Search results

This feels as though it is something that ought to have been placed into the proposal’s text. There’s no mention in the text that sanctions are connected with database; they could simply be fines for misuse. There is also no mention of sanctions being proportionate, reasonable, or fair. I do...

(Non-WA) This is a blocker which does not establish any actual policy. As such, I have no actual opinion on it, so I vote to abstain.

(Non-WA) I am for this proposal. As a coauthor, I am clearly prone to bias, but I do regard this proposal as being an appropriate way to replace GA #002. It takes the key elements of compliance in good faith and equality of member-nations, so as to leave room for more detailed legislation on...

It is long-standing GA precedent that WA committees are presumed to be efficient and effective, otherwise every proposal involving committees would have to specify such matters are staffing requirements, oversight, operational procedures, and other minutiae which would go beyond the limit of one...

(Non-WA) I am entirely for this, with little to comment. With regards to the WAID being hacked, I concur with Chipoli that this would not be possible, for much the same reasons as committees are assumed to be incorruptible.

(Non-WA) I don’t see how or why Jutsa is discredited. Could someone enlighten me on this? Regardless, I am against the proposal. The original UN resolution was funny precisely because of how unexpected it would be for an international body to make a declaration about the size of the...

(Non-WA) There are multiple minor grammatical and punctuated errors in the proposal, indicative of a lack of time spent drafting. I also entirely oppose the complete ban on a military or police-force for the WA. Hence, I am against this proposal.

(Non-WA) Based on the comments posted by those with greater knowledge of economics and policy than I, I am against this proposal.

(Non-WA) I am against on ideological reasons.

I completely missed that. Well, in that case, I will be voting against the proposal. That is a major loophole.

Where are you seeing that in the proposal’s text? That’s a subclause about who may visit patients in MHFs, not a general statement about what should happen to witnesses.

(Non-WA) I don’t like the formatting, but personal preference in terms of aesthetics is not a real barrier to the quality of a proposal. The arguments have convinced me. Therefore, I will vote for the repeal.

(Non-WA) I am present but not voting. The use of blockers is fine, where it is impossible to find a consensus. However, I am not sure that patents are indeed an area where consensus is impossible. The advantage of this is that it prevents certain poor policy from being passed, but I have some...

(Non-WA) There are some issues with this, such as the inclusion of aiding and abetting, but not counselling or procuring, the other two types of complicit liability. However, the legislation is nonetheless addressing a worthwhile topic, and its flaws do not mitigate the positive impact that this...

(Non-WA) I will likely oppose the replacement as a matter of policy. However, I am for this repeal. Though there is disagreement over what form the replacement will take, the targeted resolution satisfies nobody. The target containins a major loophole, which is a sign of flawed execution rather...

(Non-WA) I am for this proposal. It concisely protects a fundamental civil right.

(Non-WA) I am for this repeal. This is one of the more detailed repeals that I have seen, and it demonstrates a number of flaws with the target. Some are stronger than others, but the presence of even one compelling argument ought to be sufficient to justify a repeal. There is also the matter...

(Non-WA) I am for this.

(Non-WA) I am for this. The proposal is fairly well-written, and it establishes some key mandates which, though implemented in any reasonable nation, are good to ensure as a matter of basic standards. The author has been drafting this for about four months, and it has gone through a lot of...

(Non-WA) I remain for this.

(Non-WA) I am present.

(Non-WA) I am entirely for this proposal. The proposal enacts good policy, and it does so in a thorough fashion. It also manages to sidestep concerns about non-human roleplay quite well.

(Non-WA) That was remarkably quick. I am therefore for this proposal.

(Non-WA) I supported this forumside, but the reasoning of Namwenia is convincing, so I will vote as present.

(Non-WA) For reasons of policy, I oppose this. The General Assembly has the right to prohibit inefficient, tyrannical, and generally poor forms of government. However, I do feel as though this is the sort of legislation that the GA would have, or indeed any international body like the GA...

(Non-WA) I am for this. The proposal semi-replaces GA #2, but it goes far further than GA #2 ever did in protecting the sovereignty of member-nations from military threats. It is admittedly broad, but I think that the generality of it avoids being one-size-fits-none, allowing for some roleplay...

(Non-WA) I am for this. The proposal is structurally sound, fair and detailed in its provisions, and it pursues good policy. I am seething with rage over the full stops at the end of clauses 1, 2, and 3 (which ought to be commas or semicolons), but let that not stop a good piece of legislation...

(Non-WA) As the author, I’m happy to answer any questions that anyone has about this. Also, I am naturally for this. The proposal aims to replace GA #2, in terms of being a theatrical, founding document for the GA, with some mandates about good-faith compliance, keeping with the ruleset, and the...

(Non-WA) Following some convincing argumentation from IA, I am against this proposal. It does not actually perform its intended effect, due to a seemingly minor error in wording. The clause that ostensibly reserves legislation on patents to member-nations does so to member-nations as a whole...

(Non-WA) This is an easy vote for the proposal. The liberation was trying to achieve a specific aim, and that aim has been achieved.