by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .171172173174175176177. . .1,1221,123»

Refuge Isle wrote:Who are you tho O.o

I'm Melenavenia from NationStates, the free online browser nation simulator game.

HumanSanity, Junitaki-cho, and Kariforunia

Pantala and pyrrhia

Refuge Isle wrote:Who are you tho O.o

I’m tired

Refugia, I have a question. If you have your arm cut off and replaced with a bionic prosthetic, are you a cyborg?

In this nine thousand paragraph essay, I wil-

I should mention, since it's at vote, that I'm in favour of the current GA repeal regarding voting rights of prisoners. Basically, the existing legislation reserves the right for nations to bar inmates from voting, and the repeal wants that off the books so we can have something that protects that right. It's barebones but pretty straightforward, and there's a decent chance a replacement will pass if it's well done. Not a lot more to say about it.

Surely not a puppet

Refuge Isle wrote:Refugia, I have a question. If you have your arm cut off and replaced with a bionic prosthetic, are you a cyborg?

In this nine thousand paragraph essay, I wil-

It's gotta be atleast 15% of your body mass bionic for you to quality as a cyborg

Junitaki-cho wrote:I should mention, since it's at vote, that I'm in favour of the current GA repeal regarding voting rights of prisoners. Basically, the existing legislation reserves the right for nations to bar inmates from voting, and the repeal wants that off the books so we can have something that protects that right. It's barebones but pretty straightforward, and there's a decent chance a replacement will pass if it's well done. Not a lot more to say about it.

Certainly in the thread, there's a lot less interest in the replacement than there is for the repeal. That being said, I feel there is almost always more interest in a repeal than the replacement, so that's nothing new and definitely doesn't limit the possibility of the replacement going through.

My vote is based off my personal thought that, if you're in a democratic system, it's important to make sure every citizen has the ability to vote. I also couldn't accept any argument in favour of blanket banning incarcerated people from voting, given how unfairly it skews toward minorities and other unprivileged groups. If we all agree that prison feeds heavily into a system of institutionalised racism and classism, then denying people who are in that system the right to vote is inherently disenfranchising people who are already at a massive disadvantage in society. It's a pretty simple moral argument in my eyes.

Anyway, voted for.

Welcome, Pasutmija, Cracked fire, Tzumik, People who have wings for some reason, Toonn, Kabakwa, Pierresval, Surely not a puppet, and Grij, to Refugia! I hope you all enjoy your stays. If it applies to you, please pay attention to the rest of this message.

Refugia aims to be a friendly, laid-back community, which is open to players of all skill levels. Nations who wish to become more active in the region, however, should consider joining the World Assembly (WA). WA nations are able to vote on international law, and receive exclusive benefits within the region, such as the ability to vote in regional polls and elections, get a spot on Refugia's map, and even run for office when elections come up! If you're interested in joining the WA, check out this article, and make sure to endorse our delegate.

If you'd rather just chill with us, that's perfectly fine as well. We have an offsite forum, as well as frequent discussions on the regional message board (RMB), which everyone is welcome to participate in!

If you have any additional questions about the region or how NationStates works, feel free to leave them here, on the RMB. If you're interested in joining our offsite forum, look for the link at the top of Refugia's World Factbook Entry (the big text box at the top of our regional page).

Once again, I really hope you enjoy your time here, and look forward to seeing more of you soon!

Dyllonia, Narwhal, Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, and 4 othersJunitaki-cho, Kariforunia, Koayo, and Surely not a puppet

*distribute free cookies*

Surely not a puppet

Araine wrote:Welcome, Pasutmija, Cracked fire, Tzumik, People who have wings for some reason, Toonn, Kabakwa, Pierresval, Surely not a puppet, and Grij, to Refugia! I hope you all enjoy your stays. If it applies to you, please pay attention to the rest of this message.

Refugia aims to be a friendly, laid-back community, which is open to players of all skill levels. Nations who wish to become more active in the region, however, should consider joining the World Assembly (WA). WA nations are able to vote on international law, and receive exclusive benefits within the region, such as the ability to vote in regional polls and elections, get a spot on Refugia's map, and even run for office when elections come up! If you're interested in joining the WA, check out this article, and make sure to endorse our delegate.

If you'd rather just chill with us, that's perfectly fine as well. We have an offsite forum, as well as frequent discussions on the regional message board (RMB), which everyone is welcome to participate in!

If you have any additional questions about the region or how NationStates works, feel free to leave them here, on the RMB. If you're interested in joining our offsite forum, look for the link at the top of Refugia's World Factbook Entry (the big text box at the top of our regional page).

Once again, I really hope you enjoy your time here, and look forward to seeing more of you soon!

yes yes thanks for the warm welcome

Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, Araine, Junitaki-cho, and 2 othersKariforunia, and Koayo

Good Morning Refugia!

Lower French Gregballs wrote:Good Morning Refugia!

Good morning! How are you doing today?

Welcome, Gausea, Tlaria, New lai paradise, Refugian new arathi, and Pai sho lo, to Refugia! I hope you all enjoy your stays. If it applies to you, please pay attention to the rest of this message.

Refugia aims to be a friendly, laid-back community, which is open to players of all skill levels. Nations who wish to become more active in the region, however, should consider joining the World Assembly (WA). WA nations are able to vote on international law, and receive exclusive benefits within the region, such as the ability to vote in regional polls and elections, get a spot on Refugia's map, and even run for office when elections come up! If you're interested in joining the WA, check out this article, and make sure to endorse our delegate.

If you'd rather just chill with us, that's perfectly fine as well. We have an offsite forum, as well as frequent discussions on the regional message board (RMB), which everyone is welcome to participate in!

If you have any additional questions about the region or how NationStates works, feel free to leave them here, on the RMB. If you're interested in joining our offsite forum, look for the link at the top of Refugia's World Factbook Entry (the big text box at the top of our regional page).

Once again, I really hope you enjoy your time here, and look forward to seeing more of you soon!

Typica, Narwhal, Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, and 6 othersFloofybit, Junitaki-cho, Vystrania, Pantala and pyrrhia, Kariforunia, and Koayo

I find it somewhat amusing that one of the people in the top 10 for the region in Weather has "fire" in their motto.

Sylh Alanor wrote:Good morning! How are you doing today?

Doing great. Looking forward towards tomorrow, when I'll be joining some friends for a short pilgrimmage trip. And you?

Melenavenia wrote:I find it somewhat amusing that one of the people in the top 10 for the region in Weather has "fire" in their motto.

For the best weather, trogdor recommends burninating the countryside.

Ciumbuleuit-bandung

The bottom clause (1b) of the Freedom of Association resolution sounds like any government can label groups "threat to national security", but is that a reason to vote against it at the WA? Opinions?

Pantala and pyrrhia

Ciumbuleuit-bandung wrote:The bottom clause (1b) of the Freedom of Association resolution sounds like any government can label groups "threat to national security", but is that a reason to vote against it at the WA? Opinions?

I personally just think that based on its laws any nation can declare a certain group a threat to national security and ban it, so it seems a bit useless.

Refuge Isle, Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, Elenaraghaenaris, and 5 othersFree Las Pinas II, Floofybit, Junitaki-cho, Kariforunia, and Ciumbuleuit-bandung

The most extreme person in Refugia has the most extreme name :)

Refuge Isle, Floofybit, Junitaki-cho, and Kariforunia

Ciumbuleuit-bandung wrote:The bottom clause (1b) of the Freedom of Association resolution sounds like any government can label groups "threat to national security", but is that a reason to vote against it at the WA? Opinions?

Yeah, I'm concerned why the author felt the need to make a majority of the text state that people can still do criminal acts and be arrested for those criminal acts even if they're part of a group. I don't know of any group where associating with it negates existing law.

Regardless, the proposal doesn't seem to give any protections to the types of groups who would need a law like this, which would be minority political groups who are speaking out against the government. It seems like all this does is give governments the authority to declare those minority political groups national security threats.

I voted against because it feels like this proposal is more acting in the interest of governments that would stifle freedom of association than protecting it.

Typica, Refuge Isle, Melenavenia, Elenaraghaenaris, and 7 othersAraine, Free Las Pinas II, Floofybit, Junitaki-cho, The most serene republicans, Kariforunia, and Ciumbuleuit-bandung

Sylh Alanor wrote:Yeah, I'm concerned why the author felt the need to make a majority of the text state that people can still do criminal acts and be arrested for those criminal acts even if they're part of a group. I don't know of any group where associating with it negates existing law.

Regardless, the proposal doesn't seem to give any protections to the types of groups who would need a law like this, which would be minority political groups who are speaking out against the government. It seems like all this does is give governments the authority to declare those minority political groups national security threats.

I voted against because it feels like this proposal is more acting in the interest of governments that would stifle freedom of association than protecting it.

Yes, that's my thinking. What I posted in TSP was this:

Lucabaduka wrote:Freedom of Association

Against

Active-duty, SPSF

What little the resolution accomplishes is undone by itself. If there is a concern that governments may not allow their citizens to associate, such that it requires intervention by the World Assembly, for what reason is it also then prudent to empower those governments to criminalise citizens' association with it? What is the functional difference in effect between the two? It is problematic that the determination of what counts as a threat to "national security", what can be considered the "intention to spread a message of hate", are placed on governments. Governments are restricted from prohibiting association, but only so long as they do not invoke any of these easily-reachable exceptions which cause that association to land someone in prison. In the end, nothing is accomplished at all.

Lower French Gregballs, Typica, Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, and 7 othersAraine, Free Las Pinas II, Floofybit, Junitaki-cho, The most serene republicans, Kariforunia, and Ciumbuleuit-bandung

I may be underthinking the resolution at vote, but criminalising membership of terrorist or neo-Nazi groups, death cults or crime syndicates isn't an outlandish idea. If WA law is to allow governments to do that can it be achieved in a less intrusive way than clause 1b?

I don't agree that a government can label whatever it doesn't like as a threat to national security. There are other resolutions on compliance, and redress for noncompliance, that would allow a banned group to get independent adjudication on whether it could reasonably be said to actively undermine national security.

Sorry for butting in. I do have a nation here (Boscolia) but it seemed better to say this from my more recognisable WA account.

Lower French Gregballs, Typica, Melenavenia, Araine, and 3 othersThe most serene republicans, Kariforunia, and Ciumbuleuit-bandung

Uan aa Boa wrote:I may be underthinking the resolution at vote, but criminalising membership of terrorist or neo-Nazi groups

No one has suggested such a thing. The concept is not about whether neo-Nazis should be criminalised, but what neutral third parties could be exploited by careless drafting of text in a one-track mind. World Assembly resolutions should not be written directed at nations that have their citizens' best interest at heart, but directed at those who do not. Else such a law would not be needed in the first place.

Uan aa Boa wrote:I don't agree that a government can label whatever it doesn't like as a threat to national security. There are other resolutions on compliance, and redress for noncompliance, that would allow a banned group to get independent adjudication on whether it could reasonably be said to actively undermine national security.

Relevant texts that I'm aware of are related ensuring member compliance, but the concerns I have regard nations who act in compliance with this resolution.

Presume you have a group, which is for all intents and purposes considered to be a peaceful political organisation, but it critical of the government and founded on bringing about a political revolution. As the text of the exception clause says "toward a specific group", any collection of beings which can be isolated and defined will satisfy this description. What prevents the government from saying that the group is spreading (or intends to spread) a message of hate against them and criminalise their dissent. What prevents a government from clamping down on a group that's critical of anything?

We're very far away from banning neo-Nazis in this scenario. As with other short resolutions, where scant text is not bullet-proof, it can be riddled with holes.

Chacapoya, Lower French Gregballs, Uan aa Boa, Typica, and 7 othersSylh Alanor, Melenavenia, Araine, Junitaki-cho, The most serene republicans, Kariforunia, and Ciumbuleuit-bandung

Greetings all nations of Refugia.

Chacapoya, Refuge Isle, Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, and 8 othersAraine, Floofybit, Junitaki-cho, The most serene republicans, Tovenia, Pantala and pyrrhia, Kariforunia, and Inaros OPA

Uan aa Boa wrote:I may be underthinking the resolution at vote, but criminalising membership of terrorist or neo-Nazi groups, death cults or crime syndicates isn't an outlandish idea. If WA law is to allow governments to do that can it be achieved in a less intrusive way than clause 1b?

Sorry, I should have gotten something out before this went to vote. The issue here comes from the breadth of the mandate. A grassroots anti-leadership movement like Antifa could easily be characterized as a national security threat because of its interest in disruption. A political faction could be outlawed if some of its members use fiery rhetoric to refer to an opposing side. There's really no reason this needed to be here at all, since the default assumption is that members of an organization will be culpable for criminal conduct they participate in as a part of that group.

Chacapoya, Lower French Gregballs, Uan aa Boa, Typica, and 6 othersSylh Alanor, Melenavenia, Araine, The most serene republicans, Kariforunia, and Ciumbuleuit-bandung

Marienborg wrote:Greetings all nations of Refugia.

Hello!
Welcome to Refugia!

Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, Floofybit, Junitaki-cho, and 5 othersThe most serene republicans, Kariforunia, Parapollacis, Marienborg, and Inaros OPA

«12. . .171172173174175176177. . .1,1221,123»

Advertisement