NationStates

Liberimery wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Therefore, according to the Administrative Compliance Act, your nation will be receiving increasingly heavy fines. Also, your contributions will be ignored by almost everyone here, since noncompliance often comes with godmodding.)

OOC: Technically, the resolution gives two years to comply from passage so he is within compliance at time of writing.

(OOC: I forgot about that, though there is no way of knowing what timescale his or her nation is running. This could be a potential repeal argument: the fact that different nation's planets perambulate around their suns at different rates, causing different years.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Liberimery wrote:OOC: Technically, the resolution gives two years to comply from passage so he is within compliance at time of writing.

(OOC: I forgot about that, though there is no way of knowing what timescale his or her nation is running.)

OOC: For sanity's sake, I would say that unless a player states otherwise, assume RL time. So nations won't start being noncompliant with the target until summer 2021.

OOC: GAR#88 says hello.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: GAR#88 says hello.

Hi, GAR#88! What’s happening?!

Liberimery wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: GAR#88 says hello.

Hi, GAR#88! What’s happening?!

OOC: I think it might have been a reply to Kenmoria...

OOC:resubmitted because I was dumb and my API only sent 100 TGs, and its too late to continue the campaigning.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:resubmitted because I was dumb and my API only sent 100 TGs, and its too late to continue the campaigning.

OOC: You should probably withdraw the first one then.

Maowi wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:resubmitted because I was dumb and my API only sent 100 TGs, and its too late to continue the campaigning.

OOC: You should probably withdraw the first one then.

OOC:Whoops, I thought I withdrew it, nevertheless, done.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Araraukar wrote:"Support in the hopes of a proper ban
You should write it yourself, if you can
Might ask the author if they'd be willing
To re-consider their text and helping
If not, take notice of the opposition
As you'll need to change their disposition."

OOC: Blame UM for the rhyming. He encouraged me.

"Unfortunately there will be no proper ban, this is a repeal only effort, the ambassador of CD can write up their own replacement."

Write a replacement.

No replacement, yet you’re going to take the time to demolish their half baked attempt?

Half baked is better than nothing.

If you’re going to repeal something then it’s your moral duty to write a replacement in my eyes. Therefore you shall not see any type of support from me in respect to this bill. Don’t waste a TG campaigning it to me because it’s going straight in the rubbish bin along with all the other junk repeal attempts I’ve seen.

United States of Americanas wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"Unfortunately there will be no proper ban, this is a repeal only effort, the ambassador of CD can write up their own replacement."

Write a replacement.

No replacement, yet you’re going to take the time to demolish their half baked attempt?

Half baked is better than nothing.

If you’re going to repeal something then it’s your moral duty to write a replacement in my eyes. Therefore you shall not see any type of support from me in respect to this bill. Don’t waste a TG campaigning it to me because it’s going straight in the rubbish bin along with all the other junk repeal attempts I’ve seen.

OOC:Except I'm in opposition of the entire concept as private prisons can sometimes be used to reduce tax burdens.

Marxist Germany wrote:

United States of Americanas wrote:
Write a replacement.

No replacement, yet you’re going to take the time to demolish their half baked attempt?

Half baked is better than nothing.

If you’re going to repeal something then it’s your moral duty to write a replacement in my eyes. Therefore you shall not see any type of support from me in respect to this bill. Don’t waste a TG campaigning it to me because it’s going straight in the rubbish bin along with all the other junk repeal attempts I’ve seen.

OOC:Except I'm in opposition of the entire concept as private prisons can sometimes be used to reduce tax burdens.

“You” but we will see how much of the WA is in support of allowing private prisons.

Private prisons still cost taxpayer money.

Better to pay more money for well built rehabilitation centers and reduce the recidivism rate so that we don’t have a revolving door of prisoners.

Private prisons are specifically designed to get as many people crammed into the cells as possible. They want a revolving door and they do everything they can to keep the recidivism rate high.

It is statistically proven that in countries with private prisons the revolving door effect is far higher than in countries with government run rehabilitation centers.

Then don't contract with private suppliers to build and operate such shitty prisons.

OOC: I have a feeling this will miss quorum by a small margin...

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I have a feeling this will miss quorum by a small margin...

OOC:Just try again in six months and do something else inbetween. The delegates do not seem to want to approve it right now.

Old Hope wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I have a feeling this will miss quorum by a small margin...

OOC:Just try again in six months and do something else inbetween. The delegates do not seem to want to approve it right now.

OOC:It was actually my fault, I sent 500 TGs with the wrong link before learning it was wrong, and by the time I did that 1 day had already passed.

OOC:I'll submit this again, but this time without a campaign, we'll see if Kenmoria's campaign on another proposal can help get this to quorum.

OOC: I'm opposed to this both OOC and IC until a proper replacement has been drafted.

Astrobolt wrote:OOC: I'm opposed to this both OOC and IC until a proper replacement has been drafted.

OOC:The resolution basically does nothing, you can write up the replacement yourself as I am against banning private prisons.

Marxist Germany wrote: as I am against banning private prisons.

Why? Farming out prison services creates major issues. This for instance is of major concern.

Wayneactia wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote: as I am against banning private prisons.

Why? Farming out prison services creates major issues. This for instance is of major concern.

OOC:Corruption in the justice system isn't the fault of private prisons, regulating the operation of private prisons is much better than an outright ban.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Further Quoting clause 3 which states "Requires all member states and their political subdivisions, within two calendar years of this resolution's passage and in perpetuity thereafter, to discontinue their use of private prisons for the incarceration of individuals convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences";

Observing that the aforementioned clause does not ban private prisons in member states but instead, allows them to operate as long as they receive criminals convicted in foreign non-member countries;

Concerned that the resolution does not prohibit private prisons in member states but only bars member states from incarcerating their own convicts in them;

OOC: I just realized something, I am not sure this argument is entirely accurate. The resolution Prohibit Private Prisons demands that member states stop using private prisons for the incarceration of people 'convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences'. This resolution does not specify that this only applies to individuals convicted of crimes in the aforementioned member state. Therefore I would argue that anyone convicted of a crime would not be able to be an inmate in a private prison of a WA member state.

Astrobolt wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:

Further Quoting clause 3 which states "Requires all member states and their political subdivisions, within two calendar years of this resolution's passage and in perpetuity thereafter, to discontinue their use of private prisons for the incarceration of individuals convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences";

Observing that the aforementioned clause does not ban private prisons in member states but instead, allows them to operate as long as they receive criminals convicted in foreign non-member countries;

Concerned that the resolution does not prohibit private prisons in member states but only bars member states from incarcerating their own convicts in them;

OOC: I just realized something, I am not sure this argument is entirely accurate. The resolution Prohibit Private Prisons demands that member states stop using private prisons for the incarceration of people 'convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences'. This resolution does not specify that this only applies to individuals convicted of crimes in the aforementioned member state. Therefore I would argue that anyone convicted of a crime would not be able to be an inmate in a private prison of a WA member state.

(OOC: The quote specifically mentions ‘their use’ of private prisons for incarcerating individuals. If a private prison were to house criminals from other countries, then it would be those other nations who would be using the facilities, rather than the member state in question. It’s very much a case of creative compliance, but is supported by a legalistic reading of the legislation.)

Marxist Germany wrote:

Astrobolt wrote:OOC: I'm opposed to this both OOC and IC until a proper replacement has been drafted.

OOC:The resolution basically does nothing, you can write up the replacement yourself as I am against banning private prisons.

Assuming that private prisons have no interest being a charity, for what reason should someone's incarceration generate a profit for a private business and why is that model a better solution than the state executing a punishment, itself, for someone breaking a law that it, itself, imposed?

Aside, how is it a remotely credible statement to say "Believing that this resolution ought to be repealed and replaced by a resolution that properly prohibits private prisons;" when you've stated you have no intention of ever voting for such a proposal, let alone drafting one? If you want to rip up a resolution because you feel it's an over-regulation of capitalist economic models and there should be no replacement, state that. Anything else is declaring wishful thinking that someone at some point will undo the damage you cause.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:The resolution basically does nothing, you can write up the replacement yourself as I am against banning private prisons.

Assuming that private prisons have no interest being a charity, for what reason should someone's incarceration generate a profit for a private business and why is that model a better solution than the state executing a punishment, itself, for someone breaking a law that it, itself, imposed?

Aside, how is it a remotely credible statement to say "Believing that this resolution ought to be repealed and replaced by a resolution that properly prohibits private prisons;" when you've stated you have no intention of ever voting for such a proposal, let alone drafting one? If you want to rip up a resolution because you feel it's an over-regulation of capitalist economic models and there should be no replacement, state that. Anything else is declaring wishful thinking that someone at some point will undo the damage you cause.

OOC:The target resolution is fundamentally flawed, and repealing it wouldn't cause damage, furthermore, you should add arguments from both sides to ensure they support the repeal. Why don't you draft the replacement yourself?

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:The target resolution is fundamentally flawed, and repealing it wouldn't cause damage, furthermore, you should add arguments from both sides to ensure they support the repeal. Why don't you draft the replacement yourself?

At the moment, I'm content with the resolution as written by the right honourable Christian Democrats. If such a repeal as yours happens to be successful, I would surely think about it.

I'm no closer to understanding, however, how a government owning 51% of a prison (making it effectively a public prison with a large investment) is an ownership requirement that doesn't go far enough, but simultaneously you would prefer not there at all. IC, it seems like you would either abide the law and use loophole you describe and be pleased about circumventing its intentions, or repeal the law with the argument that it does the world no good because private prisons are fine.

Since you're submitting the proposal as a case of wanting to correct an oversight in a law that has the right idea, but put the onus on CD or myself or anyone else to draft "the fix" I'm going to call the proposal misleading and the intentions corrupt.