Abandoned

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:38 pm

Doctis Rebus wrote:The same could be said about the Vienna Convention; diplomatic immunity was basically already there before it

OOC: The Vienna Convention involves far, far more than just codifying diplomatic immunity. That is but one part. That is not the case here. Try again?

by **Doctis Rebus** » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:01 pm

That doesn’t take away from the fact that part of it was codifying what was already there. So what I’m gathering from this is that the proposal is legal but it probably won’t be popular...

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:02 pm

Doctis Rebus wrote:That doesn’t take away from the fact that part of it was codifying what was already there. So what I’m gathering from this is that the proposal is legal but it probably won’t be popular...

OOC: That is what I said. If you can't grasp the difference...well, that isn't on me.

Its extremely unpopular, from the feedback you've received.

by **Doctis Rebus** » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:04 pm

OOC: I might as well give up... and find something better to write about

by **Gig em Aggies** » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:05 pm

Doctis Rebus wrote:That doesn’t take away from the fact that part of it was codifying what was already there. So what I’m gathering from this is that the proposal is legal but it probably won’t be popular...

no from what we gathered as members of the NS for many years as well as some high ranking peeps in the WA have stated several of your things in the bill are unenforceable therefore it is not legal you keep trying to spin our comments to try and make it seem were approving your bill after tweaks but as of now your bill wont get enough votes to even get close to the floor of the WA. so best bet is to trash and start from scratch w/o copying from other GA bills that have already passed.

by **Araraukar** » Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:22 pm

Doctis Rebus wrote:OOC: I might as well give up... and find something better to write about

OOC: For future reference, deleting your proposal from the first post after it has received negative comments is considered to be childish and very poor manners here, being on the level of a kid throwing a temper tantrum in a shop when a parent tells them they can't have a chocolate bar.

by **Doctis Rebus** » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:26 am

OOC: That was not my intention: if a bill has no support why should I continue prattling on about it?

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:47 am

Doctis Rebus wrote:OOC: That was not my intention: if a bill has no support why should I continue prattling on about it?

OOC: It's the erasure, not the abandonment, that is poor form. "You don't like my idea? Well, nobody's ever gonna be able to look at why!" Abandonment of an unworkable idea is just par for the course and most everyone who has written for the GA has some drafts that didn't go anywhere.

by **Hatzisland** » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:35 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Doctis Rebus wrote:OOC: That was not my intention: if a bill has no support why should I continue prattling on about it?

OOC: It's the erasure, not the abandonment, that is poor form. "You don't like my idea? Well, nobody's ever gonna be able to look at why!" Abandonment of an unworkable idea is just par for the course and most everyone who has written for the GA has some drafts that didn't go anywhere.

I agree. When I abandon a proposal, I put it on the title, and say that the thread has been abandoned(I also have said people could copy and paste it if they want and fight that fight, as long as they list me as co-author. Using someone else's proposal without written permission is prohibited.)

Abandoned

Who is online