Page 1 of 1
[Draft] Repeal of "Rights and duties of WA states"
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:41 pmby Ramprage
Acknowledges rules are needed in WA to keep it progressive and functioning.
Pleased by resolution's good intentions to secure stability in WA.
Disgusted by format of the resolution which breaks laws of resolution formatting.
Notices several usage of "I" and "We" in the resolution which must be taken as branding. Also mention of the "NationStates".
1.) Even single usage of branding must render every WA draft/resolution illegal.
Shocked how clauses of the resolution contradict current actuality. While it says that WA will not denounce armed conflicts, World Assembly's condemnations are often justified by the accused's warmongering.
States new and improved resolution is needed to sustain the stabilty in WA, but resolution that violates several rules of the organization must not continue to exist as an international law.
World Assembly hereby repeals "Rights and Duties of WA states"
OOC: It probably will be criticized to hell and not be accepted, but face the truth. That resolution breaks soooo many laws, for that even waaaaaaaay better draft/resolution would be cast of as illegal.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:44 pmby Marxist Germany
OOC:That resolution was passed before any of those rules existed, also this is illegal for meta gaming (mention of security council) and honest mistake
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:47 pmby Ramprage
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:That resolution was passed before any of those rules existed, also this is illegal for meta gaming (mention of security council) and honest mistake
OOC: Yea ik it has been passed before the rules were created but it is inadequate to brand it as a passed resolution and put it alongside other arguably better international laws.
Can Security Council be mention like this: "Security Council" or just remove it?
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:48 pmby The New Nordic Union
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:That resolution was passed before any of those rules existed, also this is illegal for meta gaming (mention of security council) and honest mistake
OOC: Also, all passed resolutions are legal by virtue of passing alone; illegality is no grounds for repeal.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:51 pmby Ramprage
The New Nordic Union wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:That resolution was passed before any of those rules existed, also this is illegal for meta gaming (mention of security council) and honest mistake
OOC: Also, all passed resolutions are legal by virtue of passing alone; illegality is no grounds for repeal.
OOC: I think it should be repealed and then changed by the resolution which breaks no rules, have better formatting and better clauses.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:53 pmby Kenmoria
(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. Unfortunately, your proposal is illegal for a few reasons. Firstly, it is assumed that all passed resolutions are legal by default, so illegality cannot be used as an argument in a repeal. Secondly, as has been mentioned, you cannot mention the SC in any way whatsoever. Also, you can’t mention ‘NationStates’, since that is metagaming.)
“GA #002 is a landmark piece of legislation, and one that many authors, some of which had previously passed resolutions, have tried to repeal. However, it is so old and important that I don’t think anyone can succeed, especially on a first attempt.”
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:59 pmby Ramprage
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. Unfortunately, your proposal is illegal for a few reasons. Firstly, it is assumed that all passed resolutions are legal by default, so illegality cannot be used as an argument in a repeal. Secondly, as has been mentioned, you cannot mention the SC in any way whatsoever. Also, you can’t mention ‘NationStates’, since that is metagaming.)
“GA #002 is a landmark piece of legislation, and one that many authors, some of which had previously passed resolutions, have tried to repeal. However, it is so old and important that I don’t think anyone can succeed, especially on a first attempt.”
OOC: not my first attempted repeal(even tho it was other GA resolution), using puppet nation for several reasons. Isn't every argument legal as long as it convinces people? And Nationstates is mentioned here, because over and over again it is mentioned in that resolution and i am stating the fact. Can i make it like: "Resolution uses several times 'NationStates', thou it's role for the purpose of the resolution is unknown.
"Historical resolutions will always stay in archive as one of our GA resolution commands, future generations will be free to see it, but it doesn't justify reason to keep it as an acting law"
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:08 pmby The New Nordic Union
Ramprage wrote:OOC: not my first attempted repeal(even tho it was other GA resolution), using puppet nation for several reasons. Isn't every argument legal as long as it convinces people? And Nationstates is mentioned here, because over and over again it is mentioned in that resolution and i am stating the fact. Can i make it like: "Resolution uses several times 'NationStates', thou it's role for the purpose of the resolution is unknown.
"Historical resolutions will always stay in archive as one of our GA resolution commands, future generations will be free to see it, but it doesn't justify reason to keep it as an acting law"
OOC: No, there are rules to be followed for repeals, as well. Not every argument is legal. Also, stating the fact that the target resolutions mentions The Game amounts to 'the target resolution was illegal', which, as has been stated multiple times, is no base for repeal.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:09 pmby Kenmoria
Ramprage wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. Unfortunately, your proposal is illegal for a few reasons. Firstly, it is assumed that all passed resolutions are legal by default, so illegality cannot be used as an argument in a repeal. Secondly, as has been mentioned, you cannot mention the SC in any way whatsoever. Also, you can’t mention ‘NationStates’, since that is metagaming.)
“GA #002 is a landmark piece of legislation, and one that many authors, some of which had previously passed resolutions, have tried to repeal. However, it is so old and important that I don’t think anyone can succeed, especially on a first attempt.”
OOC: not my first attempted repeal(even tho it was other GA resolution), using puppet nation for several reasons. Isn't every argument legal as long as it convinces people? And Nationstates is mentioned here, because over and over again it is mentioned in that resolution and i am stating the fact. Can i make it like: "Resolution uses several times 'NationStates', thou it's role for the purpose of the resolution is unknown.
"Historical resolutions will always stay in archive as one of our GA resolution commands, future generations will be free to see it, but it doesn't justify reason to keep it as an acting law"
(OOC: No, there are lots of rules about what can and can’t be in a repeal. I believe that stating that the target uses ‘NationStates’ at all would be considered illegal, no matter what the phrasing. Besides, illegality is assumed to not apply to any passed resolutions, and it is in fact illegal to state otherwise, so you don’t have much substance either way.)
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:53 pmby Separatist Peoples
OOC: The fourth argument implicates the Branding rule, and wouldn't be legal.
OP, I appreciate your responsiveness and your dislike of GAR#2. I share your concerns with it. However, I do not think your repeal theory is likely to succeed. I recommend cutting your teeth on a different proposal to repeal.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:08 pmby Widowed Land
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The fourth argument implicates the Branding rule, and wouldn't be legal.
OP, I appreciate your responsiveness and your dislike of GAR#2. I share your concerns with it. However, I do not think your repeal theory is likely to succeed. I recommend cutting your teeth on a different proposal to repeal.
OOC: Author says that he(or she) doesn't think that it will pass through. I believe there's same repeal proposed right now. But it was rendered illegal because of branding and metagaming(and tons of other broken law.) Oh and I agree with this repeal, cause.... well common sense.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:19 pmby Separatist Peoples
Widowed Land wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The fourth argument implicates the Branding rule, and wouldn't be legal.
OP, I appreciate your responsiveness and your dislike of GAR#2. I share your concerns with it. However, I do not think your repeal theory is likely to succeed. I recommend cutting your teeth on a different proposal to repeal.
OOC: Author says that he(or she) doesn't think that it will pass through. I believe there's same repeal proposed right now. But it was rendered illegal because of branding and metagaming(and tons of other broken law.) Oh and I agree with this repeal, cause.... well common sense.
OOC: You shouldn't submit something you know is doomed. It wastes everybody's time and gums up the queue with garbage. That goes for OP and you.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:29 pmby Widowed Land
Separatist Peoples wrote:Widowed Land wrote:OOC: Author says that he(or she) doesn't think that it will pass through. I believe there's same repeal proposed right now. But it was rendered illegal because of branding and metagaming(and tons of other broken law.) Oh and I agree with this repeal, cause.... well common sense.
OOC: You shouldn't submit something you know is doomed. It wastes everybody's time and gums up the queue with garbage. That goes for OP and you.
OOC: you in the first place cannot speak of the garbage. And mind your own business.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:43 pmby Araraukar
Widowed Land wrote:OOC: you in the first place cannot speak of the garbage. And mind your own business.
OOC: Are you intentionally creating this image of yourself as a petulant teen?
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:46 pmby Separatist Peoples
Widowed Land wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: You shouldn't submit something you know is doomed. It wastes everybody's time and gums up the queue with garbage. That goes for OP and you.
OOC: you in the first place cannot speak of the garbage. And mind your own business.
OOC: Can. Am. I've seen probably thousands of drafts. I am eminently qualified to judge them as garbage.
No.
Posted:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:10 pmby Widowed Land
Separatist Peoples wrote:Widowed Land wrote:OOC: you in the first place cannot speak of the garbage. And mind your own business.
OOC: Can. Am. I've seen probably thousands of drafts. I am eminently qualified to judge them as garbage.
No.
OOC: omg, it was you? sorry, i thought it was other nation, which i don't like much. Not sleeping didn't do much good. Sorry again, it wasn't for you.
Posted:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:06 amby Marxist Germany
Widowed Land wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Can. Am. I've seen probably thousands of drafts. I am eminently qualified to judge them as garbage.
No.
OOC: omg, it was you? sorry, i thought it was other nation, which i don't like much. Not sleeping didn't do much good. Sorry again, it wasn't for you.
OOC:Excuses.
Posted:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:08 amby Separatist Peoples
Widowed Land wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Can. Am. I've seen probably thousands of drafts. I am eminently qualified to judge them as garbage.
No.
OOC: omg, it was you? sorry, i thought it was other nation, which i don't like much. Not sleeping didn't do much good. Sorry again, it wasn't for you.
OOC: Mistakes happen, dont worry about it.
Posted:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:11 amby Widowed Land
Marxist Germany wrote:Widowed Land wrote:OOC: omg, it was you? sorry, i thought it was other nation, which i don't like much. Not sleeping didn't do much good. Sorry again, it wasn't for you.
OOC:Excuses.
OOc: not excuses, it was meant for you.
Posted:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:42 amby Frisbeeteria
Widowed Land wrote:OOc: not excuses, it was meant for you.
Knock it off with the puppetwanking and semi-flaming before I have to take official notice, Ramprage / Widowed Land.
Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Moderator