NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Administrative Compliance Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Remove ads

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9105
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:14 am

SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "frattastan - Today at 1:40 AM
I haven't used an illegal script in days."

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1839
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United Massachusetts » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:22 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote:SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.

Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

WA Affairs Minister, The East Pacific
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

Fmr. President, Right to Life
Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
"Stat crux dum volvitur orbis"
"The Cross is steady while the world is turning"


User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:01 am

United Massachusetts wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:SP is right, the question is simply whether states themselves do something or if they merely observe while a fluff committee does everything.

Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.


Actually, Sierra Lyricalia wrote we should replace the purpose of the committee with something else and see if it still fits the category. I refuse to comment on the category beyond stating that the actual effect of the mandate should be to decrease economic prosperity across the WA. However, if I change all references to compliance with, say, "mandatory vaccination" or "defending against doomsday asteroids" the final clause still has the exact same effect (wrecking people's economies in my opinion) albeit for slightly more absurd reasons.

It is also worth pointing out that I previously argued that the real test needs to reside in whether the proposal can justify a stat change by what it requires STATES to do. A mandate that a state do SOMETHING even if in response to the committee was enough to save "Mandatory Vaccination Act", was seemingly sufficient to allow that proposal to go to a vote (where it mercifully failed for other reasons).

That said, I do feel like that argument for "Mandatory Vaccination Act" was stretching the limits of the rule to a level that no good statutory regime should be comfortable doing regularly. I also feel like this proposal is a step too far for that argument. In "Mandatory Vaccination Act" the mandate that saved it was a literal mandate to accomplish the actual purpose of the resolution (mandatory comprehensive vaccination). I am not sure economic warfare bears quite the same degree of association with policing compliance of WA resolutions. I would rather see the Committee Only rule meet the amendment axe into a less cumbersome form.

________

As a side note: SP, would you be open to amending the economic sanction mandate to exempt "essential goods" on the order of food, medical supplies, and the like? I would rather not RP my people dying of measles because my drug dealer decided to not pay a fine requiring me to embargo him.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:42 am

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:Isn't the current precedent to take every reference to the committee out and see whether the resolution stands, as ridiculous of a standard that is? Remove references to a committee here, and you don't have a resolution.


Actually, Sierra Lyricalia wrote we should replace the purpose of the committee with something else and see if it still fits the category. I refuse to comment on the category beyond stating that the actual effect of the mandate should be to decrease economic prosperity across the WA. However, if I change all references to compliance with, say, "mandatory vaccination" or "defending against doomsday asteroids" the final clause still has the exact same effect (wrecking people's economies in my opinion) albeit for slightly more absurd reasons.

It is also worth pointing out that I previously argued that the real test needs to reside in whether the proposal can justify a stat change by what it requires STATES to do. A mandate that a state do SOMETHING even if in response to the committee was enough to save "Mandatory Vaccination Act", was seemingly sufficient to allow that proposal to go to a vote (where it mercifully failed for other reasons).

That said, I do feel like that argument for "Mandatory Vaccination Act" was stretching the limits of the rule to a level that no good statutory regime should be comfortable doing regularly. I also feel like this proposal is a step too far for that argument. In "Mandatory Vaccination Act" the mandate that saved it was a literal mandate to accomplish the actual purpose of the resolution (mandatory comprehensive vaccination). I am not sure economic warfare bears quite the same degree of association with policing compliance of WA resolutions. I would rather see the Committee Only rule meet the amendment axe into a less cumbersome form.


The limits of the fine include assessing extremely minor violations where the state takes good faith efforts to combat them. I think this is an unlikely scenario.

As a side note: SP, would you be open to amending the economic sanction mandate to exempt "essential goods" on the order of food, medical supplies, and the like? I would rather not RP my people dying of measles because my drug dealer decided to not pay a fine requiring me to embargo him.

I think there are extant laws that deal with those products. Certainly, medical and humanitarian supplies are protected from interdiction or seizure.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18459
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:19 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Again, this clause does not merely mention a committee. The mandate depends on the committee to function within the scope of the proposal. Replace the IAO with a judiciary board to rule on unauthorized transportation of saltwater taffy, and you no longer have a Furtherment of Democracy clause.

1) I am not aware of any such ruling.
2) How is full compliance "insufficient action"?

That is not what I take issue with. The problem here is that the committee and its actions, as described in its implementation, are inseparable from the mandate.

Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.

That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee, and if you follow the requirements of the doomsday asteroids test, you are left with an unquestionable category violation.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:26 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.

That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee, and if you follow the requirements of the doomsday asteroids test, you are left with an unquestionable category violation.

I'll take my chances with a challenge. There is no special difference between this and the Mandatory Vaccination Act. I suppose I could add a useless requirement for, say, reporting economic acts taken. Or explicitly bar states from enacting sanctions for essentials. If I structure that as it's own clause, I can skate by the onus on states without having to alter the committee.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:28 pm

In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2914
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:11 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Irrelevant. The onus for action is unquestionably on the nation, which is the point of the rule.

That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...

OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18459
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:07 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Which would make for a category violation, since this is FoD, not Human Rights.
Sciongrad wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...

OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule.

The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.
Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.

My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2914
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:09 pm

Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.

OOC: Why? Why is that a good thing?
My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.

OOC: We get it, you don't like how we've interpreted the ideological ban rule. You've got to get over this at some point.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:10 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Which would make for a category violation, since this is FoD, not Human Rights.

OOC: Not under SL's interpretation of the clauses that don't have a committee action. The added operative clause at the end compels nations take an action in line with HR.

Obviously, I would change it. I'm hardly wedded to the category. :)

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18459
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:10 pm

Sciongrad wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.

OOC: Why? Why is that a good thing?

If you don't like the rule, chage it. I never said the committee rule is good.
My interpretation isn't strict. It is lax as hell. I simply don't interpret half the ruleset out of existence.

OOC: We get it, you don't like how we've interpreted the ideological ban rule. You've got to get over this at some point.

Don't put words in my mouth.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7880
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:57 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Which would make for a category violation, since this is FoD, not Human Rights.

No, it isn't. A resolution has to justify the category it is in, not not be comparatively better suited for another category.

Wallenburg wrote:The purpose of the rule is to prohibit proposals that are just a bunch of administration without any independent mandates (or, in the case of mild proposals, wishy-washy recommendations) on member states.

I mean, if that was the real purpose of the rule, i.e. to prohibit committees that don't have a statistical effect, then we wouldn't need a committee rule – the strength rule would be enough to force committees to conform to their statistics. Of course, it seems most everyone else is too buried under tradition to consider a category rule that actually makes sense, i.e. its non-existence (the committee staffing portions neatly fall under Mechanics).
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 21 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2815
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:31 pm

Sciongrad wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:That isn't the purpose of the rule. Your proposal demonstrably fails both the old and new tests. It contains no clauses that do not depend on a committee...

OOC: What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? Because frankly, as long as the resolution requires nations to perform some action, I believe that jives with the committee rule. But if there is widespread disagreement, I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.


OOC: I'll be honest, I'd be hella more comfortable if we did that first, before this gets submitted (SP mentioned somewhere this would be in drafting for a while, I think?). I don't know that it violates the committee rule as we currently enforce it, but at the very least it comes awfully close. I don't think anyone is wedded to a strong committee rule; it shouldn't be hard to find language that makes most prospective authors happy.
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
The Greater Siriusian Domain
Diplomat
 
Posts: 918
Founded: Mar 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Greater Siriusian Domain » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:02 pm

Teran Saber: "No support at this current time due to other blatantly hostile legislation currently being drafted. We will consider supporting this when the threatening proposal, 'Regulation of Decentralized Currencies', has been shut down."
Last edited by The Greater Siriusian Domain on Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"For a mind so determined to reach the sky, on the wings of a dream!" - Sanctity, Zeppo
This nation's factbook supersedes NS stats and issues, but does not completely replace them. If there is a conflict, the Factbook is correct.

Isentran has been DENOUNCED for proposing legislation that would destroy the economy of the Greater Siriusian Domain
The Greater Siriusian Domain is a borderline Class Z9 Civilization according to this scale

Primary Ambassador: Teran Saber, Male Siriusian. Snarky, slightly arrogant.
Substitute Ambassador: Ra'lingth, Male En'gari. Speaks with emphasized "s" sounds.

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:03 pm

Sciongrad wrote:---snips---
I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that we rewrite the rule. Because I have no idea what purpose such a strict interpretation of the rule serves.

PLEASE. If for no other reason than saving the cognitive dissonance that comes from trying to torture proposals into complying with some version of the current rule.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I'll be honest, I'd be hella more comfortable if we did that first, before this gets submitted (SP mentioned somewhere this would be in drafting for a while, I think?). I don't know that it violates the committee rule as we currently enforce it, but at the very least it comes awfully close. I don't think anyone is wedded to a strong committee rule; it shouldn't be hard to find language that makes most prospective authors happy.


At the rate SP drafts, it could take a year, and still get out before this gets submitted (NOT THAT THAT'S A BAD THING SP!).

Seperatist Peoples wrote:I think there are extant laws that deal with those products. Certainly, medical and humanitarian supplies are protected from interdiction or seizure.


You added the clarification anyway, so I will spare us all commentary on the current resolutions on the books, because just reading them qualified as torture.

Seperatist Peoples wrote:In fact, the new final clause, under SL's test for category as explained by Demosthenes and Burke, would theoretically justify Human Rights as a category.

Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.

Also, please do not put too much faith in my argumentation. My argumentation was politics (and dissatisfaction with the obvious reading of the current rule) more than me actually believing that is how the currently drafted rule ought to be interpreted.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:40 am

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:At the rate SP drafts, it could take a year, and still get out before this gets submitted (NOT THAT THAT'S A BAD THING SP!).

OOC: I am a cautious soul.

Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.

Painfully. We're looking into it.
Also, please do not put too much faith in my argumentation. My argumentation was politics (and dissatisfaction with the obvious reading of the current rule) more than me actually believing that is how the currently drafted rule ought to be interpreted.

SL's majority opinion there deals more with category than with committee, and I think it provides no small amount of credence to the category of HR.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Jarish Inyo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 980
Founded: Jul 09, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Jarish Inyo » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:00 pm

Opposed. Though love the idea that the GAO is to collect said fines when it has no power or ability to do so. So, it would still be business as usual even if this passes for many nations not wishing to be in compliance with poor thought out resolutions.
Ambassador Nameless
Empire of Jaresh Inyo

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:32 am

Jarish Inyo wrote:Opposed. Though love the idea that the GAO is to collect said fines when it has no power or ability to do so. So, it would still be business as usual even if this passes for many nations not wishing to be in compliance with poor thought out resolutions.

You know what I'm going to say. Why bother posting?

Your interpretations are not legally defensible. Your position isn't going to convince me. I don't care to have your input. Knowing that, why are you bothering?
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 749
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:18 am

Article 3 seems a little cumbersome (clumsy?)
The GAO is tasked to ensure that all collected fines are collected and applied to reduce the contribution amount from members found compliant during that assessment period.

Might I suggest dropping one of the "collected"?
I must also echo others in saying I believe this runs afoul the Committee Only rule, as well as the HoC rule (though I understand your argument in regards to that one). While I would support a tweaking of the committee rule, or at the least a clarification, I worry that doing away with it will lead to lazy resolutions. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a single clause that compels action by the state without any relation to a committee.

Finally, why did you create a sub-commission and not just task the WA Compliance Commission directly?
Last edited by Cardoness on Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder and Secretary-General of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:50 am

Cardoness wrote:Article 3 seems a little cumbersome (clumsy?)
The GAO is tasked to ensure that all collected fines are collected and applied to reduce the contribution amount from members found compliant during that assessment period.

Might I suggest dropping one of the "collected"?

Will do.

I must also echo others in saying I believe this runs afoul the Committee Only rule, as well as the HoC rule (though I understand your argument in regards to that one). While I would support a tweaking of the committee rule, or at the least a clarification, I worry that doing away with it will lead to lazy resolutions. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a single clause that compels action by the state without any relation to a committee.

I strongly suspect I would win a challenge on the committee rule, but I'm happy to wait until after it's changed. I'm equally confident that the HoC violation will see a challenge before I submit this, which will resolve it one way or another. I believe IA has chosen to pick that bone.

Finally, why did you create a sub-commission and not just task the WA Compliance Commission directly?

Separation of powers and public image. If the Compliance Commission is doing surveys of member state violations, vesting their investigative individuals with prosecutorial powers would make members unwilling to cooperate and potentially creates conflicts of interests. A discrete prosecutorial element separate from investigation adds a degree of separation.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Bruke
Minister
 
Posts: 2954
Founded: Nov 21, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bruke » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:16 am

Questions: this may have already been answered, but I'm not sure how exactly the punishment process would work? Would there be some kind of automatic process of sanctions, etc., like with how the CC automatically changes your laws and policies? And also why there is a need for this, because, from what I understand the CC automatically brings you into compliance.

Please correct me if any of what I'm saying is not true or is unclear.
Last edited by Bruke on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Whovian Tardisia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 759
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Whovian Tardisia » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:31 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.


OOC: Part of why I think that opening the Bookkeeping category up to the public might not be the worst idea.
Dons Kermit costume and sips tea
An FT (Class W11) nation capable of space travel, but has never attempted invading another planet. The Space Brigade is for defense only! Also, something happened to Ambassador Pink.
From the desk of Rupert Pink:
The Grand Gallifreyan Republic of Whovian Tardisia
Floor 12, Office 42 of WAHQ
Proud patron of the World Assembly Stranger's Bar.
The Interstellar Cartographers are back! This time, they explore Methuselah.

User avatar
States of Glory WA Office
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1921
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby States of Glory WA Office » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:22 pm

Whovian Tardisia wrote:
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Can I just say, the category system is woefully inadequate for proposals like this.


OOC: Part of why I think that opening the Bookkeeping category up to the public might not be the worst idea.
Dons Kermit costume and sips tea

OOC: Hear, hear!
Ambassador: Bartholomew Harper Fairburn Rowan Flowerhaze Souldream Bartholomew Harper Fairburn
Assistant: Neville Lynn Robert
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain

Other ambassadorial staff include but are not limited to Barbera Warner and Harold "The Clown" Johnson.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12814
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:41 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:
Whovian Tardisia wrote:
OOC: Part of why I think that opening the Bookkeeping category up to the public might not be the worst idea.
Dons Kermit costume and sips tea

OOC: Hear, hear!

OOC: Based on SL's majority opinion in Mandatory Vaccinations, I don't think it will be necessary.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Remove ads