possible if this is reality?

You see, the purpose of League of Nations was supposed to prevent WWII. However, WWII still happened and LoN can't do nothing about it.

WA just give the feeling like LoN. Funny and ridiculous.

Many nations vote "Against" not just because they don't like the idea. However, it doesn't suitable for every nations.

I still don't think you understand the purpose of the World Assembly. The WA functions like the UN aspect of NationStates for roleplaying purposes. The GA is the legislative chamber of that body, largely acting as a vessel through which your nation can interact with international issues, just like the Issues page is for your local policy. You can vote against the General Assembly proposals on principle because you don't like the concept, that's your prerogative, but it's not a good faith effort to dunk on the RP for everyone else who doesn't have meta-level problems with its construction. The WA will continue to exist as a game mechanic regardless of your objection to it.

Proposals do their best to accommodate odd RPs or unusual nation circumstances, but there is only so much that can reasonably be done. I suspect that this isn't your complaint, though, and yours is more based in national sovereignty. Alas, but this chamber's function erodes national sovereignty. We are here to pass legislation, to provide directives and mandates over other World Assembly nations. Presumably you can do anything in the universe until the GA says you can't. Naturally, legislation is getting better things to happen than what people would do on their own, in exchange for being able to do them with more in character financial and logistical support than they could muster on their own.

In character, if you're in the World Assembly, your nation is assumed to be in compliance the policies that the GA sets. You get a little telegram when a resolution passes to let you know this, and your nation's census stats are adjusted slightly, according to the category the resolution was filed in. This is the extent of the chamber's effects, you can take it or leave it.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:07 am**

Unlike you said, WA just gave everyone the thought that

"Hey! We published our policy and you have to do it by your own."

For example, In Supporting People with Disabilities why not add description in proposal like, Rufuge Isle will offer 10% money to the nation who activate the policy in their state?

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:13 am**

Einnstadt wrote:Unlike you said, WA just gave everyone the thought that

"Hey! We published our policy and you have to do it by your own."

For example, In Supporting People with Disabilities why not add description in proposal like, Rufuge Isle will offer 10% money to the nation who activate the policy in their state?

ooc: I don't think you understand how the GA works. Until you have that understanding you should consider posting less here.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:23 am**

Vote "For". This is all you talk about.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:59 am**

Einnstadt wrote:Vote "For". This is all you talk about.

Ooc: Perhaps take some time to learn how the GA functions before posting in At Vote threads.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:52 am**

Hi there,

I'd like to start off by saying I've only ever had a peripheral interest in the goings on of the GA, though I've always tried to read the texts of the proposals and vote based on a balance on what I personally believe and what I envision Kylarnatia as the nation-state would vote for. So I fully admit I'm a complete novice at how this all works, but I'm drawn to comment on this one as I am a disabled person.

I think it's absolutely a great thing that the author and the co-author took the time to raise this issue and make a proposal that is certain to pass very shortly, and I wish to thank and applaud them for that. While this is all a game at the end of the day, I think the issues the WA raise and debate through these proposals is a great vehicle to broaden players horizons on real-world issues, and so when I see disability rights being considered in such generally positive terms, that makes me happy. I think this proposal is a great first step in the direction - both out-of-character and in-character - of highlighting and attempting to address the social inequities that affect disabled people daily.

However, I do see it as a first step (along with other original pieces of disability-themed proposals that exist currently in the WA), and I do have some issues with the wording and ethos of some clauses of the proposal. Namely Clause 3 and its subclauses a) and c), but also the definition and sole use of the phrase "people with disabilities", for the reasons explained on Pg. 4 of the linked pdf. I have always hoped to one day get involved with the GA in order to write and promote disability-themed issues due to my personal experience with them. I hope that, should that day come, the author and co-author of this proposal (and other experienced GAers) would be open to working together on stronger and improved legislation around the topic. I apologise for coming so late to this conversation; had I noticed this proposal sooner, I would have definitely provided feedback during the drafting phase.

Due to my issues with some of the clauses of the text I have opted to "Abstain", but again I think it still deserves credit for at least taking a positive step in raising the issue and I applaud the efforts of the author and co-author and for its upcoming passage.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:23 am**

CoraSpia wrote:
Einnstadt wrote:I see, you don't want to discuss the solution of 2.c. Instead, you thrown another illusion bomb as the reply.

Economy embargo? How?

It's nothing but like I said: "Hey! I am gonna ruin your nation with my 99999999999999999999999 soldiers.

What? You said you don't have any feeling about it! Well, I guess so. Because this is just b*llshit. Can I really reach to your nation?

NO!

So how do you enforce the law.

Should I give you some tips?

1)Kick out all nations which against WA's policy.

Hmm...lots of nations will need to quit then. And rest of nations can keep playing, pretending everything are ideal and acceptable.

2)Tag all member nations and ask them to publish embargo dispatches about all against WA policy.

Should cost many time......

3) Condemn all illegal nations by create new proposal and ask them to change their policy.

Hard to archeve the goal.

4) Or you want to use dueling to claim justice. I can accept that too. You can choose any Bytro games you like and start a fair fight.

Please let me see what kind of authority WA have.

((OOC: This seems to be an ooc response more than an IC one, so I'll explain in those terms.
The WA assumes good-faith compliance from the majority of members. Obviously, this is a roleplay game and you have control of what goes on within your nations borders, we can't actually force you to accept that what happens happens. In the same sense, if we rp a war in which my nation conquered yours you can (though it's considered bad form) just say that never happened. So, what happens if you don't comply with WA resolutions is you get fined, economic embargos, all of that. You, the player, need to say why that has no effect on your nation if you want to continue breaking the resolutions, or obviously you could just ignore it but that's considered bad form. Does that answer your question?))

This is why the Thermodolian WA office has an Office of Creative Compliance which just looks for loopholes to exploit

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:26 am**

Kylarnatia wrote:Hi there,

I'd like to start off by saying I've only ever had a peripheral interest in the goings on of the GA, though I've always tried to read the texts of the proposals and vote based on a balance on what I personally believe and what I envision Kylarnatia as the nation-state would vote for. So I fully admit I'm a complete novice at how this all works, but I'm drawn to comment on this one as I am a disabled person.

I think it's absolutely a great thing that the author and the co-author took the time to raise this issue and make a proposal that is certain to pass very shortly, and I wish to thank and applaud them for that. While this is all a game at the end of the day, I think the issues the WA raise and debate through these proposals is a great vehicle to broaden players horizons on real-world issues, and so when I see disability rights being considered in such generally positive terms, that makes me happy. I think this proposal is a great first step in the direction - both out-of-character and in-character - of highlighting and attempting to address the social inequities that affect disabled people daily.

However, I do see it as a first step (along with other original pieces of disability-themed proposals that exist currently in the WA), and I do have some issues with the wording and ethos of some clauses of the proposal. Namely Clause 3 and its subclauses a) and c), but also the definition and sole use of the phrase "people with disabilities", for the reasons explained on Pg. 4 of the linked pdf. I have always hoped to one day get involved with the GA in order to write and promote disability-themed issues due to my personal experience with them. I hope that, should that day come, the author and co-author of this proposal (and other experienced GAers) would be open to working together on stronger and improved legislation around the topic. I apologise for coming so late to this conversation; had I noticed this proposal sooner, I would have definitely provided feedback during the drafting phase.

Due to my issues with some of the clauses of the text I have opted to "Abstain", but again I think it still deserves credit for at least taking a positive step in raising the issue and I applaud the efforts of the author and co-author and for its upcoming passage.

I don’t really feel all that upset by “people with disabilities” I am disabled. I am a disabled veteran and even though most people can’t see my disability it’s there. So I personally don’t take offense to the wording.

But I know my experiences aren’t everyones

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:46 am**

Thermodolia wrote:I don’t really feel all that upset by “people with disabilities” I am disabled. I am a disabled veteran and even though most people can’t see my disability it’s there. So I personally don’t take offense to the wording.

But I know my experiences aren’t everyones

I'm not "upset", that's far too strong a word. I just personally find "people with disabilities" to be fundamentally disingenuous to the reality of disability both as a construct and as a lived experience (We are people with impairments. Disability is caused by outside structural forces). Then again, I recognise that is perhaps far too deep in the theoretical debate of the models of disability then is perhaps suitable for a nation simulation game, so it's by far not my biggest grievance with the legislation as it stands.

And again, as you say, each of our experiences will be unique: you of course speak from a position of having an invisible disability, one that - if I understand correctly - developed due to life experiences, whereas I speak as someone with a physical disability that has been with me since birth. Disability is such a broad intersection of humanity that no one shoe (either in the medical, or social sense) fits all. The agency should be for the disabled person to decide how they're referred to. That's why - if I were to write the legislation (which again I hope to do at some point in the future), I'd rather go with a definition that incorporates both "disabled people" and "people with disabilities" that emphasises that agency and social element of disability as a construct.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :) If I ever do get round to GA writing on disability issues, I'd be happy to include you!

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:06 am**

Supporting People with Disabilities was passed 13,400 votes to 2,781.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:07 pm**

Tinhampton wrote:
Supporting People with Disabilities was passed 13,400 votes to 2,781.

"I am Groot," says Groot, pinning a "WA ELITE" badge on the Pinji envoy and congratulating him with a light slap on the back.

NationStates

[PASSED] Supporting People with Disabilities