United Massachusetts wrote:Rev. Pierce rises up to speak, visibly distraught by the resolution proposed
*Matthew, having fallen asleep, snores particularly loudly and contentedly*
Advertisement
by Thyerata » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:24 am
United Massachusetts wrote:Rev. Pierce rises up to speak, visibly distraught by the resolution proposed
by Aclion » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:47 am
Wallenburg wrote:Thyerata wrote:This may be a bit obscure, especialy since the text of the Resolution doesn't expressly say this, but I'm reading this as a Committee violation because the Resolution indirectly adds another task to a pre-existing Committee - namely, it requires the Compliance Commission to bring cases of noncompliance to the Independent Adjudicator. See here:
The WA has a long history of adding duties to existing committees. This isn't even remotely a question of legality.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:19 am
by Xanthal » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:42 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:46 pm
Xanthal wrote:First, again I understand the sentiment, but not every act of deliberate noncompliance is malicious and though I don't generally let a resolution's preamble change my vote on its substance I would be more at ease with wording which acknowledged that fact.
Second, given that not all nations are in a position to absorb fines of the magnitude required to "coerce compliance" without seriously harming the welfare of their inhabitants, could a provision be added to waive GAO noncompliance assessments if the violator brings itself into compliance within a reasonable time frame following a GAO finding (not extending to remedies under Article IV, naturally)?
Third, given the practice of certain countries in which a separate, nominally independent legal entity is created to sit and vote in the World Assembly while its "puppeteer" is insulated from the consequences of WA action, is there any way in which the ACA can be made to hold these de facto members of the WA in contempt as though they were members de jure?
by Xanthal » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:21 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:35 pm
Xanthal wrote:O...kay. While I appreciate your response, of sorts, I'm sure you can appreciate that just because you say my concerns are addressed doesn't help to actually address them. Again, my issue with the preamble is in the belligerent posture it strikes, not with any of the practical effects of the resolution. And giving the GAO discretion to levy a fine is different than a provision which explicitly outlines a process by which a member can avoid a fine by bringing itself into compliance. As much as I'd like to trust in the understanding and general good nature of the IAO, some manner of assurance that there is a codified "out" in the spirit of the one I suggested would make my disposition towards your proposal more favorable.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:52 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:59 pm
Xanthal wrote:((I'm confused, are you asking me to explain the Xanthalian ambassador's concerns OOC?
by Xanthal » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:14 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Sorry, I genuinely couldn't tell if it was meant ICly or OOCly, but the principal underlying my assumption that the committee would act only be described OOCly. We have to assume that the IAO can act in a fair manner (or, I suppose, understanding and good nature) and consider explicitly the factors in I.1.d, because otherwise we don't have a solid assumption upon which to base our roleplay.
by Wallenburg » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:23 pm
by Bears Armed » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:07 am
Wallenburg wrote:So GenSec is in agreement that this is in the right category?
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:08 am
Bears Armed wrote:Wallenburg wrote:So GenSec is in agreement that this is in the right category?
OOC: Because of Article IV, yes, however much reluctance I might feel about having non-compliance treated as a matter to be handled through resolutions rather than through the WA's [presumed] underlying rules.
Of course, with regard to this proposed resolution's actual usefulness, there's the question of why a nation that's already deliberately non-compliant with some other resolutions should agree to comply with this one and actually pay] the IAO-defined fines...
by Bears Armed » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:12 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Because otherwise they get the crap sanctioned out of them. Members would have to be totally self-sufficient to shrug that off.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:54 am
by Wallenburg » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:08 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:09 am
Wallenburg wrote:The clauses in Article IV end with periods rather than semicolons. For this reason, I am in full opposition. Quite frankly, this is exactly the kind of unacceptably insulting behavior I would expect from a power hungry GenSec elite.
by Wallenburg » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:12 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Wallenburg wrote:The clauses in Article IV end with periods rather than semicolons. For this reason, I am in full opposition. Quite frankly, this is exactly the kind of unacceptably insulting behavior I would expect from a power hungry GenSec elite.
OOC: Well, Art. IV isn't a list. But I accept your judgment. Its hard to argue with my obvious personal contempt for you by using blatantly corrupt punctuation.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:15 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
by Azadistan-land of the free » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:26 am
by The Earth Systems Alliance » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:54 am
by Greater Gilead » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:02 am
Deropia wrote:Jason can't help but laugh as the scotch bottle, followed soon after by the pie, fly through the air of the chamber. "Ah, this place may be a mad-house...but its the best damn posting I've ever had...".
The Bible Baptist Republic wrote:Ambassador Conklin reads the proposal, blinks twice, and mutters "There ain't enough whiskey to deal with this crap."
by Xanthal » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:03 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement