How can we repeal General Assembly Resolution #8?

[Slavonia and Srijem]

When Nation of 8 milion people wants to usurp WA and bigger fish in it, how cute.

[Grays Harbor]

Repeating over and over that “this must be repealed” is insufficient. Until you give valid reason, you can expect zero support. And for the record, “It was passed before I was here” is not a valid reason.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: So you have basically just said that "I know that nobody supports my repeal, but the repeal is going to get passed anyway, even without anyone's support." You know that isn't how the World Assembly works, right? You actually need support to get something passed. It is wishful thinking on your part if you think that you can ever repeal #8...

Those who have contributed to this thread do not constitute the majority of Delegates or member nations. I also understand that the World Assembly does not work the way you accused me of believing it does. And no, it's not wishful thinking to believe that I, or any other member nation, can pass a repeal that must be passed.

OOC: Yet more wishful thinking. You keep saying this must be repealed, but you have yet to give us any compelling reasons why it should be repealed. I sincerely doubt that you will be able to give any compelling reasons that would sway enough people, but I shall wait and see. If the reasons are as vague as what you have previously indicated, then I don't think the repeal will have a snowflake's chance in hell:

It's about representative equality in the WA, corruption, untrue claims of neutrality, and unevenly distributed political, economic, and social power. What I'm proposing is not a complete eradication of the HQ. I'm simply suggesting reform. But reform has to start as complete repeal.

OOC: It is a bit shameless to resort to a shotgun effect by saying a bunch of random and inaccurate reasons for repealing, in the sorely misplaced hope that one of them will stick. You may as well say that #8 needs repealing because the WA HQ is a hive of witch activity...

[Deropia]

OoC: Repeals of GAR #8 have been tried and failed. While forum participants may not be the voting majority, we can be a rather accurate barometer. When there's strong opposition on the forums, support is usually lacking among voters. You are welcome to try to repeal GAR #8, of course, but dont be surprised when it goes down in flames or fails to reach quorum.

[Tzorsland]

OOC: Occam's Razor would seem to dictate that the building needn't be demolished; just that the building management bureaucracy is dissolved.

But they maintain the contracts for maintenance and office contracts. Those contracts wouldn't just go void but would have to be sold off as the department ceased to exist. As a result they would probably be purchased by some entity most likely ...

Oh (BEEP) ... Didn't someone mention an attempt by that old region to "take over the WA?"

IT'S ANOTHER VICTORY FOR GATESVILLE!

[Ulitmatus]

I agree. I've seen that the WA is very oligarchic.

[Unreasonable Nation]

The bloated, smelling remains of the last several ambassadors from Unreasonable Nation, and their one currently living ambassador that the rest are attached to, takes the stand.
"We are in favour of someone else doing the leg work and voting work of repealing GAR #8. While we don't have any proposal to talk about before us, and we're unlikely to see any that would clear muster, we think it is a worthwhile task that the Armed Republic of The Unifists should dedicate all their time to. Otherwise, how will we be able to buy and defile the former headquarters of the World Assembly?"

[Araraukar]

OOC: Since the OP seems to be for some reason unable to post their reasoning here, I'll post the TG with the reasons they listed. Private debates don't help, so I'll be sticking to this forum in regards to this subject. I normally keep TGs private, but due to this being in its entirety something that should be posted here, not TG, and which several people have requested to be posted here, I'll break confidentiality on this occasion.

There are many issues with GAR #8.
1)Although classified as international territory, the land that the Headquarters is located on is anything but neutral. Not all nations and regions in the World Assembly can give up land, and those that can, may retain influence over that ceded land and and the Office of Building Management. It is true that they may not have direct control over the land that was previously theirs, but they still have more influence with the OBM than other, smaller nations.
2)The GAR #8 supports the idea that the World Assembly Headquarters would promote "international cooperation and understanding... [as well as] international goodwill." While a World Assembly Headquarters should support these ideas, it does not. It simply serves as an esoteric and elitist platform for policy-making.
3)Based on the premise that the World Assembly Headquarters and the OBM are not completely neutral, one can see that granting the OBM the exclusive authority to change the fees for office space and the use of WA facilities is not ethical nor moral. The fees should be determined and regulated by at least the General Assembly, if not a special committee to make it truly neutral.
4)The OBM has the authority to ignore or delay requests for office space for weeks at a time. This further degrades the neutrality of the WAHQ and the OBM by granting those nations who can contribute the most in economic and political terms, as well as socially, more power over the day-to-day dealings of the World Assembly.
5)The selling of contracts to vendors, retailers, and other service providers that may have their headquarters in nations that are members of the World Assembly completely undermines the neutrality of the WAHQ and the OBM.
6)The condition of the "ambassadors and observers" prior to the proposal and passage of GAR #8 suggests that those who had a hand in this resolution being passed was not in their right mind. It suggests corruption through the fact that ambassadors let their personal lives overlap with their professional lives. The corruption claim is furthered with the admission to "ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys" of people who are not fit to serve in their capacities.
These were just a few of the issues that I found with the resolution. I am sure that others may find more.
You, on the other hand, have not told me what is so appealing about GAR #8. Yes, I understand that the roleplaying aspect is fun. However, with my resolution that will replace GAR #8, the roleplaying aspect will not be changed. So, what is so appealing about GAR #8?
Also, I understand that it will be difficult to pass the repeal, and nigh impossible to pass a replacement resolution. However, I must try for the integrity of the World Assembly and NationStates.

My replies, based on the RP conventions and rational thinking:

1. The WAHQ exists in its own spacetime bubble. Hence the dimensions of the building and the flow of time inside it (such as people needing to wait for replies in a discussion for weeks because one person was ambushed by RL) are variable. Can't get much more neutral than that.

2. The WAHQ is, in essence, this forum. If you think we don't get enough newbies here then go and try to recruit more. I've personally reached out to all the feeder and sinker regions, two feeders so far have agreed to post my outreach message (the "GA forum guide" thing I've TG'd to several newbies, to make this place more easily approached) onto their offsite forums. The more newbies we get to stick around here, the better. That goes for you too, but if you want respect, you'll have to earn it.

3. The premise is wrong, so the arguments here don't count. OBM is a committee as far as rules are concerned, and thus is ultimately neutral. People may say their ambassador bribed the committee into doing this or that, but that's just RP, which you later on say would not change, so I don't understand why you'd consider it a bad thing.

4. Which is roleplay. Which you later on say would not change, so again, what's your beef with it? Also, not sure where you get the "economical and political terms" from? I RP as only my Araraukarians having secured their offices in an approved manner, and in their case it was by being able to correctly fill out the 30-page request forms (which, again, is pure RP on my part), which for them was easy since they're a nation ruled by bureaucrats. PPU hivemind basically just took over the previous offices of the Araraukarians, and then expanded into the neighbouring sets of rooms. The Tikrr took over a hangar and ate a couple of OBM gnomes, and the gnomes decided they'd let them have it. Again, pure RP on my part.

5. How? Also, it's very very rare that anyone RPs having a vendor of any kind. Strangers' Bar is run by Neville (a character owned by one of the Mods) and owned by... Violet? Basically it's the administration-approved RP chill thread on this forum, and pure RP. Which, again, you say wouldn't be affected. If anyone RPd as having a vendor, again, wouldn't be affected, so why the hell would you argue it's a bad thing?

6. People OOCly voting for a resolution are the vast majority of WA voters. Blame the passing of any resolution on them, not on the handful of people who actually bother to RP on this forum. And of course in IC all the nations/ambassadors would vote according to what's best for them. It's called politics. Any kind of corruption is, again, RP.

Now, as you say you'll have a proposal to do better that the existing one does, for fuck's sake write it up so we can compare!

And since you say it wouldn't change the roleplaying aspect, then that makes most of your arguments null and void, as the elements you have a beef with are pure roleplay!

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: based on their attitude, they can expect heavy resistance from me

[Xmara]

There are many issues with GAR #8.
1)Although classified as international territory, the land that the Headquarters is located on is anything but neutral. Not all nations and regions in the World Assembly can give up land, and those that can, may retain influence over that ceded land and and the Office of Building Management. It is true that they may not have direct control over the land that was previously theirs, but they still have more influence with the OBM than other, smaller nations.
2)The GAR #8 supports the idea that the World Assembly Headquarters would promote "international cooperation and understanding... [as well as] international goodwill." While a World Assembly Headquarters should support these ideas, it does not. It simply serves as an esoteric and elitist platform for policy-making.
3)Based on the premise that the World Assembly Headquarters and the OBM are not completely neutral, one can see that granting the OBM the exclusive authority to change the fees for office space and the use of WA facilities is not ethical nor moral. The fees should be determined and regulated by at least the General Assembly, if not a special committee to make it truly neutral.
4)The OBM has the authority to ignore or delay requests for office space for weeks at a time. This further degrades the neutrality of the WAHQ and the OBM by granting those nations who can contribute the most in economic and political terms, as well as socially, more power over the day-to-day dealings of the World Assembly.
5)The selling of contracts to vendors, retailers, and other service providers that may have their headquarters in nations that are members of the World Assembly completely undermines the neutrality of the WAHQ and the OBM.
6)The condition of the "ambassadors and observers" prior to the proposal and passage of GAR #8 suggests that those who had a hand in this resolution being passed was not in their right mind. It suggests corruption through the fact that ambassadors let their personal lives overlap with their professional lives. The corruption claim is furthered with the admission to "ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys" of people who are not fit to serve in their capacities.
These were just a few of the issues that I found with the resolution. I am sure that others may find more.
You, on the other hand, have not told me what is so appealing about GAR #8. Yes, I understand that the roleplaying aspect is fun. However, with my resolution that will replace GAR #8, the roleplaying aspect will not be changed. So, what is so appealing about GAR #8?
Also, I understand that it will be difficult to pass the repeal, and nigh impossible to pass a replacement resolution. However, I must try for the integrity of the World Assembly and NationStates.

OOC: Dude, what are you even getting at? I read through this list of reasons multiple times and they make no sense to me. The HQ we have now is just fine.

[The New California Republic]

1)Although classified as international territory, the land that the Headquarters is located on is anything but neutral. Not all nations and regions in the World Assembly can give up land, and those that can, may retain influence over that ceded land and and the Office of Building Management. It is true that they may not have direct control over the land that was previously theirs, but they still have more influence with the OBM than other, smaller nations.

OOC: This is absolute nonsense. Is this a new rule in the WA or something, if you can't find any good reasons for repealing a previous Resolution then you just make something up, no matter how nonsensical it is?

2)The GAR #8 supports the idea that the World Assembly Headquarters would promote "international cooperation and understanding... [as well as] international goodwill." While a World Assembly Headquarters should support these ideas, it does not. It simply serves as an esoteric and elitist platform for policy-making.

OOC: Again, absolute nonsense. There is no proof for anything that you are saying.

3)Based on the premise that the World Assembly Headquarters and the OBM are not completely neutral, one can see that granting the OBM the exclusive authority to change the fees for office space and the use of WA facilities is not ethical nor moral. The fees should be determined and regulated by at least the General Assembly, if not a special committee to make it truly neutral.

OOC: There is no evidence to say that the OBM is not neutral, it is just something random that you have completely made up. You are coming up with what needs to be done, and then fabricating reasons to justify it.

4)The OBM has the authority to ignore or delay requests for office space for weeks at a time. This further degrades the neutrality of the WAHQ and the OBM by granting those nations who can contribute the most in economic and political terms, as well as socially, more power over the day-to-day dealings of the World Assembly.

OOC: Where does it say that this is a thing? You are just making things up again.

5)The selling of contracts to vendors, retailers, and other service providers that may have their headquarters in nations that are members of the World Assembly completely undermines the neutrality of the WAHQ and the OBM.

OOC: How does having a variety of vendors and retailers in any way undermine HQ neutrality? Ridiculous.

6)The condition of the "ambassadors and observers" prior to the proposal and passage of GAR #8 suggests that those who had a hand in this resolution being passed was not in their right mind. It suggests corruption through the fact that ambassadors let their personal lives overlap with their professional lives. The corruption claim is furthered with the admission to "ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys" of people who are not fit to serve in their capacities.

OOC: More nonsense. You are making extremely bold claims on very slender evidence.

These were just a few of the issues that I found with the resolution. I am sure that others may find more.
You, on the other hand, have not told me what is so appealing about GAR #8.

OOC: No. That is not how it works. If you want to repeal #8, then the burden of proof is on you to say why it should be repealed, there is no burden on us to prove why it should continue to exist!

Yes, I understand that the roleplaying aspect is fun. However, with my resolution that will replace GAR #8, the roleplaying aspect will not be changed.

OOC: You have not given us any indication of what your #8 replacement would be like. Do you just expect people to believe you have a better replacement without seeing it?

[Unreasonable Nation]

4)The OBM has the authority to ignore or delay requests for office space for weeks at a time. This further degrades the neutrality of the WAHQ and the OBM by granting those nations who can contribute the most in economic and political terms, as well as socially, more power over the day-to-day dealings of the World Assembly.

OOC: Where does it say that this is a thing? You are just making things up again.

This is the resolution in question:
viewtopic.php?p=320#p320

Hereby:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
...
- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;
...

Would it be correct to interpret the answers from Araraukar, Separatist Peoples, Xmara and New California Republic that you don't think any reasonable nation would support repealing GAR #8?

[Araraukar]

Would it be correct to interpret the answers from Araraukar, Separatist Peoples, Xmara and New California Republic that you don't think any reasonable nation would support repealing GAR #8?

OOC: I don't think it has anything to do with reasonable nations. It's more just something for players to use as a basis for the RP. And since the author says they have nothing against the RP, I really don't see what their point is.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Where does it say that this is a thing? You are just making things up again.

This is the resolution in question:
viewtopic.php?p=320#p320

Hereby:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
...
- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;
...

OOC: You misinterpreted my point. The Unifists has taken that line and misinterpreted it as meaning something that it clearly doesn't. I know that line is in #8, but the conclusions that are being drawn from it are nonsensical, that is the point that I was making.

Would it be correct to interpret the answers from Araraukar, Separatist Peoples, Xmara and New California Republic that you don't think any reasonable nation would support repealing GAR #8?

OOC: I cannot speak for anyone else, but I believe that no reasonable nation would support a repeal based on the ridiculous arguments that have been given so far....

[Tzorsland]

I hate to throw ice water on everything but isn't this all really a moot issue? OMB doesn't even have a role play aspect these days or even a physical presence. No one particularly cares whose office is on the 16th floor or whose office is bigger. The great statues that adorned the outside are all completely forgotten. When was the last time we had a conversation about the gnomes or the destructor bunnies that used to be all over the place?

If GAR 8 hasn't been repealed in fact it has been repealed in principle; this style of role playing is long dead in these halls. I don't see it coming back anytime soon.

[Araraukar]

OMB doesn't even have a role play aspect these days or even a physical presence.

OOC: Tell that in IC to Bell and Zakalwe.

When was the last time we had a conversation about the gnomes or the destructor bunnies that used to be all over the place?

Destructor bunnies no, but the gnomes regularly, pretty much whenever committee impartiality has to be explained.

[The Unifists]

I will not submit a repeal. While I maintain that the claims I have made are based in facts and tangible evidence, there is clearly a lack of support for the repeal.
The claim that I support the most, however, is that the WAHQ, and the World Assembly in general, serve as the "playgrounds" of elitists and oligarchs. Unless one started with NationStates when it was first created, or more than five or six years ago, there is no possible way for one to get involved in the World Assembly in an intimate manner. Most nations are only able vote on resolutions. They have no say in what legislation makes it to the table, and even when they are able to propose something, they get shut down by the well-established and dictatorial WA Delegates, the General Secretariat, and those in this forum. This is truly a tyranny of the minority.

[Essu Beti]

OOC: Speaking as a relative newbie compared to everyone else (having only joined NationStates this past May), that’s a bullshit argument. If you want to be taken seriously, all you need to do is demonstrate a willingness to learn how things work.

[The Unifists]

OOC: Speaking as a relative newbie compared to everyone else (having only joined NationStates this past May), that’s a bullshit argument. If you want to be taken seriously, all you need to do is demonstrate a willingness to learn how things work.

Right. And have you submitted any proposals? Any at all? And if you have, have any garnered the necessary votes to constitute a quorum?

[Essu Beti]

OOC: I’m a roleplayer, not a proposal-submitter, so no I haven’t submitted any. I’ve participated in debates, and created a couple of proposal threads (for roleplay purposes), however.

[Willania Imperium]

OOC: Speaking as a relative newbie compared to everyone else (having only joined NationStates this past May), that’s a bullshit argument. If you want to be taken seriously, all you need to do is demonstrate a willingness to learn how things work.

Right. And have you submitted any proposals? Any at all? And if you have, have any garnered the necessary votes to constitute a quorum?

OOC: Speak for yourself. You yourself are less than a week old, yet you act as if you are superior to a member who has been here for more than half a year and has been active in the WA. Why consider yourself better?

[The Unifists]

Right. And have you submitted any proposals? Any at all? And if you have, have any garnered the necessary votes to constitute a quorum?

OOC: Speak for yourself. You yourself are less than a week old, yet you act as if you are superior to a member who has been here for more than half a year and has been active in the WA. Why consider yourself better?

Because I am not just one nation. I am part of an underground group in NationStates called the Anonymist. I recently received the order to make the organization public, and serve as the liaison officer between the Anonymist and the World Assembly. The Anonymist's purpose is to curtail the World Assembly's power, particularly those long-standing Delegates and dictators.

[Willania Imperium]

OOC: Speak for yourself. You yourself are less than a week old, yet you act as if you are superior to a member who has been here for more than half a year and has been active in the WA. Why consider yourself better?

Because I am not just one nation. I am part of an underground group in NationStates called the Anonymist. I recently received the order to make the organization public, and serve as the liaison officer between the Anonymist and the World Assembly. The Anonymist's purpose is to curtail the World Assembly's power, particularly those long-standing Delegates and dictators.

OOC: Alright, this is ridiculous. If you're not going to be serious, then I'm not going to waste my time on you. Just stop this nonsense and tell us what's your real agenda.

[The Unifists]

Because I am not just one nation. I am part of an underground group in NationStates called the Anonymist. I recently received the order to make the organization public, and serve as the liaison officer between the Anonymist and the World Assembly. The Anonymist's purpose is to curtail the World Assembly's power, particularly those long-standing Delegates and dictators.

OOC: Alright, this is ridiculous. If you're not going to be serious, then I'm not going to waste my time on you. Just stop this nonsense and tell us what's your real agenda.

You don't have to believe me. I couldn't care less if you do. But, if you would like, I can post the telegram that I received, word for word. Just know that it contains sensitive material to the Anonymist.

[The Unifists]

Princep Unifists,
By order of the Altum and the Conventus, you are hereby ordered to make the Anonymist public.
You will serve as the Liaison Officer between the Anonymist and the World Assembly. All Anonymist agents and officers may contact you and make themselves know unto you.
Guard their secrets. More to come.
Anonymist Messenger Bot 745