by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The South Pacific WA Voting Center Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .46474849505152. . .7576»

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 Therefore, the liberation should be repealed now.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:

.

————
·

·
·
—— —— ——
·


'Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands'
·
·
—..—
·

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands'
Author: Big Boyz
Purpose: To have the World Assembly Science Program conduct research on and mandate that member states preserve natural tall grass prairies, and encourage restoring destroyed ones.

Links


Vote .For.
·

The Office's Analysis

While undoubtedly very limited in scope and possessing some flaws, this proposal nevertheless contains numerous beneficial provisions that would effectively protect a facet of member nations' environments. The research, impact study, and data sharing provisions especially would provide a significant boon to member nations attempting to preserve tall grass prairies where these ecosystems are threatened. Additionally, the proposal's prairie maintenance provisions, while draconian, do ensure that these specific ecosystems will not be threatened by human development. Though this proposal may very well be repealed and replaced in the future, its short-term benefits outweigh its drawbacks regardless. Therefore, OWL recommends voting FOR the at-vote proposal, "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
—FOR— | —AGAINST—
·

For

From TSP Citizens

Anatasha is a citizen of the South Pacific.

Anatasha wrote:This was a very well-written proposal with lots of facts and studies made. I agree that the tall grass prairies are important and believe that nations should work together to restore the tall grass prairies. If we don't make an effort to restore and protect the biodiversity of plants, there will be harsh consequences on the agricultural industry and will impact nations in the foreseeable future.

Drew Durrnil is a citizen of the South Pacific.

Drew Durrnil wrote:This is a well-written proposal that doesn't have many loopholes, is detailed, covers many areas, and just does what a model GA resolution would do. There is no excuse for anyone who doesn't vote for this proposal.

From the World

Vexilia is a citizen of The North Pacific. They posted on TNP's forums:

Vexilia wrote:For. Any legislation preserving the planet will have the support of the comrades!

Against

From TSP Citizens

Lucabaduka/Refuge Isle is the Founder of Refugia and a legislator in the South Pacific.

Lucabaduka wrote:I think the primary concern with this proposal is whether it is necessary to mandate these rules in all WA nations for functionally all areas that have grassland. Seems as though it thoroughly blocks any development on any place that is considered a grassland on the condition of it being detrimental to the ecosystem. Well all civilization development is bad for an otherwise natural ecosystem. If you build a housing development on top of a grassland, safe to say whatever creatures lived in that environment will be harmed, inconvenienced, or starved out by the transformation of that environment to something constructed.

The definition of the resolution's scope is, itself, a pretty massive brush. Literal requirements are: 1) have grass at least 1.5 metres tall, 2) have rainfall, 3) have fires sometimes, but not always. That covers any prairies, plains, overgrown parking lots, industrial districts of a city which have fallen into deterioration over 20 years, etc etc. If your WA nation is composed of and surrounded on all sides by grassland, you're basically out of luck for future development.

One also has to wonder why it is this specific height of grass that is a requirement, given the concept that all nations in the WA will have different species of grass. Some WA nations will be in space. Their other-worldly species of plants will all have different characteristics and attributes, so specifics in measurement becomes problematic. Not even sure that would work universally on Earth. I also passively wonder why WASP is doing the surveying instead of ESWA, made to specifically do surveying on behalf of the WA.

From the World

Ransium is a former Delegate of Forest and a former NS moderator. They stated on the NS forums:

Ransium wrote:I am against. I find this proposal arbitrarily narrow in scope, too inflexible and perspective, and adding little helpful protection that aren’t already covered by existing proposals.

Wallenburg is the Minister of WA Affairs of The East Pacific. On the NS forums, they wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Seeing as this bans the construction, maintenance, modification, and renovation of roads and railways, emergency service infrastructure, farmhouses, agricultural infrastructure, and existing city centers wherever tall, temperate grasslands exist, Wallenburg is firmly against this proposal. We will not have anything to do with countless people being left to rot in decaying buildings and endangering themselves around unserviced, obsolete infrastructure."



·

·
—Link—Link
·
·
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 Ellenburg'
·
·
—..—
·

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Commend Ellenburg'
Author: Honeydewistania
Purpose: To honor Ellenburg's immense contributions, especially in region-building over extensive periods of time in a number of regions, notably the United Regions Alliance (URA), Conch Kingdom, and the Augustin Alliance as a whole, by awarding them a shiny badge of commendation.

Links


Vote .For.
·

The Office's Analysis

Referencing the many offices Ellenburg held in a multitude of regions over the many years of their NS existence, the at-vote resolution "Commend Ellenburg" clearly demonstrates why the nominee's achievements merit commendation. Both well-written and elaborate, it shows the incredible contributions they made to single regions like Autropolis and prominent interregional organizations like the URA or the Augustin Alliance, and accurately explains the significance of the nominee's involvement in the histories of those regions/organizations, making it a fit document for issuing the commendation of Ellenburg. Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Commend Ellenburg".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
—FOR— | —AGAINST—
·

For

From TSP Citizens

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

Tepertopia wrote:The achievements of the nominee are really extensive and do seem to merit recognition by the Security Council. The proposal is well-written and elaborates on the actions of the nominee in nice detail, all in all making a very convincing case on why they should receive this commendation.

HumanSanity is a legislator and OWL staff member of the South Pacific.

HumanSanity wrote:Nominee has a huge swath of accomplishments and the resolution strikes a good balance between narrative and specific evidence. Being the primary builder behind the URA is no small feat.

From the World

Chimes is the Delegate of the Rejected Realms.

Chimes wrote:I'll admit I'm not overly familiar with the URA outside of a selected few regions, but what I have heard is positive.

Praeceps is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the North Pacific.

Praeceps wrote:For. They've done well in helping smaller regions get together and collaborate.

Against

From TSP Citizens

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

From the World

At the time of writing, OWL had not found a solid opinion against 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!



·

·
—Link—Link
·
·
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. . .7576»

Advertisement