[On Hold] Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

…I already read the target. I still don’t understand the second argument. it appears to be about writing standards or something, which the target never mentions. the argument at the top boils down to “some GA members are mean, so let’s retaliate by ceasing recognition”. the second half of that argument is strange considering that if you wanted the GA to recognize the SC, you could’ve tried to pass a GA resolution recognizing the SC.

I'm just going to quickly intercede here, and point out that I think the bolded point is technically impossible to do from the GA resolution standpoint.

In that case, the argument is still wrong because it’s expressing disappointment that something impossible hasn’t been done.

[Fachumonn]

I'm just going to quickly intercede here, and point out that I think the bolded point is technically impossible to do from the GA resolution standpoint.

In that case, the argument is still wrong because it’s expressing disappointment that something impossible hasn’t been done.

Except it was possible up until a certain point. And yet they never did it. You're not understanding the argument and just focusing on a specific part, but I guess that is ok. The main point is that they are hostile.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

In that case, the argument is still wrong because it’s expressing disappointment that something impossible hasn’t been done.

Except it was possible up until a certain point. And yet they never did it. You're not understanding the argument and just focusing on a specific part, but I guess that is ok. The main point is that they are hostile.

There’s still no point in stating it, because there’s nothing that can be done about it. Personally, I haven’t seen this hostility, but since I’m not really active here I guess I’ll take your word for it. Even so, retaliating against a few bad actors by revoking recognition of the GA is petty. It does pretty much nothing except sow more division for no good reason.

[Fachumonn]

Except it was possible up until a certain point. And yet they never did it. You're not understanding the argument and just focusing on a specific part, but I guess that is ok. The main point is that they are hostile.

There’s still no point in stating it, because there’s nothing that can be done about it. Personally, I haven’t seen this hostility, but since I’m not really active here I guess I’ll take your word for it. Even so, retaliating against a few bad actors by revoking recognition of the GA is petty. It does pretty much nothing except sow more division for no good reason.

A lot of people here in WA want more division, not less...

[Minskiev]

Perceiving many fatal flaws within this resolution

The 2nd clause of the resolution, which is impractical to the purpose of the resolution, as all it does is just repeat the General Assembly's mission statement, giving nothing that nations cannot already find out themselves,

Truly, a fatal flaw.

[Fachumonn]

Perceiving many fatal flaws within this resolution

The 2nd clause of the resolution, which is impractical to the purpose of the resolution, as all it does is just repeat the General Assembly's mission statement, giving nothing that nations cannot already find out themselves,

Truly, a fatal flaw.

I'm talking about the other points lol. Is that seriously why you unapproved?

[Deropia]

Dumb proposal. Against.

[Fachumonn]

Dumb proposal. Against.

I really don't think it's dumb, but whatever. You do you.

[Deropia]

-

[Minskiev]

Truly, a fatal flaw.

I'm talking about the other points lol. Is that seriously why you unapproved?

I approved without checking the merits. After checking the merits of your repeal, I knew it a) had poor arguments and b) was going to fail regardless.

Your "other points" (which, to be pedantic, wouldn't be 'many fatal flaws'. Several is 'more than 2, but not many', so many cannot be 2) are similarly weak.

As an entity, the General Assembly and the Security Council remain equal in their overall power and influence, regardless of the way that this influence is disbursed or otherwise utilized;

it doesn’t take into account the fact that it is a painfully hard task to keep each chamber at exactly the same writing standard and desirability despite doing completely different things, and doesn’t think about how that might badly affect each chamber's jobs and actions, especially when it overlooks how each chamber’s legislature is passed and drafted,

The dubious claim that the usage of influence for each chamber is similar, which is completely and utterly negligent of the fact that each chamber's influence and politics are separate and distinct,

Your second argument targets "writing standard and desirability" while all Clause 3 discusses is power and influence. Your third argument is flat out wrong - in fact, an HM violation. It never claims the usage of influence for each chamber is similar, in fact it specifically says "regardless of the way that this influence is disbursed or otherwise utilized". It acknowledges the difference in usage of influence, but it says that despite this difference in usage, the influence itself is equal.

Overall, there are precisely zero "fatal flaws", and if this makes it to vote expect a legality challenge.

[Fachumonn]

-snip-

1. The merits? My merits is that this is a bad resolution that should be repealed. At this point, you're guessing.
2. Seriously? A legality challenge? Sedge ruled this legal, and that is my interpretation of what Morover meant. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Minskiev]

1. The merits? My merits is that this is a bad resolution that should be repealed. At this point, you're guessing.
2. Seriously? A legality challenge? Sedge ruled this legal, and that is my interpretation of what Morover meant. There is nothing wrong with that.

1. The merits of your arguments are poor
2. Your interpretation is wrong and in no universe colorable

[Fachumonn]

1. The merits? My merits is that this is a bad resolution that should be repealed. At this point, you're guessing.
2. Seriously? A legality challenge? Sedge ruled this legal, and that is my interpretation of what Morover meant. There is nothing wrong with that.

1. The merits of your arguments are poor
2. Your interpretation is wrong and in no universe colorable

And why couldn't you tell me that before I submitted and had people backing me?

[Minskiev]

1. The merits of your arguments are poor
2. Your interpretation is wrong and in no universe colorable

And why couldn't you tell me that before I submitted and had people backing me?

Because I was visiting family, including a 9hr train ride. You know, touching grass outside of a web browser game

[Wallenburg]

The 2nd clause of the resolution, which is impractical to the purpose of the resolution, as all it does is just repeat the General Assembly's mission statement, giving nothing that nations cannot already find out themselves,

Disregarding the remarkably poor writing here, the subject clause is entirely at place in a declaration concerning the basic nature of the General Assembly. It does not impact "practicality". This is a weak argument.

Clause 3 where the writing regrettably reveals a flaw, and that is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that it is a painfully hard task to keep each chamber at exactly the same writing standard and desirability despite doing completely different things, and doesn’t think about how that might badly affect each chamber's jobs and actions, especially when it overlooks how each chamber’s legislature is passed and drafted,

Issues of the Security Council's generally worse writing quality are not relevant to the third clause.

The dubious claim that the usage of influence for each chamber is similar, which is completely and utterly negligent of the fact that each chamber's influence and politics are separate and distinct,

This is a plain lie. The target makes no such claim.

This is a very disappointing proposal, especially given my opposition to the target resolution. The argument against the target is simple and plain: the Security Council already recognizes the General Assembly by virtue of being a junior partner to it and repeatedly referencing General Assembly resolutions in its business, so a declaration to that effect is totally unnecessary. I am impressed that you managed to create such bad arguments when good ones would do the trick.

[Deropia]

You know what? I should have included some reasoning.

1) Your clause A states that stating the mission statement of the GA is impractical for the purposes of the resolution. How so? This is a resolution recognising the GA as an entity. I think an essential part of recognising a legislative body is identifying what that body actually does.

2) Clause B goes on about writing standards? Seriously? Writing standards have nothing to do with SC #359. It's merely stating that neither council wields more than the other.

3) For clause C, see above.

So, overall I think this is going to be Dead on Arrival.

[WayNeacTia]

I see no real burning reason to repeal this, and I am quite sure the voters will feel the same way if this makes it to quorum....

[Fachumonn]

The 2nd clause of the resolution, which is impractical to the purpose of the resolution, as all it does is just repeat the General Assembly's mission statement, giving nothing that nations cannot already find out themselves,

Disregarding the remarkably poor writing here, the subject clause is entirely at place in a declaration concerning the basic nature of the General Assembly. It does not impact "practicality". This is a weak argument.

Clause 3 where the writing regrettably reveals a flaw, and that is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that it is a painfully hard task to keep each chamber at exactly the same writing standard and desirability despite doing completely different things, and doesn’t think about how that might badly affect each chamber's jobs and actions, especially when it overlooks how each chamber’s legislature is passed and drafted,

Issues of the Security Council's generally worse writing quality are not relevant to the third clause.

The dubious claim that the usage of influence for each chamber is similar, which is completely and utterly negligent of the fact that each chamber's influence and politics are separate and distinct,

This is a plain lie. The target makes no such claim.

This is a very disappointing proposal, especially given my opposition to the target resolution. The argument against the target is simple and plain: the Security Council already recognizes the General Assembly by virtue of being a junior partner to it and repeatedly referencing General Assembly resolutions in its business, so a declaration to that effect is totally unnecessary. I am impressed that you managed to create such bad arguments when good ones would do the trick.

Im sure that is not the best argument.

I have a question for y'all - Do you want me to withdraw. I'm hesitant too because I can just have it defeated at the vote (at least it has a slim chance) and then redo it with better arguments? Which I'm inclined to do.

[The Orwell Society]

Disregarding the remarkably poor writing here, the subject clause is entirely at place in a declaration concerning the basic nature of the General Assembly. It does not impact "practicality". This is a weak argument.

Issues of the Security Council's generally worse writing quality are not relevant to the third clause.

This is a plain lie. The target makes no such claim.

This is a very disappointing proposal, especially given my opposition to the target resolution. The argument against the target is simple and plain: the Security Council already recognizes the General Assembly by virtue of being a junior partner to it and repeatedly referencing General Assembly resolutions in its business, so a declaration to that effect is totally unnecessary. I am impressed that you managed to create such bad arguments when good ones would do the trick.

Im sure that is not the best argument.

I have a question for y'all - Do you want me to withdraw. I'm hesitant too because I can just have it defeated at the vote (at least it has a slim chance) and then redo it with better arguments? Which I'm inclined to do.

If I were you, let it reach vote and hope for the best. If it fails, than try again.

[Comfed]

Repealing the target resolution is just a bad idea, period.

[Fachumonn]

Repealing the target resolution is just a bad idea, period.

I would really disagree with that on every level.

[Astrobolt]

Repealing the target resolution is just a bad idea, period.

I concur. For the purpose of aiming to unite the communities of both chambers, the original resolution is extremely useful and should stay on the books (or at the very least it should stay until we have a replacement passed).

[Honeydewistania]

Repealing the target resolution is just a bad idea, period.

I concur. For the purpose of aiming to unite the communities of both chambers, the original resolution is extremely useful and should stay on the books (or at the very least it should stay until we have a replacement passed).

It's comments like these which make it very hard to vote against the proposal. In what world is this resolution useful in anything? (Sorry, Morover love you). The GA has been continuously acknowledged by the SC in many resolutions. And anybody who already disavowed either chamber wouldn't care that this passed. The only thing that this resolution could had convinced me that it deserved to stay on was of it provided a detailed, interesting historical account of the GA and/or it's relationship with the SC, which it doesn't. Granted, it's only the second passed one, but I don't think it really fulfilled its potential as a concept, which is a pity. Hopefully a repeal could pass and the passage of my declaration can serve more as a statement that we should have a bit more creativity in declarations.

[Fachumonn]

My notes for a revised draft: Disinclude any clause 3 stuff, to hard.

Key Ideas:
Missed option for the greater history of SC together, historical detailed account,
SC C/C already mentions GA Res. , no need for this.
GA Ambassadors Hostile.
Clause 2, repeats’s world assembly mission statement. (as a starter, not the main argument.)


When this likely fails, I will use these draft notes to resubmit.

Tell me if there are any problems with these arguments, please!

[Comfed]

It's comments like these which make it very hard to vote against the proposal.

Good... that's the point...