Bakhton wrote:Well would the current proposal be in violation of the optionality rule? If so should the GenSec rerule? Should I pull?
Don't pull.
Advertisement
by Christian Democrats » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:49 pm
Bakhton wrote:Well would the current proposal be in violation of the optionality rule? If so should the GenSec rerule? Should I pull?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Bakhton » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:17 pm
by Bakhton » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:50 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:29 pm
Bakhton wrote:"WE'RE IN!"
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:40 pm
by Odd Republic » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:07 am
by Bakhton » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:52 am
Odd Republic wrote:The Office of the Acting President put forth a short statement in strong support of the proposal, and contacted the Social Liberal Union's Delegate, Austerain, in favor of the proposal.
"This proposal, which has rightfully reached quorum in the World Assembly, is what Acting President Emmanuel Arymous looks for in legislation by the General Assembly. Protecting the judicial rights of people is certainly something Oddians prize, and to expand that to others is, in the eyes of this nation, excellent. Arymous hope Austerain will give its support, if only symbolic."
by Aclion » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:22 am
Bakhton wrote:"WE'RE IN!"
by Wallenburg » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:15 am
by Sciongrad » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:55 am
by Wallenburg » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:32 am
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:So it's only illegal if you don't like the author. Good to know.
CD has explicitly laid out the rationale behind his opinion. I'm sorry that doesn't satisfy you, but it is a very serious accusation to make that CD is abusing his GenSec power. Take complaints of bias to moderation. This is not the place for sour grapes.
by Bakhton » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:53 am
Wallenburg wrote:Sciongrad wrote:CD has explicitly laid out the rationale behind his opinion. I'm sorry that doesn't satisfy you, but it is a very serious accusation to make that CD is abusing his GenSec power. Take complaints of bias to moderation. This is not the place for sour grapes.
This isn't a case of sour grapes. I personally believe that both my resolution and Bakhton's do not violate the optionality rule. I am simply identifying a situation under which CD has decided that it is illegal for one of my resolutions to exempt certain member states, and that it is legal for Bakhton's prospective resolution to exempt certain member states.
However, since you insist that I move this to Moderation, I will do what you ask.
by Wallenburg » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:14 pm
Bakhton wrote:Wallenburg wrote:This isn't a case of sour grapes. I personally believe that both my resolution and Bakhton's do not violate the optionality rule. I am simply identifying a situation under which CD has decided that it is illegal for one of my resolutions to exempt certain member states, and that it is legal for Bakhton's prospective resolution to exempt certain member states.
However, since you insist that I move this to Moderation, I will do what you ask.
OOC: They're not asking me to pull it because they already ruled it's legal, once informally on the topic of duplication, and on the approval process. It would be rather out there for them to pull it in those circumstances. Regardless, I haven't had any correspondence with CD, if your alleging that he has some bias towards me I'm not sure where that's coming from.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:38 am
by Easonkobborpriusetchia » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:41 am
by Christian Democrats » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:44 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Bakhton » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:46 am
Christian Democrats wrote:We've decided to vote against this proposal because we're concerned that its definitions are too broad and that they could be construed to cover legitimate acts of school discipline or workplace discipline.
by Christian Democrats » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:54 am
Bakhton wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:We've decided to vote against this proposal because we're concerned that its definitions are too broad and that they could be construed to cover legitimate acts of school discipline or workplace discipline.
"They could not possibly cover the immense physical or mental distress woven into the definition. This argument doesn't make much sense."
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Bakhton » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:04 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Bakhton wrote:"They could not possibly cover the immense physical or mental distress woven into the definition. This argument doesn't make much sense."
Demoting or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct or expelling a student from a university for academic fraud or personal misconduct can both cause "immense distress" to the individuals so punished.
by Excidium Planetis » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:20 am
Bakhton wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:Demoting or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct or expelling a student from a university for academic fraud or personal misconduct can both cause "immense distress" to the individuals so punished.
When I speak of immense distress and psychological trauma I don't think these are things people usually think of. As well neither of those would cause physical harm, a part you're coincidentally overlooking.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Mundiferrum » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:23 am
by Regele Baular » Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:48 am
Bakhton wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:Demoting or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct or expelling a student from a university for academic fraud or personal misconduct can both cause "immense distress" to the individuals so punished.
When I speak of immense distress and psychological trauma I don't think these are things people usually think of. As well neither of those would cause physical harm, a part you're coincidentally overlooking.
by States of Glory WA Office » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:02 am
by Railb » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:12 am
by The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:13 am
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Our Delegation will not allow you to ban Batman. Opposed.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement