NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Conscription Fairness Act

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3385
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:35 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I believe this would fit better under civil rights, rather than international security.)

OOC: Civil Rights is definitely a better fit. For IS, you would have to explain how this would increase military spending -- a preamble clause something along the lines of 'Recognizes that limiting conscription might require increasing military pay noticeably in order to attract more voluntary recruits, or spending more on equipment and training in order to make those personnel that have been enlisted more effective," perhaps --and even then it would be arguable.


OOC: I had previously advised the author via Discord that Int. Sec. and not Civ. Rights was the correct category. I do see that the specific protections for conscripts, and for people who shouldn't be conscripted under any circumstances (accepting arguendo that conscription itself is acceptable), may justify a CR categorization. The strength cannot go beyond Mild, however - it would take an actual ban on conscription to justify more.

To the author: I would strongly advise a title upgrade. You could go for anything from "WA Conscription Regulations" to "Fair Military Draft Rules" to "Conscription Fairness Act" to "Military Compulsion Protocol." "On..." type titles are both denigrated in the GA and not particularly descriptive as to their actual effects. The more you can tell voters what you're doing before they've even read your first paragraph, the more likely they'll vote for your proposal.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena 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
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:31 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:[-]

Thank you for your advice. I like the ring of "Conscription Fairness Act" and will rename the bill accordingly.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:17 am

This proposal has been submitted.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5206
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:31 am

(OOC: Why have you submitted this? It hasn’t been active for that long, and there is still a lot of feedback that can be given.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8921
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:47 pm

Your lists aren't set up properly. I would recommend fixing it before submission.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:55 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your lists aren't set up properly. I would recommend fixing it before submission.

Too late as of now, but which ones for future reference?
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8921
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:10 pm

Preamble clauses end with commas. Enacting clauses and list introduction clauses end with colons. Operative clauses end with semi-colons. Lists inside operative clauses end with commas. The resolution itself ends with a full stop.

The word "and" should be introduced where grammatically required to make it a list (e.g. blah, blah, and blah).

Also, the bolding is totally unnecessary.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 434
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby East Meranopirus » Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:32 pm

Inhorto wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your lists aren't set up properly. I would recommend fixing it before submission.

Too late as of now, but which ones for future reference?

I would suggest just withdrawing it, at this rate it's not going to get anywhere near quorum.
Elusively never IC in the WA forums. Also author of (probably soon to be repealed) GA Resolution #464

Co-Founder of The Democratic Union

Representing the Social Democratic Party as Albin Lundberg in NS Parliament. Fight for freedom, equality, and prosperity for the people!

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13779
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:30 pm

OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 434
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby East Meranopirus » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:42 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.

I think clause 7 is quite clear on this:
CLARIFIES that this resolution does not apply to those who have voluntarily enlisted into their national armed forces or militia(s).
Elusively never IC in the WA forums. Also author of (probably soon to be repealed) GA Resolution #464

Co-Founder of The Democratic Union

Representing the Social Democratic Party as Albin Lundberg in NS Parliament. Fight for freedom, equality, and prosperity for the people!

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 628
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Maowi » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:30 am

OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.

South Pacific
WA Minister
Customs Minister
Ambassador to Thaecia

Europeia
Minister of Communications
Deputy Councillor of World Assembly Affairs
Former Deputy Minister of Recruitment (Partial term)
Order of the Sapphire Star
Golden Pen

Author of GAR #457

Factbooks
Sloths
...That's it.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14158
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:36 am

Against. The Havenic government disagrees with conscription in all circumstances, and feels that a resolution prohibiting conscription would be more appropriate.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18623
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:51 am

Maowi wrote:OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.
OOC
Even if that friendly land is a foreign country, and this release might leave the ship without the crew necessary for getting it back home?
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 628
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Maowi » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:16 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Maowi wrote:OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.
OOC
Even if that friendly land is a foreign country, and this release might leave the ship without the crew necessary for getting it back home?


OOC: OK, make that just home land ... I just wanted to bring to attention the fact that that clause was opening up a loophole for member nations to keep people in the army against their will indefinitely. The way it reads to me, it could be interpreted very literally as saying that if after four years the conscripted person is at sea and unable to reach safe land, they can be kept in the army for any lengthbof time after that.

South Pacific
WA Minister
Customs Minister
Ambassador to Thaecia

Europeia
Minister of Communications
Deputy Councillor of World Assembly Affairs
Former Deputy Minister of Recruitment (Partial term)
Order of the Sapphire Star
Golden Pen

Author of GAR #457

Factbooks
Sloths
...That's it.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5206
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:30 am

“‘Members’ should be ‘member states’ or ‘member nations’, and there isn’t a need for capitalisation. Also, since this could happen in some states, you might want to expand the naval exception to a space exception as well.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:05 am

I withdrew the proposal.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Preamble clauses end with commas. Enacting clauses and list introduction clauses end with colons. Operative clauses end with semi-colons. Lists inside operative clauses end with commas. The resolution itself ends with a full stop.

The word "and" should be introduced where grammatically required to make it a list (e.g. blah, blah, and blah).

Also, the bolding is totally unnecessary.

I formatted most of my paper based on GAR 1. Resolutions from the UN seem to corroborate what you are saying, so I shall edit accordingly.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.

No. Nothing in this resolution applies to persons who voluntarily enlist as per Clause 7. It is up to the nation to set its own laws on who can or cannot voluntarily enlist.

Maowi wrote:OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.

I will make it read native land as per your most recent comment.

Kenmoria wrote:“‘Members’ should be ‘member states’ or ‘member nations’, and there isn’t a need for capitalisation. Also, since this could happen in some states, you might want to expand the naval exception to a space exception as well.”

Separatist Peoples capitalized "Member(s)" in his edits. I thought this was odd, so I looked through UN resolutions and they capitalize "Members" as well.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18120
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:55 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Against. The Havenic government disagrees with conscription in all circumstances, and feels that a resolution prohibiting conscription would be more appropriate.

“I don’t like it, so Ban It! for everybody!” is such a quaint argument.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13779
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:51 pm

Inhorto wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.

No. Nothing in this resolution applies to persons who voluntarily enlist as per Clause 7. It is up to the nation to set its own laws on who can or cannot voluntarily enlist.

OOC: Are you seriously trying to enable child soldiers?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8921
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:37 pm

How exactly are you connecting from "this proposal doesn't talk about who can or cannot voluntarily enlist" to "YOu RecRuIT ChILD SolDIeRs"? This is absurd. (1) The proposal doesn't talk about child soldiers, (2) it doesn't give authority to governments to create enlistment regulations, and (3) even if it did, giving a nation that authority isn't absolute and would not also magically contradict GA 4.

This exact sort of absurd contradiction claim came up after the conclusion of voting on Debtor Voting Rights. Somehow, people started conflating "debtors cannot be barred from voting by virtue of their debts" with "debtors cannot be barred from voting ever".
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:05 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Inhorto wrote:No. Nothing in this resolution applies to persons who voluntarily enlist as per Clause 7. It is up to the nation to set its own laws on who can or cannot voluntarily enlist.

OOC: Are you seriously trying to enable child soldiers?

To reiterate what Imperium Anglorum has already said, nothing in THIS proposal applies to those who voluntarily enlist. All this means is that the proposal at hand does not comment on the issue. It is neither an endorsement for or a admonishment against; all it is saying is that the present statutes do not apply to a certain category, that's it. Furthermore, child soldiery is explicitly prohibited by GAR #4 (see highlighted section).
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Union of Sovereign States and Republics
Envoy
 
Posts: 315
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:14 pm

Shouldn't "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of a citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war" be "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war"?

Anyway, good issue. I really like it!

(It's kinda ironic that an issue with Conscription in the title has [DRAFT] in the thread name. :P)
Current IC Year: 2003
The Union of Sovereign States and Republics; USSR WE'RE NOT COMMUNISTS, DAMMIT!
In 1991, a plane carrying would-be conspirators of an armed coup crashed in the Crimean Peninsula. Without the coup, the Union of Sovereign States treaty was signed; and the USSR survived...
Current Ruling Party: Social Democratic Party of the Soviet Union (Alexander Lebedev)
News: USSR Joins the EU
[SCHEDULE: News Changed 3-5 PM EST]


User avatar
Inhorto
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Jun 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Inhorto » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:32 am

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:Shouldn't "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of a citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war" be "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war"?

Anyway, good issue. I really like it!

(It's kinda ironic that an issue with Conscription in the title has [DRAFT] in the thread name. :P)

(That is kind of ironic :))
On the grammatical note, I believe that the definite article must be complemented by another definite article, i.e. "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend the nation..."

Since we are speaking in general terms, I believe that the indefinite article works best here. If anyone else disagrees, I will change the wording.
conlanger | bibliophile | Potterhead | NS Parliament: Eloise Eliasson of the NPP

"Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." — Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Union of Sovereign States and Republics
Envoy
 
Posts: 315
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:33 am

Inhorto wrote:
Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:Shouldn't "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of a citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war" be "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war"?

Anyway, good issue. I really like it!

(It's kinda ironic that an issue with Conscription in the title has [DRAFT] in the thread name. :P)

(That is kind of ironic :))
On the grammatical note, I believe that the definite article must be complemented by another definite article, i.e. "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend the nation..."

Since we are speaking in general terms, I believe that the indefinite article works best here. If anyone else disagrees, I will change the wording.

Ah, that makes more sense.

I tried 3 times to make that post work, and it kept exiting my page...
Current IC Year: 2003
The Union of Sovereign States and Republics; USSR WE'RE NOT COMMUNISTS, DAMMIT!
In 1991, a plane carrying would-be conspirators of an armed coup crashed in the Crimean Peninsula. Without the coup, the Union of Sovereign States treaty was signed; and the USSR survived...
Current Ruling Party: Social Democratic Party of the Soviet Union (Alexander Lebedev)
News: USSR Joins the EU
[SCHEDULE: News Changed 3-5 PM EST]


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13779
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:34 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:How exactly are you connecting from "this proposal doesn't talk about who can or cannot voluntarily enlist" to "YOu RecRuIT ChILD SolDIeRs"? This is absurd.

OOC: And that's why I didn't actually say that. I asked if the author meant that this particular proposal doesn't mind you letting children enlist as soldiers voluntarily - if, say, for some reason the resolutions (workplace safety combined with the child labour ban and child abuse ones would likely be involved too) banning child soldiers were repealed?

(2) it doesn't give authority to governments to create enlistment regulations,

Except that's exactly what the author said it's supposed to do.

Perhaps you or author can tell me if clause 4 means that if the war lasts longer than 4 years, you can't have the soldiers/sailors serving for the duration of the war, but instead a completely arbitrarily decided 4 years?

Oh and does clause 5 ban "rehearsal drills"? I can't dig out the English term from my memory right now, but like, say you are conscripted right out of school, serve your time, go home, have a life, and when you turn 35, you're asked to come back for a couple of weeks to rehearse the skills you learned during your original year(s) of service. The point being that if a war does break out, your soldiering skills will be more up to date than as forgotten as what was the capital of Zaire (which, I know, doesn't exist under that name anymore).
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Cossack Khanate
Diplomat
 
Posts: 601
Founded: May 09, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Cossack Khanate » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:36 am

OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

Otherwise, this proposal is very interesting and, I think, non-partisan. Commendable.
The Holy Decreeist Empire of Cossack Khanate
We don’t use NS Stats, to do so would be ridiculous. You also can’t check my factbooks...because they are in Google Docs. Tee hee
Council of Free Market Economies ,ReArk Armaments (WIP)
A proud member of the regions Cornellia (IC) and Farkasfalka (OOC).
Proud Monarch of the ♔♚IMPERION COALITION♚♔
Me in not so much of nutshell: The Nutshell

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kenmoria

Advertisement

Remove ads