Search results

Leaning for on this one, in spirit, but have some reservations: 1. Resolution cites an independent body that may review decisions made by the DRC, as part of an appeal, but there is no specific body indicated for such reviews. It feels like unfinished business. Would aggrieved parties simply be...

Information for Voters This resolution suffers somewhat from a rush to submission that prevented the proper vetting of some of its mandates. A few of the ideas suggested are incomplete, with no instruction as to how to carry them out effectively. For example, the resolution recommends a fixed...

Fair Depository Standards Act Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection Proposed by: Lusane | Onsite Topic Voting Instructions:Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.Vote Abstain if you...

NOTE: This proposal reached quorum a few weeks ago, and was then withdrawn. The link to the previous version thread is here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190225/

Reserved for IFV

Protecting Personal Data Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection Proposed by: Marxist Germany | Onsite Topic Voting Instructions:Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.Vote Abstain if...

And how, exactly, is that to be determined, and where, in this ambiguous clause is that made clear? As the clause reads, a person caught with a recreational drug is automatically assumed to be an addict and subject to mandatory rehab. So, if someone is caught with a gram of mushrooms, for...

Against Author seems way out of their element on this one, and this resolution is quite naive and mightily uninformed. A great many recreational drugs aren't the least bit addictive, and mandatory rehab for a simple first possession is an absurd waste of everyone's time and resources. At no...

Information for Voters: This resolution suffers from a lack of clarity in its mandates, and a certain naivety about drugs and addiction, in general. The stated definition of drugs is incredibly broad, with no differentiation between the most harmful and the most benign. The resolution suggests...

Drug Abuse Amelioration Act Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant Proposed by: Maowi Co-Author: Holly United | Onsite Topic Voting Instructions:Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.Vote Abstain...

For

Reserved for IFV

Repeal: "Liberate Confederation of Corrupt Dictators" Category: Repeal | Target: SC #263 Proposed by: ShrewLlamaLand Co-Author: Jocospor| Onsite Topic Voting Instructions:Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the...

This proposal was withdrawn.

Protecting Personal Data Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Consumer Protection Proposed by: Marxist Germany | Onsite Topic Voting Instructions:Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.Vote Abstain if...

For WA nation is THX1138

Reserved for IFV

Commend Severisen Category: Commendation | Nominee: Severisen Proposed by: Xoriet | Onsite Topic Voting Instructions:Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain...

Against I believe @Darcania has covered it well. WA nation is THX1138

I'm saying, for the third time, that one contributes to the other. The Secretariat does not make its rulings in a void, and many of the rules they apply take into consideration the legislation that has come before. If they didn't make that consideration, we wouldn't have (or need) rules like HoC...

In consideration to the author, and to those who may have picked up on my argument against this resolution, I believe that my initial interpretation was wrong. Having dug more deeply into existing law, especially GA355 (Rights of Sapient Species), which provides a definition of 'sapient...

I basically think that's what I said. The rulings of gen sec consider what has come before, when determining legality. I think where we diverge is in whether you think I'm talking about strict legal precedent/case law, where one resolution sets a standard in law to which all others must comply...

I don't see it as a grey area at all: 'Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned' - 'sapient organism' must include human embryos. The 'originator' must give full consent - no mention of third party consent (parents, guardians). The full...

Against - Also have problems around clause 4.1. Embryo cloning and research up to a point isn't problematic, since undeveloped embryos have no cognizance or ability to feel. An outright ban isn't necessary, and would place severe restrictions on medical research. - Clause 5/6: Not entirely sure...

IFV: This resolution attempts to deal with the cloning of organisms and the legal landscape surrounding that process. Unfortunately, there are several concerning issues that arise from its mandates. The proposal attempts to limit the cloning of prenatal sapient organisms without a direct...

The Cloning Conventions Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics Proposed by: Caspian Settlement | Onsite Topic Voting Instructions:Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.Vote Abstain if you want the...

"Member nations shall allow the sale of secured and unsecured interest-bearing financial instruments..." Legit question: Isn't 'shall' in this instance the same as 'should' in the other? Is this intended to be optional to nations or would it be mandatory? I genuinely don't like the idea of any...

The whole of the WA is built on the concept of legal precedent. Once a law is established, it cant be changed: A precedent has been set. Once a law is passed, nations can't make amendments to it: Precedent. Once a legislation exists, another legislation can't cover the same ground: Precedent...

The contextual use of the word 'should' in a seemingly passive manner, but with mandatory implications has fallen into the language: 'You should breathe or you will die'. Sure, it's not a statement of what one 'must' do to avoid death, but both words are understood as interchangeable in that...

Please make sure you are providing the name of your WA nation with your votes. Thanks.