[DEFEATED] Don't Shoot Strangers Act

[Gastash]

"Why can weapons only be fired? Under this proposal, if an individual from a nation that has not yet been met by the home nation starts stabbing civilians outside of the home nation's territory, there is nothing the home nation can do in response. The proposal seems to assume that all weapons are firearms or something similar."

Well, under that logic the home nation can stab back.

Also, after the stab-fight is resolved the home nation can counterattack as it pleases, as it would no longer be the first encounter.

[Morover]

"Why can weapons only be fired? Under this proposal, if an individual from a nation that has not yet been met by the home nation starts stabbing civilians outside of the home nation's territory, there is nothing the home nation can do in response. The proposal seems to assume that all weapons are firearms or something similar."

Well, under that logic the home nation can stab back.

Also, after the stab-fight is resolved the home nation can counterattack as it pleases, as it would no longer be the first encounter.

"I agree, by logic the home nation should be able to stab back. But obviously, this proposal didn't take that logic into account. With such a massive hole in the proposal, it's no longer a loophole - it's just an oversight. Additionally, by the definition supplied by this proposal, the initial meeting can be an indefinite amount of time. This could make my hypothetical stabbing fight a much larger event than needed."

[Gastash]

I actually did consider the possibility of an all-melee strike force, but not only is such a force extremely ineffective without at least one bow and arrow, the attackers would need to be right next to you in order to do any damage - likely fulfilling one of the other definitions of act of hostility.

And it's an extremely niche hypothetical, not a massive loophole.

[Morover]

I actually did consider the possibility of an all-melee strike force, but not only is such a force extremely ineffective without at least one bow and arrow, the attackers would need to be right next to you in order to do any damage - likely fulfilling one of the other definitions of act of hostility.

And it's an extremely niche hypothetical, not a massive loophole.

"What about pirates who specifically try and exploit this oversight? They don't need to be within the home nation's territory to do so. It may be niche, but I think you'd find people taking advantage of it nonetheless."

[Gastash]

I actually did consider the possibility of an all-melee strike force, but not only is such a force extremely ineffective without at least one bow and arrow, the attackers would need to be right next to you in order to do any damage - likely fulfilling one of the other definitions of act of hostility.

And it's an extremely niche hypothetical, not a massive loophole.

"What about pirates who specifically try and exploit this oversight? They don't need to be within the home nation's territory to do so. It may be niche, but I think you'd find people taking advantage of it nonetheless."

I guess it'll be one of the things I fix in the redraft.

[Kaiserholt]

I actually did consider the possibility of an all-melee strike force, but not only is such a force extremely ineffective without at least one bow and arrow, the attackers would need to be right next to you in order to do any damage - likely fulfilling one of the other definitions of act of hostility.

And it's an extremely niche hypothetical, not a massive loophole.

Please don’t clear the loopholes, the MSR’s black market lobby is very approving of this current proposal as written.

[Bears Armed]

I actually did consider the possibility of an all-melee strike force, but not only is such a force extremely ineffective without at least one bow and arrow, the attackers would need to be right next to you in order to do any damage - likely fulfilling one of the other definitions of act of hostility.

And it's an extremely niche hypothetical, not a massive loophole.

"What about pirates who specifically try and exploit this oversight? They don't need to be within the home nation's territory to do so. It may be niche, but I think you'd find people taking advantage of it nonetheless."

Dealing with pirates like that is already covered by GA Resolution #20.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Just a question, does contact between Byzantium and Greece, and the Ottomans mean that Greece invading Turkey in the Turkish war of independence is prohibited under this? What about the invasion of Israel the very day it gained independence by all of its neighbours?

OOC: Response?

[PotatoFarmers]

Firstly, noting the clause highlighted in red, if more than 3 parties, including our people, meet together in uncharted territories for the first time, and one of the other party opens fire on us, wouldn't it give us permission to open fire on all other parties since the other bystander parties are technically an act of hostility has been committed by "any other parties involved"?

That is correct, although it is unlikely you'd find the time to shoot bystanders while another party is attacking you.

"So we found the loophole! It doesn't hurt you to fire on everyone else and use it as a casus belli to stomp on everyone if you have a large military and have an imperialist policy to overrun everyone. This does not solve a problem at hand for countries not to start war randomly, they just need to find a reason to."

"Besides, how would you deal with situations where it is first contact with one party but not another in a three-day meeting? The proposal is unclear in that sense, you see?"

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Just a question, does contact between Byzantium and Greece, and the Ottomans mean that Greece invading Turkey in the Turkish war of independence is prohibited under this? What about the invasion of Israel the very day it gained independence by all of its neighbours?

OOC: Response?

(OOC: It would be up to interpretation, since that depends on whether successor states count as the original for the purposes of a meeting. Personally, I would rule that both of those examples would be prohibited by this resolution, but that is very open to different rulings. Since this will likely fail at vote, this can be fixed in the redraft.)

[Gastash]

OOC: Just a question, does contact between Byzantium and Greece, and the Ottomans mean that Greece invading Turkey in the Turkish war of independence is prohibited under this? What about the invasion of Israel the very day it gained independence by all of its neighbours?

Yes, and in fact they are perfect examples of why this proposal needs to pass. As the fledgeling nations had not been encountered before, it was very difficult to determine their strength. Going to war anyway meant a lot of pointless deaths as the new nations turned out to be stronger than the invaders had thought.

"So we found the loophole! It doesn't hurt you to fire on everyone else and use it as a casus belli to stomp on everyone if you have a large military and have an imperialist policy to overrun everyone."

Well, they have to find themselves in the very rare circumstance of encountering more than one nation at the same time, with one nation suddenly attacking and the other just sitting there. Remember, in almost every case, no nation has any reason to attack.

This does not solve a problem at hand for countries not to start war randomly, they just need to find a reason to."

One of the non-member nations would have to be the one starting a war. If they don't attack, a member nation would still be restricted by this proposal.

"Besides, how would you deal with situations where it is first contact with one party but not another in a three-day meeting? The proposal is unclear in that sense, you see?"

Not really, the proposal defines a first contact as a meeting "in which at least one party has not previously encountered or communicated with the other".

[Astrobolt]

"This delegation sees no reason to oppose this proposal, we are surprised at the amount of resistance it is receiving."

[Kaiserholt]

"This delegation sees no reason to oppose this proposal, we are surprised at the amount of resistance it is receiving."

It’s the natural, albeit understandable, resistance to what a nation’s legitimate black market could do with this proposal.

[Gastash]

"This delegation sees no reason to oppose this proposal, we are surprised at the amount of resistance it is receiving."

It’s the natural, albeit understandable, resistance to what a nation’s legitimate black market could do with this proposal.

There is no such thing as a legitimate black market. Black markets are by definition illegal.

[DeBeeland]

The Free Land of DeBeeland finds at least 1.b.iii problematic (in certain real world and locally applicable circumstances) as written, and hereby votes in opposition to this proposal.

Aaron DeBee
President, The Free Land of DeBeeland

[Gastash]

So there's a chance this proposal might not pass.

[Kaiserholt]

It’s the natural, albeit understandable, resistance to what a nation’s legitimate black market could do with this proposal.

There is no such thing as a legitimate black market. Black markets are by definition illegal.

Legitimacy and illegality are two different things. The Most Serene Republic believe that declaring certain things illegal is a good way of increasing prices of certain articles when said commodity hits a price plateau. Not to mention the pleasure citizens have in partaking of things they themselves voted to make illegal...knowing that in a couple years they’ll legalize it again.

[Kaiserholt]

The Free Land of DeBeeland finds at least 1.b.iii problematic (in certain real world and locally applicable circumstances) as written, and hereby votes in opposition to this proposal.

Aaron DeBee
President, The Free Land of DeBeeland

Borders are curious things. One nation’s solid line on a map is another nation’s dotted line of vagueness.

[Araraukar]

Borders are curious things. One nation’s solid line on a map is another nation’s dotted line of vagueness.

"You can say that again! The treaty says the river is the border, not what used to be the river's course when the treaty was signed! Yet our northern neighbours are trying to claim a wedge of Araraukarian lowlands as theirs..." Linda grumbled.

[Gastash]

So my proposal was defeated for something it doesn't do.

It would be really nice if, this time around, people voice their concerns before I hit submit. The point of drafting things here is that I can't find every issue by myself.

The agenda so far:

• Find out whatever caused so many people to misread the proposal, and change it.
• Fix the several minor loophole that were brought up during the voting period.

Ideas?

[Astrobolt]

The agenda so far:

• Find out whatever caused so many people to misread the proposal, and change it.
• Fix the several minor loophole that were brought up during the voting period.

Ideas?

OOC: Perhaps instead of "firing a weapon at the entity" you can change it to "attacking or attempting to attack the entity" in order to more directly accomodate close range encounters.

[Kenmoria]

"Don't Shoot Strangers Act" was defeated 10,286 votes to 2,781.

[Verdant Haven]

[*]Find out whatever caused so many people to misread the proposal, and change it.

Ooc: While I was in favor of your proposal, I feel like the view that people just "misunderstood" or "misread" it, and that's the only reason they voted against, is critically flawed and perhaps a bit arrogant. I think a large portion of the resistance to it comes from the not insignificant faction of NationStates players who fantasize about curbstomping anybody they want, and don't like people telling them they shouldn't. They view conquering and killing others as some kind of right, and didn't misread your proposal - they simply didn't like it, because it messes with their NatSov fantasy. Were the margins closer, I'd think there may be an opportunity to be had from clarification, but I don't think the massive majority of delegates and individual voters simply misunderstood the text.

[Gastash]

Well there were certainly a lot of people who misread it, as almost all of the posts in opposition on this thread said either "this gives invaders a free pass into our territory" or "this is filled with massive loopholes", neither of which is true.

Anyway, the proposal's main argument is not that you shouldn't shoot unidentified parties because "war is bad". The argument is that if you pick a fight with an unknown there's a good chance the unknown will turn out to be a much more powerful nation that proceeds to steamroll you.

[The COT Corporation]

Well there were certainly a lot of people who misread it, as almost all of the posts in opposition on this thread said either "this gives invaders a free pass into our territory" or "this is filled with massive loopholes", neither of which is true.

Anyway, the proposal's main argument is not that you shouldn't shoot unidentified parties because "war is bad". The argument is that if you pick a fight with an unknown there's a good chance the unknown will turn out to be a much more powerful nation that proceeds to steamroll you.

"I disagree, how are the loopholes non-existent?"