Search results

It's still poisoning the well a fair bit. Edit: If I misinterpreted, then ok, but I suppose my point was: I don't want to have to waste time debating the proposal if people are going to end up saying no solely because of its author, as has happened quite frequently in recent memory within the...

I'm not sure that that's true of all respondents, no, but I'll take yours on good faith. Patent trolling isn't really possible under this resolution, at least not in the RL sense. The resolution permits limitations when: Patent trolls don't have such plans. So limitations to prevent abuse can...

(Not voting.) This is one of the best proposals the WA's had to vote on in the last year, and I admit to finding an utterly abject shame that TNP, the one feeder that always had a reputable record for WA involvement, is going to doom it to failure. No, it shouldn't. But this is the problem...

The rules shouldn't be too difficult to follow, really. Just use common sense, and think about what the reasonable, logical answer would be. Then take the exact opposite of that, and you will have Kryo's ruling.

How many Deputy Ministers do you need!?

Although it's not really surprising given the sophisticated philosophy of the "Modern NatSov" manifesto: Can anyone remember Hack's line about ideological thuggery...? Anyway, I haven't finished the second half of the assignment. WA Resolution #302, "Individual Working Freedoms" mandates...

What "universal rights"? If it's bodily self-determination, then it's somewhat confusing that this comes following a lecture extolling the virtues of the Clean Prostitute Act, a resolution that prevents the WA from legalising prostitution, and the Essential Medication Act, which bends over...

Based on your trenchant support of probably the least sovereignty friendly resolution in history, I would say not. But the vagueness of both of your and my responses further show that the terms are basically meaningless. Describing oneself as "a NatSov" - or even an adorably marvellous NatSov -...

Assignment 2 I believe the WA should legislate on truly international matters, such as trade, and shouldn't on domestic matters, like abortion. However, I don't believe NatSov or IntFed are useful terms that have any meaning any longer, so I would place myself in the octarine section of that...

Assignment 1 100% a roleplayer. Furthermore, I base my decision on the resolution text. Not on who submitted it, not on which region they come from, not on what they've submitted or said in the past, not on whether or not they've posted a forum thread or posted to a particular region. This is...

The fact that the mechanism in The General Patent Charter didn't work was pointed out at the time of the resolution and has frequently been pointed out ever since, so regardless of the stance on the replacement, the repeal does make a reasonable case.

No, it is not, because for the ten millionth time, such a resolution would not be legal with On Abortion in place, regardless of whether Reproductive Freedoms were repealed, repealed twice, repealed infinity times plus one and no backsies, or set on fire and tossed from the top of the Empire...

Well, that's not at all what you said originally. So long as we're agreed that a "hard pro-life replacement" is not a concern, I'm happy for you to shift the goalposts onto something else entirely: a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms would indeed restore the status quo that had been the case for...

Are you being willfully obtuse as some kind of misguided ploy, or do you genuinely not understand? This repeal, and any possible replacement, are all completely irrelevant. With On Abortion on the books, there is simply no way a legal "hard pro-life" resolution can be written. (This setting...

What his replacement does or doesn't do is irrelevant. No proposal could "result in a hard "pro-life" replacement" with On Abortion in place. You may want to read the "blocker on blockers" ruling in this thread. It is not a valid concern.

That would not be possible. Even if Reproductive Freedoms were ever repealed, On Abortion would still remain in place.

I don't really agree with the "Information for Voters" summary you've written up, at all, nonetheless thanks for voting for.

No players were around then. Fight the Axis of Evil passed before the NationStates site actually went live! It was implemented November 12, and the site went live November 13. Not really. Only a small number of resolutions were resubmitted more or less verbatim: Rights & Duties, NAPA, Wolfish...

First, bear in mind that the WA defines "war" in an utterly terrible and unhelpful way. Only wars that are "consensual" are considered to be wars by the WA. So any legislation relating to war is always going to have problems when it comes to "aggression", because the WA doesn't really recognise...

Of course it is. The law means what the law says. As it does not make any prohibition against such an action, then it follows that such an action is not prohibited. However, note that unprovoked aggression is probably impossible owing to the WA's conception of war as "consensual". This would...

That was definitely a mistake, but they don't seem willing to argue the point.

Name: Acoustic Siberia Why you want to take WA 101: There is much I don't understand about the WA and am eager to learn. Have you ever tried your hand at passing WA legislation before? How did that go? Yes, I have written about 20 resolutions and been involved in drafting or campaigning for many...

While I can't vote here, I'm happy to answer any questions about the proposal as the author.

This is in all probability going to cross too many categories to consider in one resolution. Had you considered breaking it down? For example, concentrating initially on the information gathering of the WEHA would probably be the least controversial aspect (it would not be dissimilar to...

Fair enough.

Wasn't REI repealed?

I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that radiological weapons are a deterrent? "Responding in kind" by firing radiological material over your own city - that'll really show those terrorists!

This would be where you provide your rebuttal.

Because it's so insipid. There's "nothing essentially wrong", with forcing nations to allow everyone to vote in every election in their nation? Great. I live in London, but I think I'll vote in the Scottish independence referendum, the Manchester mayoral election, and the Birmingham council...

The analysis on this one made me weep with laughter.