Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1,659
House: House of the Defenders XKI Generation: The 1800 Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Purple XKI NS Join Year: 162 - Friday, 17 February 2012 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Louisistan Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Umeria
The World Assembly,
Acknowledging the right of member nations to defend their borders;
Noting that in a first contact, both parties have little to no knowledge of the other;
Realizing that without such knowledge, it is impossible to determine whether starting a war would be beneficial;
Further noting that the consequences of a non-beneficial war are often disastrous;
Concluding, therefore, that member nations should refrain from initiating unprovoked attacks on nations they just met until they know what they have to gain;
Proclaiming that first impressions matter;
Hereby prohibits all citizens of member nations from attacking persons or vehicles of unknown origin, unless it is in response to either an attack or a territorial incursion by said persons or vehicles.
This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE
Last Edit: Jul 13, 2020 8:18:29 GMT -5 by Lenlyvit
This thing makes little sense, and is not very clear. On one hand it suggests that an attack in response to a territorial incursion is permitted, but simultaneously prohibits attacks on citizens or vehicles of unknown origin. There's a massive grey area whereby a vehicle or person could unknowingly venture into another's territory and come under justifiable attack, but if the parties are unknown to each other, how can there be an established territorial boundary between them? If such an attack occurs on disputed territory, there's no way to enforce this, so it's meaningless.There just seems to be a lot that hasn't been taken into consideration here. It's way too vague.
THX, through proxy, will vote against.
Last Edit: Jul 13, 2020 13:13:11 GMT -5 by Deleted
Post by Jabberwocky on Jul 13, 2020 16:39:35 GMT -5
I'm with THX on this. Too vague, and, really, it's only common sense. Is legislation necessary? AGAINST
Last Edit: Jul 13, 2020 16:39:53 GMT -5 by Jabberwocky
Mayor of Taco Island 106th Knight of TITO Steward, House of Defenders Order of The Islands Former Senior Senator of New Republica South Editor-in-Chief of The Mad Surfer Emissary to European Union, Capitalist Paradise Member XKIFTA/PEP/LUAC/IITP
I'm with THX on this. Too vague, and, really, it's only common sense. Is legislation necessary? AGAINST
WA legislation on the matter might not be necessary, but still would support it if it is not poorly written... which unfortunately it is. Against.
Former Chair of TIBOE (October 2020 - September 2021) and New Republica South Senator (October 2023) August 2020, November 2020 and May 2021 WASP Palm Tree of Community // Iwerddon Service Medal // Steadfast Badge
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1,659
House: House of the Defenders XKI Generation: The 1800 Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Purple XKI NS Join Year: 162 - Friday, 17 February 2012 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Louisistan Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
This thing makes little sense, and is not very clear. On one hand it suggests that an attack in response to a territorial incursion is permitted, but simultaneously prohibits attacks on citizens or vehicles of unknown origin. There's a massive grey area whereby a vehicle or person could unknowingly venture into another's territory and come under justifiable attack, but if the parties are unknown to each other, how can there be an established territorial boundary between them? If such an attack occurs on disputed territory, there's no way to enforce this, so it's meaningless.There just seems to be a lot that hasn't been taken into consideration here. It's way too vague.
THX, through proxy, will vote against.
This actually makes a lot of sense, and made me change my *personal* vote in the poll to against.
I am personally voting FOR, however they chose a terrible short description in my opinion and it's likely what lead to so many voting against it
The problem is not length - there is precedent of one-line proposals in the past, and it is not necessarily bad, if controversial - but that in such a short length the proposal still manages to be self-contradictory (see THX1138's post) and, furthermore, its vague (a common problem with overly short resolutions).
Former Chair of TIBOE (October 2020 - September 2021) and New Republica South Senator (October 2023) August 2020, November 2020 and May 2021 WASP Palm Tree of Community // Iwerddon Service Medal // Steadfast Badge