[PASSED] Repeal 'Enabling The Disabled in Academia'

[Imperium Anglorum]

<ooc>Sorry to ask a silly question but how did you not think this would pass? It's your basic feel good resolution about doing nice things for disabled people? Even I was all for voting for it until I read the fine print.

(Should there be a sudden negative surge in the next two days, I may retract this statement)</ooc>

Not anymore! But, however it is, I think that people have an overblown conception of both (1) the power of delegates and (2) the power of the lemming effect. The latter doesn't apply in all situations, it only applies in the specific circumstances where a split-second decision cannot be made on a resolution. And the former never materialises in a fully coordinated stack, which we can see in that many delegates have voted in favour. Moreover, the superdelegates simply don't have the majority of the votes.

[Bakhton]

OOC: No sane nation would interpret it that way, unless they wanted to.

They would not need to want anything. They would be forced to. The law does what the law says.

OOC: Are you denying there's gray area in World Assembly law for application? The resolution does not specifically encompass allergies textually, as not all allergies result in the definition of disability. What would be more accurate is that it may encompass *some* allergies such as peanuts or treenuts, which many schools irl already have policies on.

[Imperium Anglorum]

They would not need to want anything. They would be forced to. The law does what the law says.

OOC: Are you denying there's gray area in World Assembly law for application? The resolution does not specifically encompass allergies textually, as not all allergies result in the definition of disability. What would be more accurate is that it may encompass *some* allergies such as peanuts or treenuts, which many schools irl already have policies on.

I gave you the justifications for why there exists a distinction. It is a shame you don't seem to have read it. It's right below what you quoted.

---

In light of a third-party replacement effort in the works, language has been changed to reflect that such a replacement may be proposed. Naturally, if such a proposal does not materialise into a draft by the time this proposal is considered to be submitted, I will remove the text speaking of an upcoming replacement.

[States of Glory WA Office]

In light of a third-party replacement effort in the works, language has been changed to reflect that such a replacement may be proposed.

OOC: Which offsite forum is it in?

[Excidium Planetis]

In light of a third-party replacement effort in the works, language has been changed to reflect that such a replacement may be proposed.

OOC: Which offsite forum is it in?

OOC: Probably one you can't see.

[Bakhton]

OOC: Are you denying there's gray area in World Assembly law for application? The resolution does not specifically encompass allergies textually, as not all allergies result in the definition of disability. What would be more accurate is that it may encompass *some* allergies such as peanuts or treenuts, which many schools irl already have policies on.

I gave you the justifications for why there exists a distinction. It is a shame you don't seem to have read it. It's right below what you quoted.

---

In light of a third-party replacement effort in the works, language has been changed to reflect that such a replacement may be proposed. Naturally, if such a proposal does not materialise into a draft by the time this proposal is considered to be submitted, I will remove the text speaking of an upcoming replacement.

I did read it, perhaps something is being lost in translation in this back and forth, but I don't see that quote answering my question about legal gray areas in interpretation. Some measure of interpretation is almost always left up to the nation with any given resolution.

[Excidium Planetis]

"The Marquis of Dunkarin... or something like that, has brought up an excellent point in the voting room." Blackbourne announces. "Clause 1 of the target resolution appears to act on both public and private education systems, which may force exorbitant costs on private systems."

[Lexicor]

Fully support as written. "Enabling The Disabled" was well meaning but it will impose an enormous (and unwanted) burden on Lexicor's private school centered system of education.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The Marquis of Dunkarin... or something like that, has brought up an excellent point in the voting room." Blackbourne announces. "Clause 1 of the target resolution appears to act on both public and private education systems, which may force exorbitant costs on private systems."

I've added a short clause covering that point to the draft.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Which offsite forum is it in?

OOC: Probably one you can't see.

This deserves a spot in the Awesome/Funny Quotes thread, but I'm afraid it would be too much of an inside joke for non-GAers to appreciate.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This deserves a spot in the Awesome/Funny Quotes thread, but I'm afraid it would be too much of an inside joke for non-GAers to appreciate.

Reminds me of the WA anthem.

[Excidium Planetis]

Reminds me of the WA anthem.

Eh, needs work.

[Bears Armed]

You might also mention that the proposed resolution would apparently require modifying academic buildings even when their current forms are historically significant, whether as early or particularly fine examples of architectural styles & features, because of events that occurred on the staircases that this would replace with ramps or lifts, or for some other reason.

[Araraukar]

You might also mention that the proposed resolution would apparently require modifying academic buildings even when their current forms are historically significant, whether as early or particularly fine examples of architectural styles & features, because of events that occurred on the staircases that this would replace with ramps or lifts, or for some other reason.

OOC: Urgh, this is reason #1 why I hate famous architects designing school/university buildings, because they almost invariably are basically marked "untouchable", when it comes to making any kind of changes, and a good local example is of a university building that has abysmally small women's bathrooms, because the architect was an "old school" one, who didn't really believe women should be allowed to go to university and didn't actually include women's bathrooms in the design, and when it was pointed out to him that they needed to be there, changed a couple of cleaning closets (I'm not kidding!) into women's bathrooms. They're tiny (you literally have to walk backwards to go into a stall, you can't turn around in them), cramped (can't have more than 2 or 3 people waiting for their turns at once, and with 4 or 5 stalls in the bigger one, and I think 3 in the other (for a building where at a mass lecture you can have 80+ women attending), neither accommodates wheelchair access and they can't be changed even though there would be room to do so, because that would change the original design!

Another former university building nearby designed by another famous architect developed huge mold problems, partially because of the design, and eventually its use was discontinued as hazardous to health, but they can't tear it down (you literally can't enter without one of the Hazmat suits) because, you guessed it, it's protected due to having been designed by an idiot who didn't account for Finnish climate meaning you'd get snow and rain and freezing temperatures!

I could go on and on, but I think I'll stop this rant before I get to the point of annoyance and frustration that I start gnawing on my keyboard...

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Urgh, this is reason #1 why I hate famous architects designing school/university buildings, because they almost invariably are basically marked "untouchable",

This is actually why I really like it. You can't change them. If one builds, say, a collegiate Gothic building, a cheap future administration cannot put a neoclassical front on it. That would be an incredible sin.

[Covenstone]

OOC: Urgh, this is reason #1 why I hate famous architects designing school/university buildings, because they almost invariably are basically marked "untouchable",

This is actually why I really like it. You can't change them. If one builds, say, a collegiate Gothic building, a cheap future administration cannot put a neoclassical front on it. That would be an incredible sin.

But the downside of that is if the building that was designed is not up to modern fire codes (for example) then you can't change it to meet modern fire codes and the entire building becomes a death trap.

I am all for preserving the past, but at some point you have to draw the line and say "Enough!"

[Wallenburg]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I expected the voters to be more informed than they proved to be. Hell, we even have superdelegates piling onto the target's success. Wallenburg will support this repeal.

[Covenstone]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I expected the voters to be more informed than they proved to be. Hell, we even have superdelegates piling onto the target's success. Wallenburg will support this repeal.

It's about helping people in wheelchairs. I really can't imagine people voting against it. I'd be surprised if half the people who have voted yes have actually read the buggering thing.

[Araraukar]

Hell, we even have superdelegates piling onto the target's success.

OOC: To be fair, some of them vote as per the internal vote on their offsite forums, rather than their own personal opinions.

It's about helping people in wheelchairs.

And those who are pregnant or allergic or just came from the dentist, etc.

I'd be surprised if half the people who have voted yes have actually read the buggering thing.

In my experience most people who vote on them, either which way, don't. Or they'll read the first few preamble bits and decide on that (or lemming effect, though that tends to only enhance a landslide either way, rather than be a deciding factor).

[The Atlae Isles]

Hell, we even have superdelegates piling onto the target's success.

OOC: To be fair, some of them vote as per the internal vote on their offsite forums, rather than their own personal opinions.

Or the popular vote of the region.

[Aclion]

snip

"Clauses in repeals often begin with present participle verb forms, such as Believing or Commending or Noting or Restating or Laughing." Blackbourne notes. "These occur with about the same frequency as adjectives."

"present participle verb soup" is quite a mouthful.

OOC: Urgh, this is reason #1 why I hate famous architects designing school/university buildings, because they almost invariably are basically marked "untouchable",

This is actually why I really like it. You can't change them. If one builds, say, a collegiate Gothic building, a cheap future administration cannot put a neoclassical front on it. That would be an incredible sin.

On the flip side if you hire the right architect you can deliberately deface it.

[Mundiferrum]

Hmm...since the original proposal also notes that "disabled student" includes only those who study in "class-settings", is it possible to note that the targeted proposal excludes many valid forms of education from its consideration, something that earlier education-based resolutions generally do not exclude? And I still think noting how problematic the targeted proposal's definition of "disabled" is a good idea, if only because it's one of the more entertaining problems with that proposal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Hmm...since the original proposal also notes that "disabled student" includes only those who study in "class-settings", is it possible to note that the targeted proposal excludes many valid forms of education from its consideration, something that earlier education-based resolutions generally do not exclude? And I still think noting how problematic the targeted proposal's definition of "disabled" is a good idea, if only because it's one of the more entertaining problems with that proposal.

Changes have been effected to note the unsoundness of the definitions.

[Tretrid]

I would be for, purely on principle, and when reading it, I found that it touches all my concerns. I would definitely support this resolution.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: No Orange Julius recipe? Opposed.