I don’t see how it’s removing voting rights to argue that one political tool is no more right or wrong than another.
Both require organisation, both are political tools, both may be used to further one’s goals in the World Assembly.
The difference is one doesn't undermine literally everything else. You wouldn't use a weapon of mass destruction in conventional warfare, would you?
Your argument was that military intervention did not count as a political tool. Your moral(?) objections to it are another matter entirely.
Alright, fair enough. I concede I've lost this argument.
A dozen delegate approvals are easily obtained. Hundreds of votes? Less so. In fact, I can even create a dozen delegate approvals out of thin air with a dozen people with free WAs.
Fair argument, actually. One in which I think is
also a bit iffy, but I suppose you're right; it is technically a counter attack to make sure a resolution gets to vote,
albeit one that technically caps out a lot easier than the other.
Time to make a draft standing against this.Let me ask you another question: What happens if an organization decided to quorum raid every proposal, to a degree that none would make it to vote in the first place? Do you think there would be enough public cooperation to counterattack such an event, unlikely as it would be to happen? Would it be justified as a legitimate political tactic at that point?
Why specifically should it be declared wrong to utilise the tools a region has at its disposal to further their political agenda?
The difference is this is utilizing the tools of
many different regions one doesn't belong in to further one's personal agenda.
As it happens, about 2500 individual nations agree with me.
I didn't mean "you" specifically, but regardless, you are correct. Most people
do seem to agree with you. I still don't think they're right, but I suppose that's their choice.
Unless you don’t want to give it the publicity, or you don’t want to take chances.
Which I think should be required, but alas, here we are.
So is all quorum raiding bad, or should I first see if I can think of an adequate repeal before quorum raiding? I fail to understand the argument here. Don’t you think people might have legitimate objections and quorum raid because of those?
1) Yes and 2) No, you should think of an adequate repeal period. I genuinely do not see any justification for quorum raiding,
regardless of the intentions,
but I suppose compromises had to be made in the resolution proposal at vote in order to account for potential enforcement of existing declarations.
Then again, that's just my adamant opinion, one I'm very afraid seems to be a minority at this point.