Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Arotania last won the day on May 5 2018

Arotania had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Arotania

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Central Europe

Recent Profile Visitors

1091 profile views
  1. Liberate Boston was passed 13,494 votes to 1,552
  2. A commendation proposal for a region that is known for its RP achievements. From what I have gathered, at least in the context of RP, they are quite commendable. So unless one dislikes the idea of commending a region for RP only, there isn't much of a reason to oppose this. discussion thread
  3. Preventing the Illicit Trade of Cultural Artefacts was passed 13,524 votes to 1,968
  4. In general the 'Workplace Safety Standards Act' (GA#7) already exists. This proposal mostly consists of a hefty amount of micromanaging. The 6 years in (3) seem completely arbitrary, same for the number in (6). (7) limits disposal to putting the asbestos in a landfill. Yet other methods exist, like thermal decomposition that simply transforms asbestos into non-hazardous substances by sufficient heating. Especially for the omission in this last part I recommend to vote against this. discussion thread
  5. First of all: nice to have you chime in here! For human remains - there was a proposal in the works that would deal with human remains, burials, graves, etc. specifically. Not quite sure what the status of that is currently. But I think this could really be a topic that would fit a resolution of its own, dealing with more than international smuggling. As for the international part - the WA inherently is an international organization. The faction of people that put an emphasis on national sovereignty and would like the WA to legislate on as little as possible is significant. Also the 'Disturbed..' clause is meant to reference Daesh/ISIL. The proposal's author linked some sources on how they earn significant amounts of money in this way. So the author also had this in mind when writing the proposal. While a more comprehensive approach might be warranted it was outside of the initial motivation and would perhaps not lead to such widespread support. At least it doesn't block further legislation on this topic. I think 4c addresses this. Not a native speaker, so sometimes a few minutiae fly over my head. Here you can find the author's explanation for that part's wording. The way I read it, there is room for future resolutions on more specific cases and the author intends to possibly write this in the future. 7 starts with 'Invites', thus making the whole section non-mandatory. The same would be the case for 'encourages' or 'urges'. Mandatory legislation would have to start with 'requires', 'mandates' or something similar. Basically the section should be read as 'It would be nice if you ....'. When this reached queue and vote I was asleep and when I logged in this already had support by the majority of the GCR's delegates, so not really in the realm of possibility to turn this around right now. Depending on how I managed to address your concerns (and your own interest of course) there is always the possibility to try to repeal this. Beside of this, if you are interested, I can TG you if other anthropology-related proposals come up. We had 'Protecting Minority Languages' by the same author some time ago. By the sound of it, at least they will be the source of topically related proposals from time to time.
  6. OK, I have sobered sufficiently and on a (short :P) break from football. This proposal in the meantime had reached quorum but then Sciongrad launched a countercampaign and it lost a couple of delegate votes. Currently it needs seven more approval with seven hours to spare. In any case the current proposal still has more than a day left on the clock for voting. So no surprise votes possible. Now first of all, thanks for sharing your thoughts. The 'communicate information' part indeed is pretty fuzzy. This seems to be one of the more contentious points from what I gather from the onsite forum. From my purely personal view I like to tie this to power relations, i.e. there should be very few, if any at all, limitations on how you can criticize anyone in a position of power, especially if it is directly over you. This naturally includes governments. This proposal omits all nuances and leaves itself very open to 'creative' interpretations, though. Yes, that section is at least a bit too vague. All in all the devil is, as so often, in the details. This proposal seems to have fallen into the trap of hastily adding exceptions to appease certain commenters. No red line or explanation why exactly these exceptions were chosen and formulated in this way. This ultimately also led to the old resolution's repeal. While a good chunk of the basics seem to be a good foundation, I really got the expression that this was submitted too early and hastily and that it could use a lot of work on its minutiae. Assuring to know that I am not alone in the region with this impression. If this reaches vote there will not be support from all sides. Even a repeal attempt has been anounced for the case this passes. This needs more work (and lose the useless definitions), all PSAs I am going to put out will reflect this. Let's see how this proceeds. If anyone else wants to add to the topic, feel free to respond, I will leave this thread open, even if this fails to reach quorum. This topic is far from being exhaustively dealt with.
  7. The regions mentioned in the 'Observing' clause are Kaiserreich and The Invaders. So while this is not exactly a high priority region, the liberation should be OK to let pass. discussion thread
  8. Commend Helaw was passed 12,783 votes to 2,258
  9. This is the first in line for the replacement proposals for 'Freedom of Expression' that was just repealed. While this is not yet in queue, this is a serious first proposal for what could be multiple resolutions that would replace the old ones. Current motion seems to be in the direction that the old resolution is split into smaller parts to make the whole thing more robust. This proposal therefore limits itself to individual speech. Group expressions (say for example ACLU) are left for other proposals to pursue. The same goes for juristic persons. Now this proposal at hand lays the ground for freedom of expression and against compelled speech (2). 3 establishes general anti-censorship regulations, naturally excempting non-public state communications (think classified information of intelligence services). 4 prohibits censorship based on mediums, i.e. not in newspapers, the internet or something different. Points 2-4 are absolutely well done and couldn't really be improved. Since no freedom of expression can be completely without exceptions (the classical yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre comes to mind), 5 provides permissable exceptions. I am currently a bit too much intoxicated to go into detail there, perhaps we can have a discussion on this list. 6 addresses the main point of the repeal (don't want tobacco sales men advertise to children). 1 is a bit bizarre, as the defined words aren't used. Depending on how this goes and what other proposal come out of the repeal, it might be sensible to establish, what the region thinks is acceptible in regard to this topic. I (or anyone else interested) might push the impending proposals in certain directions. So any thoughts and comments are very welcome. discussion thread
  10. Long proposal but limits and defines itself pretty clearly. As per 1b this only covers artefacts stolen in one country, brought to another through illicit channels and sold there for profit. (Wartime looting is already covered by GA#317). So the elemental steps of this process (theft, smugling, selling of stolen goods) should already be illegal, therefore the proposal does not create a new type of crime that would create a load of new problems. The actions required by this proposal are pretty sensible, also having the preservation of the artefact in mind (5). WATCH is invoked in a supervising manner, earlier drafts had them directly involved in the return process. This is now thankfully gone. Very important is also point 6 which basically limits this proposal from having any bearing on actions that happened before its ratification. Otherwise this could have brought in a deluge of requests basically emptying half the museums in some countries. All in all quite some work went into this. I cannot see anything wrong with this proposal. It is not world-changing but fine enough to support. discussion thread
  11. Repeal "Freedom of Expression" was passed 13,250 votes to 3,681
  12. Repeal "Liberate The Monarchist Entente" was passed 15,125 votes to 1,301.
  13. Well, what have we got here. This is a a true hodgepodge of activity this proposal intends to commend Helaw for. A resolution each in GA and SC is nice but mostly a sidenote. Authorship of four issues is slightly more impressive. The main point seems to be their involvement in Ridgefield, Tempest and the Conch Kingdom, of which they founded Tempest. Now for his work in creating and growing all these regions in the Augustine Alliance, August has been commended last year. Helaw's responsibilities are a bit smaller than August's in this matter. So while this work might be laudable, I am not completely sure if this already warrants a commendation. Perhaps anyone with more experience in foreign affairs can weigh in? discussion thread
  14. Well, this is a big one. This came out of a prior draft by Separatist Peoples. That old proposal thread has a long discussion as to why this proposal should be repealed. To quote SP: While some people read GA#30 differently, at least in the GA Secretariat consensus seems to be that GA#30 blocks legislation on any speech except a few cases specifically named. Commercial speech e.g. is not among these exceptions, therefore the example with tobacco ads in childrens' TV that IA brings up. One of TWP's residents, Demosthenes and Burke summed it up: Given all that I'd personally lean towards a repeal. GenSec and IA have expressed that they will not personally go for a replacement but leave it to someone newer and less experienced. Now the one replacement draft I have seen is not exactly close to a version that I'd support and overall I am a bit wary of what we might get as a replacement. So no strong recommendation from my side. Generally I prefer having something resembling a working replacement draft at hand at the time of a repeal. In this case the repeal target seems to be sufficiently broken, though. discussion thread
  15. Commend Guy was passed 12,971 votes to 4,589
  • Create New...