[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tell me when exactly I voted for Auralia's commendation and how I argued his godmodding-style non-compliance was okay in the WALL server.

Also, are WALL deliberations public now or something? How do you expect Ara to check this?

To be clear, re-reading that, I mistyped. WALL deliberations are not public and there is in fact no way to independently confirm the claim I made other than by checking with a different WALL member. My apologies.

However that is, if you believe that I'm the villainous Illuminati behind the curtain and I'm giving a pass to Auralia for non-compliance (which in the light of new evidence, I'm reconsidering), then why does the TNP IFV talk about Auralian non-compliance?

And returning to real life, where I am not an Illuminati puppetmaster, no matter how hard, CCD tries to convince people of that, I will say that TNP does solicit input from GA regulars, especially when talking about GA author commendations. I'm not a fan of god-modded non-compliance, I made my views on that matter known.

Ummm...what am I supposed to do then? Multi for the sake of having another WA nation on my planet, for the sake of your "realism"?

Your RP requires there to be other people playing in it? You can have a lore in which there are other nations without actually creating them or having other people behind them. But more broadly, it doesn't make sense to be a role play WA member in a world (assuming no space travel) without other WA members. You don't get any protections dealing with international issues, you don't get any trade membership benefits, no collective action problem solving, etc. What you get are just costs from following WA resolutions.

In a sensible roleplay environment, not only would a MT nation on a planet with no other nations have never heard of the WA, they would never have joined it. If you think that's unrealistic, I have a Galactic Assembly for you to join.

[Dreadton]

*an intern stops trying to teach the representative how to dab and points to the floor where the debate is happening*

Umm sorry about that. Dreadton sees this bill as a step backwards. We can not support this bill in any form.

[Wallenburg]

Your RP requires there to be other people playing in it? You can have a lore in which there are other nations without actually creating them or having other people behind them. But more broadly, it doesn't make sense to be a role play WA member in a world (assuming no space travel) without other WA members. You don't get any protections dealing with international issues, you don't get any trade membership benefits, no collective action problem solving, etc. What you get are just costs from following WA resolutions.

In a sensible roleplay environment, not only would a MT nation on a planet with no other nations have never heard of the WA, they would never have joined it. If you think that's unrealistic, I have a Galactic Assembly for you to join.

Yeah, sure, and it's super fucking realistic for a MT world to be full of World Assembly nations, when contact with all member states clearly requires FT infrastructure and technology. Give me a break. I'm not going to twist my worldbuilding into an absurd mess of technological nonsense just to satisfy your expectation of so-called "realism".

And yes, RPing on a world with many WA states requires multiple people, because you can only have one WA state per person.

[Kenmoria]

“On another, more minor note, capitalising the second word of the clause in cases where you have used ‘further’ doesn’t look very nice. I recommend capitalising solely the opening word.”

(OOC: Can we try and keep this on-topic, please?)

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Inaction equals quiet acceptance. Every villain knows that.

UM has a realistic conception of the consequences of the ACA.

Which does exactly what to his roleplay? If I said "oh noes so tragic, Araraukar's totally sorry to see all the sanctions", despite not actually including that into my lore, you'd be happy? If you prefer outright lies as diplomacy, can totally do that, but that'd open the door to actual noncompliance without real repercussions (because actual economic sanctions from other WA nations would be the goal, not a consequence) and as I've said time again, that'd mean a lot less creative compliance needed and thus a lot less interesting game OOCly for me.

SP has said multiple times his nation doesn't pay the "involuntary donations" to General Fund - what does ACA do to CDSP? Or does it do nothing because it can't do anything unless the player acknowledges it?

Setting up a secondary market separate from the compliant members of the WA is good realistic roleplay.

...yet doing that with non-WA nations somehow isn't?

If you think there's a no difference between that reasonable action of dealing with consequences ... and pretending that the Compliance Commission is fake news and doesn't exist ... then I'm unconvinced you have any ability to separate good roleplay from the bad.

If you'd prefer the consequences actually being RP'd out, feel free to send me the kind of TG you'd imagine the compliance committee would send to noncompliant members. I'll make the exception and RP in TGs just for you. Because, like, I'm getting interested; what would the sanctions be for not cooperating with the committee, but being in compliance with everything else? Are there degrees of severity or is all or nothing? It's not exactly clearly explained in the relevant resolutions, so want to help me out here and actually RP it out? I promise I'll even translate the Araraukarian replies to English for you. If you want added realism, we can even drag it out all the approximately 26 months it would take to go through Araraukarian bureaucracy. I keep saying the nation is less of a dictatorship than a bureaucracy-ship. And there's probably a fancy word for that.

TNP IFV CCD

I have no idea what any of the regions do or don't do, as I don't do regions. I mostly just do GA forum and write non-regional NS RP outside of the NS site. (Sometimes on the site too.)

But more broadly, it doesn't make sense to be a role play WA member in a world (assuming no space travel) without other WA members. You don't get any protections dealing with international issues, you don't get any trade membership benefits, no collective action problem solving, etc. What you get are just costs from following WA resolutions.

You don't get benefits from being a WA nation, period. You get restrictions and costs.

In a sensible roleplay environment, not only would a MT nation on a planet with no other nations have never heard of the WA, they would never have joined it.

Happily I have actually stated the lore on this on the GA forum multiple times: Araraukar's WA portal is at sea, in a channel between two particular islands, accessible only during high tide. Some time in the past a couple of recreational fishermen got the shock of their lifetime, and once they figured out how to get home, were of course silenced by the state while the weird reality portal was explored, and Araraukar is currently a WA nation because it is a dictatorship and the Leader said to give it a go to see if it'd be good for the nation. It'll remain a WA nation until the Leader says otherwise, too.

PPU currently owns (as part of the "war" between the two nations) a large (think something around Sri Lanka in size) island off the coast of the Araraukarian mainland, and though I can't have two nations in the WA OOCly, is in the WA ICly. It has recently been busy in several different universes and undergoing some personal evolution and all, so it hasn't been around much, but if you'd prefer me to go full-RP with a "properly compliant, where it's not just N/A" WA nation, I can definitely do that. You'd just have to pretend it's actually in the WA. And tolerate "weird RP". Which would you prefer?

(OOC: Can we try and keep this on-topic, please?)

OOC: Has MG shown any interest in actually working on the proposal now that they've gotten us all riled up as a smoke-screen for Auralia's DRM proposal?

[Marxist Germany]

(OOC: Can we try and keep this on-topic, please?)

OOC: Has MG shown any interest in actually working on the proposal now that they've gotten us all riled up as a smoke-screen for Auralia's DRM proposal?

OOC:Yes, I'm actively editing the draft to address kenmoria's concerns and accommodate more pro choice arguments.

[Araraukar]

OOC:Yes, I'm actively editing the draft to address kenmoria's concerns and accommodate more pro choice arguments.

OOC: Ah, the consequtive "further"s being still in it fooled me, as that's such an easy fix that I figured if you were still working on it, you'd have at least done that. EDIT: And because misunderstandings seem to be the theme of the day, I don't mean you're bad at editing your draft or that you HAD TO edit out the repetition, just didn't bother to look closer. Sorry.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Yes, I'm actively editing the draft to address kenmoria's concerns and accommodate more pro choice arguments.

OOC: Ah, the consequtive "further"s being still in it fooled me, as that's such an easy fix that I figured if you were still working on it, you'd have at least done that. EDIT: And because misunderstandings seem to be the theme of the day, I don't mean you're bad at editing your draft or that you HAD TO edit out the repetition, just didn't bother to look closer. Sorry.

OOC:I was busy earlier today, and the draft has been edited now, also scrapped the changelog because I'm too lazy.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: On a legality note, is mentioning the forty-nine repeals drafted here, as is done by one of MG’s clauses, acceptable by the metagaming rule? They were all counted by threads on the forums, which are an OOC construct, but ambassadors there were debating in an IC manner.)

[Marxist Germany]

(OOC: On a legality note, is mentioning the forty-nine repeals drafted here, as is done by one of MG’s clauses, acceptable by the metagaming rule? They were all counted by threads on the forums, which are an OOC construct, but ambassadors there were debating in an IC manner.)

OOC:That would be an interesting and certainly useful ruling.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Ah, the consequtive "further"s being still in it fooled me, as that's such an easy fix that I figured if you were still working on it, you'd have at least done that. EDIT: And because misunderstandings seem to be the theme of the day, I don't mean you're bad at editing your draft or that you HAD TO edit out the repetition, just didn't bother to look closer. Sorry.

OOC:I was busy earlier today, and the draft has been edited now, also scrapped the changelog because I'm too lazy.

You still haven't changed this line: Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, which should be replaced by a better version that addresses the issue properly.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:I was busy earlier today, and the draft has been edited now, also scrapped the changelog because I'm too lazy.

You still haven't changed this line: Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, which should be replaced by a better version that addresses the issue properly.

OOC:This is your lucky day! UM has got a replacement drafted

[The New California Republic]

You still haven't changed this line: Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, which should be replaced by a better version that addresses the issue properly.

OOC:This is your lucky day! UM has got a replacement drafted

That isn't a "better version", but alright.

[Bears Armed]

If you'd prefer the consequences actually being RP'd out, feel free to send me the kind of TG you'd imagine the compliance committee would send to noncompliant members. I'll make the exception and RP in TGs just for you. Because, like, I'm getting interested; what would the sanctions be for not cooperating with the committee, but being in compliance with everything else? Are there degrees of severity or is all or nothing? It's not exactly clearly explained in the relevant resolutions, so want to help me out here and actually RP it out? I promise I'll even translate the Araraukarian replies to English for you. If you want added realism, we can even drag it out all the approximately 26 months it would take to go through Araraukarian bureaucracy. I keep saying the nation is less of a dictatorship than a bureaucracy-ship. And there's probably a fancy word for that.

]This word?

[Araraukar]

This word?

OOC:

Maybe, though I'm fairly sure I've seen some other word for it too. Though reading that page made me want mandarines...

OOC:This is your lucky day! UM has got a replacement drafted

OOC: It's not a replacement, though, as OA and RF wouldn't need to be repealed for it to still work.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: I like how you noncompliant conservatives are willing to prop up a transphobic racist to write a resolution to get rid of women's rights for your benefit. If you want to not follow WA rules, just resign. No one will miss you lot

[Kenmoria]

“One of your stronger arguments, especially from the pro-choice perspective, is the ‘annoyed’ clause. For that reason, I suggest a stronger verb that simply ‘annoyed’.”

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

"How many attempts is this to circumvent women's basic bodily sovereignty now? With the single, possible exception of there already being a draft waiting with even firmer protections for the bodily sovereignty of pregnant people, opposed to any and all attempts to repeal #286."

OOC: Contrary to the OP's earlier assertion that #128 is a somehow sufficient, allowing pregnant people to choose to abort if they've been raped or risk "death or life-long severe disability" as a result of pregnancy (while an excellent first step) extends basic humanity to pregnant people; it doesn't protect their absolute right to bodily sovereignty.

Your strikethough, here, also suggests that -- in the unlikely event this repeal passed -- #128 may be next:

OOC:But why aren't you satisfied by 128 as a "fallback". I think its a good compromise and will finally end the abortion debate.Now if only we can repeal that and...

Completely opposed, both IC and OOC.

[Kenmoria]

"How many attempts is this to circumvent women's basic bodily sovereignty now? With the single, possible exception of there already being a draft waiting with even firmer protections for the bodily sovereignty of pregnant people, opposed to any and all attempts to repeal #286."

“I believe we are now on fifty.”

OOC: Contrary to the OP's earlier assertion that #128 is a somehow sufficient, allowing pregnant people to choose to abort if they've been raped or risk "death or life-long severe disability" as a result of pregnancy (while an excellent first step) extends basic humanity to pregnant people; it doesn't protect their absolute right to bodily sovereignty.

Your strikethough, here, also suggests that -- in the unlikely event this repeal passed -- #128 may be next:

OOC:But why aren't you satisfied by 128 as a "fallback". I think its a good compromise and will finally end the abortion debate.Now if only we can repeal that and...

Completely opposed, both IC and OOC.

(OOC: GA #128 simply won’t be repealed; a repeal couldn’t have enough support to pass. In the event that this repeal does pass, unlikely though that may be, I think the pro-choice delegations will create something even more protective of abortion than 286.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I like how you noncompliant conservatives are willing to prop up a transphobic racist to write a resolution to get rid of women's rights for your benefit. If you want to not follow WA rules, just resign. No one will miss you lot

OOC:I believe your claims of my racism are false, and are totally unrelated to this proposal, keep it on topic.

If it's possible, I would like to know if the further frustrated clause constitutes an honest mistake violation, GenSec.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: I like how you noncompliant conservatives are willing to prop up a transphobic racist to write a resolution to get rid of women's rights for your benefit. If you want to not follow WA rules, just resign. No one will miss you lot

OOC:I believe your claims of my racism are false, and are totally unrelated to this proposal, keep it on topic.

If it's possible, I would like to know if the further frustrated clause constitutes an honest mistake violation, GenSec.

I would also note that after some discussion, MG has evolved somewhat on issues of trans rights, to my knowledge.

[Kenmoria]

“There’s no reason to have two line breaks before the ‘hereby; just one would do fine. Also, if you are bolding the opening words, I recommend also bolding ‘repeals’ in the last line.”

[Marxist Germany]

“There’s no reason to have two line breaks before the ‘hereby; just one would do fine. Also, if you are bolding the opening words, I recommend also bolding ‘repeals’ in the last line.”

"Yes, that has been fixed."

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Bumping this because I need a legality opinion.

[Kenmoria]

“In your aware clause, you shouldn’t have the word ‘only’. 286 does have active clauses, so it demonstrably does something other than cause division.”