Jump to content


Minister for WA Issues
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Denieria last won the day on August 8

Denieria had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Denieria

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday November 26

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Jose, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

530 profile views
  1. Hey guys, we have a new proposal in the General Assembly chamber. My recommendation for this proposal is AGAINST because this proposal provided conflicting operative clauses, used rather more broad terms to construct its definitions, and created several practicality issues. On the conflicting operative clauses, I can cite that the clause 1, section b conflicts with clause 1, section d, subsection iii because while the clause 1, section d, subsection iii allowed law enforcement to be exempted from the crime of "molestation of a grave" when exhuming a body for an autopsy or investigation, clause 1, section b hinders the law enforcement from actually performing an autopsy as that section defines that any unnecessary damage to the body is considered as "mutilation" without any exceptions. This breeds confusion as to whether or not does law enforcement have the right to do an autopsy on the body without being criminally charged. Then another clause that conflicts with clause 1, section b is the clause 4, section b as the latter clause is allowing nations to legislate freely on the usage of organs and tissues of the deceased, yet the deceased body is still protected under the mutilation clause from such extraction with its rather umbrella definition. Therefore, the main problem of this proposal is that it is far too broad with its definitive clauses, with examples can be seen in clauses 1 and 5, causing difficulties in how future proposals should be written regarding this matter as this current proposal would have caused conflicts in its interpretations. Finally, on the practicality issues, I find that this proposal creates many, as the deceased cannot be moved or touched by anyone from law enforcement to even family members for any purpose without proper explicit permission beforehand from the deceased prior to their death. Such permission laws would place practically any criminal investigation involving a death of a person into jeopardy as they can't assess the bodies involved for evidence, losing key pieces of evidence, and families would not be able to move the deceased without going through more bureaucracy to prove that this is the deceased wishes. Furthermore, I find that these umbrella definitions do not have any exceptions for ancient burial sites or any sites of archeological significance for that matter, which would make archeologists having to go through bureaucratic channels to be able to grant their own exemption from these laws and that will delay such operations. In conclusion, I find that this resolution is riddled with many errors that should have been solved during the drafting stages and, therefore, I will fully support the defeat of this proposal. As always, feel free to debate below and voice your opinions!
  2. Hey guys, we have a new proposal in the Security Council chamber, and this resolution seem to be a mix of RP and actual regional activity. My recommendation for it is AGAINST as the proposal is condemning a Senior Moderator through an RP situation mixed with several statements of on his activity in Osiris that has not been fully supported by evidence. The ramifications of condemning such a high-ranking member of the game with such minor transgressions compared to his office would be damning on all moderators as their actions as a player would then have to be treated with a fine comb to see if these actions are condemnable. As always feel free to debate and voice your opinions down below!
  3. Hey guys, we have a new proposal in the General Assembly chamber. My recommendation for this proposal is NEUTRAL as I personally believe that the proposal is great at providing statures that would have prevent wars that could possibly occur for reasons other than for fighting the good fight for human rights, terrorism, and self-defense. However, this legislation is very restrictive in the fact that nations cannot pull away from international agreements that they may have agreed with their opponents prior, and nations must engage in diplomatic solutions before going to war, which could be redundant because there are situations where immediate war is the best solution to the problem. Therefore, in my opinion, this resolution that has equal amount of pros and cons, which is why I issue this recommendation as Neutral. As always feel free to debate and voice your opinions below!
  4. Hey guys, we have a new proposal in the Security Council, and this one is quite controversial. My recommendation for this proposal is AGAINST because I cannot believe in my honest conscience that it is ever right commend a person who created multiple nations with the purpose of making multiple WA members and write a commendation resolution commending himself. That action to me disqualifies this candidate from any kind of official recognition by the Security Council, and therefore, this proposal must be struck dead. As always, feel free to voice your opinions and debate below!
  5. Hey guys, we have a new resolution entering the General Assembly chamber. My recommended vote for this proposal is AGAINST as I believe that this proposal is seriously flawed on many levels, especially of its usage of grey area definitions and contradictory clauses, especially clause 2 of the operative clauses. When the clause 1 is carefully analysed, we find that the definitions given for several terms are not satisfactory because they are not strictly defined, or in other words, not thoroughly explained and limited to. Then when we consider clause 2 of the proposal, it is found to be that the data collection of a minor is not as well protected because their data is potentially be left to the government to decide if the parents are not be able to contact. This points out that more limits could have been put on this operative clause regarding how government can access such data and in what situations that this act is permissible. Furthermore, clause 2 also points to the exception of crime prevention, which places a major leeway for the governments to crack open the data files of anyone in the name of criminal prevention, and that would caused a breakdown of privacy rights and freedoms. As always, feel free to debate and voice your opinions below!
  6. Hey guys, we have a new proposal in the GA chamber to vote on. My recommended vote for this resolution is FOR as the proposal created a clear set of regulations and definitions that effectively acts within the boundaries of the management and ownership of prison. Furthermore, the proposal has clearly stated the limits and exceptions to its active clauses, which ,in my opinion, renders the resolution free from misinterpretations that would allow for actions outside of the scope of the proposal. As always, please state your opinion and stances below!
  7. Hey guys, we have a new resolution in the General Assembly. My recommendation for this one is FOR and my reasons for this is that the proposal would allow for individuals who identify as transgender to be able to have access to their choice of hormone treatments across all nations. Furthermore, this proposal also allows individuals to take control of their sexual identity as they want. As always, voice your opinions and deliberations down below! General Assembly Resolution At Vote Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights. Category: Civil Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: Morover The World Assembly, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, hereby: Submits the following as fact: Transgender and gender non-binary people are real. Their experiences are not the product of "mental illness," "confusion," "disease," or anything of the sort -- rather, their understanding of their relationship to the world in the lens of gender does not correspond with their biological sex. Their first-hand accounts of this understanding are real; each person is in the best position to understand and discern their own gender identity. Any distress arising from this real disconnect between sex and gender is referred to as gender dysphoria -- like any mental condition, it ought to be treated. Further, it ought to be treated in a manner that respects the fundamental facts: that transgender and non-binary individuals' experiences are real, and that their gender identity is not the same as their birth sex. One such way to resolve the distress is through hormone therapy, and the choice to pursue or not to pursue such treatment ought to rest firmly in the hands of the individual, rather than in the hands of the state. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "hormone therapy" as a medical treatment involving the use of naturally occurring hormones for the purpose of altering one's secondary sex characteristics to more accurately reflect their gender identity, Requires all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals, Requires all member-states to have an affordable, easy-to-access way for its transgender population to access hormone therapy, Forbids any member-state from denying a transgender person access to hormone therapy as a punishment or as part of a punishment for a crime, Forbids any member-state from forcing an individual to undergo hormone therapy. Co-Authored by United Massachusetts
  8. @Rizorien and @WaRlorder, it's you guys time to shine.
  9. Hello everyone, there is also a new proposal in the Security Council chamber too! My recommendation for the vote is FOR since that this resolution is an RP-based commendation, and it has managed to have no illegalities within it. However, being an RP-based commendation, there isn't much to go on for this Ministry to go on to conclusively make an argument for one side nor the other. Therefore, this recommendation should only be taken lightly. As always, please feel free to deliberate and voice your opinions down below!
  10. Hello the residents of our region, I am officially back from my business in RL, and we have a new resolution currently in consideration of the General Assembly for passage. On this resolution, it would be most advisable that the residents vote AGAINST the resolution as it fundamentally flawed on many levels, especially when considering clauses 1, 5, and 8. While the resolutions tries to accomplish good, it has rather constructed itself to be self-defeating of its own purposes. For example, the proposed clause 5 allows the usage of the WMDs in defensive purposes but without specifying the actions that are permissible when using such defensive measures. The proposed clause 8 would cause unnecessary bureaucracy to be added to the response protocol, and would likely slow down response time from the WA to the affected areas. Finally, the proposed clause 1 has failed to include the threats of bio-weapons and cyber-weapons, which all have the potential to cause mass destruction. As always, you guys should deliberate and voice your opinions below!
  11. Hey guys, we have a new resolution in the SC chamber. My recommendation for this is AGAINST as we have to honor obligations to LKE as allies. I do say that this recommendation is a rather weak one because there aren't a lot of other reasons otherwise to vote Against on this resolution. Therefore, this recommendation should be followed lightly. Feel free to debate your opinions below!
  12. Hey guys, there is a new resolution in the General Assembly chamber. My recommendation for this one is FOR as the resolution clarifies the grey areas that were endemic to its predecessor, provides fair definitions on the powers that are attached to the passage of this resolution, and provides limits to the powers it was to be given over. For example, the resolution proposes that the member country can eliminate its conservation efforts for a species if the species is deemed to be a public health risk, is invasive to its current locality, will pose an immediate risk to the public health, or its protections will cause negative effects to other species. Furthermore, this resolution has the effect of preserving all plants, fungi and other life that is not animal, and further decrees that the all species that are sapient have conservation responsibilities to their non-sapient species that are endangered. As always, feel free to debate and voice your opinions below!
  13. Hey guys, we have a new repeal proposal at-vote in the General Assembly chamber. My recommendation for this one is FOR because the repeal proposal shows clear flaws in the GA#66 such as the vague definitions regarding the powers given to the target committee, a lack of limits to the powers exercised by the target committee, and a lack of coverage for species that are not animals such as plants and fungi. Therefore, I believe in my opinion that a new replacement is urgently needed and the target resolution must be repealed. Feel free to debate and voice your opinions below!
  14. Hey guys, there is a new resolution in the General Assembly chamber. My recommendation for this one is FOR as the repeal raises some major flaws in the target resolution and presents good arguments to why the target must be replaced. Feel free to debate and voice your opinions down below though.
  • Create New...