General Assembly Q&A

[Araraukar]

It's mostly because due to practical reasons

"I don't wanna be in the WA" is a perfectly valid reason too. I haven't had a WA nation or puppet for nearly a decade.

To be fair, that counts as a practical reason.

[Azlaake]

Is there a thread for mandatory vaccines

[Araraukar]

Is there a thread for mandatory vaccines

As I already told you in TGs, search the passed resolutions thread if you mean a resolution. If you just want to talk about vaccines in Real Life, then the forum you want is here: viewforum.php?f=20

[Dominland]

I don't know where to put them! Please help!

[Borovan entered the region as he]

I don't know where to put them! Please help!

Ehhhhhh???!!! This is GA, NOT the regional map application thread. Go look at factbooks and national information

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yes. Nations such as yours having "Observers" here is a long-established practice, and Mods have upheld the right to do so when some other players challenged it.

It's mostly because due to practical reasons (using public computers, having someone else in the household already with a WA nation, already having a nation in the WA, etc.) that non-WA peeps can partake the forum freely.

Or you purposely invest your WA membership in another nation, to shield your main nation from statistical chaos.

[Araraukar]

It's mostly because due to practical reasons (using public computers, having someone else in the household already with a WA nation, already having a nation in the WA, etc.) that non-WA peeps can partake the forum freely.

Or you purposely invest your WA membership in another nation, to shield your main nation from statistical chaos.

Well, yeah, but that goes under "already having a nation in the WA". (Still, a valid reason.)

[NoFreedomNoRightsNoNothing]

According to resolution 20.3 and 20.4 are nations with large black markets in violation of international law?

[Wallenburg]

According to resolution 20.3 and 20.4 are nations with large black markets in violation of international law?

GA#20 prohibits member states from lending support to international pirates, and requires reasonable suppression of international piracy within their borders. Having a black market problem certainly isn't good, but it does not violate the responsibilities outlined in GA#20.

[East Azadistan]

Are their rules about attacking fleeing infantry?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Are their rules about attacking fleeing infantry?

Not in precisely those words, but looking at Rules of Surrender I believe throwing down one's weapons and running arguably renders one hors de combat and no longer a valid target.

[Separatist Peoples]

Are their rules about attacking fleeing infantry?

Not in precisely those words, but looking at Rules of Surrender I believe throwing down one's weapons and running arguably renders one hors de combat and no longer a valid target.

This is my understanding. Retreating forces are not, ipso facto, hors de combat, but when you add in the throwing down of weapons, its hard to say it isn't covered.

[Saranidia]

Not in precisely those words, but looking at Rules of Surrender I believe throwing down one's weapons and running arguably renders one hors de combat and no longer a valid target.

This is my understanding. Retreating forces are not, ipso facto, hors de combat, but when you add in the throwing down of weapons, its hard to say it isn't covered.

But if they are "unable to defend themselves" e.g. if they are fleeing for dear life with their back turned to the enemy(and yes they chose to turn their back but since that also applies to throwing down weapons i think it counts, might put on an enemy Major on trying for this and for saying 'kill the Arab bastards'.)

[Separatist Peoples]

This is my understanding. Retreating forces are not, ipso facto, hors de combat, but when you add in the throwing down of weapons, its hard to say it isn't covered.

But if they are "unable to defend themselves" e.g. if they are fleeing for dear life with their back turned to the enemy(and yes they chose to turn their back but since that also applies to throwing down weapons i think it counts, might put on an enemy Major on trying for this and for saying 'kill the Arab bastards'.)

Fleeing does not render one hors de combat. A soldier could not reasonably tell the difference between fleeing in a rout from a tactical withdrawal to better ground. Fighting retreats are a thing. There is nothing inherently perfidious about shooting somebody in the back. Context is key.

Rather than suggest interpretations based off what you think, you might try looking at the GA Resolution that deals with this explicitly.

[Wallenburg]

I think it's also relevant that usually it is not possible to know that a running soldier is unarmed and does not intend to continue fighting once reaching a less vulnerable position.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A soldier could not reasonably tell the difference between fleeing in a rout from a tactical withdrawal to better ground. Fighting retreats are a thing. There is nothing inherently perfidious about shooting somebody in the back. Context is key.

I'm reminded of the San Belgrano during the Falklands War.

[Saranidia]

But if they are "unable to defend themselves" e.g. if they are fleeing for dear life with their back turned to the enemy(and yes they chose to turn their back but since that also applies to throwing down weapons i think it counts, might put on an enemy Major on trying for this and for saying 'kill the Arab bastards'.)

Fleeing does not render one hors de combat. A soldier could not reasonably tell the difference between fleeing in a rout from a tactical withdrawal to better ground. Fighting retreats are a thing. There is nothing inherently perfidious about shooting somebody in the back. Context is key.

Rather than suggest interpretations based off what you think, you might try looking at the GA Resolution that deals with this explicitly.

I did look at it, that's where I got "unable to defend themselves" and "Hors de combat"

[Separatist Peoples]

Fleeing does not render one hors de combat. A soldier could not reasonably tell the difference between fleeing in a rout from a tactical withdrawal to better ground. Fighting retreats are a thing. There is nothing inherently perfidious about shooting somebody in the back. Context is key.

Rather than suggest interpretations based off what you think, you might try looking at the GA Resolution that deals with this explicitly.

I did look at it, that's where I got "unable to defend themselves" and "Hors de combat"

Then you didn't understand it. Because retreating =/= unable to defend oneself. A reductive interpretation like that would inevitably lead to the argument that an armed person who is not currently pointing their weapon at another is not able to defend themselves in that moment, and is therefore hors de combat. Let us lay this interpretation to rest and not wake it again, shall we?

[Saranidia]

I did look at it, that's where I got "unable to defend themselves" and "Hors de combat"

Then you didn't understand it. Because retreating =/= unable to defend oneself. A reductive interpretation like that would inevitably lead to the argument that an armed person who is not currently pointing their weapon at another is not able to defend themselves in that moment, and is therefore hors de combat. Let us lay this interpretation to rest and not wake it again, shall we?

The difference is they can see the enemy and instantly point their weapon arguably,
Also I am not saying what the spirit of the law is only what is actually the case.
Besides I am simply exploring it.

It wouldn't be the case of they were retreating to an easier target or retreat whilst shooting.


Lawyers do this all the time in real life about the US Constitution, casus belli,
laws of military proportionality etc. and in the case of San Belgrano about rules of engagement as well.

[Separatist Peoples]

Then you didn't understand it. Because retreating =/= unable to defend oneself. A reductive interpretation like that would inevitably lead to the argument that an armed person who is not currently pointing their weapon at another is not able to defend themselves in that moment, and is therefore hors de combat. Let us lay this interpretation to rest and not wake it again, shall we?

The difference is they can see the enemy and instantly point their weapon arguably,
Also I am not saying what the spirit of the law is only what is actually the case.
Besides I am simply exploring it.

It wouldn't be the case of they were retreating to an easier target or retreat whilst shooting.


Lawyers do this all the time in real life about the US Constitution, casus belli,
laws of military proportionality etc. and in the case of San Belgrano about rules of engagement as well.

You don't need to explain to me what lawyers do. I'm acquainted.

People can turn and shoot just as readily when facing the wrong way as retreating. You're just wrong about this. Retreating soldiers are not inherently hors de combat simply by virtue of their status as retreating. That is just not how it works.

Unlike with constitutional law, WA law is statutory, and therefore subject to much stricter interpretation than the U.S. Constitution, Further, we apply textual canons to interpret WA resolutions, and not value-based analyses inherent in constitutional interpretation. Not comparable.

[East Azadistan]

The difference is they can see the enemy and instantly point their weapon arguably,
Also I am not saying what the spirit of the law is only what is actually the case.
Besides I am simply exploring it.

It wouldn't be the case of they were retreating to an easier target or retreat whilst shooting.


Lawyers do this all the time in real life about the US Constitution, casus belli,
laws of military proportionality etc. and in the case of San Belgrano about rules of engagement as well.

You don't need to explain to me what lawyers do. I'm acquainted.

People can turn and shoot just as readily when facing the wrong way as retreating. You're just wrong about this. Retreating soldiers are not inherently hors de combat simply by virtue of their status as retreating. That is just not how it works.

Unlike with constitutional law, WA law is statutory, and therefore subject to much stricter interpretation than the U.S. Constitution, Further, we apply textual canons to interpret WA resolutions, and not value-based analyses inherent in constitutional interpretation. Not comparable.

Exactly the letter rather than abstractions about the "right decision",
furthermore the retreating normally means they cannot turn and shoot just as readily(and that is what this is in this particular case)

[Separatist Peoples]

You don't need to explain to me what lawyers do. I'm acquainted.

People can turn and shoot just as readily when facing the wrong way as retreating. You're just wrong about this. Retreating soldiers are not inherently hors de combat simply by virtue of their status as retreating. That is just not how it works.

Unlike with constitutional law, WA law is statutory, and therefore subject to much stricter interpretation than the U.S. Constitution, Further, we apply textual canons to interpret WA resolutions, and not value-based analyses inherent in constitutional interpretation. Not comparable.

Exactly the letter rather than abstractions about the "right decision",
furthermore the retreating normally means they cannot turn and shoot just as readily(and that is what this is in this particular case)

This is not the thread to have this debate, but having fired a weapon while on the move, and done so while moving away from my target, I can confirm that it isn't difficult to turn and fire. At all.

[Frisbeeteria]

This is not the thread to have this debate

Write up your proposal and ask / answer your questions in that thread, please.

[Essu Beti]

I’m considering writing up an animal rights proposal based specifically on the banning of blood sports such as dog fights, bear baiting, and whatnot (with other bits added so people can’t just go “it’s guard dog training, not entertainment! It’s a sheer coincidence that we have betting and a massive audience when our dogs tear each other apart!”) A serious one, not an Iksana’d-up one for roleplay purposes.

What level of support do you think I might get, and what pitfalls will I need to avoid?

[Saranidia]

I’m considering writing up an animal rights proposal based specifically on the banning of blood sports such as dog fights, bear baiting, and whatnot (with other bits added so people can’t just go “it’s guard dog training, not entertainment! It’s a sheer coincidence that we have betting and a massive audience when our dogs tear each other apart!”) A serious one, not an Iksana’d-up one for roleplay purposes.

What level of support do you think I might get, and what pitfalls will I need to avoid?

Well when I was in the WA I would have supported it.

A definition of blood sport could be either "a sport involving intentional suffering being inflicted on one or more animals"(if you want it to be legal to go fishing or arguably swiftly shoot pigeons) or "a sport involving the foreseeable death of one or more animals"(if you want to criminalise all hunting, pitfall: might criminalise fishing)"

You might get a few libertarians raising their eyebrows, industry lobbyists(?) or others but probably nothing if you have a definition that focuses on stuff like dog-fighting and bear-baiting(because this is the World Assembly, still some of the politics here is a bit cynical but still.)

You also might get people thinking(surely this is a national issue, why make it a world assembly law? which happened with the right to self-defence sadly).