Search results

Thank you all kindly, and thanks to McMasterdonia. I look forward to serving again in his government.

I, Sanctaria, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Minister of World Assembly Affairs, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code...

Great news on the job, r3n, but sorry to see you go. Don't be a stranger and hopefully we'll see you sometime next year.

Against

Too much illegal here for me to get my head around, even if I supported the idea.

I too am in favour. I second this motion. If it needs to be seconding. I dunno anymore.

Did we have this last year? I know we definitely discussed it, but I can't remember if we actually passed something. We worked out fine last year. Even if I lost a load of sleep.

I don't agree with amending the oath to include conscientious objections. I've said that before elsewhere. So my disagreeing with you isn't being irrational or obtuse, and I do understand why you and others want it amended, I just don't agree. So, as I said, I don't support amending the oath...

I don't see anything wrong with the current oath as written. Will not support.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Against

Abstain

I don't support the removal of "obedience" from the oath. All members should obey the laws - put conscientious objection clauses into the law itself if you must, but to remove the requirement for RA members to obey the law in their oath is way too much.

Sure, but the "from this point forward" made it sound like it was for longer than the rest of Aba's term.

I don't think you can unilaterally make such a decision that is binding on future Vice Delegates.

My TNP nation, Sanctarian WA Mission, is now also my WA nation. Again.

Against.

Pretty sure a common link to all school shootings is guns. Course that's me being ridiculous though.

Like Aba please be more explicit. Like vote aye :P

Yeah, Aba, be more explicit :P

We can't legislate for non-member states. However, to answer your question, my writing of the proposal, and as such my reading of the proposal, to get around (i.e. to not adhere to) WAAA-standard regulations would be to circumvent the resolution, which is proscribed.

1. The addition of compelling practical purpose was necessary when the extant resolution CoCR is taken into consideration. Typically most resolutions that forbid discrimination in certain areas include the compelling practical purpose provision. One such compelling practical purpose would be...

TNP Nation: Sanctarian WA Mission Court Justice (Pick 3): < Kiwi | SillyString | abstain > Would you like to reopen nominations? < Yes > Attorney General: < abstain > Would you like to reopen nominations? < Yes>

I know I can't vote, but my interactions with Yohannes have always been pleasant and I've found he's one of the most helpful nations to know. He's put a load of work into developing his nation and his presence in II, F&NI, and GE&T is massive. He definitely deserves a commendation.

When Vice Delegate I rejected your application because I thought you were a Security Risk. Since then things have changed and you're now a member of the RA, thanks to the Court, and have worked as as a prosecutor before. However some things don't change and I still view you as a security risk...

I voted no because it's a harmless piece of legislation and this is only a game. Also because I like flem now. He's silly.

I agree with this. Instead of "amendment to chapt X subsection Y", I'd like to see something more along the lines of Freedom of Information (Security Council) (Amendment) Bill 2014. Though that's just my bias of being familiar with my RL country's statute books.

TNP Nation: Sanctarian WA Mission Vote: Kiwi

I don't agree with this bill. It leaves us open to foreign interference and increases the possibility of rogue delegates. Cannot and will not ever support a bill like this.

I'm delighted to see my original block upheld. Sort of. It really would have been an immense pain going back and redoing all the votes. This is just a game and there's no need to take it so seriously. That being said, I'm surprised the Court didn't just direct the RA to hold a vote on...