[DRAFT] Repeal "Rights of the Disabled Act"

[Dimitrovgrad]

I tentatively support Linux and the X's replacement.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING that GAR #227, "Rights of the Disabled Act", mandates that "in necessary cases, including but not limited to; legal matters, court matters, and medical consent, a limited power of attorney be transferred to a Responsible Adult",

CONVINCED that a disabled person's rights should only be transferred to another when absolutely necessary, and that any resolution mandating such a transferal must clearly specify what rights must be transferred and in what circumstances such a transfer is necessary,

DISMAYED that the resolution offers no such guidance, failing to clarify what constitutes a "necessary case" for rights transferal and to what extent a power of attorney should be "limited" in a given circumstance,

SHOCKED that nations may therefore feel compelled to unjustly deprive a disabled person of his or her rights,

CONCERNED that the commission created to "monitor states for abuse of this legislation" has no real mandate, procedures or mechanism of enforcement and will therefore be highly ineffective,

TROUBLED by the generally poor formatting and grammar of the resolution,

HOPING that a superior resolution regarding the protection of the mentally disabled will be passed by the World Assembly in short order,

HEREBY REPEALS GAR #227, "Rights of the Disabled Act".

[Dimitrovgrad]

If nobody has any comments, I'll submit this repeal soon (as soon as I get WA membership, of course.)

[Linux and the X]

I would request that you give some time for final comments on my replacement. I'll bump it up for people. Once my draft is finalised, you can change your proposal from merely hoping for a replacement to referencing the existence thereof.

[Gullud]

Actually, I have a comment. I do not know if your nation was in on the original passing of GAR#227. But at the time of the passing, I spoke loudly against this bill because of the impact it could have on our current PM who is autistic. (And yes, if we have not met yet, PM Boudicca Rhyess is autistic and she leads our nation.) We in Gullud loudly and proudly support the repeal of this terrible law that does nothing but remove rights from people and does so with a level of vagary found most often in corrupt dictatorships and not the WA.

Since the passing of GAR#227, my nation won an Ambassadorship in our region and we will push with the Democratic Socialist Alliance for support for this repeal.

Ema Planta
Ambassador to the WA from Most Serene Nation of Gullud
Regional Ambassador for the Democratic Socialist Alliance (assigned to the WA)

[I Want to Smash Them All]

Rights of the Disabled Act
*snip*

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising the need for a formal resolution on the procedures to protect the mentally disabled,

Understanding that there are multiple levels of of Mental Disability

Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are significantly reduced:

i. The ability to understand their rights

ii. Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation

iii. Their ability to exercise their rights

iv. Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

Hereby Mandates that in necessary cases, including but not limited to; legal matters, court matters, and medical consent, a limited power of attorney be transferred to a Responsible Adult.
Defines a Responsible Adult as one of the following

i. A preferred Responsible Adult, nominated by the person before they become disabled, will be the first person requested to become the Responsible Adult, but only if they can prove that they have no conflict of interest

ii. A member of the Disabled Person's family, who can legally establish that they have no conflict of interests

iii. In lieu of a suitable candidate, a representative, independent of the national government, must be selected, who must also pass a test of conflict of interest.

Mandates that the said Responsible Adult be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that no conflict of interest develops

Restricts the power of Attorney given to the Responsible Adult to the least possible in the circumstances

Urges the states to use this legislation as a matter of last resort, and to consider all alternatives before transferring a persons authority to another.

Urges the states using this legislation to work towards a position whereby a Disabled Person's authority is returned to them at the earliest possible juncture

Mandates the creation of a commission to monitor states for abuse of this legislation

-----
Votes For: 8,899
Votes Against: 3,686

With this in mind, every part of this repeal is untrue, unpersuasive, repellent, or a combination thereof.

AMUSED by the fact that the sole purpose of GAR #227, "Rights of the Disabled Act", is to take rights away from the disabled,

1. This is blatantly untrue. One care argue the resolution it may or does have the effect of taking rights away from the disabled (which would be wrong), but it is not a purpose of GAR#227 -- let alone the sole purpose. Shame on you.

2. The resolution does not take any rights away from the disabled. It provides protections to safeguard the disabled when and if they are unable to assert their own rights.

3. You provide no specifics supporting this bold assertion (as to either the purpose or the effect of the resolution).

4. Although one might argue that nations could abuse this resolution (which is dubious at best), you should be specific as to (a) how and (b) why this is worse than what any nation could do before passage of this resolution or after it were repealed. To the extent you have a solution to (b), please be specific as to the "better" alternative.

5. If your assertion was true, why would you (or anyone else) be "amused"? If, as you ostensibly seem to claim, you are concerned that this resolution deprives the disabled of rights, you would not be "amused." I do not wish to read to much into a single word, but that wording suggest you are not the best advocate for the disabled.

DISMAYED by the resolution's poor definition of a disabled person, which arbitrarily requires that any two of four listed abilities associated with sapience be significantly reduced, even though a significant reduction in just one of the listed abilities is sufficient to merit some form of guardianship,

6. The requirement is not arbitrary.

7. The resolution sets a floor, not a ceiling. Nations can, of course, provide greater or broader protections for the disabled who need protection.

8. This contradicts your other points. If the resolution were actually taking rights away from the disabled, why should the definition of disabled be broader?

9. A lower standard for disability or a degree of disablity that trigs guardianship is inherently disadvantageous. As is, nations objected the standard/definition was too broad.

10. Again, this vague assertion is not supported by any specifics or explanation.

CONCERNED that the resolution provides no clear restrictions on what rights or powers can be transferred from a disabled person to a responsible adult, other than vague proclamations that they should be restricted to "the least possible in the circumstances",

11. The limitation is clear enough. A reasonable nation can and should understand the meaningful limitation on any Power of Attorney.

12. That is far from the only limits on the transfer of a limited power of attorney on behalf of disabled person in GAR#227. Transfers must only occur when and to the extent necessary. There on limits as to whom can be the Responsible Person. Nations are urged to provide additional limits on when a limited power of attorney may be transfered and to the duration of such transfers.

14. The resolution provides for an independing commission to monitor against such abuse.

15. Again, without GAR#227, nations can do as they please in this area. And nations can provide additional protections, limitations, or safeguards. A floor is better than no floor. See, e.g., points 4 & 7 above.

16. Objections to a lack of specificity in GA resolutions should be viewed with skepticism (at best). There are simply practical limits on how specific a GA resolution can be. Moreover, there are political, ideological, strategic, etc., problems with providing increased detail.

17. The choice between specificity and "vague" clauses is a bit of a Cornelian dilemma or no-win situation. Any "vague" clause (no matter how practically meaningful under the reasonable nation theory) may be criticized for being "vague." More specificity causes objections both to the wording or substance of the specifics and to the imposition of specifics as such (e.g., "micromanagement" and imposing on national sovereignty).

18. To the extent your objection is unreasonable or malicious nations can or will abuse GAR#227, that is unavoidable. It is simply the reality of the WA that no resolution can stop intentional malevolence. Such an objection falls into the perfect solution fallacy.

19. You fail to explain the details of or support for this assertion. This is particularly true as to both why and about what the WA should be concerned.

SHOCKED by the implications of granting member nations an internationally-recognized blank check to disenfranchise their citizens,

20. Not true. The resolution does not provide a "blank check" to member nations disenfranchise the disabled or anyone else.

21. To the contrary, the resolution provides both increased protection of disabled rights by providing for advocacy for those needing a representative and sets safeguards limiting the use of Power of Attorney. See, e.g., points 2, 11, &12 above.

22. As explained repeatedly above, the resolution sets a floor that is better than having no resolution. See, e.g., points 4, 7, & 13 above.

23. Again, you provide no reasoning, explanation, or detail for this assertion and you are engaging in a form of the perfect solution fallacy. See, e.g., points 4, 7, & 18 above.

24. The resolution provides for an independing commission to monitor against such abuse.

NOTING that the commission created to "monitor states for abuse of this legislation" has no real mandate or procedures and will therefore be highly ineffective,

25. This has the dubious distinction of being your most accurate objection. The commision is not expressly given authority to act and procedures are not expressly provided for the commision.

26. Your objection is still flawed, however. The combination of the many provisions restricting the conditions for, scope of, possible recipients of, and internal monitoring of transfer of a limited power of attorney independently provide safeguard and provide at least some bases for a mandate for the commission. See, e.g., points 2, 11, &12 above.

27. Regardless of the commision's effectiveness or lack thereof, the resolution itself should and will be effectve as implemented in good faith by reasonable nations. In this sense, the commision is somewhat superfluous. See, e.g., points 2, 11, 12 above.

28. The commission is simply an additional protection against abuse. To the extent abuse will occur despite the commission, this inability to avoid abuse is not fatal. Laws against murder are not worthless simply because murders still happen. See, e.g., point 18 above.

HOPING that a superior resolution regarding the protection of the mentally disabled will be passed by the World Assembly in short order,

29. Although it is not required to offer a replacement when seeking a repeal, providing at least some idea of what a superior resolution would look like and explaining why it would likely be passed by the WA is far better than merely "hoping" a magical solution appears.

30. This is a classic combination of a nirvana fallacy, a perfect solution fallacy, and the perfect being an enemy of the good. "A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" is also applicable.

HEREBY REPEALS GAR #227, "Rights of the Disabled Act".

Nah. Let's not.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

AMUSED by the fact that the sole purpose of GAR #227, "Rights of the Disabled Act", is to take rights away from the disabled,

DISMAYED by the resolution's poor definition of a disabled person, which arbitrarily requires that any two of four listed abilities associated with sapience be significantly reduced, even though a significant reduction in just one of the listed abilities is sufficient to merit some form of guardianship,

CONCERNED that the resolution provides no clear restrictions on what rights or powers can be transferred from a disabled person to a responsible adult, other than vague proclamations that they should be restricted to "the least possible in the circumstances",

SHOCKED by the implications of granting member nations an internationally-recognized blank check to disenfranchise their citizens,

NOTING that the commission created to "monitor states for abuse of this legislation" has no real mandate or procedures and will therefore be highly ineffective,

HOPING that a superior resolution regarding the protection of the mentally disabled will be passed by the World Assembly in short order,

HEREBY REPEALS GAR #227, "Rights of the Disabled Act".

1. It might seem minor but the use of AMUSED is disturbing.

2 The DISMAYED part contradicts itself. You suggest that the definition of using two criteria is too arbitrary but you then say only one of the criterion should be necessary thereby making it easier to claim an individual requires a guardian.

3. How is requiring the appointed guardian to avoid a conflict of interest a "blank check to disenfranchise their citizens"? If that isn't what you were talking about, could you please point out what you mean by this?

4. The NOTING part is really the only part of this I can possibly agree with.

5. In regards to the HOPING part I'd like to see the intended replacement before I support this repeal.

I believe that I have covered everything I intended to, Ambassador. Thank you for your consideration.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

Actually, I have a comment. I do not know if your nation was in on the original passing of GAR#227. But at the time of the passing, I spoke loudly against this bill because of the impact it could have on our current PM who is autistic. (And yes, if we have not met yet, PM Boudicca Rhyess is autistic and she leads our nation.) We in Gullud loudly and proudly support the repeal of this terrible law that does nothing but remove rights from people and does so with a level of vagary found most often in corrupt dictatorships and not the WA.

Since the passing of GAR#227, my nation won an Ambassadorship in our region and we will push with the Democratic Socialist Alliance for support for this repeal.

Ema Planta
Ambassador to the WA from Most Serene Nation of Gullud
Regional Ambassador for the Democratic Socialist Alliance (assigned to the WA)

Your special concern on this topic, particularly in light of PM Boudicca Rhyess's autism is appreciated, Ambassador Planta. Thus, it is especially unfortunate that you still are opposed to GAR#227.

I must note that your objections and concerns raised in the prior thread were appreciated and considered. Multiple attempts were made to alleviate or rebut your objections and concerns. See, e.g., a direct attempt to reply to your concerns by the author, Imperium Londinium, my attempt to reply to your concerns, related comment by the author regarding autism and the resolution, similar comment by author using example of Asperger's syndrome. Again, I wish these responses had convinced you.

As to the notions that the resolution "does nothing but remove rights from people and does so with a level of vagary found most often in corrupt dictatorships and not the WA," please consider my response to these specific items in my last post.

I understand and respect your opinion regading GAR#227 and that your opposition may be resolute. If there is some question that could be addressed or other way to change your mind, however, I would be happy to try if you say so.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I agree that the proposal is not ready for submission. That said I'd like to respond to some, but not all, of Smash's 30 points against the repeal effort. I hope the author finds this post useful in amending the draft.

2. The resolution does not take any rights away from the disabled. It provides protections to safeguard the disabled when and if they are unable to assert their own rights.

One man's "protection" is another man's tyranny. The proposal undoubtedly transfers the exercise of rights from disabled people to a proxy. Whether or not that's a good thing is debatable.

If someone told you that - because you met some WA criteria - you were no longer considered capable of exercising your own rights, you'd probably feel like your rights had been taken away. It would be little comfort that some other person gets to exercise your rights for you: they're hardly "your" rights if someone else gets to make all the decisions on how to use them because some WA bureaucrat thinks you're not capable of doing so on your own.

5. If your assertion was true, why would you (or anyone else) be "amused"?

I agree with this. Amused is not a good word. Robbing an individual of their rights (even to give those rights over to a more "responsible" person) is not amusing. Try "saddened."

If the resolution were actually taking rights away from the disabled, why should the definition of disabled be broader?

This is also a good point. The problem with the definition is not that it captures too few disabled persons. The problem with the definition is that it is broad enough to include individuals who deserve to exercise their own rights, and wrongfully robs those people of self-determination.

I know a great many people who are unable to "defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen" and need significant help to "exercise their rights" (an amorphous concept to be sure). My granny is no expert in health law and needs help to get to the polling booth these days. That doesn't mean someone else should get to vote for her, or that she should not be allowed to fill out her own medicare reimbursement requests.

The author should consider objecting to the definition not because it captures too few people, but because it captures too many - including those who really ought to be allowed to exercise their own rights.

12. That is far from the only limits on the transfer of a limited power of attorney on behalf of disabled person in GAR#227. Transfers must only occur when and to the extent necessary. There on limits as to whom can be the Responsible Person. Nations are urged to provide additional limits on when a limited power of attorney may be transfered and to the duration of such transfers.

That's only partly true. According to the resolution, nations must transfer the following rights to a "responsible" person: (1) attending to legal matters, (2) participating in court proceedings, and (3) making medical decisions. Those are expressly included as "necessary" cases.

The fact that rights must be transferred in other, unnumbered "necessary cases" is a problem. The WA should not be commanding nations to do something like transferring rights without telling nations exactly when rights must be transferred. The resolution creates a situation where nations cannot be sure whether or not they are fully complying. Inevitably, some nations will transfer rights in unnecessary situations (in good faith) because the full extent of what the act requires is unclear. That's a good reason for repeal.

14. The resolution provides for an independing commission to monitor against such abuse.

Ah, but how will that commission know whether a certain situation makes it "necessary" for rights to be transferred? They're in the same boat as member nations: uncertain as to when, exactly, rights should be transferred.

I don't buy the "infallible gnome" argument: that if a nation, in good faith, attempts to comply with the law but gets it wrong, a gnome will instantly know and correct them. Gnomes are not tiny, omnipotent, all-knowing little gods.

18. To the extent your objection is unreasonable or malicious nations can or will abuse GAR#227, that is unavoidable. It is simply the reality of the WA that no resolution can stop intentional malevolence. Such an objection falls into the perfect solution fallacy.

We're not talking about intentional malevolence. We're talking about attempting to comply in good faith but being unclear about the obligations because we have no guidance on what a "necessary" case is, or how "limited" we should make the power of attorney without violating the law.

20. Not true. The resolution does not provide a "blank check" to member nations disenfranchise the disabled or anyone else.

Agreed. There's no blank check to cause abuse. In my opinion, the problem is not the resolution leaves nations free to abuse people, but that the resolution is worded in such a way that it forces nations to abuse their citizens by transferring their rights to others in cases where doing so is inappropriate.

25. This has the dubious distinction of being your most accurate objection. The commision is not expressly given authority to act and procedures are not expressly provided for the commision.

Yes, the committee created by the Act is problematic, as are your repeated assertions that any abuse will be ferreted out by that committee. Committee Gnomes exist to do only what they are empowered to do by the legislation that creates their committee. In this case, the gnomes will hide in hampers and bread boxes, dutifully "monitoring" abuse but remaining powerless to report, respond, or otherwise do anything about it.

29. Although it is not required to offer a replacement when seeking a repeal, providing at least some idea of what a superior resolution would look like and explaining why it would likely be passed by the WA is far better than merely "hoping" a magical solution appears.

It's common practice for a repeal author to include a provision calling for more effective legislation following the repeal. It's a signal that the author does not believe that the idea behind the proposal is bad, but instead objects to how it was done in the target resolution.

It's not required, prudent, or polite for a repeal author to suggest what replacement legislation should look like. It might even be illegal, as repeals cannot legislate.

Best Regards,

[South Aztlan]

South Aztlan urges our fellow nations not to repeal this act

[I Want to Smash Them All]

I agree that the proposal is not ready for submission. That said I'd like to respond to some, but not all, of Smash's 30 points against the repeal effort. I hope the author finds this post useful in amending the draft.

2. The resolution does not take any rights away from the disabled. It provides protections to safeguard the disabled when and if they are unable to assert their own rights.

One man's "protection" is another man's tyranny. The proposal undoubtedly transfers the exercise of rights from disabled people to a proxy. Whether or not that's a good thing is debatable.

If someone told you that - because you met some WA criteria - you were no longer considered capable of exercising your own rights, you'd probably feel like your rights had been taken away. It would be little comfort that some other person gets to exercise your rights for you: they're hardly "your" rights if someone else gets to make all the decisions on how to use them because some WA bureaucrat thinks you're not capable of doing so on your own.

5. If your assertion was true, why would you (or anyone else) be "amused"?

I agree with this. Amused is not a good word. Robbing an individual of their rights (even to give those rights over to a more "responsible" person) is not amusing. Try "saddened."

If the resolution were actually taking rights away from the disabled, why should the definition of disabled be broader?

This is also a good point. The problem with the definition is not that it captures too few disabled persons. The problem with the definition is that it is broad enough to include individuals who deserve to exercise their own rights, and wrongfully robs those people of self-determination.

I know a great many people who are unable to "defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen" and need significant help to "exercise their rights" (an amorphous concept to be sure). My granny is no expert in health law and needs help to get to the polling booth these days. That doesn't mean someone else should get to vote for her, or that she should not be allowed to fill out her own medicare reimbursement requests.

The author should consider objecting to the definition not because it captures too few people, but because it captures too many - including those who really ought to be allowed to exercise their own rights.

12. That is far from the only limits on the transfer of a limited power of attorney on behalf of disabled person in GAR#227. Transfers must only occur when and to the extent necessary. There on limits as to whom can be the Responsible Person. Nations are urged to provide additional limits on when a limited power of attorney may be transfered and to the duration of such transfers.

That's only partly true. According to the resolution, nations must transfer the following rights to a "responsible" person: (1) attending to legal matters, (2) participating in court proceedings, and (3) making medical decisions. Those are expressly included as "necessary" cases.

The fact that rights must be transferred in other, unnumbered "necessary cases" is a problem. The WA should not be commanding nations to do something like transferring rights without telling nations exactly when rights must be transferred. The resolution creates a situation where nations cannot be sure whether or not they are fully complying. Inevitably, some nations will transfer rights in unnecessary situations (in good faith) because the full extent of what the act requires is unclear. That's a good reason for repeal.

14. The resolution provides for an independing commission to monitor against such abuse.

Ah, but how will that commission know whether a certain situation makes it "necessary" for rights to be transferred? They're in the same boat as member nations: uncertain as to when, exactly, rights should be transferred.

I don't buy the "infallible gnome" argument: that if a nation, in good faith, attempts to comply with the law but gets it wrong, a gnome will instantly know and correct them. Gnomes are not tiny, omnipotent, all-knowing little gods.

18. To the extent your objection is unreasonable or malicious nations can or will abuse GAR#227, that is unavoidable. It is simply the reality of the WA that no resolution can stop intentional malevolence. Such an objection falls into the perfect solution fallacy.

We're not talking about intentional malevolence. We're talking about attempting to comply in good faith but being unclear about the obligations because we have no guidance on what a "necessary" case is, or how "limited" we should make the power of attorney without violating the law.

20. Not true. The resolution does not provide a "blank check" to member nations disenfranchise the disabled or anyone else.

Agreed. There's no blank check to cause abuse. In my opinion, the problem is not the resolution leaves nations free to abuse people, but that the resolution is worded in such a way that it forces nations to abuse their citizens by transferring their rights to others in cases where doing so is inappropriate.

25. This has the dubious distinction of being your most accurate objection. The commision is not expressly given authority to act and procedures are not expressly provided for the commision.

Yes, the committee created by the Act is problematic, as are your repeated assertions that any abuse will be ferreted out by that committee. Committee Gnomes exist to do only what they are empowered to do by the legislation that creates their committee. In this case, the gnomes will hide in hampers and bread boxes, dutifully "monitoring" abuse but remaining powerless to report, respond, or otherwise do anything about it.

29. Although it is not required to offer a replacement when seeking a repeal, providing at least some idea of what a superior resolution would look like and explaining why it would likely be passed by the WA is far better than merely "hoping" a magical solution appears.

It's common practice for a repeal author to include a provision calling for more effective legislation following the repeal. It's a signal that the author does not believe that the idea behind the proposal is bad, but instead objects to how it was done in the target resolution.

It's not required, prudent, or polite for a repeal author to suggest what replacement legislation should look like. It might even be illegal, as repeals cannot legislate.

Best Regards,

I appreciate, agree with some of, and will try to reply late to the rest of your thoughtful post. I wanted to address the last point, however.

I agree any suggestion in a repeal as to replacement legislation may be likely illegal. It has also become custom (largely IMO due to strategic lobbying by some) to include such pallative phrases without the author of the appeal to either (outside the language of the repeal) to propose a replacement resolution or endorse one proposed by someone else. Beyond this being a mere appeal to common practice, I think it bad form, imprudent, impolite, and (most importantly) disingenuos for a repeal to include such hollow language and an author to behave in this manner.

Regardless, I stand by my objection that this is a of a nirvana fallacy, a perfect solution fallacy, and the perfect being an enemy of the good. That is unrelated to common practice.

Also, a hollow hope for a better resolution is either meaningless drivel, a misleading trick to gain support, a lie, or a combination of some or all of these.

[Lordkevin]

Thanks for the nice post....

[Dimitrovgrad]

I have made substantial revisions to the draft based on the comments by other Ambassadors thus far.

29. Although it is not required to offer a replacement when seeking a repeal, providing at least some idea of what a superior resolution would look like and explaining why it would likely be passed by the WA is far better than merely "hoping" a magical solution appears.

I tentatively support this as a replacement. I will add a link to the OP.

[Dimitrovgrad]

I've decided that I would really rather not join the WA at this time. Does anyone want to co-author this proposal and submit it on behalf of our delegation?

[Frisbeeteria]

I've decided that I would really rather not join the WA at this time.

Go into any of the Pacifics, post, "please endorse me so I can post a proposal" on the RMB, wait 5 minutes (maybe), and post it. Then resign. It's not like getting 2 endos is a chore.

[Linux and the X]

I've decided that I would really rather not join the WA at this time.

Go into any of the Pacifics, post, "please endorse me so I can post a proposal" on the RMB, wait 5 minutes (maybe), and post it. Then resign. It's not like getting 2 endos is a chore.

You don't have to wait for the update?

[Frisbeeteria]

Go into any of the Pacifics, post, "please endorse me so I can post a proposal" on the RMB, wait 5 minutes (maybe), and post it. Then resign. It's not like getting 2 endos is a chore.

You don't have to wait for the update?

I honestly don't know. Haven't tried it in years. But no, I don't think so.

[Dimitrovgrad]

I've decided that I would really rather not join the WA at this time.

Go into any of the Pacifics, post, "please endorse me so I can post a proposal" on the RMB, wait 5 minutes (maybe), and post it. Then resign. It's not like getting 2 endos is a chore.

I would really, really rather not join the WA. I don't agree with half of the resolutions on the books. Doesn't anyone want to co-author this proposal to help me submit it?

[Dimitrovgrad]

Bump for comments.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Wow, talk about digging up something dead and buried. (I know, proposal author can do that and it's not gravedig, it's still a long time ago. )

Things noticed on quick read-through:

1) Granted, the formatting of the target resolution is horrible, but I'm not sure that alone (or even together with grammar) is a reason to repeal it. Tread lightly on this matter, nobody's perfect.

2) I'd leave out the bit about replacement, it's not really necessary in a repeal. You can mention in the first post, outside the repeal text, that a possible replacement is (is it still?) in the works.

3) You're still not a WA nation, nor do you have a co-author who is.

[Dimitrovgrad]

1) Granted, the formatting of the target resolution is horrible, but I'm not sure that alone (or even together with grammar) is a reason to repeal it. Tread lightly on this matter, nobody's perfect.

It is one reason to repeal it, though I would agree that alone is not sufficient.

I'd leave out the bit about replacement, it's not really necessary in a repeal.

Why? Doesn't it make the repeal more legitimate?

You're still not a WA nation, nor do you have a co-author who is.

I've decided to bite the bullet and join the WA for the brief period of time required to submit this.

[Araraukar]

I'd leave out the bit about replacement, it's not really necessary in a repeal.

Why? Doesn't it make the repeal more legitimate?

No, not really. Especially as you're trying to repeal a resolution, not amend it. (By amending I mean the repeal-and-replace procedure.)

[Sciongrad]

Why? Doesn't it make the repeal more legitimate?

No, not really. Especially as you're trying to repeal a resolution, not amend it. (By amending I mean the repeal-and-replace procedure.)

I agree that a repeal author is under no obligation to write up a replacement, but the author is entitled to express their interest in one. Something as important as the rights of disabled persons should definitely be covered by the WA, in my humble opinion, so I think in this particular instance, it may be worthwhile expressing support for a replacement within the text.