NATION

PASSWORD

[Legality Challenge] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of..."

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20427
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:04 pm

Sciongrad wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Does the challenged resolution argue it can? No. Very cool. Resolution is legal.

I'm sorry, you must be using the Wallenberger definition of parameter. I'm using the English one ("a limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity"). If the question is whether there are parameters limiting the agency's rule-making discretion, the answer is categorically yes. If there are parameters on the subject-matter which the agency is able to regulate, then the claim that the target resolution "freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly" is false.

It is only false if you force an interpretation in which "create further regulations" means "create further regulations OF ANY NATURE OR DEGREE, REGARDLESS OF RELEVANCE TO THIS RESOLUTION", and decide that any different interpretation is unreasonable.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3017
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:10 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:I'm sorry, you must be using the Wallenberger definition of parameter. I'm using the English one ("a limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity"). If the question is whether there are parameters limiting the agency's rule-making discretion, the answer is categorically yes. If there are parameters on the subject-matter which the agency is able to regulate, then the claim that the target resolution "freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly" is false.

It is only false if you force an interpretation in which "create further regulations" means "create further regulations OF ANY NATURE OR DEGREE, REGARDLESS OF RELEVANCE TO THIS RESOLUTION", and decide that any different interpretation is unreasonable.

That seems to be reasonably implied by "freely," i.e., "without restriction or interference." I don't think you've made any argument regarding the reasonable interpretation of the word "ban," but if you are narrowly interpreting "freely" so that it doesn't imply absoluteness, that would seem to commit you to a narrow interpretation of "ban," which if anything is less categorical than "freely" in its ordinary usage. Yet a narrow interpretation of ban would leave you with an honest mistake as well.

Of course, I think the correct position is that an ordinary person would infer absoluteness from "freely" but would not from "ban," and so both provisions are honest mistake violations.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
East Meranopirus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 541
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby East Meranopirus » Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:09 am

Sciongrad wrote:
East Meranopirus wrote:When it's used in a title, that's exactly what it conveys. Every passed resolution with the word "ban" in the title conveys that meaning.

That is an interesting point, but again, the determinative question here is what a reasonable reader would gather from the word. Most players do not form their understanding of probably any term by careful analysis of past usage in resolution titles. I do not, that's for certain, and I guarantee you I am probably much more familiar with past resolutions than most players. So I doubt past usage in resolutions is really very useful for honest mistake analysis, at least in general.

The use of the word in passed resolutions is indicative of what the authors believe it would convey to the players. It's clear in every instance that the word is used to convey an absolute ban, because the authors know that it's the way most players would interpret the word.
Sometimes lurking in WA. Sometimes lurking in GP. Also author of (probably soon to be repealed) GA Resolution #464

Co-Founder of The Democratic Union
Minister of World Assembly Affairs of The North Pacific
(as Gorundu)

Citizen of The Rejected Realms as Vuy, Citizen of The East Pacific as Arkhamanishka
I post on the forums almost exclusively with this nation.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20427
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:40 am

Sciongrad wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:It is only false if you force an interpretation in which "create further regulations" means "create further regulations OF ANY NATURE OR DEGREE, REGARDLESS OF RELEVANCE TO THIS RESOLUTION", and decide that any different interpretation is unreasonable.

That seems to be reasonably implied by "freely," i.e., "without restriction or interference." I don't think you've made any argument regarding the reasonable interpretation of the word "ban," but if you are narrowly interpreting "freely" so that it doesn't imply absoluteness, that would seem to commit you to a narrow interpretation of "ban," which if anything is less categorical than "freely" in its ordinary usage. Yet a narrow interpretation of ban would leave you with an honest mistake as well.

Of course, I think the correct position is that an ordinary person would infer absoluteness from "freely" but would not from "ban," and so both provisions are honest mistake violations.

1) Your arbitrary assignments of what interpretations are "narrow" really don't make any sense here. There is no requirement here that, regardless of interpretive choice, either one or the other, but not both, challenges are valid.
2) If a "narrow" interpretation of this resolution's word usage makes the use of "freely" legal and "ban" illegal, how does your supposedly non-"narrow" interpretation make both cases illegal?
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Envoy
 
Posts: 283
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:10 am

East Meranopirus wrote:The use of the word in passed resolutions is indicative of what the authors believe it would convey to the players. It's clear in every instance that the word is used to convey an absolute ban, because the authors know that it's the way most players would interpret the word.


This contention is demonstrably false, at even a cursory reading of not less than 6 resolutions that contain the word "ban" in their title which fail to be a blanket ban on the purported evil. To wit:
  • Ban on Ritual Sacrifice -- Does not, in fact, ban ritual sacrifice. In fact, it only addresses what one must assume is the most minority of positions in regards to ritual sacrifice (the sacrifice of sapient beings), while leaving entirely untouched the more common forms of sacrifice of animals and plants;
  • Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes -- Addresses exactly 3 things. I can assure you, I consider far more crimes to be "heinous" (and some considerably more heinous) than those within the resolution and yet they remain outside the resolution's ambit;
  • Ban on Conversion Therapy -- flatly does not ban conversion therapy for huge numbers of people. It prohibits certain practices on minors, and prohibits the government from engaging in practices, but leaves the private sector entirely free to do so. Also, considering the definitions, it may well be possible for "conversion therap[ies]" to exist that would not fall afoul of the resolution;
  • Ban on Slavery and Trafficking -- Explicitly excepts from its definitions that considerably numbers of persons, possibly even majorities in some instances, flat out considered slavery/forced labour
  • Ban Profits on Workers' Death -- does not, in fact prohibit a company from profiting from a worker's death. It requires the employee's consent to list the employer as a life insurance beneficiary, but does not prohibit doing so. Nor does it prohibit any other way a company might profit from a worker's death;
  • Child Pornography Ban -- Despite the strong consensus on the subject, significant avenues remain open for filming or depicting children engaging in sexual acts, including, possibly. For instance, (and I would NOT countenance this), the resolution does not prohibited XXX rated animated cartoons, paintings, or drawings featuring pre-pubescent children as characters;

If we include the joke "Ban on Secret Treaties" that would make a 7th (I did not count it, because it DOES actually prohibit what any sane person would understand to be a secret treaty, but since it defines secret treaty as weapons and cats, it does not, in fact, ban those things either).

Sciongrad wrote: I don't think you've made any argument regarding the reasonable interpretation of the word "ban," but if you are narrowly interpreting "freely" so that it doesn't imply absoluteness, that would seem to commit you to a narrow interpretation of "ban," which if anything is less categorical than "freely" in its ordinary usage. Yet a narrow interpretation of ban would leave you with an honest mistake as well.

I am not Wallenburg, but essentially that is the position I advocate. "Ban" is an honest mistake and "freely" is not.

Sciongrad wrote:Can the committee in question set standards on international commerce concerning the sale of dairy products?


"The committee finds that the use of certain hormones (annex A) on dairy cattle leads to an increased concentration of these hormones in dairy milk and products produced from cattle so treated as to be above the naturally occurring level.

The committee further finds that evidence exists, of sufficient strength, to conclude that consumption of such excess hormones from food sources poses a significant danger to the reproductive ability of minors, including possible sterilization at sufficient prevalence in the food chain.

The committee hereby bans the production, importation, or exportation of milk and milk products from cows treated with hormones included in annex A of this order as unnecessary to the long-term health of any person."

Ridiculous, yes. An level I personally believe appropriate, absolutely not. Within the realm of what IRL administrative agencies have tried, yes. Violates the target resolution? Maybe, maybe not.

Sciongrad wrote:To D&G's point,

Minor point, but my name is D&B is you abbreviate it like that ;p :ugeek:
Last edited by Desmosthenes and Burke on Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Ithania
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Sep 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Ithania » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:20 am

[EDIT far later:

Oh my giddy goodness, I feel the need to add an apology to this post. I'm sorry for inflicting this incoherent mess on anyone. I guess this is a super useful and educational lesson in why it might be an ever so slightly bad idea to post stuff while under the influence of strong painkillers as part of recovery after surgery. Probably especially bad when you haven't slept in over 40hrs due to that recovery too, isn't it?

I promise I'm not usually this incomprehensible. I mean... I still am, just not as much... Hopefully?]

East Meranopirus wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:That is an interesting point, but again, the determinative question here is what a reasonable reader would gather from the word. Most players do not form their understanding of probably any term by careful analysis of past usage in resolution titles. I do not, that's for certain, and I guarantee you I am probably much more familiar with past resolutions than most players. So I doubt past usage in resolutions is really very useful for honest mistake analysis, at least in general.

The use of the word in passed resolutions is indicative of what the authors believe it would convey to the players. It's clear in every instance that the word is used to convey an absolute ban, because the authors know that it's the way most players would interpret the word.

Without addressing the practical value of considering use of words in past titles, I feel previous 'ban' resolutions often only constitute complete prohibitions when assessed using their internally defined terms without reference to any other definitions. To me, that context is important to remember.

While their legal effect may rely on internally defined terms, I'd suggest it's unreasonably narrow to restrict consideration of effect and meaning by only viewing through the lens of a relevant internal definition. There's meaning beyond that.

I'd also suggest that the specificity of the internally defined terms merely constitutes a different means of creating limits or exclusions. They are not "absolute" either, it just looks very different.

I'd argue that common phrasing such as "for the purposes of this resolution" inherently acknowledges alternative meaning and use (among other things), including the reality or chance of wider scope to a general audience.

Ultimately, the practical outcome of each approach is the same.

In one case, the specificity of a definition creates front-loaded exclusions, thereby making it unnecessary to include any provision for explicit exceptions. In the other, general use is relied upon for meaning and explicit exceptions are given.

I'd suggest it would be inconsistent to accept the first as a ban but not the latter. Consequently, to accept the claim in the proposal at vote for one method but not the other.

As an example of that, I believe GAR#79 limits itself to criminal law. Using a literal meaning of 'ex post facto,' (as one possibility) there is no absolute ban due to the narrow internal definition. Would it be acceptable to make the same claim as the proposal at vote? To claim that it doesn't ban ex post facto laws?

If GAR#79 had used a wider definition then created exceptions for everything but criminal matters, would the claim be acceptable then? Despite the material consequences being no different? Here, if "sterilisation" had simply been defined to not include situations where appropriate oversight exists, would it be different?

I can appreciate that an objection might be to point at GAR#79's definitions to draw a distinction, to argue it does ban it according to its own standards so judge claims based on that.

In that case, I'd propose any reading of the sterilisation ban, and the validity of claims about its effect, should be wholly reliant on the resolution itself, for consistency.

The resolution asserts that it prohibits sterilisation so the practical definition of "ban" it relies upon must be one which allows for exceptions while still qualifying as a "ban". Accordingly, claims should be judged based on that.

Personally, I feel that's all needlessly messy and prefer to have an overarching consideration of plain meaning, unless there's justification for something else. In that case, "ban" does not mean absolute, for reasons expressed way better than I ever could earlier.
Last edited by Ithania on Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Amorita-desovelen(-sulcmae3-signetuPetral1-modumCatollio0-nurtessu-onroch1-eleropsiroc-2.52nummioh-suclo0ire-suclo2203nes-hicticresWA-sutpat3),
Temporally Confused Representative to the World Assembly,
Head of Diplomatic Hub for Mv-ST Shard #2203
"Are you sure this is my assigned dimension? I don't remember it being called the World Assembly..."

Economic Left/Right: -9.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.69

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19163
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:32 am

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:Can the committee in question set standards on international commerce concerning the sale of dairy products?


"The committee finds that the use of certain hormones (annex A) on dairy cattle leads to an increased concentration of these hormones in dairy milk and products produced from cattle so treated as to be above the naturally occurring level.

The committee further finds that evidence exists, of sufficient strength, to conclude that consumption of such excess hormones from food sources poses a significant danger to the reproductive ability of minors, including possible sterilization at sufficient prevalence in the food chain.

The committee hereby bans the production, importation, or exportation of milk and milk products from cows treated with hormones included in annex A of this order as unnecessary to the long-term health of any person."

Ridiculous, yes. An level I personally believe appropriate, absolutely not. Within the realm of what IRL administrative agencies have tried, yes.

Plausible.
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
Wayneactia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 842
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:59 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
"The committee finds that the use of certain hormones (annex A) on dairy cattle leads to an increased concentration of these hormones in dairy milk and products produced from cattle so treated as to be above the naturally occurring level.

The committee further finds that evidence exists, of sufficient strength, to conclude that consumption of such excess hormones from food sources poses a significant danger to the reproductive ability of minors, including possible sterilization at sufficient prevalence in the food chain.

The committee hereby bans the production, importation, or exportation of milk and milk products from cows treated with hormones included in annex A of this order as unnecessary to the long-term health of any person."

Ridiculous, yes. An level I personally believe appropriate, absolutely not. Within the realm of what IRL administrative agencies have tried, yes.

Plausible.


I would say that is a "colorable" (the new buzzword) interpretation myself.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14679
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:16 am

Wayneactia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:Plausible.


I would say that is a "colorable" (the new buzzword) interpretation myself.

It's only new for those unfamiliar with judicial opinions.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Kranostav
Envoy
 
Posts: 305
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:47 am

Agree on the accounts of 'ban' reasonably being interpreted as not absolute. Especially given all the examples of where it is used in titles in the exact same manner and then not used absolutely in the proposal text. (Thank you D&B)

'Freely' is misrepresentative of the proposal bc it cannot freely create regulations in any sense of the word. But I agree with Seps original point of it not mattering.

(Everything above is basically a for the record)
The North Pacific Minister of Foreign Affairs
Former MoWAA (4 terms)
The meddling WA Kid of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423 and #460

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2467
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:56 am

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1742
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Marxist Germany » Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:49 am

OOC: Well, that's a bummer. Guess we will have to try again.
Country represents RL views mostly. Not Marxist anymore.
Author of GA#461, GA#470, GA#477, GA#481, and SC#295

Ex-delegate of The United Federations; citizen of 10000 Islands | Gaming User#0721(Discord)
RP name: Germany
The National Factbook (WIP)
Ambassador Klaus Schmidt
Political Compass
PolitiStates Result
Pro:Laissez-faire, Cultural Nationalism, Guns, Free speech, Christianity, Same-sex marriage, United Ireland.
Anti:Extreme Progressivism, Abortion, Socialism, Interventionism, Mass-migration.
A high school student aged 15 from Ireland, living in Co. Dublin. Interested in politics, gaming, and history.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 842
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:17 am

Bananaistan wrote:*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.


Somehow I find this less than shocking. :roll:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:
I would say that is a "colorable" (the new buzzword) interpretation myself.

It's only new for those unfamiliar with judicial opinions.


I know this may come as a shock (it does to all lawyers), not everyone is a lawyer or a paralegal. I know you and Scion are (or will likely be soon). Perhaps maybe take that into account every now and then?
Last edited by Wayneactia on Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14679
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:29 am

Wayneactia wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.


Somehow I find this less than shocking. :roll:

Separatist Peoples wrote:It's only new for those unfamiliar with judicial opinions.


I know this may come as a shock (it does to all lawyers), not everyone is a lawyer or a paralegal. I know you and Scion are (or will likely be soon). Perhaps maybe take that into account every now and then?

The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14435
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:36 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.
- 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
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3017
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:48 am

Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.

I don't think we should be using technical, inaccessible jargon if we don't need to. But if you look up the term "colorable" on Google, the four word definition shows up immediately. As I've said many, many times before, this is a policy game and, in recent years, one that involves an unnecessary amount of legal argumentation, and that means that players will have to make a basic effort to understand rudimentary policy and legal arguments. When players use jargon or arguments that can't be understood after 10-15 minutes of basic google research, that's bad and we should discourage that. But you cannot complain about Sep using a word whose simple definition you could have found in approximately 7 seconds.

EDIT: This is not directed at you specifically, Ara, you just happened to articulate the way many players view this issue.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14435
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:59 am

Sciongrad wrote:But if you look up the term "colorable" on Google

...when was that word ever the point of anything? :eyebrow: I mean, beyond Chester using it to stir up some trouble as usual.

Sciongrad wrote:EDIT: This is not directed at you specifically, Ara, you just happened to articulate the way many players view this issue.

I complain about the use of Legalese (and Latin) often enough that I wouldn't take it personally even if it was directed at me specifically. :P
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
- 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
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14679
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:01 am

Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.


Its not my fault lawyers are the best of professions and that we are all supreme geniuses.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14435
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:09 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:Its not my fault lawyers are the best of professions and that we are all supreme geniuses.

I prefer this type of madboys1. :P

1You may need to read the comic to understand that that isn't an insult...
- 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
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19163
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:14 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Araraukar wrote:I think there are valid reasons why very few people like lawyers. That kind of attitude gets close.


Its not my fault lawyers are the best of professions and that we are all supreme geniuses.

OOC: You know, for several years I was actually a paid-up member of the Richard III Society...
(You might need a basic familiarity with common quotations from Shakespeare to get this reference...)
Last edited by Bears Armed on Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:14 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
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3512
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:09 pm

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: You know, for several years I was actually a paid-up member of the Richard III Society...
(You might need a basic familiarity with common quotations from Shakespeare to get this reference...)


I have this beautiful, strong, well-rested horse that I don't have the pasture space for and I don't really know what to do with... Wanna swap something for it? :p

Edit: unfucked quote tags
Last edited by Sierra Lyricalia on Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Kranostav
Envoy
 
Posts: 305
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:26 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:
Somehow I find this less than shocking. :roll:



I know this may come as a shock (it does to all lawyers), not everyone is a lawyer or a paralegal. I know you and Scion are (or will likely be soon). Perhaps maybe take that into account every now and then?

The internet is full of wonderful information. Educate yourself.

Preach. I am not at all a lawyer or in any industry related to law. We are in the age of the interwebs. It takes minutes to learn something. We also play a game centered around law. Therefore it's not unrealistic to expect someone to understand basic legal phrases. Don't know something? Ctrl c --> Ctrl v into google. You might learn something.
Last edited by Kranostav on Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The North Pacific Minister of Foreign Affairs
Former MoWAA (4 terms)
The meddling WA Kid of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423 and #460

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14435
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:17 am

Kranostav wrote:We are in the age of the interwebs. It takes minutes to learn something. We also play a game centered around law. Therefore it's not unrealistic to expect someone to understand basic legal phrases. Don't know something? Ctrl c --> Ctrl v into google. You might learn something.

Ah, then you won't have any trouble explaining all the Legalese ever used in proposals, in Finnish! Since it's so easy. Savon murteella, kiitos!
- 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
Diplomat
 
Posts: 541
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby East Meranopirus » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:22 am

Bananaistan wrote:*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"
Date of Decision: 11 November
Decision: Proposal is illegal (details to follow)
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal under the honest mistake rule. The resolution will be discarded at the end of voting. Full details of the internal GenSec vote and opinions to follow.

So, when can we expect the opinions to be published?
Sometimes lurking in WA. Sometimes lurking in GP. Also author of (probably soon to be repealed) GA Resolution #464

Co-Founder of The Democratic Union
Minister of World Assembly Affairs of The North Pacific
(as Gorundu)

Citizen of The Rejected Realms as Vuy, Citizen of The East Pacific as Arkhamanishka
I post on the forums almost exclusively with this nation.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14435
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:54 pm

East Meranopirus wrote:So, when can we expect the opinions to be published?

Some time during year 2020, if replacing CD with GH hasn't gotten any speed into them... :P
- 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

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Denathor, Tinhampton

Advertisement

Remove ads