[DRAFT] Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights"

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:50 am

Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights"
Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #454 || Proposed by: Wallenburg
Description:

Debtors are bad voters. R: GA#454

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:52 am

by **Kenmoria** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:24 pm

(OOC: Please say that’s a placeholder draft and not just a disproportionate response to the brevity of IA’s draft, because I’m quite certain repeals must actually have some reasoning behind them to avoid illegality.)

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:54 pm

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Please say that’s a placeholder draft and not just a disproportionate response to the brevity of IA’s draft, because I’m quite certain repeals must actually have some reasoning behind them to avoid illegality.)

No such rule exists requiring repeals to make arguments.

by **Wrapper** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:56 pm

Actually:

Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:01 pm

Wrapper wrote:Actually:
Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.

That is part of the Honest Mistake rule, which as I understand only applies to inaccurate or deceptive arguments, rather than a lack of them.

by **Wrapper** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:24 pm

Doesn’t matter what rule it’s under, it makes it clear that you have to address the contents of the resolution.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:31 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Wrapper wrote:Actually:
Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.

That is part of the Honest Mistake rule, which as I understand only applies to inaccurate or deceptive arguments, rather than a lack of them.

You can challenge it, Wally, but it doesnt look good for you. Inclusion under Honest Mistake had more to do with organization than requiring a threshold inquiry, I think.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:54 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:That is part of the Honest Mistake rule, which as I understand only applies to inaccurate or deceptive arguments, rather than a lack of them.

You can challenge it, Wally, but it doesnt look good for you. Inclusion under Honest Mistake had more to do with organization than requiring a threshold inquiry, I think.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

by **Reventus Koth** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:00 pm

Believing GA #454 is too short,
R: GA #454

Can I get co-author credit?

by **Lord Dominator** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:00 pm

Only need to fit your argument in less than 108 characters to be the shortest resolution ever
I'm sure you can manage that

Also, lol Koth

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:20 pm

Reventus Koth wrote:Believing GA #454 is too short,
R: GA #454

Can I get co-author credit?

Fuck it, life's too short to not enjoy it. Edits made.

by **Kenmoria** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:39 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights"
Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #454 || Proposed by: Wallenburg
Description:

Target is too short. R: GA#454

CA: Koth

“Are there any actual arguments for repealing this, bar the length? If you have any, I would like to hear them, even if they aren’t included in the draft for reasons of brevity.”

by **Wrapper** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:54 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but unlike the SC, the GA no longer requires a concluding active clause, right? If so, you can get rid of the “R: GA#454” part.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:57 pm

Wrapper wrote:Correct me if I’m wrong, but unlike the SC, the GA no longer requires a concluding active clause, right? If so, you can get rid of the “R: GA#454” part.

I'm a stickler for the repeals clause. I'm satisfied with a whopping 40 characters.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:59 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Wrapper wrote:Correct me if I’m wrong, but unlike the SC, the GA no longer requires a concluding active clause, right? If so, you can get rid of the “R: GA#454” part.

I'm a stickler for the repeals clause. I'm satisfied with a whopping 40 characters.

Legality salvaged, as far as I can see.

by **Reventus Koth** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:04 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:
Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights"
Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #454 || Proposed by: Wallenburg
Description:

Target is too short. R: GA#454

CA: Koth

“Are there any actual arguments for repealing this, bar the length? If you have any, I would like to hear them, even if they aren’t included in the draft for reasons of brevity.”

The proposal at vote is a testament to the arrogance of Imperium Anglorum, who clearly has become too comfortable with the knowledge that any dreck backed by the World Assembly Legislative League (WALL) will pass regardless of quality or effort put into the writing. It's reductive and undermines the already fragile autonomy of the WA, keeping the decision of which proposals enter the history books squarely in the hands of a handful of individuals. The GA should be concerned with the ease with which the WALL determines the fate of everything that passes through these halls. Thus, this proposal serves three purposes:

- To repeal low quality legislation
- 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
- To tell WALL where they can stick it.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:09 pm

"Fascinating to see a delegation with little WA presence so offended by WALL's influence. Methinks the Kothian delegation is a bit jealous."

by **Reventus Koth** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:16 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Fascinating to see a delegation with little WA presence so offended by WALL's influence. Methinks the Kothian delegation is a bit jealous."

"Hah! I've accomplished everything I've set out to achieve in my WA experience thusfar. Granted, the ol' nation that wrote our delegation's only resolution got nuked off the fucking planet, but I'm still 1 for 1. I'm like Batman. I never read the comics or anything, but I'm pretty sure that guy's shtick is that he's the hero we need when we need him."

by **Lord Dominator** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:38 pm

"My my, I never knew you were this excitable friend. Or that you haven't learned flarping anything about Batman at your age. I'll get some for you, I'm sure you'll like them."

OOC: Pure perfection

by **Kranostav** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:57 pm

Reventus Koth wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“Are there any actual arguments for repealing this, bar the length? If you have any, I would like to hear them, even if they aren’t included in the draft for reasons of brevity.”

The proposal at vote is a testament to the arrogance of Imperium Anglorum, who clearly has become too comfortable with the knowledge that any dreck backed by the World Assembly Legislative League (WALL) will pass regardless of quality or effort put into the writing. It's reductive and undermines the already fragile autonomy of the WA, keeping the decision of which proposals enter the history books squarely in the hands of a handful of individuals. The GA should be concerned with the ease with which the WALL determines the fate of everything that passes through these halls. Thus, this proposal serves three purposes:

- To repeal low quality legislation
- 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
- To tell WALL where they can stick it.

Oh no! Evil WALL is at it again! Cmon fellow GA "regular", to the batmobile!

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:11 pm

Kranostav wrote:
Reventus Koth wrote:The proposal at vote is a testament to the arrogance of Imperium Anglorum, who clearly has become too comfortable with the knowledge that any dreck backed by the World Assembly Legislative League (WALL) will pass regardless of quality or effort put into the writing. It's reductive and undermines the already fragile autonomy of the WA, keeping the decision of which proposals enter the history books squarely in the hands of a handful of individuals. The GA should be concerned with the ease with which the WALL determines the fate of everything that passes through these halls. Thus, this proposal serves three purposes:

- To repeal low quality legislation
- 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
- To tell WALL where they can stick it.

Oh no! Evil WALL is at it again! Cmon fellow GA "regular", to the batmobile!

"Heaven forfend against talented people accomplishing anything."

by **Kranostav** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:13 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Kranostav wrote:Oh no! Evil WALL is at it again! Cmon fellow GA "regular", to the batmobile!

"Heaven forfend against talented people accomplishing anything."

Heaven further forfend against said talented people working together! How dare they combine their WA knowledge and talent!

by **Reventus Koth** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:57 pm

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.

by **El Fiji Grande** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:13 pm

I liked the resolution 'Debtor Voting Rights.' I thought its brevity was elegant, in that it said all it intended to say.

[DRAFT] Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights"

[DRAFT] Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights"

Who is online