International Court of Arbitration (ICA)

[Enn]

Given that Enn, and more broadly Antarctic Oasis, refuses to recognise the ICC, I am somewhat curous as to why you think we would be interested in supporting another attempt at a WA-backed court.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[Glen-Rhodes]

You don't get it. ICA has an authority only if both sides in the conflict or dispute agree to join the public hearings. By that act, both of them agree that they must respect the decision.

Don't bother. Grays Harbour is unable to form a coherent argument against a court of this type, so it's unlikely that they'll be able to understand any coherent argument in support.

Given that Enn, and more broadly Antarctic Oasis, refuses to recognise the ICC, I am somewhat curous as to why you think we would be interested in supporting another attempt at a WA-backed court.

I'm curious as to why Antarctic Oasis should be considered the bellwether of the World Assembly.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Grays Harbor]

You don't get it. ICA has an authority only if both sides in the conflict or dispute agree to join the public hearings. By that act, both of them agree that they must respect the decision.

Don't bother. Grey's Harbor is unable to form a coherent argument against a court of this type, so it's unlikely that they'll be able to understand any coherent argument in support.

Of course, if a coherent argument was actually presented, we may pay attention. We're still waiting.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Of course, if a coherent argument was actually presented, we may pay attention. We're still waiting.

A court of arbitration made available to voluntarily agreeing parties would naturally decrease conflict between those parties. Your argument: We aren't 'all that enamored of the WA sticking their collective nose in where it doesn't belong'. Your opposition doesn't even relate to the proposal. It's completely knee-jerk, rather than arising from any actual thought.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Grays Harbor]

Again, your opinion is noted. We are not generally in favour of resolutions which end up being voluntary only.

OOC: We don't care for them because, even though the text says "voluntary", the effects are still felt by the nations because in the end it is not the text which effects, but the strength and category. Which is why we vehemently dislike "voluntary" proposals. If it is voluntary, fine, make a thread for it in II and those who want to participate can, those who don't, are not forced to feel the effects.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: We don't care for them because, even though the text says "voluntary", the effects are still felt by the nations because in the end it is not the text which effects, but the strength and category. Which is why we vehemently dislike "voluntary" proposals. If it is voluntary, fine, make a thread for it in II and those who want to participate can, those who don't, are not forced to feel the effects.

OOC: I don't understand that at all. Then again, I don't care one bit about in-game stat effects. 'Voluntary' resolutions have no effect in-character.

[Enn]

Given that Enn, and more broadly Antarctic Oasis, refuses to recognise the ICC, I am somewhat curous as to why you think we would be interested in supporting another attempt at a WA-backed court.

I'm curious as to why Antarctic Oasis should be considered the bellwether of the World Assembly.

- Dr. B. Castro

Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I was asking a question of the proposer, as to why nations should support a new court when many have publicly refused to acknowledge the last one.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[edit]formatting

[Philimbesi]

Don't bother. Grays Harbour is unable to form a coherent argument against a court of this type, so it's unlikely that they'll be able to understand any coherent argument in support.

Or Grays Harbour is completely able to run his own nation, and negotiate is own diplomatic exchanges without the need of a WA Kangaroo court.

Quite possibly also they are able to read the rules of the proposals that clearly state compliance is mandatory and voluntary clauses are illegal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Or Grays Harbour is completely able to run his own nation, and negotiate is own diplomatic exchanges without the need of a WA Kangaroo court.

It seems Philimbesi is as equally unable as Grays Harbour to understand that arbitration would be a voluntary process, entered into only by agreeing parties, meaning this argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Quite possibly also they are able to read the rules of the proposals that clearly state compliance is mandatory and voluntary clauses are illegal.

There's always room for an encouragement clause.

Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I was asking a question of the proposer, as to why nations should support a new court when many have publicly refused to acknowledge the last one.

I questioned why the author should care that a relative few nations dislike the ICC. Honestly, an author has no reason to listen to delegations that are against the very idea of his proposal. It's counter-productive, because those delegations aren't going to ever support it.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Philimbesi]

Which this crap doesn't even include. All it does is essentially create a committee, and make it the

supreme legal body on the universal level,

whatever in hell that means.

[Enn]

Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I was asking a question of the proposer, as to why nations should support a new court when many have publicly refused to acknowledge the last one.

I questioned why the author should care that a relative few nations dislike the ICC. Honestly, an author has no reason to listen to delegations that are against the very idea of his proposal. It's counter-productive, because those delegations aren't going to ever support it.

- Dr. B. Castro

Perhaps you might like to refrain from putting words into the author's mouth too. I would like to see the author defend this idea.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

OOC edit: The best debates come from having two very strongly opposed sides, as it forces you to think of new ways to defend your work. I'm somewhat worried that you appear to be countenancing directly ignoring those who have concerns.

[The Palentine]

Which this crap doesn't even include. All it does is essentially create a committee, and make it the

supreme legal body on the universal level,

whatever in hell that means.

As I said old bean, the people who support this type of fluff, are rather soft-headed, or are public sector union types, who believe that government and bureaucrats can solve all the world's problems. Just add another bit of buraucracy and red tape and it will be skittles and beer for everybody. Of course it makes them feel better, because then they don't have to actually DO anything. And they leave the mess for others to clean up. They forget that the nine scariest words in the english language are these..."I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Glen-Rhodes]

Which this crap doesn't even include. All it does is essentially create a committee, and make it the...

Eh, never said this proposal was good.

Perhaps you might like to refrain from putting words into the author's mouth too. I would like to see the author defend this idea.

I'm not speaking for the author; I'm giving them some much-needed advice.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC edit: The best debates come from having two very strongly opposed sides, as it forces you to think of new ways to defend your work. I'm somewhat worried that you appear to be countenancing directly ignoring those who have concerns.

OOC: I don't mind debates with people that dislike a proposal and would like to see some things changed. But I don't see any benefit in entering a debate with somebody knowing that there will never be an agreement, because they abhor the very idea of the proposal. All it does is turn relationships sour and derail the creation of a good proposal. I've been in the position more than once.

[Enn]

Perhaps you might like to refrain from putting words into the author's mouth too. I would like to see the author defend this idea.

I'm not speaking for the author; I'm giving them some much-needed advice.

- Dr. B. Castro

Your 'advice' said to blatantly ignore someone who doesn't like the sound of your proposal. If that is the standard of your debate method, then I wonder how you can ever justify changing anything about your ideas - after all, you clearly already know all the answers.

Now, I await a response from the proposing nation.
Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

OOC edit: The best debates come from having two very strongly opposed sides, as it forces you to think of new ways to defend your work. I'm somewhat worried that you appear to be countenancing directly ignoring those who have concerns.

OOC: I don't mind debates with people that dislike a proposal and would like to see some things changed. But I don't see any benefit in entering a debate with somebody knowing that there will never be an agreement, because they abhor the very idea of the proposal. All it does is turn relationships sour and derail the creation of a good proposal. I've been in the position more than once.

OOC: As have I. I've found them the absolute best kinds of debates. The point of a debate isn't to convince your opponent, it's to convince your audience. Do not confuse the two. If you happen to change your opponent's mind, then that's an added bonus, but it's not the core aim of a debate.