NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"

Postby Mosktopia » Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:42 am

Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"
Category: Repeal | Target: GAR #227

Noting that GAR #227, the "Rights of the Disabled Act," is well-intentioned and seeks to protect the mentally disabled; but

Concerned that numerous problems in the text of "Rights of the Disabled Act" make it ineffective and sometimes even harmful;

Troubled that "Rights of the Disabled Act" classifies people as "mentally disabled" based on an arbitrary "two-out-of-four" system, rather than solid medical science and/or the professional opinion of a doctor;

Worried that such a system may be both over-broad by including individuals who are not truly mentally disabled and under-broad by failing to count others who are;

Also Troubled by the mandate in "Rights of the Disabled Act" requiring that the rights of mentally disabled people be exercised by a responsible adult in "necessary cases," without needed clarification about what constitutes a "necessary case" and without any regard to whether the mentally disabled person is able to make sound decisions despite their disability;

Worried that the ambiguity in such a system may result in mentally disabled people being wrongfully denied the ability to exercise their own rights;

Deeply Troubled by the flawed definition of a "responsible adult," which allows an uninterested, non-family member to exercise the rights of a disabled person "in lieu of a suitable candidate;"

Convinced that the many flaws in "Rights of the Disabled Act" render it problematic, unworkable, and sometimes harmful to the very people it is supposed to protect;

For all the forgoing reasons, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY REPEALS: General Assembly Resolution #227: "Rights of the Disabled Act"

The World Assembly,

Recognising the need for a formal resolution on the procedures to protect the mentally disabled,
Understanding that there are multiple levels of of Mental Disability
Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are significantly reduced:
i.
The ability to understand their rights

ii.
Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation

iii.
Their ability to exercise their rights

iv.
Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety


Hereby Mandates that in necessary cases, including but not limited to; legal matters, court matters, and medical consent, a limited power of attorney be transferred to a Responsible Adult.
Defines a Responsible Adult as one of the following
i.
A preferred Responsible Adult, nominated by the person before they become disabled, will be the first person requested to become the Responsible Adult, but only if they can prove that they have no conflict of interest

ii.
A member of the Disabled Person's family, who can legally establish that they have no conflict of interests

iii.
In lieu of a suitable candidate, a representative, independent of the national government, must be selected, who must also pass a test of conflict of interest.


Mandates that the said Responsible Adult be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that no conflict of interest develops
Restricts the power of Attorney given to the Responsible Adult to the least possible in the circumstances
Urges the states to use this legislation as a matter of last resort, and to consider all alternatives before transferring a persons authority to another.
Urges the states using this legislation to work towards a position whereby a Disabled Person's authority is returned to them at the earliest possible juncture
Mandates the creation of a commission to monitor states for abuse of this legislation

Thoughts? I'm very interested if others have additional arguments for repealing "Rights of the Disabled Act" that I missed.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:07 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:48 am

That troubled clause is probably your most persuasive argument(and the one least open to interpretation). The rest will have a lot of folks arguing, because a lack of definition is easily filled in by a national legislature.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:02 am

The Dourian Embassy wrote:That troubled clause is probably your most persuasive argument(and the one least open to interpretation). The rest will have a lot of folks arguing, because a lack of definition is easily filled in by a national legislature.

Thank you for your reply!

My point in the "also troubled" line is that the act requires taking away the rights of mentally disabled people without fully explaining when that's appropriate. I don't mean to turn nations against each other, but it's certainly concerning to pro-liberty nations (like mine) if some nations are treating, say, voting as a "necessary case" and transfering a mentally disabled person's vote to someone else. That's a pretty serious problem, imo. Maybe there is there a better way to word that concern?

As for the "deeply troubled" line, I am deeply troubled that - apparently because of poor writing - what the resolution actually says is that an uninterested, non-family member may exercise the rights of a mentally disabled person "in lieu of a suitable candidate." That doesn't seem right at all if what you're trying to do is protect the rights of the mentally disabled.

Thanks again for your comments!
Last edited by Mosktopia on Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18851
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:30 am

Mosktopia wrote:As for the "deeply troubled" line, I am deeply troubled that - apparently because of poor writing - what the resolution actually says is that an uninterested, non-family member may exercise the rights of a mentally disabled person "in lieu of a suitable candidate." That doesn't seem right at all if what you're trying to do is protect the rights of the mentally disabled.
"If a mentally disabled person doesn't have any legally competent family members (or not ones who could be trusted to exercise those rights properly, anyhows) then wouldn't somebody from outside their family -- a person presumably to be appointed by some court or tribunal within the relevant nation's legal system -- be the only alternative available?"
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:37 am

Bears Armed wrote:"If a mentally disabled person doesn't have any legally competent family members (or not ones who could be trusted to exercise those rights properly, anyhows) then wouldn't somebody from outside their family -- a person presumably to be appointed by some court or tribunal within the relevant nation's legal system -- be the only alternative available?"

Yes, but my point is that the wording of the resolution allows a disinterested non-family member to be appointed instead of a family member or the disabled person's chosen representative. It's not worded as a back-up failsafe, it's worded as an alternative.

"In lieu of a suitable candidate" means "instead of a suitable candidate." It does not mean "when an otherwise suitable candidate cannot be found." I understand that the author may have intended the third option to be a back-up plan, but that's not what their words accomplished. My understanding is that a resolution does what it says, regardless of what the author's intent was.

Edit: I realize, looking back, that the resolution does say a preferred representative "will be the first person requested," so I struck that part of my reply out.
Last edited by Mosktopia on Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
Wheeled States of Bifid
Diplomat
 
Posts: 568
Founded: Jun 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wheeled States of Bifid » Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:42 am

Given the speed with which this went to submission combined with the lack of a replacement for what I feel is an important issue, I'm afraid I cannot support this at the present time.
Afforess wrote:This is how Democracy dies - with thunderous applause.
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18
J.E. Wheeler, Guardian, Wheeled States of Bifid, WA Delegate, Democratium

"Insanity is a gradual process, don't rush it."

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Generation 36 (The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:11 pm

Wheeled States of Bifid wrote:Given the speed with which this went to submission combined with the lack of a replacement for what I feel is an important issue, I'm afraid I cannot support this at the present time.

I really didn't expect it to make quorum... I was just checking for interest. I suppose I'm happy that it made it, since I do believe in my argument.

As far as a replacement, I don't personally feel like drafting one but if someone did I wouldn't be opposed so long as it offered real protection instead of the wrongheaded paternalism of the target resolution.
Last edited by Mosktopia on Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
Wheeled States of Bifid
Diplomat
 
Posts: 568
Founded: Jun 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wheeled States of Bifid » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:39 pm

Mosktopia wrote:
Wheeled States of Bifid wrote:Given the speed with which this went to submission combined with the lack of a replacement for what I feel is an important issue, I'm afraid I cannot support this at the present time.

I really didn't expect it to make quorum... I was just checking for interest. I suppose I'm happy that it made it, since I do believe in my argument.

As far as a replacement, I don't personally feel like drafting one but if someone did I wouldn't be opposed so long as it offered real protection instead of the wrongheaded paternalism of the target resolution.

We actually have similar thoughts about a replacement. I've started working on something. I don't think it's bad but I won't say it's good yet either. I'll probably post it for drafting next week.
Last edited by Wheeled States of Bifid on Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Afforess wrote:This is how Democracy dies - with thunderous applause.
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18
J.E. Wheeler, Guardian, Wheeled States of Bifid, WA Delegate, Democratium

"Insanity is a gradual process, don't rush it."

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Generation 36 (The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5476
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:41 pm

Wheeled States of Bifid wrote:
Mosktopia wrote:I really didn't expect it to make quorum... I was just checking for interest. I suppose I'm happy that it made it, since I do believe in my argument.

As far as a replacement, I don't personally feel like drafting one but if someone did I wouldn't be opposed so long as it offered real protection instead of the wrongheaded paternalism of the target resolution.

We actually have similar thoughts about a replacement. I've started working on something. I don't think it's bad but I won't say it's good yet either. I'll probably post it for drafting next week.

We've had a replacement on ice for a while. You even commented on it and seemed generally supportive, though we recall that you had some suggestions. (As this was nearly a year ago, we're unsure if we got around to making appropriate amendments; please advise.)
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Arnor and Gondor-
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 106
Founded: Dec 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arnor and Gondor- » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:34 pm

My understanding is that a resolution does what it says, regardless of what the author's intent was.


Not technically true. The resolution acts like a directive to States to enact laws covering the guidelines the resolution. It would then be up to the judicature in each state to interpret that law within the bounds of the resolution. Should any dispute arise, it would not be unreasonable for Courts to examine minutes where unclear terms exist to see what the Legislature intended when they pass the the resolution.

But we are against this repeal unless there is a draft ready to replace it. While it has some shortcomings it has adequate safeguard mechanism to do a job.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14524
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:18 am

Arnor and Gondor- wrote:
My understanding is that a resolution does what it says, regardless of what the author's intent was.


Not technically true. The resolution acts like a directive to States to enact laws covering the guidelines the resolution. It would then be up to the judicature in each state to interpret that law within the bounds of the resolution. Should any dispute arise, it would not be unreasonable for Courts to examine minutes where unclear terms exist to see what the Legislature intended when they pass the the resolution.

But we are against this repeal unless there is a draft ready to replace it. While it has some shortcomings it has adequate safeguard mechanism to do a job.


Technically, you're both right. The law does exactly what the letter of the law says, true, and member states are required to comply with it. However, when it comes to those unclear terms, potential loopholes, or degrees of regulation, member states are given a lot of leeway.


Given Linux and the X's replacement on the way, I support this. I believe the proposed alternative is clearer and better suited to international law by far. That, hand in hand with the draft on guardianship, will likely button up this issue quite nicely. Provided they don't change dramatically, my support here will remain.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:52 am

Arnor and Gondor- wrote:Not technically true. The resolution acts like a directive to States to enact laws covering the guidelines the resolution. It would then be up to the judicature in each state to interpret that law within the bounds of the resolution. Should any dispute arise, it would not be unreasonable for Courts to examine minutes where unclear terms exist to see what the Legislature intended when they pass the the resolution.

Okay, but what about when the legislation explicitly says one thing because they mistakenly believe it means another?

That's what I think happened in "Rights of the Disabled Act." When the author said an uninterested, non-family member can exercise the rights of a disabled person "in lieu of" a suitable candidate, they meant "if there is no" suitable candidate. But that's not what "in lieu of" actually means. "In lieu of" means "instead of" and what the resolution actually does is allow an uninterested, non-family member to exercise the rights of a disabled person "instead of" a suitable candidate.

At the very best, that's bad workmanship unbefitting a WA resolution. At the worst, it allows unscrupulous nations to do assign the rights of disabled persons over to unsuitable guardians in the name of protecting the disabled person. Either way, I think it's worth mentioning in a repeal of Rights of the Disabled Act.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14524
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:20 am

Mosktopia wrote:
Arnor and Gondor- wrote:Not technically true. The resolution acts like a directive to States to enact laws covering the guidelines the resolution. It would then be up to the judicature in each state to interpret that law within the bounds of the resolution. Should any dispute arise, it would not be unreasonable for Courts to examine minutes where unclear terms exist to see what the Legislature intended when they pass the the resolution.

Okay, but what about when the legislation explicitly says one thing because they mistakenly believe it means another?

That's what I think happened in "Rights of the Disabled Act." When the author said an uninterested, non-family member can exercise the rights of a disabled person "in lieu of" a suitable candidate, they meant "if there is no" suitable candidate. But that's not what "in lieu of" actually means. "In lieu of" means "instead of" and what the resolution actually does is allow an uninterested, non-family member to exercise the rights of a disabled person "instead of" a suitable candidate.

At the very best, that's bad workmanship unbefitting a WA resolution. At the worst, it allows unscrupulous nations to do assign the rights of disabled persons over to unsuitable guardians in the name of protecting the disabled person. Either way, I think it's worth mentioning in a repeal of Rights of the Disabled Act.


Well, hold up for a tick. Members are allowed to add in more strict legislation on the subject, so its reasonable to assume that family members are going to, legally speaking, be a first choice when this comes to court in a nation. I believe that the legislation allows for a disinterested third party to serve because there are circumstances that a disinterested third party would be preferable. I believe the author may have intended this clause to allow for such a circumstance.

That's not to say that the argument for a repeal isn't sound, but let's not assume the author had no idea what he or she was doing. While most of us ambassadors are, at the heart of it, incompetent, let's not advertize it!

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Astrolinium
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36603
Founded: Mar 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Astrolinium » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:50 am

This repeal seems grounded in very tenuous claims and shows a deeply troubling lack of regard for the ability of sovereign nation states to interpret international law. While said lack of regard may not be wholly unfounded, it runs contrary to this body's directive as a global organizational body rather than an international babysitter.
Dr. Giovanni Romero, PhD
Senior Ambassador Plenipotentiary,
His Majesty's Embassy to the World Assembly
The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium
The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium
Ilia Franchisco Attore, King Attorio Maldive III
North Carolina | NSIndex Page | Embassies
Pop: 3,082 | Tech: MT | DEFCON: 5-4-3-2-1
SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY...
About Me: Ravenclaw, Gay, Cis Male, 5’4”.
"Don't you forget about me."

Ex-Delegate of Ankh Mauta | NSG Sodomy Club
Minor Acolyte of the Vast Jewlluminati Conspiracy™

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:58 am

Astrolinium wrote:This repeal seems grounded in very tenuous claims and shows a deeply troubling lack of regard for the ability of sovereign nation states to interpret international law. While said lack of regard may not be wholly unfounded, it runs contrary to this body's directive as a global organizational body rather than an international babysitter.

The argument about the way in which "Rights of the Disabled Act" classifies people as mentally disabled is not a matter of interpretation. I do not think we should be classifying people as mentally ill in such an arbitrary way. At the very least, the resolution should have required a doctor's opinion before someone is designated "mentally disabled."

The other arguments are admittedly based on the potential for abuse. I do not think that many of our good member nations would abuse the law, but the potential for abuse remains. While the argument is not as strong as the primary argument above, I still think that nations should consider the clarity and potential for abuse of a law in casting their vote on a repeal. Especially a law such as this one, which requires member nations to restrict certain individuals from exercising their rights for themselves.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14061
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:21 pm

Add the word "repeal" to this thread's title, please. :P
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:23 pm

Araraukar wrote:Add the word "repeal" to this thread's title, please. :P

Good catch.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
The Emerald Legion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7439
Founded: Mar 18, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby The Emerald Legion » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:49 pm

I wonder if I'm the only one delighted by the recent trend of repeals?
"I must play this game by my rules/ I will conquer the world with my tools/ All my machines are made for destruction/ I will build my empire/ I will succeed and you will see/ With my machines there is no retreat." ~ E.G.G.M.A.N.
I frequently lapse into self parody, that isn't to say that I don't have extreme views, just that I occasionally go over the top for comedic effect.
Genivaria wrote:The Emerald Legion is NSG's personal Reaper.

The Drone Empire wrote:"Enlighten the willing, enslave the conquered, eradicate the defiant."
A typical Legionary strategy meeting.
The appropriate pronoun for me is It.
Philosophically Biophobic.

User avatar
Astrolinium
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36603
Founded: Mar 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Astrolinium » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:58 pm

The Emerald Legion wrote:I wonder if I'm the only one delighted by the recent trend of repeals?


I sincerely hope so. The sheer number in recent weeks is, frankly, ridiculous.
The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium
Ilia Franchisco Attore, King Attorio Maldive III
North Carolina | NSIndex Page | Embassies
Pop: 3,082 | Tech: MT | DEFCON: 5-4-3-2-1
SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY...
About Me: Ravenclaw, Gay, Cis Male, 5’4”.
"Don't you forget about me."

Ex-Delegate of Ankh Mauta | NSG Sodomy Club
Minor Acolyte of the Vast Jewlluminati Conspiracy™

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:01 pm

Astrolinium wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:I wonder if I'm the only one delighted by the recent trend of repeals?


I sincerely hope so. The sheer number in recent weeks is, frankly, ridiculous.

I tend to agree. Sometimes a little housecleaning can help get the creative juices flowing (or something; I'm not sure those metaphors worked).

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:06 pm

OOC: Even I think it's got a bit heavy lately - I wouldn't be sorry to see a couple of decent substantive resolutions next up after this.

User avatar
Astrolinium
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36603
Founded: Mar 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Astrolinium » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:17 pm

Mosktopia wrote:
Astrolinium wrote:
I sincerely hope so. The sheer number in recent weeks is, frankly, ridiculous.

I tend to agree. Sometimes a little housecleaning can help get the creative juices flowing (or something; I'm not sure those metaphors worked).

I'm not sure you understand that I'm disagreeing with you.
The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium
Ilia Franchisco Attore, King Attorio Maldive III
North Carolina | NSIndex Page | Embassies
Pop: 3,082 | Tech: MT | DEFCON: 5-4-3-2-1
SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY...
About Me: Ravenclaw, Gay, Cis Male, 5’4”.
"Don't you forget about me."

Ex-Delegate of Ankh Mauta | NSG Sodomy Club
Minor Acolyte of the Vast Jewlluminati Conspiracy™

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:22 pm

Astrolinium wrote:
Mosktopia wrote:I tend to agree. Sometimes a little housecleaning can help get the creative juices flowing (or something; I'm not sure those metaphors worked).

I'm not sure you understand that I'm disagreeing with you.

Oh. I know you voted against the repeal, but I thought we were agreeing that it would be nice to see some substantive resolutions in the future, since there's been a lot of repeals lately.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
Astrolinium
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36603
Founded: Mar 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Astrolinium » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:33 pm

Mosktopia wrote:
Astrolinium wrote:I'm not sure you understand that I'm disagreeing with you.

Oh. I know you voted against the repeal, but I thought we were agreeing that it would be nice to see some substantive resolutions in the future, since there's been a lot of repeals lately.


I would like to see some substantive resolutions in the present and the recent past, as well.
The Sublime Island Kingdom of Astrolinium
Ilia Franchisco Attore, King Attorio Maldive III
North Carolina | NSIndex Page | Embassies
Pop: 3,082 | Tech: MT | DEFCON: 5-4-3-2-1
SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY...
About Me: Ravenclaw, Gay, Cis Male, 5’4”.
"Don't you forget about me."

Ex-Delegate of Ankh Mauta | NSG Sodomy Club
Minor Acolyte of the Vast Jewlluminati Conspiracy™

User avatar
Blindfolded
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Oct 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Blindfolded » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:32 pm

i would love this sort of act to come though the British Parliament

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads