Silly and/or Illegal GA Proposals. zOMG!

by **Flibbleites** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:09 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
International Support Fund
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Binary Load Lifters

Description: (description)

Illegal, I believe, as this appears to duplicate the WA General Fund, Resolution #17. And even if it doesn't, we do not need another money drain attached to the WA. And on a game note, This uses the word "voluntary this" and voluntary that" alot, then uses the category increase basic welfare-significant.

no, just no, not, never

At the top it says "The ISF will be funded by the wealthiest nations" while later it does say the funding is entirely voluntary, we also see possible metagaming or game mechanics as it specifies that the "A chair and vice-chair will be elected annually by council members", and that "The chair will hold the power of veto over any resolution submitted".

I was thinking that that one had a committee rules violation there since clause a seems to be saying that nations are going to be serving on the committee that this proposal would create.

by **Nort Eurasia** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:14 am

Some of these laws are disturbing and completely irrational... :meh:

by **Grays Harbor** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:16 am

Nort Eurasia wrote:Some of these laws are disturbing and completely irrational...

very irrational. Thats why we post them here to point out how silly (and in most cases, contrary to the established rules) they are in order that they will never gather the delegate support required to bring them to a vote.

by **Grays Harbor** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:37 pm

Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#10
Proposed by: Markeo

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: It isn't fair for WA nations to possess nuclear arms just because they are outnumbered. Also, my nation has never been threatened byany other nation. Besides, I think there are better ways of protecting your nation than nuclear arms. NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY THE WORLD! All you have to do is increase your nations military spending a little bit.

... and then we roast marshmallows by the campfire!

oy

by **Nordicus** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:13 am

The Market of the World
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Trentaniaopolis

Description: NOTES that stores make huge money
that the World Assembly should establish a national store
UNDERSTANDS that it could lead some form of controversy
THINKS that all profits could be shared upon those supporting regions
BELIEVES it could help strengthen national ties, strength, and economy
FEELS this is a good idea for all nations

Bloody stupid, and it isn't really something that would need legislation, either.

by **Grays Harbor** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:23 am

Nordicus wrote:
The Market of the World
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Trentaniaopolis

Description: NOTES that stores make huge money
that the World Assembly should establish a national store
UNDERSTANDS that it could lead some form of controversy
THINKS that all profits could be shared upon those supporting regions
BELIEVES it could help strengthen national ties, strength, and economy
FEELS this is a good idea for all nations

Bloody stupid, and it isn't really something that would need legislation, either.

Why is it that all the new folk posting these proposals feel that whatever it is they post, HAS to be "significant" strength? This does not even rate a "mild" in my opinion, besides it being, as my colleague from Nordicus pointed out, "Bloody Stupid".

by **Grays Harbor** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:57 am

Hit First ask Questions Later
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Nova Morea

Description: Police should have the authority to imobolize any suspected violators of the law and then ask questions with out the threat of prosecution agains said officers, or military authorities.

Sattelite Defense
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: New Nassrau

Description: IF:A nation is out of control with war

THEN:Other nations will be safe

DUE:To the Sattelite Defense

HOW:Missles and/or lasers

THEN:War might end

These are not proposals, they are vague statements. and I have said it before, I will say it again ...

NOT. EVERY. PROPOSAL. NEEDS. "STRONG". AS. ITS. STRENGTH.

We are leaning heavily towards mandatory classes in proposal writing prior to a nation being allowed to submit one.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:58 pm

Repeal of Sexual Privacy Act

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: New Mysteria

Description: This act will repeal Sexual Privacy Act GC#16.

SHOCKED that Sexual Privacy Act ("the Act") does nothing to prevent pedophiles and child pornographers from exploiting the most innocent members of our society.

DISTURBED that the Act hinders national law enforcement agencies from prosecuting sex crimes.

CONTENDING that age of consent is something of national interest for each individual society based on each unique culture and moral codes.

UNDERSTANDING that the basic premise behind the Act is worthy and good.

ASKING for such a sexual privacy law that would protect children from sexual exploitation.

Contradiction and wrong category, should use repeal function instead.

by **Flibbleites** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:06 pm

Educational Choices Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

Proposed by: Warkus

Description: RECOGNIZING that many students in elementary/primary schools must complete all subjects

COMPLAINING that many students find some subjects 'boring' and lack talent in these areas

ACCEPTING the right to give students the ability to choose 4 lessons that they will participate in

REMEMBERING that giving students rights to choose 4 subjects will let them progress into a career they desire

ADDITIONALLY the Teacher/Tutor/Sensei of the student will need to choose a 5th subject in which they are good at

ASKING you to vote for this proposal and give students more educational choices

Is the author really suggesting that we allow elementary students to drop important subjects like math and grammar (which it appears the author could use a lesson in since the proposal lacks any sort of sentence ending punctuation) simply because they find the subject "boring?"

by **Hegstoria** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:27 pm

we propse universal health care.

did i just say that.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:29 am

Repeal "Freedom of Expression"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#30
Proposed by: Warkus

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #30: Freedom of Expression (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: ACCEPTING that certain "Freedoms of speech" could result in certain persons being offended

EXPECTING that certain limited freedoms can be put in place

UNDERSTANDING that freedom of speech is a key aspect in freedom

AGGREING that people have been abused for simple "misunderstandings"

ALLOWS countries to set "APPROPRIATE" freedoms of speech

FURTHER ACCEPTING that giving too much freedom of speech can result in violence and abuse

FORBIDS full of freedom of speech

Be careful: repeals cannot introduce new legislation.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:34 am

Freedom of language

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Veyrier

Description: Description: That Nation can submit resolutions either In English, French or German.

PERCEIVING that quite a great number of nations can’t submit a resolution because of language problems, (English)

UNDERSTANDING that it could create some disorder in World Assembly, but at the same time, more nations will vote, or be active;

FURTHER that the current situation is not representative of the minorities in the game

HEREBY We ask the World Assembly to give the permission to write resolutions in English, French and German, that are three important languages, or in place of German, Spanish.

Illegal: trying to change proposal rules via a resolution is still some kind of a game mechanics violation.

by **Avienion** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:38 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Freedom of language

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Veyrier

Description: Description: That Nation can submit resolutions either In English, French or German.

PERCEIVING that quite a great number of nations can’t submit a resolution because of language problems, (English)

UNDERSTANDING that it could create some disorder in World Assembly, but at the same time, more nations will vote, or be active;

FURTHER that the current situation is not representative of the minorities in the game

HEREBY We ask the World Assembly to give the permission to write resolutions in English, French and German, that are three important languages, or in place of German, Spanish.

Illegal: trying to change proposal rules via a resolution is still some kind of a game mechanics violation.

DAMN! I wanted to post that one!

by **Flibbleites** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:40 pm

Avienion wrote:
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Freedom of language

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Veyrier

Description: Description: That Nation can submit resolutions either In English, French or German.

PERCEIVING that quite a great number of nations can’t submit a resolution because of language problems, (English)

UNDERSTANDING that it could create some disorder in World Assembly, but at the same time, more nations will vote, or be active;

FURTHER that the current situation is not representative of the minorities in the game

HEREBY We ask the World Assembly to give the permission to write resolutions in English, French and German, that are three important languages, or in place of German, Spanish.

Illegal: trying to change proposal rules via a resolution is still some kind of a game mechanics violation.

DAMN! I wanted to post that one!

As did I, especially since in my case that would make my job of determining the legality of a proposal much harder since I don't know French or German (and only have a very basic knowledge of Spanish [I took 3 years of it back in high school and that was 10 years ago]).

by **Grays Harbor** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:15 pm

Climate World Summit
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Linerius

Description: A political and legally binding treaty that all nations must try to implement in their administrations and governments.

Political goals:

1. Reduce the worlds CO2 emissions by 20 percent before the year 2020.

2. Increase the green and clean energy industry in every nations larger than a population at 10 billion.

3. The government must take the initiative to educate and develop a more efficient green industry.

4. All rich nations must show solidarity to poor nations wich will be affected by the climate changes, in distributing ressouces and food.

5. All nations should implement green taxes on automobiles wich contributes to carbon-dioxide to the atmosphere.

6. All nations must build cricis centers to climate affected refugees.

Legally binding treaty:
Part one.

1. All nations must cooperate to follow the strict goal of reducing the worlds CO2 emissions by 20 percent, by the year 2020.

2. All nations should increase clean and egologically energy production by 15 percent, by the year 2030.

3. All nations must stick to the following legally binding treaty, even so if the administration will be electoral changed, and a new governmet will be implemented.

4. All nations must increase reseach funding by 25 percent, and ecourage scientific reseach on hybrid-cars.

5. Morale company taxes should be implemented on industries wich contributes with more than 3 ton CO2 emissions in a month, as a punishment.

NOTE that all the political goals are not binding as such, but should be interpretated as an initiative all governments should take.

Back to "kumbaya" proposals. oh boy. I will never, ever, ever support anything which includes a list of "Political Goals". Bloody stupid.

by **Almaniania** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:25 pm

Stop. Just stop. Why are you ostracizing people instead of helping them. Why are you making look like idiots instead of making their resolutions look better. Why do you have to make fun of their idealogies just for a cheap laugh.

There is a word for people like you guys... it's called jerks. Look it up.

by **Linux and the X** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:28 pm

It's not possible to edit proposals once they're officially in, and some of these are beyond hope.

by **Almaniania** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:51 pm

Alright fine. My point is if you're going to criticize someone about their beliefs and post it so the world can see, that just makes you a jerk.

Remember: failed resolutions are lost over time. The forums, however, are forever.

by **The Emmerian Unions** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:49 pm

Almaniania wrote:Stop. Just stop. Why are you ostracizing people instead of helping them. Why are you making look like idiots instead of making their resolutions look better. Why do you have to make fun of their idealogies just for a cheap laugh.

There is a word for people like you guys... it's called jerks. Look it up.

Almaniania wrote:Alright fine. My point is if you're going to criticize someone about their beliefs and post it so the world can see, that just makes you a jerk.

Remember: failed resolutions are lost over time. The forums, however, are forever.

And I suggest you read this trhread to find out WHY we do this thing on these proposals: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18

by **Nordicus** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:58 pm

Almaniania wrote:Stop. Just stop. Why are you ostracizing people instead of helping them. Why are you making look like idiots instead of making their resolutions look better. Why do you have to make fun of their idealogies just for a cheap laugh.

There is a word for people like you guys... it's called jerks. Look it up.

I disagree. If someone is not going to read the information that is on the same page as where they enter all the proposal data, and furthermore, doesn't even take the damn time to not use txt spk n othur la-z, bad speln lik dis, then they fully deserve to be ostracized. The information is not hard to come across; if they read the extremely easy-to-find mini-guide that was on that page, above the place they type everything in, over 90% of the stuff mocked here wouldn't have been submitted.

I agree that there is no need to criticize others because you don't agree with the ideological basis of their proposal. However, protecting people for being lazy idiots is not something I will condone.

The only thing submitted lately which I am even slightly against mocking is the climate proposal, and that still shouldn't have been submitted as-is. In my opinion, it is extremely weak legislature, bordering on pure garbage--regardless of the goal, it is too poorly written to even be worth consideration.

by **Meldaria** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:28 pm

This one doesn't even make sense...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberate Grand Central

A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region

Category: Liberation

Nominee (region): Grand Central

Proposed by: Formosa and Japan

Description: That regions can recruit from any other region besides the Pacific feeders

by **The Republic of Lanos** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:31 pm

Meldaria wrote:This one doesn't even make sense...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberate Grand Central

A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region

Category: Liberation

Nominee (region): Grand Central

Proposed by: Formosa and Japan

Description: That regions can recruit from any other region besides the Pacific feeders

Spamming RMB's with recruiting messages should be legal?

by **Meldaria** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:32 pm

What... ?

by **Nordicus** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:35 pm

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Spamming RMB's with recruiting messages should be legal?

Meldaria wrote:What... ?

It's what the proposal appears to be asking for. The freedom to spam all the regional message boards with recruiting messages.

by **Meldaria** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:17 am

Nordicus wrote:
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Spamming RMB's with recruiting messages should be legal?

Meldaria wrote:What... ?

It's what the proposal appears to be asking for. The freedom to spam all the regional message boards with recruiting messages.

I don't understand at all what it's asking... It's titled "Liberate Grand Central" and it says you can't recruit from "The Pacific Feeders"... It's honestly just a weird proposal submitted by some Newb who doesn't understand what the "liberate" function is for and that you can't change the website rules with the WA....

Silly and/or Illegal GA Proposals. zOMG!

Who is online