Repeal GA Resolution #266, "Chemical Weapons Protocol"

[Paulsland]

You are aware, that, in all your semantics, "reasonable probability" also means "foreseeable circumstances", don't you? By definition, accidental is unforeseeable, and as such, your concerns are unfounded at best. If by glaring you mean wilful ignorance of content and context, then you most certainly have found something to glare at.

You ignored my larger point. The term itself is flawed, like I pointed out. I was just simply giving examples, I'll concede they probably aren't the best. But I think I made a clear and valid argument that the term "reasonable probability" is flawed.


Again, I'm not getting what you're arguing here. You seem to think that a nation's economy is based solely on the sale of chemical weapons that are exclusively for use against civilians. It depends on the producing nation's discretion whether or not to sell their weapons, and if they believe that it would be used in a capacity that is against the resolution, they are to refuse. Nothing more, nothing less. If, we go by your concerns, it shouldn't be directed at the economy of the producing nation, but rather, the shirking of responsibility by the producing nation for selling the chemical weapons, then claiming ignorance of it at the time of the sale when it was used against the intent and provisions of the resolution. That, is what you should say in your repeal.

When did I state that any nation's economy is based SOLELY on sales of chemical weapons? What I said was that some nations have economies based on their arms industry, which includes those who create chemical weapons. By prohibiting the sale of those to other parties, you are essentially putting an economic sanction on those nations. And you'll say, "it says it only prohibits the sale of these weapons to those who want to violate the protocol!". To which I'll respond, who the hell is that? I understand that terrorists and others like that are implied, but implication in law is bad territory. If you can define riot agent and chemical agent, you can define terrorist. The law would be much better if it defined a terrorist as "anyone who wishes to inflict harm upon innocents using weapons of any kind" and then saying that nations can't sell chemical weapons to terrorists. Is that so hard?

Umm, no. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you've ventured into unreasonable nation territory here. While it's (reasonable nation theory) not an official rule, it is generally accepted that nations that invade other nations on simple suspicions alone are, by definition, unreasonable. There must be proof of intent, and the onus lies with the nation that declares their suspicion, accompanied by non-violent investigation into the matter, before any actual action should be taken. There's also the simple fact that I do not see anything requiring intervention or anything of the sort in the resolution. It only calls for disarmament, to an extent, and reduces the proliferation of lethal chemical weapons. Absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing, in the text that calls for any sort of international conflict justification within the resolution.

How in any legal context can you prohibit something and then not be able to enforce that prohibition? That's like making cookies illegal, but not arresting the cookie monster. The resolution should be more clear as to what is to be done about such things if it is going to outright prohibit things. Investigation? Expulsion from the WA? Economic sanctions? Condemnation? If you're going to create a bureaucracy, at least give them the authority to enforce the prohibition. And if alcohol prohibition from the 20s and the modern drug war is any indication, prohibition does not work. It'll create more crime and chemical weapons will more likely end up in the hands of terrorists. Goal achieved, I suppose.

I wouldn't call your points valid, but the body as a whole have been swayed by less.

This just seems like a condescending insult. I digress.

Unfortunately, there isn't anything in the resolution, save for the shirking of responsibility, that I can identify as being advantageous.

I've used many examples as why the language could be advantageous...

Ahahahahahaha...hah...ha..ha... Ahem. You are aware of the lemming effect in votes, and that most nations who voted for the resolution in the first place would be just as likely to vote for a repeal, while at the same time, not even bothering to debate anything? I'm all for engaging others, but, do you actually see how many people are actually regulars here?

Again, just seems like a condescending insult, and an insult to the WA as a whole.

[Separatist Peoples]

*yawn* since the last thing we want is to pass a resolution that takes half the volume of the Merriam-Webster dictionary into its text, I'd say this is fairly straightforward a case of not liking a restriction on chemical weapons...

The definitions are intentionally vague enough to allow for flexibility in nations of differing technology while still allowing for the use of said weapons. I don't see how tighter language would make a more effective proposal.

As for insulting the entirety of the World Assembly, that is hardly a concern. We are a group of drunks, stoners, malcontents, slackers, deviants, sex addicts, and military nutjobs, myself included. Insulting the Festering Snakepit and her denizens is hardly a concern of magnitude...

[Paulsland]

*yawn* since the last thing we want is to pass a resolution that takes half the volume of the Merriam-Webster dictionary into its text, I'd say this is fairly straightforward a case of not liking a restriction on chemical weapons...

The definitions are intentionally vague enough to allow for flexibility in nations of differing technology while still allowing for the use of said weapons. I don't see how tighter language would make a more effective proposal.

As for insulting the entirety of the World Assembly, that is hardly a concern. We are a group of drunks, stoners, malcontents, slackers, deviants, sex addicts, and military nutjobs, myself included. Insulting the Festering Snakepit and her denizens is hardly a concern of magnitude...

I like your generalizations that contribute nothing to the ongoing debate, too. Oh well.

Like I said in my proposal, legislation is needed on chemical weapons. Bad legislation isn't. Go ahead and say I want the Merrian Webster dictionary in every resolution. That won't make it true. I'm a Libertarian, and my country is modeled after that view. And like every other libertarian, I'm very anti-war. So me "not liking restrictions" on chemical weapons is simply not true. I don't like restrictions on economies, nor law that can be interpreted any other way than its stated goals.

[Separatist Peoples]

For some reason, I doubt the underlined part.

I like your generalizations that contribute nothing to the ongoing debate, too. Oh well. What can you expect from a self proclaimed drunk and/or stoner and/or malcontent and/or slacker and/or deviant and/or sex addict (lol) and/or military nutjob.

Like I said in my proposal, legislation is needed on chemical weapons. Bad legislation isn't. Go ahead and say I want the Merrian Webster dictionary in every resolution. That won't make it true. I'm a Libertarian, and my country is modeled after that view. And like every other libertarian, I'm very anti-war. So me "not liking restrictions" on chemical weapons is simply not true. I don't like restrictions on economies, nor law that can be interpreted any other way than its stated goals.

Well, now its just a matter of time before Ambassador Sulla walks in and proves you very wrong on the sex addict bit.

Just because I'm a drunk doesn't mean I'm too far down the bottle to understand the difference between a poor repeal and a good one, and this definitely falls under the category of poor. The current legislation does exactly what it was designed to do: allows chemical weapons in a limited fashion.

I fail to see how the phrase "reasonable probability" escapes you, ambassador. I think common sense dictates this one well enough for us all. If you're idea of reasonable is such that your chemical attacks regularly cause widespread civilian casualties, you will end up in violation of this. I realize common sense isn't very common in the world, ambassador, but I thought that nations would at least find somebody capable of it to send here...

The provisions of the resolution are clearly written. You can't produce, sell, or transfer chemical weapons to a party if the transference would result in a violation of the resolution. The provisions don't need to be re-written, since they are already in the bloody resolution. While I'm sure the repetition would comfort you, I'm having a hard time seeing why we should bother with that monumental waste of time and energy.

The same argument follows for defining the individuals who would have an intention to violate the proposal. The letter of the proposal is in...the proposal. You can't transfer chemical weapons to people who are going to violate the points laid out in proposal. Simple as that. What exactly is so hard to understand about that?

Broad language is exactly how you pass things in the GA. We have nations that are inhabited by humans, bears, plants, microorganisms, aliens, magical beings, and more. We have nations that exist in various times, across planets, and even dimensions. The cultural differences are unimaginably immense. Trying to create a proposal that applies to all of our members is very difficult, and, as a result, requires broad language. Its the nature of the beast, and you can't change the beast.

[Zarkanians]

*yawn* since the last thing we want is to pass a resolution that takes half the volume of the Merriam-Webster dictionary into its text, I'd say this is fairly straightforward a case of not liking a restriction on chemical weapons...

The definitions are intentionally vague enough to allow for flexibility in nations of differing technology while still allowing for the use of said weapons. I don't see how tighter language would make a more effective proposal.

As for insulting the entirety of the World Assembly, that is hardly a concern. We are a group of drunks, stoners, malcontents, slackers, deviants, sex addicts, and military nutjobs, myself included. Insulting the Festering Snakepit and her denizens is hardly a concern of magnitude...

For some reason, I doubt the underlined part.

I like your generalizations that contribute nothing to the ongoing debate, too. Oh well. What can you expect from a self proclaimed drunk and/or stoner and/or malcontent and/or slacker and/or deviant and/or sex addict (lol) and/or military nutjob.

Like I said in my proposal, legislation is needed on chemical weapons. Bad legislation isn't. Go ahead and say I want the Merrian Webster dictionary in every resolution. That won't make it true. I'm a Libertarian, and my country is modeled after that view. And like every other libertarian, I'm very anti-war. So me "not liking restrictions" on chemical weapons is simply not true. I don't like restrictions on economies, nor law that can be interpreted any other way than its stated goals.

Might be better to avoid bringing personal problems into a debate about a fictional repeal for a fictional proposal.

[Paulsland]

Might be better to avoid bringing personal problems into a debate about a fictional repeal for a fictional proposal.

I think everyone realizes it wasn't serious and all in good fun. I hold no animosity towards anyone here. This is fun.

Well, now its just a matter of time before Ambassador Sulla walks in and proves you very wrong on the sex addict bit.

Just because I'm a drunk doesn't mean I'm too far down the bottle to understand the difference between a poor repeal and a good one, and this definitely falls under the category of poor. The current legislation does exactly what it was designed to do: allows chemical weapons in a limited fashion.

I fail to see how the phrase "reasonable probability" escapes you, ambassador. I think common sense dictates this one well enough for us all. If you're idea of reasonable is such that your chemical attacks regularly cause widespread civilian casualties, you will end up in violation of this. I realize common sense isn't very common in the world, ambassador, but I thought that nations would at least find somebody capable of it to send here...

The provisions of the resolution are clearly written. You can't produce, sell, or transfer chemical weapons to a party if the transference would result in a violation of the resolution. The provisions don't need to be re-written, since they are already in the bloody resolution. While I'm sure the repetition would comfort you, I'm having a hard time seeing why we should bother with that monumental waste of time and energy.

The same argument follows for defining the individuals who would have an intention to violate the proposal. The letter of the proposal is in...the proposal. You can't transfer chemical weapons to people who are going to violate the points laid out in proposal. Simple as that. What exactly is so hard to understand about that?

Broad language is exactly how you pass things in the GA. We have nations that are inhabited by humans, bears, plants, microorganisms, aliens, magical beings, and more. We have nations that exist in various times, across planets, and even dimensions. The cultural differences are unimaginably immense. Trying to create a proposal that applies to all of our members is very difficult, and, as a result, requires broad language. Its the nature of the beast, and you can't change the beast.

I've made my arguments. And this post really doesn't do much of anything to dispel the points I've already made.

[Separatist Peoples]

Might be better to avoid bringing personal problems into a debate about a fictional repeal for a fictional proposal.

I think everyone realizes it wasn't serious and all in good fun. I hold no animosity towards anyone here. This is fun.

Really ambassador? I don't find personal attacks all that fun. That said, I give as good as I get, and better, too. If you don't hold animosity, try not to show any.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, now its just a matter of time before Ambassador Sulla walks in and proves you very wrong on the sex addict bit.

Just because I'm a drunk doesn't mean I'm too far down the bottle to understand the difference between a poor repeal and a good one, and this definitely falls under the category of poor. The current legislation does exactly what it was designed to do: allows chemical weapons in a limited fashion.

I fail to see how the phrase "reasonable probability" escapes you, ambassador. I think common sense dictates this one well enough for us all. If you're idea of reasonable is such that your chemical attacks regularly cause widespread civilian casualties, you will end up in violation of this. I realize common sense isn't very common in the world, ambassador, but I thought that nations would at least find somebody capable of it to send here...

The provisions of the resolution are clearly written. You can't produce, sell, or transfer chemical weapons to a party if the transference would result in a violation of the resolution. The provisions don't need to be re-written, since they are already in the bloody resolution. While I'm sure the repetition would comfort you, I'm having a hard time seeing why we should bother with that monumental waste of time and energy.

The same argument follows for defining the individuals who would have an intention to violate the proposal. The letter of the proposal is in...the proposal. You can't transfer chemical weapons to people who are going to violate the points laid out in proposal. Simple as that. What exactly is so hard to understand about that?

Broad language is exactly how you pass things in the GA. We have nations that are inhabited by humans, bears, plants, microorganisms, aliens, magical beings, and more. We have nations that exist in various times, across planets, and even dimensions. The cultural differences are unimaginably immense. Trying to create a proposal that applies to all of our members is very difficult, and, as a result, requires broad language. Its the nature of the beast, and you can't change the beast.

I've made my arguments. And this post really doesn't do much of anything to dispel the points I've already made.

OOC: Damn edit ninjas.

IC: How, exactly, doesn't it? Every single argument you've made has been addressed. The only argument that you could possibly argue effectively would be the one concerning "reasonable probability", and only that because you seem to struggle with the idea of common sense being a part of international legislation.

[Paulsland]

I think everyone realizes it wasn't serious and all in good fun. I hold no animosity towards anyone here. This is fun.

Really ambassador? I don't find personal attacks all that fun. That said, I give as good as I get, and better, too. If you don't hold animosity, try not to show any.

I edited the controversial post to remove the controversial content. I didn't realize it would be considered a personal attack, moreso I considered it would be taken as all in good fun.

OOC: Damn edit ninjas.

IC: How, exactly, doesn't it? Every single argument you've made has been addressed. The only argument that you could possibly argue effectively would be the one concerning "reasonable probability", and only that because you seem to struggle with the idea of common sense being a part of international legislation.

And I've addressed every single argument against my arguments. The term "reasonable probability" is flawed, and sections 4 and 5 of #266 and too broad for the reasonable nation theory to be applicable. And no one addressed my cookie monster analogy. I thought that was pretty clever.

Also, double posting now are we? Tsk tsk.

[Separatist Peoples]

And I've addressed every single argument against my arguments. The term "reasonable probability" is flawed, and sections 4 and 5 of #266 and too broad for the reasonable nation theory to be applicable. And no one addressed my cookie monster analogy. I thought that was pretty clever.

Also, double posting now are we? Tsk tsk.

Sections 4 and 5 explain themselves!

Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the production, sale, or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to another party, if the transfer process is considered to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,

Member nations shall take all necessary, and available precautions to secure, and prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, or falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,

The intentions and provisions of the protocol are within the text of the protocol itself. They are Clauses 1 through 7. Extrapolating from that, it should be pretty simple to realize that we can't then transfer chemical weapons to individuals or parties who will violate the Protocol, nor can we violate them ourselves by transferring them.

Its clearly going to take a much more patient man then myself to debate the concept of "reasonable probability", since you don't seem to want to consider it, but I assure you that the Reasonable Nation Theory was considered old and well-proven when I first arrived here, ambassador. Its held on here longer then your tenure several times over. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it at insufficient for this proposal, especially when broader proposals utilizing the same concept have been widely accepted.

[Paulsland]

And I've addressed every single argument against my arguments. The term "reasonable probability" is flawed, and sections 4 and 5 of #266 and too broad for the reasonable nation theory to be applicable. And no one addressed my cookie monster analogy. I thought that was pretty clever.

Also, double posting now are we? Tsk tsk.

Sections 4 and 5 explain themselves!

Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the production, sale, or transfer of chemical weapons from their own nation to another party, if the transfer process is considered to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,

Member nations shall take all necessary, and available precautions to secure, and prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, or falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this protocol,

The intentions and provisions of the protocol are within the text of the protocol itself. They are Clauses 1 through 7. Extrapolating from that, it should be pretty simple to realize that we can't then transfer chemical weapons to individuals or parties who will violate the Protocol, nor can we violate them ourselves by transferring them.

Its clearly going to take a much more patient man then myself to debate the concept of "reasonable probability", since you don't seem to want to consider it, but I assure you that the Reasonable Nation Theory was considered old and well-proven when I first arrived here, ambassador. Its held on here longer then your tenure several times over. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it at insufficient for this proposal, especially when broader proposals utilizing the same concept have been widely accepted.

This has just become a cycle. I argue my point, you argue your point, but my original argument still applies to your argument, so I repeat it, and then you repeat yours, and so on. Maybe my proposal isn't the best. Admittedly, just through the process of debating, I've discovered even more fundamental flaws that I should've utilized in the original proposal that are much stronger. Point being, my proposal is well written, and while the points in it are debatable (as with any proposal), it is legal and close to quorum. I'll write out a post that explains every issue I have with 266 soon, and if/when my proposal reaches quorum, people will vote on it. If it fails, I'll write a new proposal for repeal that uses said stronger fundamental points and push that. If it succeeds, then, like I said earlier, myself and Mr. Pearson may open dialogue (if he wishes) about how to improve the protocol. Otherwise, I'll write my own resolution.

This is my first proposal to the WA, and yes, I made some mistakes. With any mistake, I'll learn from it. So if this fails, I'll try again.

[Lun Noir]

The proposal is based on pretty weak grounds which read as nothing more than a flimsy excuse to repeal...

But it sounds like that has been talked about, and dismissed by the author.

Oh well.

[Chester Pearson]

My question to Paulsland is: Who's puppet are you? You have been around for three months now, and this is the first debate you have taken part in. You also claim that you are against economic fascism? Really? And you pick THIS proposal to make that argument? If this is the best one you have to repeal on that argument alone, I would suggest you avoid reading previously passed legislation, as it would curl your hair, with all of ECONOMIC FASCISM in those resolutions.

Seriously, are you even going to attempt to make an argument that resembles coherency, or actually interprets the resolution the way it is WRITTEN? I guess it really doesn't matter though now does it? You don't need an argument, as the rubber stampers, and BIG delegates who voted against this are already in line to approve it.

If this gets to vote, it is very likely to pass, as the big delegates are just sitting there anxiously waiting to vote stack on this one, and watch the lemmings roll to their side. My question is: Do you really want one of the shittiest repeals EVER WRITTEN, attached to your name, and immortalized within the WA? OH WAIT..... I guess it doesn't really matter now does it, as you are merely a puppet nation of someone who is far more experienced than you are letting on.

Oh and if you are going to insult my authorship skills, at least get your fucking facts straight. Three FLAT-OUT bans were defeated by the Assembly. This was only brought to vote ONCE.

Point being, my proposal is well written, and while the points in it are debatable (as with any proposal), it is legal and close to quorum.

Really? Do you have some secret telegram from a mod telling you it is legal, because I don't see a post from any mods on here saying it is. I on the other hand do have a GHR filed stating it's illegalities, and I am sure the hive is mulling it over.

As for well written and debatable? Every single post made here (except yours) says the exact opposite fucking thing!! There is nothing to debate, as you ramble on with the exact same argument in the repeal clause after clause. You could have at least shown dome creativity.

As for discussions with you on a replacement? Please don't make me laugh. Some of the most experienced authors in this assembly had a hand in crafting this. It took four times to get halfway decent legislation passed, and you think you can just walk in here and repeal and replace it in a week? You sir are obviously drunker, than even Flib can get.

Warmest regards,

[The Akashic Records]

You ignored my larger point. The term itself is flawed, like I pointed out. I was just simply giving examples, I'll concede they probably aren't the best. But I think I made a clear and valid argument that the term "reasonable probability" is flawed.

The only reason that you could possibly see "reasonable probability" to be flawed is if you have problems with this, thing called reasoning. I'm very, very, close to tossing you over to the PPU for your ineptitude to actually extrapolate what a phrase would mean when framed in context. Though, I'm not sure that even the PPU would want such, undesirable nutrients.

When did I state that any nation's economy is based SOLELY on sales of chemical weapons? What I said was that some nations have economies based on their arms industry, which includes those who create chemical weapons. By prohibiting the sale of those to other parties, you are essentially putting an economic sanction on those nations. And you'll say, "it says it only prohibits the sale of these weapons to those who want to violate the protocol!". To which I'll respond, who the hell is that? I understand that terrorists and others like that are implied, but implication in law is bad territory. If you can define riot agent and chemical agent, you can define terrorist. The law would be much better if it defined a terrorist as "anyone who wishes to inflict harm upon innocents using weapons of any kind" and then saying that nations can't sell chemical weapons to terrorists. Is that so hard?

You are aware that the WA have passed the WA Counterterrorism Act, aren't you? All the definitions you could possibly want or need is in there, if you would care to read anything other than repeals.

How in any legal context can you prohibit something and then not be able to enforce that prohibition? That's like making cookies illegal, but not arresting the cookie monster. The resolution should be more clear as to what is to be done about such things if it is going to outright prohibit things. Investigation? Expulsion from the WA? Economic sanctions? Condemnation? If you're going to create a bureaucracy, at least give them the authority to enforce the prohibition. And if alcohol prohibition from the 20s and the modern drug war is any indication, prohibition does not work. It'll create more crime and chemical weapons will more likely end up in the hands of terrorists. Goal achieved, I suppose.

I would defer you to this particular discussion. Or more specifically, this particular comment. You have absolutely no idea what you were talking about, were you?

This just seems like a condescending insult. I digress.

If you believed that to be an insult, then obviously, you've never been here before, and are just picking some bones with this particular resolution.

I've used many examples as why the language could be advantageous...

Again, you failed to make any valid points whatsoever, except the reiteration of everything that has been rebutted, and even throwing a few red herrings into the mix.

Again, just seems like a condescending insult, and an insult to the WA as a whole.

You do realise that it's an axiom for us regulars, don't you?

Even resolution authors claiming that saying there are lemming voters are an insult to the World Assembly, accepted that they've used it to their advantage in passing their resolutions.

[Ardchoille]

The mods have removed the repeal on the grounds that "it isn't defined" could be used to repeal any existing Resolution, just as "it violates National Sovereignty" could be. Both boil down to "I don't like it."

An assertion that "X is unclear/undefined" is acceptable if supported in the text by argument on the possible misreadings or unforeseen effects that could have been avoided by further definition.

We rejected the "legislating in the text" argument; to hope for future legislation is not to legislate.

[Talkistan]

The mods have removed the repeal on the grounds that "it isn't defined" could be used to repeal any existing Resolution, just as "it violates National Sovereignty" could be. Both boil down to "I don't like it."

An assertion that "X is unclear/undefined" is acceptable if supported in the text by argument on the possible misreadings or unforeseen effects that could have been avoided by further definition.

We rejected the "legislating in the text" argument; to hope for future legislation is not to legislate.

A welcome precedent against "dictionary repeals"...

So, how long until the next repeal of #266 is submitted?

[The Akashic Records]

A welcome precedent against "dictionary repeals"...

Not so much as a precedent, as opposed to previously settled.

[Separatist Peoples]

Its nice to be proven right, I suppose. Well, then. Nothing to see here, ambassadors. First round in the bar is on me.

[Chester Pearson]

Its nice to be proven right, I suppose. Well, then. Nothing to see here, ambassadors. First round in the bar is on me.

Once again, my faith in the Secretariat has been restored. I only wish I had a list of all the "experienced" delegates that had approved this illegality, based on the grounds of "I don't like it", so it could be proudly displayed.

Warmest regards,

[The Akashic Records]

I only wish I had a list of all the "experienced" delegates that had approved this illegality, based on the grounds of "I don't like it", so it could be proudly displayed.

You could try looking through this list.

[Talkistan]

A welcome precedent against "dictionary repeals"...

Not so much as a precedent, as opposed to previously settled.

Yeah, but it hadn't been ruled that a repeal would be illegal because it attacked definition (or lack thereof), so it's still a precedent.

[Paulsland]

A minor setback rooted in inexperience - 266 is safe...for now.

Just be warned that the lesson I learned from this is dangerous for your resolution, Mr. Pearson.

Warmest regards.

Expect a much stronger proposal by morning.

[The Akashic Records]

Yeah, but it hadn't been ruled that a repeal would be illegal because it attacked definition (or lack thereof), so it's still a precedent.

Repeals can attack the definition, off the top of my head, that would be the repeal of GAR#48, but it must be supported by how badly leaving such a definition out would be, as well as the fact that one must take into account the content and context. If, a word, left undefined, in context of the resolution, as a whole, is still worse than not having said resolution, then, you would have a more substantial case, as opposed to this particular attempt that seemed like it was demanding dictionaries and common sense be inserted completely into a resolution.

[The Dourian Embassy]

A minor setback rooted in inexperience - 266 is safe...for now.

Just be warned that the lesson I learned from this is dangerous for your resolution, Mr. Pearson.

Warmest regards.

Expect a much stronger proposal by morning.

Two things here. First of all I'd like to congratulate you on your moxie. Second, I'd like to inform you that I already have a repeal draft underway, and that piece will have strong cross ideology support by the end of its drafting phase(I won't speak for Mr. Pearson but I believe he may in fact support it by the time we're done). I implore you to wait just a little longer before you submit something else. At the very least, begin a draft of your own here, and allow the rest of the assembly to help you improve it.

If your primary purpose is to repeal this piece, rest assured, it will be repealed. I stake my reputation on that.

[Abacathea]

A minor setback rooted in inexperience - 266 is safe...for now.

Just be warned that the lesson I learned from this is dangerous for your resolution, Mr. Pearson.

Warmest regards.

Expect a much stronger proposal by morning.

Two things here. First of all I'd like to congratulate you on your moxie. Second, I'd like to inform you that I already have a repeal draft underway, and that piece will have strong cross ideology support by the end of its drafting phase(I won't speak for Mr. Pearson but I believe he may in fact support it by the time we're done). I implore you to wait just a little longer before you submit something else. At the very least, begin a draft of your own here, and allow the rest of the assembly to help you improve it.

If your primary purpose is to repeal this piece, rest assured, it will be repealed. I stake my reputation on that.

The least you could do is post the draft on the forums this time dearest Ambassador, there is an established process for these things which you failed to adhere to this time. Also, i've been away for a while, expect me to weight in heavily on your next attempt given how I saw you conduct this one.

Regards,