[DRAFT] Repeal "Right to Sexual Privacy"

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:21 pm

Fairburn: Support.

Neville: No support.

by **Essu Beti** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:04 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: Support.

Neville: No support.

Iksana leans down and gently but firmly thunks his head on the podium. "Let it be known that I hate you both."

by **Dobrobyt** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:37 pm

The Office of Dobrobyt supports this repeal. We will not see absolute insanity roam our world, plaguing people.

by **The Bible Baptist Republic** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:41 am

Dobrobyt wrote:---snipped--- We will not see absolute insanity roam our world, plaguing people.

With all due respect, Ambassador, if those are your wishes, this may be the wrong place for you.

by **Greater Gilead** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:08 am

(Ambassador Sheridan Baldwin stands.)
Gentlemen, you have our full support for this repeal, seeing as this resolution is one of the many we refuse to follow.
Resolution Three-Eighty-Three has many loopholes that force some very immoral acts to be legalized. For example, clause five effectively forces member nations to make homosexuality legal. We have refused to do this, but want nations who are too cowardly to stand up to the World Assembly in cases of morality to be able to make said immoral acts illegal.
Thank you.
(Mr. Baldwin sits.)

by **Bananaistan** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:53 am

Greater Gilead wrote:(Ambassador Sheridan Baldwin stands.)
Gentlemen, you have our full support for this repeal, seeing as this resolution is one of the many we refuse to follow.
Resolution Three-Eighty-Three has many loopholes that force some very immoral acts to be legalized. For example, clause five effectively forces member nations to make homosexuality legal. We have refused to do this, but want nations who are too cowardly to stand up to the World Assembly in cases of morality to be able to make said immoral acts illegal.
Thank you.
(Mr. Baldwin sits.)

"Please Ambassador, nobody is interested in your incoherent ramblings."

OOC: Outright non-compliance is always just ignored. Nobody will take anything you say seriously if you keep up this "I only follow the laws I like" shtick. Particularly so when it's offensive nonsense like yours.

by **Greater Gilead** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:23 am

OOC:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Outright non-compliance is always just ignored.

I only refuse to comply with resolutions on religious grounds.

Nobody will take anything you say seriously if you keep up this "I only follow the laws I like" shtick.

Which is part of the Gilead shtick. Canon, you know.

Particularly so when it's offensive nonsense like yours.

Religion is offensive to some people.
But, my vote counts as much as anyone else's. Unless, of course, you manage to get me kicked out of the WA.

by **Deropia** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:47 am

Greater Gilead wrote:(Ambassador Sheridan Baldwin stands.)
Gentlemen, you have our full support for this repeal, seeing as this resolution is one of the many we refuse to follow.
Resolution Three-Eighty-Three has many loopholes that force some very immoral acts to be legalized. For example, clause five effectively forces member nations to make homosexuality legal. We have refused to do this, but want nations who are too cowardly to stand up to the World Assembly in cases of morality to be able to make said immoral acts illegal.
Thank you.
(Mr. Baldwin sits.)

"Oh for the love of...tell me, why should we listen to anyone who clearly has no respect for this assembly, or international law."
Ambassador MacAlister rolls his eyes, balling up a piece of paper and throwing it at the ambassador from Gilead.

"As for the current proposal...I don't see any real issues. But personally, I'd like to see the replacement drafted prior to the submission of the repeal."

Greater Gilead wrote:I only refuse to comply with resolutions on religious grounds.

OoC: That doesn't mean that your not going against the long standing conventions of an online community. Usually that ends up getting you ignored, in most RPs I've ever taken part in.

Greater Gilead wrote:Which is part of the Gilead shtick. Canon, you know.

OoC: Canon or not, being so blatant about non-compliance is a great way to ostracize yourself from the GA community.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:22 am

Greater Gilead wrote:I only refuse to comply with resolutions on religious grounds.

OOC: Irrelevant. You could refuse to comply with them based on the dying request of your grandmother, we still wouldn't change our opinion of this obnoxious roleplaying. Godmodding doesn't benefit the roleplay community. If you want to roleplay using a puppet, great. Go for it. If you want to roleplay with creative compliance, go for it. This? This isn't welcome.

by **Serrus** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:33 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Greater Gilead wrote:I only refuse to comply with resolutions on religious grounds.

OOC: Irrelevant. You could refuse to comply with them based on the dying request of your grandmother, we still wouldn't change our opinion of this obnoxious roleplaying. Godmodding doesn't benefit the roleplay community. If you want to roleplay using a puppet, great. Go for it. If you want to roleplay with creative compliance, go for it. This? This isn't welcome.

OOC: So it isn't just me that this infuriates?

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:35 pm

Serrus wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Irrelevant. You could refuse to comply with them based on the dying request of your grandmother, we still wouldn't change our opinion of this obnoxious roleplaying. Godmodding doesn't benefit the roleplay community. If you want to roleplay using a puppet, great. Go for it. If you want to roleplay with creative compliance, go for it. This? This isn't welcome.

OOC: So it isn't just me that this infuriates?

OOC: This kind of behavior is not something the GA community historically tolerates.

by **Serrus** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:07 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Serrus wrote:OOC: So it isn't just me that this infuriates?

OOC: This kind of behavior is not something the GA community historically tolerates.

*audible sigh of relief*

by **Essu Beti** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:10 pm

((OOC: Well, the thread made it to page 3 before OOC bickering happened. I'm counting that as a win. Also I'm throwing my lot in with the "not tolerating this behavior" camp.))

Deropia wrote:"Oh for the love of...tell me, why should we listen to anyone who clearly has no respect for this assembly, or international law."
Ambassador MacAlister rolls his eyes, balling up a piece of paper and throwing it at the ambassador from Gilead.

"As for the current proposal...I don't see any real issues. But personally, I'd like to see the replacement drafted prior to the submission of the repeal."

"Oh, is someone declaring prior noncompliance or something? I'm afraid I was too busy paying attention to the people who actually matter to hear them," says Iksana.

"I can try to convince the old bastards back home to draft a replacement, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you. We'd support one, as long as it removed that little bit about allowing non-procreational incest, but writing one? Our leaders would be too tempted to put in a clause that would allow the banning of sexual relationships between those of different tribes. And that would sink the whole thing to the bottom of the sea, as far as actually getting it to vote."

by **Araraukar** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:31 am

Greater Gilead wrote:*snip*

OOC: In addition to what others already said about godmodding, considering how you got... what, at least 2 official warnings based on your way to show off your RP, I wouldn't flaunt it around much, if I were you.

by **Greater Gilead** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:24 am

OOC: So you don't like my nation. I'm not surprised. I'm not offended, either. I knew when I created Gilead that I was making the nation that everyone would love to hate. I am following canon, and in said canon Gilead reuses to follow a number of UN laws, mostly on religious grounds. (And manage to get themselves embargoed.) I don't want to make people mad at me, but I'm not breaking canon. And it's not godmodding, as I take the IC responses from other nations. Examples include this: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=890631. Ok, that one doesn't actually affect me much, but I'm in a RP region, and I got this at one point: "We refuse to sell military equipment to you while you remain in blatant disregard of World Assembly resolutions." This noncompliance hurts my nation. It is a balancing act whether it will hurt more than it helps. Thank you. <All of this was OOC

by **Separatist Peoples** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:29 am

Greater Gilead wrote:OOC: So you don't like my nation. I'm not surprised. I'm not offended, either. I knew when I created Gilead that I was making the nation that everyone would love to hate. I am following canon, and in said canon Gilead reuses to follow a number of UN laws, mostly on religious grounds. (And manage to get themselves embargoed.) I don't want to make people mad at me, but I'm not breaking canon. And it's not godmodding, as I take the IC responses from other nations. Examples include this: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=890631. Ok, that one doesn't actually affect me much, but I'm in a RP region, and I got this at one point: "We refuse to sell military equipment to you while you remain in blatant disregard of World Assembly resolutions." This noncompliance hurts my nation. It is a balancing act whether it will hurt more than it helps. Thank you. <All of this was OOC

OOC: That's not how godmodding works in this forum. That's not how it has ever worked. If you want to be an Ic pariah, great, but what you're doing is getting onto people's ignore lists. I seriously doubt you expect to RP to a nonresponsive room.

This is starting to turn into a threadjack, so lets shift this to TG, people.

[DRAFT] Repeal "Right to Sexual Privacy"

Who is online