Bears Armed wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I believe this would fit better under civil rights, rather than international security.)
OOC: Civil Rights is definitely a better fit. For IS, you would have to explain how this would increase military spending -- a preamble clause something along the lines of 'Recognizes that limiting conscription might require increasing military pay noticeably in order to attract more voluntary recruits, or spending more on equipment and training in order to make those personnel that have been enlisted more effective," perhaps --and even then it would be arguable.
OOC: I had previously advised the author via Discord that Int. Sec. and not Civ. Rights was the correct category. I do see that the specific protections for conscripts, and for people who shouldn't be conscripted under any circumstances (accepting arguendo that conscription itself is acceptable), may justify a CR categorization. The strength cannot go beyond Mild, however - it would take an actual ban on conscription to justify more.
To the author: I would strongly advise a title upgrade. You could go for anything from "WA Conscription Regulations" to "Fair Military Draft Rules" to "Conscription Fairness Act" to "Military Compulsion Protocol." "On..." type titles are both denigrated in the GA and not particularly descriptive as to their actual effects. The more you can tell voters what you're doing before they've even read your first paragraph, the more likely they'll vote for your proposal.
)
)