[PSA] NatSov/National Sovereignty

[Servilis]

Just reminding you all that a common mistake among new WA resolution proposers, myself included, is to use "NatSov" as an argument to repeal.
What is NatSov, you ask?

NatSov in the context of WA just means that the repeal argues that the proposal infringes on the laws and guidelines of a nation.

However, it must be mentioned that if you join the WA, you are inclined to follow it's rules.

If you don't want the WA to govern your nation's laws and policies, then you shouldn't be in the WA in the first place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: AFAIK natsov arguments are fine as long as there are other non-natsov arguments

[Keswickholt]

We the Federal Republic will use National Sovereignty in a debate against a proposal and to decide on how we vote when it comes to it.

I do believe that if a Repeal is created it should be done on the wording of the clauses or the error of the resolution that it wishes to repeal and not based off of National Sovereignty.

Ambassadors need to understand that there are other nations that do not think the same way and will be against the proposal for whatever reason. To try and push a political point of view is more damaging to the WA than you might think.

[Wallenburg]

Ambassadors need to understand that there are other nations that do not think the same way and will be against the proposal for whatever reason. To try and push a political point of view is more damaging to the WA than you might think.

What the hell does this even mean? The WA is a political institution. Its purpose is to push political points of view.

[Ardiveds]

Ambassadors need to understand that there are other nations that do not think the same way and will be against the proposal for whatever reason. To try and push a political point of view is more damaging to the WA than you might think.

OOC: since no resolution has ever passed with 0% opposition, it is safe to say every possible resolution will be opposed by atleast one nation. Here in WA we have everything from orwellian dictatorships who would love to carry out daily genocides and use every citizen as a puppet to anarchist states where libertarianism trumps all logic. You literally can't change anything without atleast one side of the spectrum disagreeing with said change.

[WayNeacTia]

Just reminding you all that a common mistake among new WA resolution proposers, myself included, is to use "NatSov" as an argument to repeal.
What is NatSov, you ask?

NatSov in the context of WA just means that the repeal argues that the proposal infringes on the laws and guidelines of a nation.

However, it must be mentioned that if you join the WA, you are inclined to follow it's rules.

If you don't want the WA to govern your nation's laws and policies, then you shouldn't be in the WA in the first place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

The amount of wrong in this, is almost unbearable to read. You have zero clue as to what NatSov actually is.

[Araraukar]

What the frick is PSA? Psoriasis Sufferers Alliance? Discussion threads here are marked as [Discussion].

And NatSov violation is when the repeal argument can be boiled down to "the WA is taking away my right to decide what I do with my nation and my people" with emphasis on the "my right", as it's more commonly a player whine, even if put in IC words.

As for what National Sovereignity means as a concept, I'm sure you'll find something easy to understand if you look it up in Wikipedia. Just be aware that it has a bit different meaning on this forum.

I've personally always thought of the modern NatSov and IntFed positions in GA to work like EU and USA; the first position is characterized by nations voluntarily working together and having a lot of say in the decisions made that address the lot of them; while the latter actually seeks coalescing into a single entity with a central government - with the separate bits maintaining only a little leeway in some disjointed choices such as age limits - where they might still have their own governments, but basically what the central government wants, it gets.

[Honeydewistania]

What the frick is PSA? Psoriasis Sufferers Alliance? Discussion threads here are marked as [Discussion].

And NatSov violation is when the repeal argument can be boiled down to "the WA is taking away my right to decide what I do with my nation and my people" with emphasis on the "my right", as it's more commonly a player whine, even if put in IC words.

As for what National Sovereignity means as a concept, I'm sure you'll find something easy to understand if you look it up in Wikipedia. Just be aware that it has a bit different meaning on this forum.

I've personally always thought of the modern NatSov and IntFed positions in GA to work like EU and USA; the first position is characterized by nations voluntarily working together and having a lot of say in the decisions made that address the lot of them; while the latter actually seeks coalescing into a single entity with a central government - with the separate bits maintaining only a little leeway in some disjointed choices such as age limits - where they might still have their own governments, but basically what the central government wants, it gets.

I think PSA is Public Service Announcement (unless you were being sarcastic)

[Araraukar]

What the frick is PSA? Psoriasis Sufferers Alliance? Discussion threads here are marked as [Discussion].

I think PSA is Public Service Announcement (unless you were being sarcastic)

Non-native English user, so no, it wasn't obvious, but since such announcements should be made by mods (or other actual authorities) only, not people who misunderstand how the proposal rules work, it should still be renamed to Discussion.

Edit: "Ted Talk" is another cultural miss, unless that's an IC character's name, but discussion threads are OOC space so that doesn't make sense either.

[Honeydewistania]

I think PSA is Public Service Announcement (unless you were being sarcastic)

Non-native English user, so no, it wasn't obvious, but since such announcements should be made by mods (or other actual authorities) only, not people who misunderstand how the proposal rules work, it should still be renamed to Discussion.

Edit: "Ted Talk" is another cultural miss, unless that's an IC character's name, but discussion threads are OOC space so that doesn't make sense either.

Ted Talk

Also yeah it should be renamed to [Discussion]

[Kenmoria]

NatSov is prohibited by the rules because it is essentially a cookie-cutter position that can be applied to any piece of legislation the WA has passed. There’s not effort involved in coming up with an argument that relies on nations’ freedoms being restricted, because of the universality of this with regards to GA resolutions, which lowers the quality of a repeal relying solely on NatSov.

As an argument, national sovereignty doesn’t make much sense due to the voluntary way in which the World Assembly is joined. States have no inherent right to to do as they please, as demonstrated by real-world conventions and treaties, and certainly don’t if they have joined an organisation whose entire purpose is to create standards of behaviour.

In almost all cases, the far better argument is that a given GA proposal tackles the issue on too large a scale. Sometimes, national or even local governments can create superior regulations due to being able to differentiate between circumstances more easily. However, NatSov by itself is simply inferior to other points.

I think PSA is Public Service Announcement (unless you were being sarcastic)

Non-native English user, so no, it wasn't obvious, but since such announcements should be made by mods (or other actual authorities) only, not people who misunderstand how the proposal rules work, it should still be renamed to Discussion.

Edit: "Ted Talk" is another cultural miss, unless that's an IC character's name, but discussion threads are OOC space so that doesn't make sense either.

It’s a real-world conference.

[The Palentine]

Just reminding you all that a common mistake among new WA resolution proposers, myself included, is to use "NatSov" as an argument to repeal.
What is NatSov, you ask?

NatSov in the context of WA just means that the repeal argues that the proposal infringes on the laws and guidelines of a nation.

However, it must be mentioned that if you join the WA, you are inclined to follow it's rules.

If you don't want the WA to govern your nation's laws and policies, then you shouldn't be in the WA in the first place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

What a load of horseshit! And I do believe I know what I'm saying as I have falen on the NatSov side of legislation since my nation's founding and involvement in the Old UN starting in 2005.

Of all the comments, Araraukar probably defined NatSov and IntFed best as it is currently used here in the Festering Snakepit.

My personal view always has been that in regards to NatSov, there are certain regulations and topics that ARE NOT any concern of an International Body and thus should be left for Individual Nations to legislate for themselves WITHOUT some group of International busybodies telling them how to do it. I've personally associated IntFeds to be Nannystaters who believe Government should make ALL the decisions for their citizen's lives because either the truly believe their good intentions trump individual choice, or they are arrogant enough to believe they are smarter that their citizens and know what's best, even if their citizens disagree.

(OOC:I'll also admit that I have a strong personal bias against the IntFed system, as in RL am a American with Conservative/Libertarian political leaning and a strong believer in States Rights as found in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.)
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Keswickholt]

OOC:

My position comes from me being a Brit that sits on the fence when it comes to institutions such as the EU and UN.

I see the benefits of being part of an international institute, however I believe that they should not start imposing rules that seemingly act as a plaster (band-aid) and only by theory work. No two nations are the same and as such I feel that umbrella laws are suitable instead of imposing rules that are pointless in some countries as they already have existing legislation that covers the subject area.

I feel that is why the UN and EU are just giant bureaucratic machines that have not achieved what they set out to do.

[Blueflarst]

Just reminding you all that a common mistake among new WA resolution proposers, myself included, is to use "NatSov" as an argument to repeal.
What is NatSov, you ask?

NatSov in the context of WA just means that the repeal argues that the proposal infringes on the laws and guidelines of a nation.

However, it must be mentioned that if you join the WA, you are inclined to follow it's rules.

If you don't want the WA to govern your nation's laws and policies, then you shouldn't be in the WA in the first place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

The World Assembly included the raiding systemand the postion on Assembly of my region there are other motives to stay on

[Ardiveds]

Just reminding you all that a common mistake among new WA resolution proposers, myself included, is to use "NatSov" as an argument to repeal.
What is NatSov, you ask?

NatSov in the context of WA just means that the repeal argues that the proposal infringes on the laws and guidelines of a nation.

However, it must be mentioned that if you join the WA, you are inclined to follow it's rules.

If you don't want the WA to govern your nation's laws and policies, then you shouldn't be in the WA in the first place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

The World Assembly included the raiding systemand the postion on Assembly of my region there are other motives to stay on

OOC: I think he means in RP especially when it comes to the GA forums.