NationStates

Kenmoria wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:And put the succession seriously at risk? There's a reason why the old saying about royal & noble wives being expected to produce children was "an heir and a spare"...In the RL kingdom of England, for example, the longest unbroken line of 'parent-to-oldest son' (or 'parent to oldest son's oldest son', where the intermediate heir predeceased the parent] successions to the throne has involved only five monarchs (i.e. John => Henry III => Edward I => Edward II=> Edward III), and including those queens regnant that we've had as well wouldn't give a longer chain.. but all of the monarchs have been descended from William the Conqueror, and all but one or two of them (i.e. William he Conqueror, and perhaps his rival Harold Godwinsson) have been descended from Alfred the Great...

(OOC: However, monarchies are not actually prohibited. Plenty of passed resolutions make it more difficult to maintain an ideology, without prohibiting. Hereditary monarchies might be hurt under this proposal, but are quite evidently still possible, since a monarch could just have one child. I don’t see this as an ideological ban.)

OOC: Specific hereditary monarchies will be split up under this proposal. Forcing even just one nation to either cease to exist or change its form of government is an ideological ban.

Bananaistan wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: However, monarchies are not actually prohibited. Plenty of passed resolutions make it more difficult to maintain an ideology, without prohibiting. Hereditary monarchies might be hurt under this proposal, but are quite evidently still possible, since a monarch could just have one child. I don’t see this as an ideological ban.)

OOC: Specific hereditary monarchies will be split up under this proposal. Forcing even just one nation to either cease to exist or change its form of government is an ideological ban.

That's the most absurd thing I've seen on this subforum all year.

Wallenburg wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Specific hereditary monarchies will be split up under this proposal. Forcing even just one nation to either cease to exist or change its form of government is an ideological ban.

That's the most absurd thing I've seen on this subforum all year.

OOC: And this is the worst contribution to a discussion I’ve seen all year here.

It’s a fact that there are currently existing monarchies with an heir and a spare plus perhaps more. This would proposal would force them to change their ideology or cease to exist. It doesn’t make monarchy more difficult such nations, it bans it.

Enforced Gavelkind? In my World Assembly? No thanks. I've dealt with enough of that BS in Crusader Kings to know this constitutes unnecessary overreach into the affairs of monarchic member states.

Bananaistan wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That's the most absurd thing I've seen on this subforum all year.

OOC: And this is the worst contribution to a discussion I’ve seen all year here.

It’s a fact that there are currently existing monarchies with an heir and a spare plus perhaps more. This would proposal would force them to change their ideology or cease to exist. It doesn’t make monarchy more difficult such nations, it bans it.

I can conceive of a government in which succession is determined by ritual combat to the death. Such systems are already popularized through such examples as the Klingon Empire and the kingdom of Wakanda. Ban On Ritual Sacrifice prohibits this succession. It forces such states to change their ideology or cease to exist. This is a ludicrous argument.

Wallenburg wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: And this is the worst contribution to a discussion I’ve seen all year here.

It’s a fact that there are currently existing monarchies with an heir and a spare plus perhaps more. This would proposal would force them to change their ideology or cease to exist. It doesn’t make monarchy more difficult such nations, it bans it.

I can conceive of a government in which succession is determined by ritual combat to the death. Such systems are already popularized through such examples as the Klingon Empire and the kingdom of Wakanda. Ban On Ritual Sacrifice prohibits this succession. It forces such states to change their ideology or cease to exist. This is a ludicrous argument.

That's a poor argument as Ban on Ritual Sacrifice is a passed resolution, and no one brought up a legality challenge about it when it was a proposal.

Wallenburg wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: And this is the worst contribution to a discussion I’ve seen all year here.

It’s a fact that there are currently existing monarchies with an heir and a spare plus perhaps more. This would proposal would force them to change their ideology or cease to exist. It doesn’t make monarchy more difficult such nations, it bans it.

I can conceive of a government in which succession is determined by ritual combat to the death. Such systems are already popularized through such examples as the Klingon Empire and the kingdom of Wakanda. Ban On Ritual Sacrifice prohibits this succession. It forces such states to change their ideology or cease to exist. This is a ludicrous argument.

OOC: That's BS and you're willingly covering your eyes with it to be blind to it. Imagine a state that's a monarchy. Let's stop pretending there's only absolute monarchies as there also exists a concept such as executive monarchies, wherein there is a fully democratic parliamentary system in place, but where the monarch takes an active role in the executive government. Imagine this monarch has two children, a daughter and a son, because oh yes, this proposal would apply to existing monarchies as well. You know what it will do? This little proposal will force that nation to be split in two between the two children of the monarch when that monarch dies. You effectively force a state to stop existing, literally because of a whim. And if you say "but there's ways to avoid it with loopholes", then essentially you're saying this proposal is completely and utterly worthless. This proposal is an ideological ban, and not matter how much you blind yourself to it, it won't change the facts.

And as I already stated, the author of this proposal called secession by democratic vote as follows:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:This is a dumb proposal which puts feelings before policy.

If secession by a democratic referendum is called "dumb" and "feeling before policy", then I truly, honestly and sincerely wonder what we can call the arbitrary splitting up of a nation without even the hint of a democratic element to be sighted in its vicinity. I'd call that hypocrisy.

IC: "The World Assembly seems to be attempting to dive deeper and deeper into the affairs of individual nations, based on a couple of the most recent drafted proposals. Saint Arsenio, therefore, cannot support this." - World Assembly Ambassador Yolanda Wright

Daarwyrth wrote:And as I already stated, the author of this proposal called secession by democratic vote as follows:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:This is a dumb proposal which puts feelings before policy.

If secession by a democratic referendum is called "dumb" and "feeling before policy", then I truly, honestly and sincerely wonder what we can call the arbitrary splitting up of a nation without even the hint of a democratic element to be sighted in its vicinity. I'd call that hypocrisy.

This.

Honestly disheartening to see this kind of proposal after coming back to peruse the GA forum for a bit.

This is a ludicrously bad proposal and IA should knowingly be ashamed of it. And Wallenburg should also be equally ashamed for the ridiculously bad arguments he has used to justify this.

The World Assembly doesn't need to get involved in the succession to Thrones, as it should remain a national issue and desicison

If you are an absolute hereditary monarchy, then just have one kid. Or if you are a true absolute hereditary monarchy, become an elective one and see whether your heir will be elected. Republics rule, monarchies drool.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If you are an absolute hereditary monarchy, then just have one kid. Or if you are a true absolute hereditary monarchy, become an elective one and see whether your heir will be elected. Republics rule, monarchies drool.

Or just do the succession crisis that you were probably going to have anyway, and let the blood settle where it may.

No no no you're doing it wrong. You have to have a clause at the end clarifying that this resolution does not apply to nations which choose to not be monarchies, and that this resolution does not force nations to become monarchies.

Cretox State wrote:No no no you're doing it wrong. You have to have a clause at the end clarifying that this resolution does not apply to nations which choose to not be monarchies, and that this resolution does not force nations to become monarchies.

Ah yes, but Cretox is that not already implied?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If you are an absolute hereditary monarchy, then just have one kid. Or if you are a true absolute hereditary monarchy, become an elective one and see whether your heir will be elected. Republics rule, monarchies drool.

Oh my!- sarcastically stated Obraztsova,- what a solution! How could I not think of this! Well, maybe, mister Ambassador, the WA is not exactly in a position to tell people what they can and can’t do in this case, especially concerning that what you’re proposing is essentially a one-child policy for the love of God! Sure, our Queen is not married yet- but when she will it’s within her right to decide how many children she may want to have. And judging by her views on family, I’d say she’ll have a lot.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If you are an absolute hereditary monarchy, then just have one kid. Or if you are a true absolute hereditary monarchy, become an elective one and see whether your heir will be elected. Republics rule, monarchies drool.

OOC: Sabotaging your own proposal isn't going to help it at all. With this comment you're highlighting how this proposal does absolutely nothing of worth and would be nothing more but dead weight to the WA.

Your definition isn't targeting absolute monarchies alone. Your proposal is targeting everything that's not a purely ceremonial monarchy, and for what, a personal whim? I would have expected that from a novice trying to make yet another unfunny joke proposal, not from an experienced legislator of the GA.

I'm going to repeat it, because the double standard that's being practiced here is mind-boggling: if you called secession by democratic referendum "dumb" and "feeling over policy", then it applies doubly so to this proposal where you forcefully tear apart nations with no democratic consultation whatsoever.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If you are an absolute hereditary monarchy, then just have one kid. Or if you are a true absolute hereditary monarchy, become an elective one and see whether your heir will be elected. Republics rule, monarchies drool.

Spoken like a true republican. Maybe I should consider writing a proposal to ban republics then.

Bananaistan wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That's the most absurd thing I've seen on this subforum all year.

OOC: And this is the worst contribution to a discussion I’ve seen all year here.

It’s a fact that there are currently existing monarchies with an heir and a spare plus perhaps more. This would proposal would force them to change their ideology or cease to exist. It doesn’t make monarchy more difficult such nations, it bans it.

(OOC: I don’t see how this ‘wholly outlaws’ monarchism in member nations, to use the wording of the rule. If the monarch stays alive, or has only one child, then monarchism remains intact, and can do so in every member state. Even in the cases to which you give mention, where there are monarchs with multiple heirs, monarchism remains entirely intact until that monarch dies, and, if all the heirs other than one die, monarchy remains a possible ideology.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I don’t see how this ‘wholly outlaws’ monarchism in member nations, to use the wording of the rule. If the monarch stays alive, or has only one child, then monarchism remains intact, and can do so in every member state. Even in the cases to which you give mention, where there are monarchs with multiple heirs, monarchism remains entirely intact until that monarch dies, and, if all the heirs other than one die, monarchy remains a possible ideology.)

OOC: So we're now onto promoting the death of people alongside tearing apart states that have been a unity for perhaps centuries? This joke of a proposal is getting worse by the minute, along with its supporters.

OOC: I agree 100% with Daarwyrth: this is almost as bad of a proposal as Right To Independence Referenda was.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I don’t see how this ‘wholly outlaws’ monarchism in member nations, to use the wording of the rule. If the monarch stays alive, or has only one child, then monarchism remains intact, and can do so in every member state. Even in the cases to which you give mention, where there are monarchs with multiple heirs, monarchism remains entirely intact until that monarch dies, and, if all the heirs other than one die, monarchy remains a possible ideology.)

OOC: So we're now onto promoting the death of people alongside tearing apart states that have been a unity for perhaps centuries? This joke of a proposal is getting worse by the minute, along with its supporters.

(OOC: I don’t necessarily support this. I’m arguing for legality, not acceptability.)

Hannasea wrote:OOC: I agree 100% with Daarwyrth: this is almost as bad of a proposal as Right To Independence Referenda was.

OOC: Oh, this is by far worse. Whatever its flaws, at least that proposal wanted to base itself on a democratic foundation, where the people would have the right to decide whether they want to secede or not. This doesn't even have a single regard for the rights of citizens of member nations, or their will to remain part of an intact nation. It's almost as despotic as the very thing that it seeks to target, namely absolute monarchies.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I don’t necessarily support this. I’m arguing for legality, not acceptability.)

OOC: It's good that you don't necessarily support this, because the legality of this argument is so far stretched that it snapped a long while ago.

OOC: Yeah, I'm with you, they're both colossal stinkers of proposals!!

Hannasea wrote:OOC: Yeah, I'm with you, they're both colossal stinkers of proposals!!

OOC: I disagree with the "colossal stinker" part regarding the secession referendas proposal, but I'm surprised you're so engaged in WA affairs when you're not even a member of it.

OOC: You're probably right that "colossal stinker" is a bit too mild, yeah. As to WA membership, why should that be an issue? Non-members or those with "observer missions" have been commenting longer than many of the current crop of players have been alive. I've written many resolutions. It's just the lack of roleplay etiquette that kills my interest.

---

And with that, IA should probably have his thread back to discuss the second worst proposal we've seen in recent days...