Advertisement
by Ertae » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:39 pm
by ShinMomuz » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:05 pm
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:06 am
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:24 am
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Cirakai » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:39 am
ShinMomuz wrote:Ironically this mean Anarchist nations can commit as much torture as they like. Lacking a government and all that.
OOC: This isn't exactly a loophole that can be Spackled over with reasonable nation theory, as it leaves anarchist nations and any nation who employs private contractors for criminal justice work without too much oversight to torture people at will.
Really there are any number of scenarios in which torture not being torture unless a government official gives it their stamp of official approval is not a good thing.
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:24 am
by Grays Harbor » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:28 am
The Three Crusader States wrote:*the ambassader looks at lord whittingrey* "may i ask that the lord breaths more? i was concered he'd pass out from lack of oxygen also we only want torture for rapists and pedophiles and thats it."
by Hirota » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:34 am
You've been told multiple times that you need to repeal #9 before this can progress. I suggest you either put your repeal attempt up (ideally on here so it can be discussed), or you drop the issue...or of course you can leave the WA - which is always your nations prerogative and right to decide to remain a member.The Three Crusader States wrote:*the ambassader looks at lord whittingrey* "may i ask that the lord breaths more? i was concered he'd pass out from lack of oxygen also we only want torture for rapists and pedophiles and thats it."
by Of the Quendi » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:37 am
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:42 am
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:44 am
by Grays Harbor » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:49 am
The Three Crusader States wrote:OOC i'm now sick of people reading one sodden post then attacking! READ ALL THE PAGES OR DONT COMMENT! sick of it now countless times now have i repeated myself and i can not be arsed to do it again.
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:53 am
Grays Harbor wrote:The Three Crusader States wrote:OOC i'm now sick of people reading one sodden post then attacking! READ ALL THE PAGES OR DONT COMMENT! sick of it now countless times now have i repeated myself and i can not be arsed to do it again.
OOC: You cracked open this particular can of worms, so stop complaining that they cover your desk now.
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:04 am
by Kryozerkia » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:05 am
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:07 am
Kryozerkia wrote:The Three Crusader States wrote:
OOC: cause your too lazy to read? no i dont obey lazy idiots who refuse to spend time to read so i dont have to keep repeating myself
You're new here so I'll go easy on you. Note the underlined. Those sort of comments tend to have a way of getting negative attention from Moderation. Let's avoid those so I don't have to hand out warnings because you didn't read the rules *hint* click that link, it'll take you to the general rule set.
by Starlightia » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:10 am
The Knights of the Temple wrote:this is my first proposol so please dont kill me over it also i have Dyspraxia so there is likely going to be errors in typing and for that i am sorry also construcive criticism would be nice so i know what to improve for next time and any tips would be liked aswell
Catagory:Law
Strength:Significant
"The World Assembly
REALISES: That Crime must be dealt with
Believes: That Crime is bad and must be dealt with in a new manner
Upset: that some punishments do not fully fit the crime
Seeks: to be allowed to use Torture as a punishment of crime when one citizen takes away anothers rights
hereby mandates the following
1. That Torture should be allowed as a punishment if the crime is severe enough
2.That the Crimes that will allow such torture include Rape and Pedophilia
3.If any crime occurs along side the above torture can also be allowed
by Of the Quendi » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:10 am
The Three Crusader States wrote:*the ambassader puts his head in his hands now sick of the idiocy* "one i mentioned we cant repeal it without endorsements which is actually part of the rules and you lady Galadriel would you like to be threatned by a nation more then 100 times your size? no i'd hope not because thats our reason to leave not because our proposol was refused but because we were threatened by violence by a nation of more one billion people."
The Three Crusader States wrote:OOC i'm now sick of people reading one sodden post then attacking! READ ALL THE PAGES OR DONT COMMENT! sick of it now countless times now have i repeated myself and i can not be arsed to do it again.
The Three Crusader States wrote:OOC this was my first ever draft and the reaction i've got is completely unfit i've been attacked and quite frankly the damn tips and consructive crictism i asked for never occured instead i got attacked call this thread over i'm leaving the WA cause i will not put up with being attacked by a pack of dogs
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:16 am
Of the Quendi wrote:The Three Crusader States wrote:*the ambassader puts his head in his hands now sick of the idiocy* "one i mentioned we cant repeal it without endorsements which is actually part of the rules and you lady Galadriel would you like to be threatned by a nation more then 100 times your size? no i'd hope not because thats our reason to leave not because our proposol was refused but because we were threatened by violence by a nation of more one billion people."
The SMFAWA looked at the ambassador wondering if the statement was directed at her. It would appear so as she, to her knowledge, was the only one present with the firstname of Galadriel, although that didn't explain why the ambassador would refer to her so familiarly, yet the statement made little sense and certainly didn't address her own. "Mesire ambassador, I have been briefed on the intermezzo with her royal highness the princess Christine and your representation. I must say that personally I find the princess's behaviour a testimony to the dignity and grace of her class, and yours rather absurd." The ambassador said clamly and politely. Had she been of the Imperial House of Alcedina, rulling dynasts of the Imperial Government, she would most likely have taken offense. But the SMFAWA was a diplomat to the fingertips, always polite and always tolerant. "While I must admit I find even addressing this proposal as a serious one difficult I shall however do my best. regarding the use of torture on pedophiles a problem arise as a considerable amount of pedophiles abuse their own offspring or relatives. Given the loving nature of all children to all people, one that I could only wish the crusaders shared, children could therefore be inclined not to reveal the assault they where subjected to, to other adults as they would not wish for a family member to be tortured. Therefore, on this matter, your eye for an eye approach will do nothing but serve to conceal assaults on children."
by Moronist Decisions » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:17 am
The Three Crusader States wrote:i left the WA
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:18 am
Of the Quendi wrote:The Three Crusader States wrote:*the ambassader puts his head in his hands now sick of the idiocy* "one i mentioned we cant repeal it without endorsements which is actually part of the rules and you lady Galadriel would you like to be threatned by a nation more then 100 times your size? no i'd hope not because thats our reason to leave not because our proposol was refused but because we were threatened by violence by a nation of more one billion people."
The SMFAWA looked at the ambassador wondering if the statement was directed at her. It would appear so as she, to her knowledge, was the only one present with the firstname of Galadriel, although that didn't explain why the ambassador would refer to her so familiarly, yet the statement made little sense and certainly didn't address her own. "Mesire ambassador, I have been briefed on the intermezzo with her royal highness the princess Christine and your representation. I must say that personally I find the princess's behaviour a testimony to the dignity and grace of her class, and yours rather absurd." The ambassador said clamly and politely. Had she been of the Imperial House of Alcedina, rulling dynasts of the Imperial Government, she would most likely have taken offense. But the SMFAWA was a diplomat to the fingertips, always polite and always tolerant. "While I must admit I find even addressing this proposal as a serious one difficult I shall however do my best. regarding the use of torture on pedophiles a problem arise as a considerable amount of pedophiles abuse their own offspring or relatives. Given the loving nature of all children to all people, one that I could only wish the crusaders shared, children could therefore be inclined not to reveal the assault they where subjected to, to other adults as they would not wish for a family member to be tortured. Therefore, on this matter, your eye for an eye approach will do nothing but serve to conceal assaults on children."The Three Crusader States wrote:OOC i'm now sick of people reading one sodden post then attacking! READ ALL THE PAGES OR DONT COMMENT! sick of it now countless times now have i repeated myself and i can not be arsed to do it again.
OOC: If this was directed at me I must admit I don't see your point. I have read through the past posts and I don't see anything to suggest that the SMFAWA's statement has actually been dealt with.The Three Crusader States wrote:OOC this was my first ever draft and the reaction i've got is completely unfit i've been attacked and quite frankly the damn tips and consructive crictism i asked for never occured instead i got attacked call this thread over i'm leaving the WA cause i will not put up with being attacked by a pack of dogs
OOC: Since I wrote my first ever proposal (Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision") just a week ago I can certainly sympathize with that. But if you want a serious debate try make a proposal that doesn't piss of 80 % of the membersstates of the WA and looks n00bish. If you want help writting a proposal on a less controversial issue I would be glad to offer my assistance as I am sure many other people would.
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:19 am
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:23 am
by ShinMomuz » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:23 am
Cirakai wrote:ShinMomuz wrote:Ironically this mean Anarchist nations can commit as much torture as they like. Lacking a government and all that.
OOC: This isn't exactly a loophole that can be Spackled over with reasonable nation theory, as it leaves anarchist nations and any nation who employs private contractors for criminal justice work without too much oversight to torture people at will.
Really there are any number of scenarios in which torture not being torture unless a government official gives it their stamp of official approval is not a good thing.
OOC: What about those nations where "criminal justice" is handled by an angry mob?
Grays Harbor wrote:The Three Crusader States wrote:*the ambassader looks at lord whittingrey* "may i ask that the lord breaths more? i was concered he'd pass out from lack of oxygen also we only want torture for rapists and pedophiles and thats it."
We do not care who you want torture for, the fact it is illegal doesn't change because you find somebody "deserving it". We fail to see the controversy in this. It is a rather yes/no question, without wiggle room. Just because #9 does not, for example, specifically state that torture conducted by a one-eyed, left-handed dwarf is not illegal, that does not make it legal.
by The Three Crusader States » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:26 am
ShinMomuz wrote:Cirakai wrote:
OOC: What about those nations where "criminal justice" is handled by an angry mob?
So long as the mob-goers lack a government official, then anything goes.Grays Harbor wrote:We do not care who you want torture for, the fact it is illegal doesn't change because you find somebody "deserving it". We fail to see the controversy in this. It is a rather yes/no question, without wiggle room. Just because #9 does not, for example, specifically state that torture conducted by a one-eyed, left-handed dwarf is not illegal, that does not make it legal.
However it does define torture as requiring "government participation or approval"
For example, if my WA nation so decided, they could allow a private firm to handle criminal justice.
From there, the criminal justice system is no longer part of the government, as such its agents are no longer bound to not torture people. Well technically they can't torture people, because they don't fit the definition. I'm sure ned winkle will be utterly relieved that the thumbscrews and beatings being administered to him aren't torture because of a legal technicality.
Really it isn't all that unreasonable a scenario, especially in anarchist nations, or heavily corporate nations for torture to take place outside of government control.
Essentially it's not torture unless the government officially approves of it or participates. So long as neither takes place international law is satisfied.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Great Butania
Advertisement