Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Drachmaland last won the day on June 8 2017

Drachmaland had the most liked content!

About Drachmaland

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1367 profile views
  1. Trade of Endangered Organisms was passed 11,311 votes to 3,130.
  2. This proposal is at vote, and is authored by two experienced nations (the main author more in Issues, the co-author both in GA Resolutions and in Issues, and a member of the GA Secretariat. So, expect to see a very well written proposal, with no illegality issues. (Although this proposal had been submitted in the past under the Moral Decency category and was deemed illegal, and is thus now submitted as an Environmental one.) This proposal aims at regulating the provisions regarding endagered species in the WA-members-verse. It makes obligatory that your government, as a WA member, will (a) cooperate with other nations and WAESC (WAESC was formed by GAR #66) in creating and mainting a list of all endangered (sub)species and their populations, (b) restrict international exchange of specimens or goods of/from endangered (sub)species unless specific strict criteria are met, (c) stop the collection and international trade of specimens or products of/from endangered species, and (d) prevent transporting and profiting from endangered species and products derived from them within your nation. I must say I'd prefer that this last provision for within-borders transportation restriction clearly stated an exclusion in cases of scientifically-run species-restoration programs, but anyhow — I hope the provision allows for this to be taken care of at the national legislation level. So, this is actually a proposed resolution that deals with the core of your IC priorities on the matter, as a WA-member nation. You'll have to examine your national priorities and views on the endangered-species issue, and vote accordingly.
  3. "Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"" was defeated 12,637 votes to 2,643.
  4. This proposal needs a bit more support to reach quorum. It deals with the repeal of GAR 286, "Reproductive Freedoms". The target of this repeal, GAR 286, among other provisions: MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures, DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity, PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy, SUGGESTS that Member Nations encouraging live deliveries take unwanted offspring into their own care. As you can see, GAR 286 is quite balanced in the sense that (a) it allows member nations to encourage live delivery and then take into their own care delivered yet unwanted offspring, and (b) it provides for the existence of safe and openly accessible pregnancy-termination medical procedures for anyone seeking to use them. This proposal is based on a number of false claims, namely: That GAR 286 may very well force member nations to legalize Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures. Well, it doesn't. Actually, GAR 286 does not force nations to legalize any specific pregnancy-termination procedure they do not want, as long as there are "safe and openly accessible" medical procedures for pregnancy termination available to anyone seeking them. That viable fetuses are able to survive on their own. Well, they don't; they need to be taken care by at least one supporting agent (typically a human, but also —if one believes in legends— a wolf, a bear, a dragon or what have you). And, in fact, GAR 286 allows for member nations to encourage a live delivery and then become themselves (via a state-established procedure) that supporting agent. That GAR 286, the way it is now, leads to radical and unintended consequences — while failing to name any examples at all. That the title of GAR 286 is misleading — without providing any substance to this claim. That since GAR 286 allows for pregnancy termination for any reason, it can be abused and as a result a pregnancy can be terminated for reasons that could be discriminatory — implying that a state mechanism can know accurately and for sure whatever happens in a mother's mind and what her actual intentions are. And, as already said, if a member nation wishes to take care of all unwanted offspring, is totally allowed under GAR 286 to encourage live deliveries and then take care of them — instead of resorting to mind-reading and intention-projections fuelled by obsession and fanatism. That if a member nation has significant ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies, then these ought to be respected as such — and by "respect" here it's meant ultimately the member nation not allowing pregnancy terminations, since they're unethical. In this case, a nation can impose what it deems ethical on its people. While, as already explained, GAR 286 is balanced (it's based on the compromise: if an abortion is wanted it can be realized, and if it is not it can be avoided), this argument takes the balance away and makes the situation utterly one-sided. As a result I personally urge you not to look at this as a pro-abortion vs pro-life matter, but rather as an unelegant way that some pro-lifers use to trigger emotion-based voting in order to eradicate a resolution (GAR 286) they detest. I thus suggest your voting AGAINST.
  5. Commend Drasnia was passed 13,263 votes to 1,210.
  6. The General Assembly resolution "Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"" was defeated 15,104 votes to 2,041.
  7. This proposal will most definitely reach quorum soon. It was written by a seasoned Issues author, the content has been carefully laid out and the arguments presented have successfully avoided violating Rule 4. The author has created a forum thread, and has taken advice — leading to a very carefully worded proposal text. The target of this commendation is Drasnia, a nation that has been very helpful around the Got Issues subforum, supporting nations that aspire writing issues and aiding nations struggling to figure out issues' consequences and effects. I personally regard Drasnia as worth it, and therefore I suggest voting FOR.
  8. Hello, Infinitya, and welcome to TWP!
  9. "Repeal "Liberate Dank memes"" was defeated 9,265 votes to 5,098.
  10. This proposal has reached quorum — unfortunately. It is coming from a nation that has spammed GA with poorly-written-to-completely-illegal proposals recently, and it shows there're some folks that can effectively resist learning anything from their mistakes (as well as how far a WA campaign can get you). This proposal is a repeal targeting GAR #2, where the Rights and Duties of the WA nations are laid down. GAR #2 contains the all-important framework for what constitutes National Sovereignty (NatSov), and how the NatSov concept works: The NatSov provisions assure independence, jurisdiction rights, and non-interference for all WA nations. GAR #2 also contains provisions for the Role of WA (where the equality of WA member states, and the neutrality of the WA are prescribed, among other things), and for the Rights and Duties at War. Now, this pathetic proposal seeks to wipe out all these, on the premise that (a) the NatSov provision is "too vague", and (b) the targeted resolution introduced "too many regulations that impede the WA as a whole" — and under the promise of a more effective version of the targeted resolution being sought to be introduced. However, no such endeavor seems to have been undertaken by the proposal author — and maybe this constitutes the only good news so far, as I dread to think how such a "more effective version of GAR #2" would look like with Keshiland as its author. This repeal proposal removes entirely the NatSov concept, and then some more, just to replace them with pure void — as there's no replacement being written. It targets GAR #2 on the grounds of ineffectivity, when its author cannot effectively proof read a few dozen words — much less pass judgement on what makes an effective legislative framework for the WA. Not only are we AGAINST this proposal, but we're also urging you to STOMP ON IT on sight.
  • Create New...