NationStates

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:25 pm**

OOC: Can promise this will be stomped. Not the least of which is because I will actively campaign to see it done.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:34 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Can promise this will be stomped. Not the least of which is because I will actively campaign to see it done.

"I regret our inability to reach a consensus, and I respect, though do not agree with, your viewpoint and decision. Thank you for your consideration of my repeal proposal and best of luck"

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:19 pm**

Gebietersland wrote:"I regret our inability to reach a consensus, and I respect, though do not agree with, your viewpoint and decision. Thank you for your consideration of my repeal proposal and best of luck"

IC: "Consensus on this topic has been reached very many times already, ambassador, and always it comes down to "we don't want this resolution repealed". Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean the consensus had not been reached by the majority."

Gebietersland wrote:if "those people" refers to

OOC: You objected to "you people". Also, I checked, the last credible attempt that had the best chance of success, on this repeal, received 82.7% against. Most often they don't event get to vote, because they're aggressively campaigned against by people who don't want the abortion debate to invade GA again.

"You people" and "those people" in this particular case are the ones who futilely hit their heads against a wall in the belief that the wall will cave in before their head does. And who thus get profiled by the rest of the WA as people who encourage denying the right to bodily from half the species (nevermind that the other half is needed for there to be a pregnancy in the first place). That will hurt your credibility on any other project as well.

If you truly want to make things work for you in GA, then for the love of little green dragons, don't bang your head against this wall. The wall will win.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:17 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Gebietersland wrote:"I regret our inability to reach a consensus, and I respect, though do not agree with, your viewpoint and decision. Thank you for your consideration of my repeal proposal and best of luck"

IC: "Consensus on this topic has been reached very many times already, ambassador, and always it comes down to "we don't want this resolution repealed". Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean the consensus had not been reached by the majority."

Gebietersland wrote:if "those people" refers to

OOC: You objected to "you people". Also, I checked, the last credible attempt that had the best chance of success, on this repeal, received 82.7% against. Most often they don't event get to vote, because they're aggressively campaigned against by people who don't want the abortion debate to invade GA again.

"You people" and "those people" in this particular case are the ones who futilely hit their heads against a wall in the belief that the wall will cave in before their head does. And who thus get profiled by the rest of the WA as people who encourage denying the right to bodily from half the species (never mind that the other half is needed for there to be a pregnancy in the first place). That will hurt your credibility on any other project as well.

If you truly want to make things work for you in GA, then for the love of little green dragons, don't bang your head against this wall. The wall will win.

"I didn't object to you people, I simply wondered if it was meant to be derogatory. Now that you've explained what constitutes you people, I am aware of the phrase's meaning; thank you for that. Furthermore, your statistics on previous repeals and mention of the aggressive lobby are highly useful; I will consider abandoning the proposal. However, the 82.7% against was of a resolution put through a vote around 2 years ago, so general demographics might have changed, especially considering the steady uptick in repeal reproductive freedoms proposals from newer members, but that is overshadowed when considering that the well-established lobby against this repeal, evidently, remains very powerful. I will discuss this with my constituents and allies. I do agree with your point regarding the effect of this proposal on my reputation. I'll make a decision by tomorrow."

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:24 pm**

Gebietersland wrote:However, the 82.7% against was of a resolution put through a vote around 2 years ago, so general demographics might have changed

OOC: When the resolution originally passed, it only got like 68% for. That means that it gained 14% more of the voters in 3 years (when that repeal failed). I doubt it has magically lost over 30% in the last 2. Given the rise of gender equality in marriages and all similar advancements in people's rights and freedoms in the recent years, I really can't see the vote going any other way now either. Not even when the trolls come out of the woodworks with NS Summer.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:40 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Gebietersland wrote:However, the 82.7% against was of a resolution put through a vote around 2 years ago, so general demographics might have changed

OOC: When the resolution originally passed, it only got like 68% for. That means that it gained 14% more of the voters in 3 years (when that repeal failed). I doubt it has magically lost over 30% in the last 2. Given the rise of gender equality in marriages and all similar advancements in people's rights and freedoms in the recent years, I really can't see the vote going any other way now either. Not even when the trolls come out of the woodworks with NS Summer.

OOC: Point taken. And given that the level of support/dissent for abortion has remained virtually constant for the past 20 years in most European and American nations, that point is most likely true. I also looked up what NS Summer was, and am still a bit incredulous, though not surprised, that something like this occurs. So yeah, I'll probably end up abandoning this, so if anyone want to use this resolution in full or in part, go ahead, but I'm probably going to confer with constituents and, subsequently, retract from this issue and salvage what's left of my reputation.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:49 pm**

Gebietersland wrote:and, subsequently, retract from this issue and salvage what's left of my reputation.

OOC: Stick around. You have potential.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:08 pm**

Your reputation is not in need of salvaging. It takes quite a deal of boneheadedness and malice to get oneself hated through the community.

On the other hand, you will get a lot of snark. Snark is free for everyone and we've got oceans of it to give away.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:09 pm**

I'd vote for it if it used less wedge issue based language.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:24 pm**

Volkenreich wrote:I'd vote for it if it used less wedge issue based language.

Do you mean that I should tone down the language and use a more moderated vocabulary?

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:37 pm**

Gebietersland wrote:
Volkenreich wrote:I'd vote for it if it used less wedge issue based language.

Do you mean that I should tone down the language and use a more moderated vocabulary?

(OOC: Some repeal resolutions and proposals have had much more ‘wedge’ vocabulary; this looks quite mild in comparison.

Araraukar wrote:
Gebietersland wrote:and, subsequently, retract from this issue and salvage what's left of my reputation.

OOC: Stick around. You have potential.

Also, I completely agree with this. Your first proposal was legal and actually looked like a law, which is a lot better than some others. If you have a different target, you could be successful.)

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 6:57 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Gebietersland wrote:
Do you mean that I should tone down the language and use a more moderated vocabulary?

(OOC: Some repeal resolutions and proposals have had much more ‘wedge’ vocabulary; this looks quite mild in comparison.
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Stick around. You have potential.

Also, I completely agree with this. Your first proposal was legal and actually looked like a law, which is a lot better than some others. If you have a different target, you could be successful.)

Thank you for the kind words; I'll definitely be staying and pursuing other forms of legislation.

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 8:05 am**

"We are disappointed that you had to abandon this proposal, and we will continue our opposition to abortion, nevertheless."

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 12:30 pm**

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
<snip for brevity>

Tinfect wrote:There is no compromise. A compromise to you people, is only ruining some people's lives, and I will not have it. There is no 'moderate majority' on this; the very idea is laughable.

Cool your jets there. Thread OP has been firmly RPing unless they clearly note otherwise, and you come barreling in with firmly OOC outrage. Your increasingly incendiary behavior over the past year, particularly with regards to the GA forum has been becoming a point of concern for moderation. Yes, I understand topics like abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and so on are a touchy subject, but please, repeat to yourself "This is just a game, I should really just relax." and take a step back before you go flying off the handle hard enough that moderation has to intervene.

Somebody can ICly play "the bad guy" without actually OOCly supporting what their in-character actions claim. Please remember that, and save the OOC outrage for over in NSG.

NationStates

[Abandoned] Repeal: "Reproductive Freedoms"

Vocabulary Structuring