by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .285286287288289290291. . .336337»

Floofybit wrote:I agree! Long Live the Tangerine!
This is an unacceptable order. I didn't mind potato or tomato war but this is too far. Stand down or be punished! (I'll squirt tangerine juice at your paper cuts)

To threaten a fellow potatoist
is to threaten all potatoists
Potatatoists wants an apology
or there will be dead people...

update
to threaten a potaotist
is not to threaten all potatoists
but all potaotists banaists watermelonists.

note banaists and watermelonists are potatoists
best allys :)

Melenavenia wrote:I didn't think I'd find something about Roblox on the Refugi RMB, but since I am unfortunately knowledgeable about this and you dumbed this down to simply "anti-Chinese", I'll add a few other reasons he's being sued.

Ban evasion
Re-posting a threat against an annual developers conference at Roblox HQ, in which the threat said a similar event to the YouTube HQ shooting would happen at the conference
Taunting Roblox over a similar shooting happening at their HQ
Talking about sex acts with minors, engaging in sexual harassment, using racial and homophobic slurs, attempting to upload nudes of himself, and attempting to upload pictures of Hitler on their website
Targeted harassment of Roblox employees

All this while having a successful YouTube channel that profits off this egregious behavior. He's being sued because he keeps abusing their platform despite the companies' attempts to block him from doing so, in company with his internet fame.

https://www.scribd.com/document/542082247/Roblox-vs-Ruben-Sim-lawsuit

oh god thx for lettin' me know, im sorry

Oh lord.

The situations with these Fruits/Vegetables are still up eh.

Moulk2 wrote:To threaten a fellow potatoist
is to threaten all potatoists
Potatatoists wants an apology
or there will be dead people...

update
to threaten a potaotist
is not to threaten all potatoists
but all potaotists banaists watermelonists.

note banaists and watermelonists are potatoists
best allys :)

who says watermelonists are potatoists
i can tell you for sure i'm a watermelonist that is neutral to potatoes

Imperve wrote:who says watermelonists are potatoists
i can tell you for sure i'm a watermelonist that is neutral to potatoes

are potatoists allys sorry if you interpreted it that way
didn't realize that

Szalyland wrote:Oh lord.

The situations with these Fruits/Vegetables are still up eh.

XD it won't end lol

Szalyland wrote:Oh lord.

The situations with these Fruits/Vegetables are still up eh.

Maybe someday we'll be free.

Pallapati wrote:Hi!

Hello!

Hoi Refugia! Sorry I'm a bit late with this, but we have a new thing coming up to vote here. The debate thread can be found here.

The Environmental Protections Act seeks preserve parks and "green spaces" around member nations by mandating the establishment of a hotline, urging private park owners to open parks to public and recommending governments to not use "greenfield sites" for commercial development and reuse "brownfield sites" instead.

I'm absolutely against this. First off, this wasn't drafted on the forums or even posted there for garnering feedback before submitting, which makes me extremely reluctant to support this even if it was a really great proposal. Considering that this was co-authored by a previous, experienced author and a longtime member of the WA community, it's even more surprising that the author decided to skip an entire step worth of norms and just rush this. This doesn't give a good impression at all.

Furthermore, it's a really poorly written proposal. There's no definition for the word "green space" in it, which makes it extremely open to interpretation by literally everybody. As cheekily and accurately remarked by a longtime Refugi in our Discord server;

Refugi wrote:paints car park green
this is a green space
give me a hotline

Diving deeper in, Article 1 states that;

Ga author wrote:

1. requires that, in all parks and green spaces owned by the government of a member state (or one of its political subdivisions), that government:

A. operate a hotline where visitors to those parks or green spaces can report any problems about those parks,

B. respond to all complaints received through that hotline in a prompt and fair manner,

C. maintain all buildings on the grounds of those parks and green spaces, especially where those buildings are accessible to the public, and

D. hire enough workers to maintain and run those parks, green spaces, and any buildings on their grounds,

This only establishes vague measures, which are full of so. Many. Loopholes. Why do we need a hotline to report problems to? What assurances do I get that my complaint is properly registered with seemingly no overseeing body looking over this entire process? What if I, a private entity, operate a shop on a government-owned park? Will the government be responsible for the maintenance of my shop? What if a member nation is short of funds and can't hire the requisite amount of workers to maintain these parks? Who's going to give them financial support to do so? This is just really bad.

Article 2 states that;

Ga author wrote:2. suggests that, where parks and green spaces open to the public are owned by private entities, those private entities take measures similar to those described in Article 1,

Cool, cool...except is there going to be some administrative body that supervises this?

Ga author wrote:

3. recommends that all owners of parks and green spaces in member states that are open to the public allow all visitors to enter free of charge, especially where this is economically feasible, and

Again, is there going to be some sort of financial compensation for low-resource member nations who implement this? Otherwise it's just going to be really taxing on a nation's funds.

Ga author wrote:

4. urges member states to only grant planning permission for commercial developments on brownfield sites that have previously been developed upon, as opposed to undeveloped greenfield sites (including parks and green spaces), to the extent that granting such permission would neither be unviable nor lead to significant harm to the habitats of rare or endangered species.

...what are "greenfield sites"? What are "brownfield sites"? No definitions here make this so full of loopholes and exploitable by particularly crafty members.

What are y'alls thoughts about this?

we treat all potaotists criminals or not
with state funerals

War criminals are given full state funerals.

Dacay wrote:Furthermore, it's a really poorly written proposal. There's no definition for the word "green space" in it, which makes it extremely open to interpretation by literally everybody. As cheekily and accurately remarked by a longtime Refugi in our Discord server;

As I said in the Discord, I'm not entirely sure that can be misinterpreted like that, using the ambiguity of a real term (https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/openspace.html). If I mandated in a GA proposal that member states had to put up signs saying 'Fine for staring at this sign', it wouldn't be a valid interpretation of people in those member states claiming it to mean 'Fine to stare at this sign'. Bureaucracy would rain hell on them, those poor souls. Similarly, using the ambiguity of a term with one meaning and one meaning only IRL to support breaking GA law is...iffy. And this isn't a case of reasonable either. Because bending that term beyond the author's intent isn't a misinterpretation. You are following the resolution in a reasonable manner, just reasonable to yourself.

I'm only like 75% believing that this is the case though.

Although what's interesting about reasonable though, and this might be a bit of a textwall, is that there's no good way to properly enforce serious violations of GA law. Fines? They don't have to recognize the IAO. They may just resign membership. And so there's a whole spiral into descent of the meaning of GA law and what matters. All of it might as well have no meaning. So if you really stretch reasonable, then there's no real punishment to it. Does this mean that using reasonable doesn't matter? Because member states could break it regardless? And using reasonable would just make resolutions easier to write? Isn't that a good thing?

An international tribunal should be the final step of how GA violations get punished. Dibs on any resolution like that. While there would be no OOC action for breaking GA law, because it's a game, there would be IC punishments. Not sure if you could sidestep those as easily. But those don't really matter, right? Well, OOC of course not, nothing would happen. OOC nothing would happen to your nation if you violated GA law either. So all GA laws have no meaning OOC? No. They do because people choose to play the game and choose to recognize that they must not break GA law. The GA might as well not exist if nobody squabbled over the specifics of GA law because they wouldn't follow it anyway.

So in conclusion, there needs to be more of an IC punishment for breaking GA law than what's currently offered with easy-to-sidestep fines. And also dibs on a resolution like that.

Responding to your comments Dacay:
- I agree, hotline is weird.
- The government will oversee it. Your concern is baseless here.
- Good point with the private-public overlap.
- This will pay for it.
- No, because it's a suggestion. There doesn't need to be supervision to ensure it's carried out.
- Most parks already are free of charge, I don't think it will be too damaging. Furthermore, it's a recommendation, so no actual worry.
- Yeah, definitions are needed.

Minskievian Refugees wrote:As I said in the Discord, I'm not entirely sure that can be misinterpreted like that, using the ambiguity of a real term (https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/openspace.html).
...
- Yeah, definitions are needed.

You are contradicting yourself. Are definitions needed, or are they not? The right answer is "yes, they are in this case", as they are in every case where you can read a term or phrase and arrive at multiple meanings where some are harmful or not in line with what the resolution wants to see happen.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency's definition is not provided in this resolution, nor is it recognised in General Assembly law.

Minskievian Refugees wrote:If I mandated in a GA proposal that member states had to put up signs saying 'Fine for staring at this sign', it wouldn't be a valid interpretation of people in those member states claiming it to mean 'Fine to stare at this sign'.

Laws do what the text says, and precise wording is important. It's not about bending the language -- a faulty resolution allows for misuse while being in compliance. "Fine to stare at this sign" does not mean "fine for staring at this sign", as indicated by your need to alter the coordinating conjunction. If the verbiage is confusable, the statement should be restructured or the proposal have definitions provided. Barring those, it does literally whatever it says and to the extent its language permits.

Green spaces are not defined, and General Assembly law stretches to every possible universe and RP incarnation of nation, where a term as vague as this may be thought of as entirely different. I would not necessarily know what may technically constitute as a "green space" and what wouldn't in my own irl, so a misinterpretation of the term is certainly reasonable.

Minskievian Refugees wrote:Because bending that term beyond the author's intent isn't a misinterpretation.

Author intent means nothing in the General Assembly. The law does what the text says, whatever that is, and regardless of how they meant it. You should know this.

Minskievian Refugees wrote:Although what's interesting about reasonable though, and this might be a bit of a textwall, is that there's no good way to properly enforce serious violations of GA law. Fines? They don't have to recognize the IAO. They may just resign membership. And so there's a whole spiral into descent of the meaning of GA law and what matters. All of it might as well have no meaning. So if you really stretch reasonable, then there's no real punishment to it. Does this mean that using reasonable doesn't matter? Because member states could break it regardless? And using reasonable would just make resolutions easier to write? Isn't that a good thing?

An international tribunal should be the final step of how GA violations get punished. Dibs on any resolution like that. While there would be no OOC action for breaking GA law, because it's a game, there would be IC punishments. Not sure if you could sidestep those as easily. But those don't really matter, right? Well, OOC of course not, nothing would happen. OOC nothing would happen to your nation if you violated GA law either. So all GA laws have no meaning OOC? No. They do because people choose to play the game and choose to recognize that they must not break GA law. The GA might as well not exist if nobody squabbled over the specifics of GA law because they wouldn't follow it anyway.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Compliance Commission, whose purpose is to assess and confirm good-faith application of WA law. Previously it was thought to be understood that if something was illegal, it was illegal and enforced with 100% magical gnome efficiency. But pedantic arguments like the ones you're making eventually forced the necessity to spell it out.

IC, all member nations follow GA law. OOC does not exist, unless a player is being assessed in the SC and the SC needs to justify voting against. In the GA, OOC is typically not even brought up.

Dacay wrote:What are y'alls thoughts about this?

Minsk is correct, however, that clause 2, 3, and 4 are suggestions or recommendations. They are non-binding and ultimately accomplish nothing in particular. This is very convenient because clause 4 in particular makes no real sense.

Greenfield and brownfield are proper terms, but it's not really clear what they're doing here. Brownfield land is unused land that has previously been developed upon and may contain harmful residue of that previous time. So the phrase "brownfield sites that have previously been developed upon" is either redundant or suggests that the author does not know the meaning. In a practical application, what is the timeframe of previous development to be considered a brownfield site? What, if any, actions should be taken for development if the previous development's residue is toxic? We do not know.

What we do know is that it's entirely reasonable to build on a brownfield site that causes significant harm to non-rare or endangered species. Not that any of this matters, the clause has no legal effect.

Dacay wrote:This only establishes vague measures, which are full of so. Many. Loopholes. Why do we need a hotline to report problems to? What assurances do I get that my complaint is properly registered with seemingly no overseeing body looking over this entire process? What if I, a private entity, operate a shop on a government-owned park? Will the government be responsible for the maintenance of my shop? What if a member nation is short of funds and can't hire the requisite amount of workers to maintain these parks? Who's going to give them financial support to do so? This is just really bad.

The requirement to create and operate a "park problems" hotline is very strange in itself. While multitasking is a thing that governments can do, probably this type of service should be reserved for something in the sphere of health and safety, rather than satisfaction with a public place. You're right that there is no requirement to correct any problems provided in the hotline, just respond to them. In the verbiage, this can take place with an automated or standardised template that says something to the effect of "Thanks for the report. We're on it." followed by the operator taking a nap.

1(c) is interesting, because it is entirely restriction-free, which is very fun. If you draw a circle around the burj khalifa and call it a park, the member nation's government must maintain that building in perpetuity thereafter, employing all requisite support staff. If you are a inter-planetary civilization and one of your obligatory world-spanning mega-corps declares the entire planet is a park, then the member nation's government must maintain every building on the planet at no charge to the owner (punitive or retaliatory taxation notwithstanding). Very funny!

More likely, however, is that any member nation who would need to be nudged into maintaining parks by this proposal (both in exploitive or non-exploitive circumstances) would just ban the creation or existence of applicable parks upon this law's enactment.

Against.

Refuge Isle wrote:You are contradicting yourself. Are definitions needed, or are they not? The right answer is "yes, they are in this case", as they are in every case where you can read a term or phrase and arrive at multiple meanings where some are harmful or not in line with what the resolution wants to see happen.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency's definition is not provided in this resolution, nor is it recognised in General Assembly law.

Laws do what the text says, and precise wording is important. It's not about bending the language -- a faulty resolution allows for misuse while being in compliance. "Fine to stare at this sign" does not mean "fine for staring at this sign", as indicated by your need to alter the coordinating conjunction. If the verbiage is confusable, the statement should be restructured or the proposal have definitions provided. Barring those, it does literally whatever it says and to the extent its language permits.

Green spaces are not defined, and General Assembly law stretches to every possible universe and RP incarnation of nation, where a term as vague as this may be thought of as entirely different. I would not necessarily know what may technically constitute as a "green space" and what wouldn't in my own irl, so a misinterpretation of the term is certainly reasonable.

hm. That's fair. I agree with that. The 25% prevails.

Refuge Isle wrote:Author intent means nothing in the General Assembly. The law does what the text says, whatever that is, and regardless of how they meant it. You should know this.

I do. I just, bleh. I'll be lazy and blame the morning even though it's more on me. I applied it to reasonable and not green space.

Refuge Isle wrote:I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Compliance Commission, whose purpose is to assess and confirm good-faith application of WA law. Previously it was thought to be understood that if something was illegal, it was illegal and enforced with 100% magical gnome efficiency. But pedantic arguments like the ones you're making eventually forced the necessity to spell it out.

I'm quite familiar with it. But if it assesses that a nation is breaking GA law, what happens? Nothing, until GA#440 passed. Then you could get a fine. What if you didn't pay it? Nothing. But it's a game! Yes, but there still aren't any IC consequences to not paying the fine.

Refuge Isle wrote:IC, all member nations follow GA law. OOC does not exist, unless a player is being assessed in the SC and the SC needs to justify voting against. In the GA, OOC is typically not even brought up.

OOC didn't change my point. I'm not sure why I even included it.

I absolutely LOVE the Refugia board, one second you see 9 line palagraphs about controversies and then the majority are just-
"tAngeRinEs aND tOmAtOes"

Aephony wrote:I absolutely LOVE the Refugia board, one second you see 9 line palagraphs about controversies and then the majority are just-
"tAngeRinEs aND tOmAtOes"

and watermelons
do not forget the watermelons

What happened, I go offline for 3 hours and now they're entire books about... whatever this is

Everetunga-Hari wrote:What happened, I go offline for 3 hours and now they're entire books about... whatever this is

We have a history of talking about WA proposals. Dacay initiated a discussion as WAA Councillor.

Sylh Alanor wrote:Maybe someday we'll be free.

Someday... someday...

hey how's the weather today?

Szalyland wrote:Someday... someday...

hey how's the weather today?

8 degrees!

Good day Glentara, Ekajyotivolke, Denimz, Nova_Egaleco, Lunarana, Sapphina, Uruwhy, Vinozil, Obsidian_Snake, United_Provinces_of_Ireland, Aridu, Anarcho_Communland, Demonic_land, Kansarin, Espyai, Broadgaria, Badeng, The_City-States_of_Madagasgar, Zaphovia, Hukthala, Thesauria, Novoflasst, Schuville, Coseland, and Vregia. I have my eye on you. 🤔

Szalyland wrote:Someday... someday...

hey how's the weather today?

Only 4 degrees! And yesterday they thought it would snow but it never does where I live. ☹️

huh, never had snow here. live in the earth's equator line. So.. no snow here. and i have no idea what's the temperature over here currently

Edit: Actually no a few years ago its snowing... well not in my city, but further south east of where i live. it was like raining ice cube, kind of dangerous. then the snow is everywhere in that morning, covering the area.

Vikoland wrote:Only 4 degrees! And yesterday they thought it would snow but it never does where I live. ☹️

Same, I currently live in Texas, and it NEVER snows here.

Szalyland wrote:Someday... someday...

hey how's the weather today?

cold

but no snow

«12. . .285286287288289290291. . .336337»

Advertisement