by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:22 pm
by The Overmind » Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:02 pm
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:44 pm
The Overmind wrote:As I said, unlikely to pass due to coauthor even though your motives may be entirely different and this draft an effort to rehabilitate this proposal. Again, just speculation based on my time in the WA and the general opprobrium surrounding all of Alkzine's drafts.
by The Overmind » Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:46 pm
Of The Revived Soviet Union wrote:The Overmind wrote:As I said, unlikely to pass due to coauthor even though your motives may be entirely different and this draft an effort to rehabilitate this proposal. Again, just speculation based on my time in the WA and the general opprobrium surrounding all of Alkzine's drafts.
Fair. Might be worth asking Alkzine if I can withdraw his co-authorship.
by Comfed » Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:24 pm
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:00 pm
Comfed wrote:The speech forbidden under s. 1 of this proposal is almost certainly protected by s. 1(a) of Protecting Free Expression without being exempted by any of the qualifications under s. 2 of that resolution.
I frankly have no idea what ss. 3-4 actually mean in practice. They're both incredibly broad and vague, with no specific mandates, which isn't helped by the use of the passive voice. If you're writing a new draft, I would go back to the drawing board on these.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:31 am
2. Member states shall not compel religious institutions, leaders, or followers to adopt, endorse, or affirm beliefs or practices regarding sexual minorities that conflict with their religious doctrines; however, religious institutions may not arbitrarily and entirely bar attendance to LGBTQIA+ because they are part of the LGBTQIA+ community,
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Thu Jan 09, 2025 2:33 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:OOC:2. Member states shall not compel religious institutions, leaders, or followers to adopt, endorse, or affirm beliefs or practices regarding sexual minorities that conflict with their religious doctrines; however, religious institutions may not arbitrarily and entirely bar attendance to LGBTQIA+ because they are part of the LGBTQIA+ community,
This clause makes the rest of the resolution entirely unenforceable. It needs to either go or be rewritten so that it doesn't interfere with the rest of the proposal.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Jan 09, 2025 3:16 am
by Torregal » Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:10 am
by Untecna » Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:12 am
by Ultra Earth » Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:58 am
by The Overmind » Thu Jan 09, 2025 11:33 am
Ultra Earth wrote:A shame, I liked the original better.
by Alkzine » Thu Jan 09, 2025 5:01 pm
by Alkzine » Thu Jan 09, 2025 5:04 pm
Ultra Earth wrote:A shame, I liked the original better.
by The Overmind » Thu Jan 09, 2025 5:23 pm
Alkzine wrote:The Overmind wrote:I guess it has at least one endorsement then.
It actually had several endorsements privately communicated to us, but nations didn’t want to go public with them (potentially because of the aggressive, bullying atmosphere that has been regrettably on show in the GA).
(As well as the 56+ endorsements given as a matter of
public record).
by Untecna » Thu Jan 09, 2025 5:23 pm
Alkzine wrote:The Overmind wrote:I guess it has at least one endorsement then.
It actually had several endorsements privately communicated to us, but nations didn’t want to go public with them (potentially because of the aggressive, bullying atmosphere that has been regrettably on show in the GA).
(As well as the 56+ endorsements given as a matter of
public record).
by Elyreia » Thu Jan 09, 2025 7:17 pm
Alkzine wrote:The Overmind wrote:I guess it has at least one endorsement then.
It actually had several endorsements privately communicated to us, but nations didn’t want to go public with them (potentially because of the aggressive, bullying atmosphere that has been regrettably on show in the GA).
(As well as the 56+ endorsements given as a matter of
public record).
by Alkzine » Thu Jan 09, 2025 7:45 pm
Elyreia wrote:Alkzine wrote:It actually had several endorsements privately communicated to us, but nations didn’t want to go public with them (potentially because of the aggressive, bullying atmosphere that has been regrettably on show in the GA).
(As well as the 56+ endorsements given as a matter of
public record).
Casual reminder the bar to quorum is 6%
If your resolutions were better and more supported, a raid on 2 or 3 delegates would not drop it from quorum. You barely passed the quorum bar once, and failed to reach quorum the other times.
In short, just shy of 6% of the community is on your side, and your name has become poisonous to any other good faith proposals in the realm of these topics.
by The Overmind » Thu Jan 09, 2025 7:56 pm
Alkzine wrote:Elyreia wrote:
Casual reminder the bar to quorum is 6%
If your resolutions were better and more supported, a raid on 2 or 3 delegates would not drop it from quorum. You barely passed the quorum bar once, and failed to reach quorum the other times.
In short, just shy of 6% of the community is on your side, and your name has become poisonous to any other good faith proposals in the realm of these topics.
Sorry to correct this, but the proposal was actually raided twice. The average proposal right now has around 85 approvals, so by your logic only around 10% are “on the side” of any proposal, which is patently false. Let's try not to make false claims—the second draft had around 62 proposals and was gathering more before being raided; this was also in the face of somewhat unprecedented counter-campaigning fromHaymarket Riot in a ludicrous overstepping of their Secretariat role (including using disingenuous phrasing to make it sound as if opposition to the proposal was a foregone conclusion, rather than being actively debated).
Of course, if some nations hadn’t petulantly decided to raid the proposal (after histrionic claims that it was “dead on arrival”), we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This marked insecurity and desperation to ensure it doesn’t reach a vote would imply that the few shrill voices claiming to speak for all of NS aren’t quite as confident in the universality of their opinions as they claim to be.
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:41 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Of The Revived Soviet Union wrote:again, can you re-word that then?
OOC: I am not certain that this project could be pursued in good faith and conscience. Certainly it would have to permit some level of oppression against the already oppressed if we are to pursue one of those so-called compromises.
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:48 pm
Alkzine wrote:Elyreia wrote:
Casual reminder the bar to quorum is 6%
If your resolutions were better and more supported, a raid on 2 or 3 delegates would not drop it from quorum. You barely passed the quorum bar once, and failed to reach quorum the other times.
In short, just shy of 6% of the community is on your side, and your name has become poisonous to any other good faith proposals in the realm of these topics.
Sorry to correct this, but the proposal was actually raided twice. The average proposal right now has around 85 approvals, so by your logic only around 10% are “on the side” of any proposal, which is patently false. Let's try not to make false claims—the second draft had around 62 proposals and was gathering more before being raided; this was also in the face of somewhat unprecedented counter-campaigning from Haymarket Riot in a ludicrous overstepping of their Secretariat role (including using disingenuous phrasing to make it sound as if opposition to the proposal was a foregone conclusion, rather than being actively debated).
Of course, if some nations hadn’t petulantly decided to raid the proposal (after histrionic claims that it was “dead on arrival”), we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This marked insecurity and desperation to ensure it doesn’t reach a vote would imply that the few shrill voices claiming to speak for all of NS aren’t quite as confident in the universality of their opinions as they claim to be.
by Pathonia » Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:51 pm
Alkzine wrote:somewhat unprecedented counter-campaigning from Haymarket Riot in a ludicrous overstepping of their Secretariat role
by Of The Revived Soviet Union » Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:56 pm
Pathonia wrote:Alkzine wrote:somewhat unprecedented counter-campaigning from Haymarket Riot in a ludicrous overstepping of their Secretariat role
I should like to note that counter-campaigning with telegrams isn't unprecedented within the General Assembly, and that counter-campaigning at all doesn't mean that they're overstepping their GenSec position. To my knowledge, being a Secretariat doesn't necessarily inhibit one's ability to telegram (or counter-telegram, in this case) as they otherwise might have done without the role.
-=-=-
Opposed due to co-author.
by Elyreia » Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:41 pm
Alkzine wrote:Elyreia wrote:
Casual reminder the bar to quorum is 6%
If your resolutions were better and more supported, a raid on 2 or 3 delegates would not drop it from quorum. You barely passed the quorum bar once, and failed to reach quorum the other times.
In short, just shy of 6% of the community is on your side, and your name has become poisonous to any other good faith proposals in the realm of these topics.
Sorry to correct this, but the proposal was actually raided twice. The average proposal right now has around 85 approvals, so by your logic only around 10% are “on the side” of any proposal, which is patently false. Let's try not to make false claims—the second draft had around 62 proposals and was gathering more before being raided; this was also in the face of somewhat unprecedented counter-campaigning from Haymarket Riot in a ludicrous overstepping of their Secretariat role (including using disingenuous phrasing to make it sound as if opposition to the proposal was a foregone conclusion, rather than being actively debated).
Of course, if some nations hadn’t petulantly decided to raid the proposal (after histrionic claims that it was “dead on arrival”), we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This marked insecurity and desperation to ensure it doesn’t reach a vote would imply that the few shrill voices claiming to speak for all of NS aren’t quite as confident in the universality of their opinions as they claim to be.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alkzine, Cessarea, Dinorsta, Haymarket Riot, Lanias, Solarhope
Advertisement