by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The South Pacific WA Voting Center Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .46474849505152. . .7172»

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy'"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

The Embassy was liberated so it could be freed from the occupying raider forces. This has been achieved, and keeping the liberation in effect would only hinder the natives from setting up a password themselves again, thus making the region less secure from invasion. Therefore, the liberation should be repealed now.

Vote for proposal Repeal "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" has been ended.

Result:
For: 13
Against: 1

OWL recommendation: For

Link:

.

·

·
·

·


'Long-term Storage of Produced Waste'
·
·
..
·

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Long-term Storage of Produced Waste'
Author: Molopovia
Purpose: To require private businesses to acquire certified storage bunkers or halls for problematic waste they may produce.

Links


Vote .Against.
·

The Office's Analysis

While certainly of good intent at surface ‒ trying to protect citizens from toxic waste discharged by factories by requiring businesses to store those in specially-constructed and certified facilities ‒ the at-vote resolution "Long-term Storage of Produced Waste" is simultaneously plagued by an overly heavy-handed one-size-fits-all approach and terribly vague definitions, which ultimately hinder an effective execution of its mandates. Additionally being unconventionally and inconsistently formatted, as well as containing some grammar mistakes, the proposal is in serious need of a complete rewrite including refined mandates in order to live up to the goals it sets out in its preamble. Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Long-term Storage of Produced Waste".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
FOR | AGAINST
·

For

From TSP Citizens

The Langburn Islands is a legislator of TSP. They posted this on their OWL vote:

The Langburn Islands wrote:The disposal of waste is an issue that transcends national boundaries. In order to protect the environment, we must ensure that the international community acts swiftly to ensure that all produced waste is disposed of in a safe, clean and environmentally friendly manner.

From the World

At the time of writing, OWL had not found a solid opinion for the resolution from the rest of the world. You can make your own opinion heard by posting it on the Regional Message Board of the WA Voting Center!

Against

From TSP Citizens

Tepertopia is the OWL Director in TSP. They posted this on their OWL vote:

Tepertopia wrote:While this proposal, unlike another one that is currently at vote here, at least uses the list tag, it's still breaking with a rather large amount of GA formatting practices and contains some grammatical mistakes. Besides, the mandates of this proposal might be some of the most vague ones I've ever seen. "Measures must be taken [...] to reduce waste discharge" - what measures? How much reduction (a reduction by a gram is still a reduction)? Who certifies the facilities? This just demands to be bent by nations until it fits their interests and undermines the original intent. As it stands, it's just not in a passable state.

From the World

Calamari Lands is the WA delegate of Mariner Trench and 1-time WA author. They posted this on the on-site forum thread for this proposal:

Calamari Lands wrote:The Calamarilandese Delegacy voted against because of the lack of a drafting process. This makes the proposal's quality very dubious.

Bananaistan is a GA Secretariat member and 2-time GA author. They posted this on the on-site forum discussion thread for this proposal:

Bananaistan wrote:“There are major issues here not least the fact that the proposing delegation did not do the rest of us the courtesy of providing us with the text of the proposal themselves, and did not open a debate themselves prior to asking us to vote on it. “The requirement that every single business with an “industrial facility” must have a huge 70 year private dump regardless of the scope of the business is insane. “The fact that this is stated as a requirement but then the following clause makes it optional is insane. Just what exactly are these businesses supposed to do? “Then who pays for the 70 years of professional maintenance? “Investing time and resources in assisting the effort to an non-contained waste-free world” is meaningless drivel. “This general requirement to “reduce waste discharge” is bonkers. Specific problems have been addressed in other resolutions. It’s hardly the concern of this assemble if an old newspaper happens to blow out the door of a factory. “This penalties thing. In the incredibly unlikely event that this proposal isn’t rightly utterly rejected by the assembly, I can assure you that the penalty in Bananaistan will be no more than 1/4d per millennium. “Overall this will be a waste of the assembly’s time. It’s a shame that normal custom and practice has not been followed by the proposing delegation. Someone would have advised them not to bother and not waste everyone’s time.”

Imperium Anglorum is the WA Delegate of Europe, a Commended nation, and the author of 40 WA resolutions. They posted this on the on-site forum thread for this proposal:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I voted against because of two things. One, the fact that you have to have a 70 year bunker in your backyard for some reason. Two, the fact that you can have the government build one for you and give it for your use.... but still get fined for not having it in your backyard. The latter part is just stupid. I don't care whether someone drafted on-site or not. Proposal quality is only weakly associated with drafting on site.

Chimes is the WA Delegate of the Rejected Realms. They posted this on TRR's forums:

Chimes wrote:Poorly written sadly. Also disappointing to see proposal was not drafted or posted on the NS Forum by the author. Against.



·

WELCOME BEGINNER'S GUIDE WRITING GUIDE VOTING CENTER LinkDISCORD


·

·
LinkLink
·
·
Read dispatch

NEW GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND VOTE
---------------------------------------------------

Title: Nuclear Aggression Act
Author: Jedinsto
Purpose: To prohibit nations from using nuclear weapons on other nations due to the potential for mass destruction, except in retaliation.

Jedinsto wrote:The World Assembly,

Understanding the need for nuclear weapons in self-defense,

Noting that some smaller nations' only protection from larger nations is mutually assured destruction,

Confirming member nations' right to possess, and produce nuclear weapons,

Finding, however, that the use of a single nuclear weapon will devastate entire cities, and cause death to thousands and even millions of humans, as well as animals, and completely destroys the environment in a certain radius,

Further finding that, without this resolution, in the event nuclear weapons fall in the wrong hands, one impulse could destroy countless nations,

Seeking to reasonably limit nuclear devastation,

Hereby;

1. Defines nuclear weapon as a bomb or missile that uses nuclear fission, fusion, or a combination of the two processes to create an explosion,

2. Bans the use of nuclear weapons on other nations, except for retaliating to a massive, or repeated, attack from an armed force, or in response to a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon strike, to one's own nation, or a nation allied by treaty for the purposes of mutual defense.

View submitted proposal | View on-site drafting thread

---------------------------------------------------

Please discuss and vote on how regional nations and the Delegate should vote on this proposal.
Always remember to include the name of the resolution you are talking about in your posts to avoid confusion!

Click here to read voting instruction (Please do this if you have never voted before!)

Nuclear Aggression Act
Against

The Definition of a nuclear weapon given is very abusable.

Nuclear Aggression Act

For

I believe that is a common sense proposal. I disagree that the definition of a nuclear weapon is vague and have no issues with the definition.

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

I see this as limiting what a country can do in a war and the definition of a nuclear weapon is vague at best.

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

Feel it's vague and not well-written. Honestly, if nuclear attacks are so bad (which they are), just go the whole way and ban the possession of nuclear devices entirely. The way this is written though, there are both too many loopholes (what constitutes a biological strike? A chemical strike?) and too much vague language (how is massive or repeated defined?). This act seems to straddle the fence to cater to all, and in so doing, is pretty toothless. Either go for the jugular and ban nuclear devices entirely, or introduce a gradual disarming program of existing nuclear devices or something similar. This proposal is not great though. We can do better.

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

The Stickmin Empire wrote:Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

I see this as limiting what a country can do in a war and the definition of a nuclear weapon is vague at best.

Repeal "Liberate The Embassy"

For

Please use separate posts for each of your votes, so they can be logged properly. Thank you!

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

In some cases nuclear weapons are necessary to prevent more death and destruction. Furthermore, the resolution is vague leaving many loopholes and I believe it needs more definitions and explanations.

Nuclear Aggression Act

Against

Noting that the Valkyrian Republic opposes the possession and use of nuclear weapons, the proposed resolution is rife with vaguities and includes a provision that affirms the right of member states in possessing such weapons.

Vote for proposal Repeal "Liberate The Embassy" has been ended.

Result:
For: 11

OWL recommendation: For

Link:

.

·

·
·

·


'Commend Kelssek'
·
·
..
·

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Commend Kelssek'
Author: Drawkland
Purpose: To award Kelssek a badge of commendation for their immense contributions to RP (mainly in the field of sports) and The East Pacific, as well as their authorship of a number of historical and WA resolutions.

Links


Vote .For.
·

The Office's Analysis

A distinguished member of the NS sports community, Kelssek is nominated by the at-vote resolution "Commend Kelssek" to receive official recognition by the Security Council in the form of a shiny commendation badge. In addition to their impressive contributions to sports roleplaying, their historical involvement in the WA and its predecessor and work for The East Pacific, as convincingly presented by the proposal in a clear and structured manner, finally leave no doubt that the nominee is deserving of such. Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Commend Kelssek".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
FOR | AGAINST
·

For

From TSP Citizens

Tepertopia is a Deputy Chair of the South Pacific and the Director of OWL.

Tepertopia wrote:I'm not familiar with the nominee, but the accomplishments laid out in the proposal seem really extensive and are enough to merit a commendation, I think. Of course the proposal could have expanded a bit more on some points, as others here have pointed out, but I won't oppose it just for that.

From the World

Ceni is a known participant in the NS Sports forum and is a General Assembly author. On the forum thread for Commend Kelssek, they wrote:

Ceni wrote:Full support. As a former Olympics host, I can personally attest that hosting one is OOCly is a massive undertaking. Hosting multiple... well, it's a blessing that Kelssek is still around in the community.

Electrum is another known participant in the NS Sports scene and has authored SC resolutions such as "Commend Audioslavia" and "Commend Valanora" for their sporting achievements. On the forum thread for Commend Kelssek, they wrote:

Electrum wrote:I wholeheartedly endorse this resolution. Kelssek is a well deserved candidate for commendation. Kelssek's been instrumental in advancing human rights in the World Assembly, with two of its resolutions, the 'Convention Against Genocide' and 'Refugee Protection', forming an integral part of WA/GA law. Hosting four Olympic games also shows an insane amount of dedication -- I can attest to how difficult this achievement is -- many dozens of hours over a short period of time goes into hosting one of these, let alone four of them.

Against

From TSP Citizens

HumanSanity is a legislator in The South Pacific and a SC author. On The South Pacific WA Voting Centre's RMB, they wrote:

HumanSanity wrote:The more I think about it, I just become more skeptical of this proposal. I think the nominee is deserving but the writing is haphazard in some parts and generally lacks narrative and structure. It falls more than almost any other resolution for the "time to list some things" flaw, as it essentially consists of a list of UN/GA resolutions, a list of sports hostings and sports victories, and then a very very sloppy laundry list of every position they ever held in TEP. At no point does it create narrative and the TEP section in particular is sloppy, as positions do not equate to contributions. I'm against with a "go back, fix the writing, and try again" theme

Qvait is a legislator of The South Pacific. On The South Pacific WA Voting Centre's RMB they wrote:

Qvait wrote:While the proposed resolution has a somewhat solid RP component to it, the list of positions the subject has served as part of The East Pacific with no mention of their particular relevance undercuts the strength of the proposal. The author could improve the proposal by elaborating on the relevance of the subject serving in these positions or omitting the section entirely.

From the World

Praeceps is a citizen in The North Pacific and the author (and co-author) of several Security Council resolutions. On The North Pacific's forums, they wrote:

Praeceps wrote:Against. While the RP part may be commendable, the list of contributions to TEP are incredibly unspecific—it is just a list of positions—and should either be removed or explained further. I doubt that the list of positions needs to be included to make the case that the nominee is commendable.



·

WELCOME BEGINNER'S GUIDE WRITING GUIDE VOTING CENTER LinkDISCORD


·

·
LinkLink
·
·
Read dispatch

NEW SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND VOTE
---------------------------------------------------

Title: Condemn The Black Hawks
Author: Frontier Isles
Purpose: To condemn the military organization The Black Hawks a third time for their raiding activities, with the recent raid of The Embassy as central argument.

Frontier Isles wrote:The Security Council,

Acknowledging that The Black Hawks have been condemned twice by resolution SC #52 and resolution SC #217.

Noting that The Black Hawks have continued to carry out raids on other regions since the passage of resolution SC #217, and asserting that a third condemnation is needed to emphasize the constant threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional peace and goodwill".

Further noting that The Black Hawks have established 234 embassies with other regions; many of these regions were raided by The Black Hawks, and some of these raided regions are still controlled, or "colonized", by The Black Hawks, such as Westphalia, which has been controlled by The Black Hawks for nearly two years.

Horrified that The Black Hawks participated in the recent invasion of The Embassy, a neutral region that held 3519 embassies; the World Factbook entry of The Embassy became an advertising space for The Black Hawks and its allies following the invasion. Further shocked that the invaders dismissed the officers in The Embassy, and the invaders ordered all 3519 embassies to be shut down.

Recognizing that recently, The Black Hawks and Lily "look towards a bright future" between them and their militaries, indicating that The Black Hawks are now allied with another "invader" region.

Restating that, to emphasize the threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional security and goodwill", it is necessary for the Security Council to use force and condemn The Black Hawks because the purpose of the Security Council is to "[spread] interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary".

Hereby condemns The Black Hawks.

View submitted proposal | View on-site drafting thread

---------------------------------------------------

Please discuss and vote on how regional nations and the Delegate should vote on this proposal.
Always remember to include the name of the resolution you are talking about in your posts to avoid confusion!

Click here to read voting instruction (Please do this if you have never voted before!)

Condemn The Black Hawks

Against

«12. . .46474849505152. . .7172»

Advertisement