Advertisement
by The Black Hat Guy » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:00 am
by Kahanistan » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:43 pm
by The Saint James Islands » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:33 pm
Article II, Section II, Subsection V: The World Assembly Delegate
Clause VIII. The World Assembly Delegate shall cast a symbolic vote in the World Assembly on all resolutions which reflects the preferences and opinions of a simple majority of World Assembly-member Residents that voted on the resolutions; however the World Assembly Delegate may publicly issue a dissenting opinion as to why they disagree with the majority of the DSA’s World Assembly members.
Classical republican, environmental student
Pro: Parliamentarism, civic virtue, positive liberty, soft Euroscepticism, the scientific method, facts
Anti: Presidentialism, authoritarianism, corruption, populism, hard Euroscepticism, misinformation
IC posts made by this nation are non-canonical.
This nation does not reflect my actual political views.
Do not use orally after using rectally.Guilherme Magalhães
Senator for Ilhas de Santiago Ocidentais
Staunchly independent
[23:53] <StJames> ^fake news^
The death of the West will not be a homicide, but a suicide.
by Mosktopia » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:55 pm
Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.
The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:00 pm
Mosktopia wrote:I am troubled by the fact that this is the second proposal in a row where a significant margin of the popular vote is being outdone by large delegacies. As of now, the vote stands at 3,385 FOR to 3,046 AGAINST (53% to 47%). But the popular vote among individual nations is 1,012 FOR to 1,408 AGAINST (42% to 58%).
A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.
by The Dourian Embassy » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:39 pm
by Pacifist Chipmunks » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:48 pm
Mosktopia wrote:A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.
by Dai Coon Ree » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:21 pm
Kahanistan wrote:Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."
by Fantoche » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:55 pm
War Correspondent as an employed individual that relays information in regards to multi-national conflict to a third party with the intent of making this information available to the public.
Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of confiscating their equipment without justification, wounding the individual, or executing them without adequate reasoning. Should a militant fail to comply, both the individual, and the host member-state of the individual shall be held accountable.
Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.
War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense.
War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation, as are the home nation of the correspondent.
by Controlitia WA » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:24 pm
Kahanistan wrote:Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."
by Kecoughtan Tribe » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:47 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:55 pm
Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.
Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton
by Kecoughtan Tribe » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:07 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.
Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton
...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.
by Paranoidia » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:48 am
Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.
by Eireann Fae » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:13 am
by Bears Armed » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:56 am
Paranoidia wrote:Perhaps Delegates should be consulting the opinions of their region's members before casting their vote considering how much weight the vote of delegates from larger regions carry?
by Bananaistan » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:01 am
by SverigeKins » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:48 am
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:13 pm
Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.
No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.
by The Dourian Embassy » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:41 pm
by Svetlaka » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:37 pm
by Kahanistan » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:02 pm
Svetlaka wrote:Having heard and read the act, the Svetlakian stands and says, "I cannot in sound mind and moral standing, support a repeal of this act, although I would suggest a revision. War correspondents should be required to sign an agreement with their government stating that if they are captured and killed that their government cannot reasonably react to said action, as they are meant to be a neutral party." Having said this, he sits back down quietly and casts his vote against the repeal of this act.
by Svetlaka » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:24 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement