[DRAFT] Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights"

[Sacara]

IA completely made a mockery of the WA, all the while his friends just laugh at it. I completely support this resolution.

[Kranostav]

IA is a solid author. This is demonstrable fact. He doesn't need to resort to this bottom-of-the-barrel zygote of a proposal to earn a badge.

This is about WALL showing that they own the GA, as plainly laid out for all to see by The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs' gatekeeping in this thread. I certainly never claimed to be a GA regular, that would be an obviously ridiculous assertion, but it doesn't matter since he can't refute the claim that WALL owns the place. Better attack the poster instead.

Insinuating that IA is doing this out of badge hunting is a fairly hot take. He certainly doesn't need to go out of his way for another one. Also my name is TlomzKrano, glad you used my full title . Oh and lastly, do you honestly think that WALL members sit there in the back rooms on discord concocting plans to "show we own the GA"? Because if so... we have those meetings on Tuesdays at 7, light refreshments included!

[Reventus Koth]

IA is a solid author. This is demonstrable fact. He doesn't need to resort to this bottom-of-the-barrel zygote of a proposal to earn a badge.

This is about WALL showing that they own the GA, as plainly laid out for all to see by The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs' gatekeeping in this thread. I certainly never claimed to be a GA regular, that would be an obviously ridiculous assertion, but it doesn't matter since he can't refute the claim that WALL owns the place. Better attack the poster instead.

Insinuating that IA is doing this out of badge hunting is a fairly hot take. He certainly doesn't need to go out of his way for another one. Also my name is TlomzKrano, glad you used my full title . Oh and lastly, do you honestly think that WALL members sit there in the back rooms on discord concocting plans to "show we own the GA"? Because if so... we have those meetings on Tuesdays at 7, light refreshments included!

I never said IA was badge hunting; replace "earn a badge" with "pass a resolution" if it makes you feel better. That's the second time you've put words in my mouth, a couple more and that's probably worth a free sandwich.

Your full title highlights your bias, but I'll keep your name in mind for the future. And no, dude, no hegemony sits around in backrooms cackling like hyenas about how in control they are, that's a strawman. That it isn't so blatant does not make it true, the numbers don't lie. I get it though, you have to downplay it. It's your job.

[Separatist Peoples]

IA is a solid author. This is demonstrable fact. He doesn't need to resort to this bottom-of-the-barrel zygote of a proposal to earn a badge.

This is about WALL showing that they own the GA, as plainly laid out for all to see by The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs' gatekeeping in this thread. I certainly never claimed to be a GA regular, that would be an obviously ridiculous assertion, but it doesn't matter since he can't refute the claim that WALL owns the place. Better attack the poster instead.

OOC: WALL is on the losing end of votes pretty often. That does not indicate ownership to me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This repeal is not the "safe side" or the "last ditch" that anyone is looking for (and for more jokes, see Microcosmographica Academica, chapter . If you think being short is bad, supporting this proposal is leaving the frying pan and jumping into the fire.

[Wallenburg]

This repeal is not the "safe side" or the "last ditch" that anyone is looking for (and for more jokes, see Microcosmographica Academica, chapter . If you think being short is bad, supporting this proposal is leaving the frying pan and jumping into the fire.

You're just scared I can write a resolution shorter than yours.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This repeal is not the "safe side" or the "last ditch" that anyone is looking for (and for more jokes, see Microcosmographica Academica, chapter . If you think being short is bad, supporting this proposal is leaving the frying pan and jumping into the fire.

You're just scared I can write a resolution shorter than yours.

Ah shit, you got me.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC:

- To repeal low quality legislation

What is specifically wrong with it?

- To present legislation of similar quality and challenge the GA to come up with any reason this should be canned while the one at vote continues to gain approval

Perhaps because this has no actual reasoning?

- To tell WALL where they can stick it.

I fail to see the villainy in WALL. If people want to form voting blocs, that just means there is more engagement in the GA.)

[Reventus Koth]

(OOC:

- To repeal low quality legislation

What is specifically wrong with it?

- To present legislation of similar quality and challenge the GA to come up with any reason this should be canned while the one at vote continues to gain approval

Perhaps because this has no actual reasoning?

- To tell WALL where they can stick it.

I fail to see the villainy in WALL. If people want to form voting blocs, that just means there is more engagement in the GA.)

(On mobile, forgive my lack of formatting.)

1. Specifically, there was more effort put into the campaign telegram for this proposal than the legislation itself, going as far as to explain in the TG what could have easily been put in the actual proposal. If IA had done even that much, I probably wouldn't have even cared.

2. If this point doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter to you. There's nothing really to argue about.

3. Maybe short term, but any form voting blocs will take to create "more engagement in the GA" won't be something that benefits the GA. It won't be about legislation, it will just be about who in Gameplay wants to oppose who. Unless you really don't mind the GA being dictated by GP voting blocs that don't actually care about the legislation, just the people who write them. I can't really stop you or anything.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Addressing the length of the target is IMO not actually the addressing the content. This is an honest mistake violation as currently stated.

[Ru-]

My quality standards for repeals are vastly different then my quality standards for resolutions. Resolutions represent the official stance of the WA and are expected to change member state policy and effect what future resolutions may be passed.

repeals only get rid of a target resolution and have no other effect on WA precedent or it's member states. "the target is bad" is the only justification that should be needed, and is the only standard I use when deciding my vote. Resolution writing is crafting a law, repeal writing is making an argument. The same level of scrutiny should not be applied to both.

my full ironic support.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Addressing the length of the target is IMO not actually the addressing the content. This is an honest mistake violation as currently stated.

The length is, necessarily, a quality of the content.

[Arcturus Novus]

Hm. Petty, but it's humorous enough that I won't complain about the pettiness.

[God Tere Norld]

OOC: Addressing the length of the target is IMO not actually the addressing the content. This is an honest mistake violation as currently stated.

The length is, necessarily, a quality of the content.

Not really, the resolution said what it wanted, then left the reader to choose for itself, frankly, i dont care if its for insulting the WA, they said what they wanted to say, and I respect that

[Durzan]

The length is, necessarily, a quality of the content.

Not really, the resolution said what it wanted, then left the reader to choose for itself, frankly, i don't care if its for insulting the WA, they said what they wanted to say, and I respect that

OOC: Debatable, as while the proposed resolution does say what it wants to accomplish, it provides no means for explaining HOW it would accomplish those things. The resolution AT A BARE MINIMUM needs to specify what counts as violation of the right to vote (with regards to using debt to prevent it), close out obvious loopholes, clearly define terms being used, clearly establish methods by which the resolution can be enforced (such as by establishing a committee that can pass judgement on the matter), establish possible punishments, and so forth.

As it is now, it is a toothless resolution that amounts to being a paper version of Neville Chamberlain. IE useless.

[Separatist Peoples]

Not really, the resolution said what it wanted, then left the reader to choose for itself, frankly, i don't care if its for insulting the WA, they said what they wanted to say, and I respect that

OOC: Debatable, as while the proposed resolution does say what it wants to accomplish, it provides no means for explaining HOW it would accomplish those things. The resolution AT A BARE MINIMUM needs to specify what counts as violation of the right to vote (with regards to using debt to prevent it), close out obvious loopholes, clearly define terms being used, clearly establish methods by which the resolution can be enforced (such as by establishing a committee that can pass judgement on the matter), establish possible punishments, and so forth.

As it is now, it is a toothless resolution that amounts to being a paper version of Neville Chamberlain. IE useless.

Ooc: member states must carry out the duties in WA resolutions. This explicitly describes a duty. This is hardly vague.

[United Massachusetts]

IA is a solid author. This is demonstrable fact. He doesn't need to resort to this bottom-of-the-barrel zygote of a proposal to earn a badge.

This is about WALL showing that they own the GA, as plainly laid out for all to see by The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs' gatekeeping in this thread. I certainly never claimed to be a GA regular, that would be an obviously ridiculous assertion, but it doesn't matter since he can't refute the claim that WALL owns the place. Better attack the poster instead.

Oh and lastly, do you honestly think that WALL members sit there in the back rooms on discord concocting plans to "show we own the GA"? Because if so... we have those meetings on Tuesdays at 7, light refreshments included!

This probably happens.

[Separatist Peoples]

Oh and lastly, do you honestly think that WALL members sit there in the back rooms on discord concocting plans to "show we own the GA"? Because if so... we have those meetings on Tuesdays at 7, light refreshments included!

This probably happens.

OOC: Its blood. Of the innocents. That's what we drink.

[United Massachusetts]

This probably happens.

OOC: Its blood. Of the innocents. That's what we drink.

"Only Christians are allowed to be cannibals."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Its blood. Of the innocents. That's what we drink.

"Only Christians are allowed to be cannibals."

"So you probably wouldn't like the canapes. Angels on horseback. With real horse and angel meat."

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Why would you repeal something right after it is passed? Also, if it doesn’t, you’re all going to look stupid for complaining before it happens.

[Lord Dominator]

Whaaat, you haven't been inviting me to the WA Elite meetings? How rude

[Wallenburg]

Why would you repeal something right after it is passed? Also, if it doesn’t, you’re all going to look stupid for complaining before it happens.

If I were afraid of looking stupid, I would have given up on the GA years ago.

[Lord Dominator]

All of us are here playing NS, I would wager none of us are particularly afraid of looking stupid

[Jocospor]

All of us are here playing NS, I would wager none of us are particularly afraid of looking stupid

OOC: sigh L.D., we finally agree on something.