NationStates Jolt Archive

WA General Fund
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: This Assembly,

Committed to providing for a stable, reliable source of funding for the World Assembly and its operations;

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

Disappointed by the previous practice of continually establishing programs and imposing mandates upon member states without stipulating how they will be funded;

Concerned by the possibility of corruption and wasteful spending, and determined to prevent such practices in the establishment of WA funding,

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to national donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

6. Further instructs the GAO to submit to regular audits from outside agencies;

7. Forbids the WA from engaging in deficit spending; and,

Recognizing that donations given to the World Assembly by member nations are likely to originate from public funds,

8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

9. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.The lights go down in the assembly hall as a giant screen lowers, upon which appear the familiar specters of the ambassador and deputy ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny. Behind them are large LCD screens showing footage of a terrible disaster. Desperate people are shown sifting through the wreckage of a burnt-out building.

Jimmy: Good evening. Nearly six months have passed since the old United Nations was enveloped in catastrophe, and very little has changed for the people still trying to piece their lives back together. Many of the victims of this awful tragedy remain despondent, overwhelmed, destitute, and stupid beyond belief. They've already rejected funding for themselves, and despite the fact that they're essentially homeless, only 52% of them agreed to building a new headquarters. Precious little progress has been reported on that front; in fact, all that seems to have been accomplished is a lot of bickering over who gets to build the headquarters (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=561706). I myself have many friends affected by this tragedy, and I pray for them every day.

Susa: CATHERINE GRATWICK DOESN'T CARE ABOUT XT'TAP PEOPLE!!!

Jimmy: Er ... um ... so many people want to help out in these trying times, so many generous governments wanting to give from their own treasuries, but right now, the WA doesn't even have a bank account to put all that money in, much less an office to manage these funds. And since we can't collect these gifts, money remains tight.

Susa: [snickers] Yeah, tighter than your mom's--

Jimmy flashes him a dirty look.

Susa: --purse-strings! Yeah, she's ... she's a real penny-pincher.

Jimmy: But you can help! You can make lives better and make sure we can deliver essential aid to the victims -- by voting "yes" on the resolution WA General Fund. That way, we can collect donations from willing (and even unwilling) parties, and we can send the money to the people who need it the most! It starts with you, all of you watching at home. Look at the faces of the victims, then look in your hearts. Help people help themselves! For more information, please call the number at the bottom of your screen. Thank you.

Susa: And anyone who votes against can suck my--

Jimmy elbows him.

Susa: --Halloween candy. Suck it hard!

I think it's a straight forward resolution. Anyone voting against should simply resign from WA and never come back again..

I voted for.

I think it's a straight forward resolution. Anyone voting against should simply resign from WA and never come back again..

I voted for.

Sildavialand is in principle not AGAINST the resolution. Just to get better information on pro and against arguments, we entered the forum. The first comment we found is this one.

This is very disappointing. This is not a way to convince other delegates of the goodness of the measure put to vote: "should simply resign from WA and never come back again". We would rather prefere that Nations with such attitude, disrispectful for others' opinions and contributions, leave the WA. But it is just a 'preference' on our side, not a 'should be' affirmation.

After such a begining, we shall analyze this proposed resolution very carefully before giving it our support.

Really a government's position on this resolution should be organised on whether they believe the w.a. should be funded on voluntary or compulsory "donations" and on the method of collection, and oversight of the resulting treasury achieved by these donations.

Urgench has no objection to the method outlined in this resolution, we will likely vote yes to this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Mandated "voluntary" donations? With those nations that are more successful having to "donate" more than those that are less successful? Socialism is not the form of government or financing the WA should be espousing.

Meanwhile:
8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

Is also concerning... Who then will decide WHAT is discriminatory and WHO will then step in and make a nation change said policy? If a socialst group decides that a government's new policy of tax exemption for a large successfull company (designed to encourage growth and build local economy) is discriminatory against the local, sit on their butts watching TV poor, will some new, undefined WA agency step in and FORCE the nation to change said policy?

And finally:
9. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.

Made my nation's finance minister perform a rude hand gesture on reading it. My nation's accounts ARE NOT public documents, especially for outside nations.

We shall be voting NO against this well meaning, but misguided proposal.

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Mandated "voluntary" donations? With those nations that are more successful having to "donate" more than those that are less successful? Socialism is not the form of government or financing the WA should be espousing.Good thing this isn't socialism, then. Socialism is an economic system; all this is is a funding program. Obviously, we don't want to collect blood from a stone, nor impoverish or unnecessarily strain nations that cannot afford to donate to the General Fund, so it's important to give the GAO authority to waive, defer or decrease anticipated contributions from member states, as circumstances warrant.

Meanwhile:
8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

Is also concerning... Who then will decide WHAT is discriminatory and WHO will then step in and make a nation change said policy? If a socialst group decides that a government's new policy of tax exemption for a large successfull company (designed to encourage growth and build local economy) is discriminatory against the local, sit on their butts watching TV poor, will some new, undefined WA agency step in and FORCE the nation to change said policy?Well, if some socialist nation decides to introduce a proposal barring tax exemptions on businesses, it is your prerogative to vote against it. Beyond that, there's nothing this resolution can do to force you to change any tax policy some nation decides is unfair. You seem to be ignoring the main thrust of the cited clause: the WA cannot and will not force you to change your taxation policies, unless a future resolution is introduced to forbid discriminatory practices in taxation, like poll taxes.

And finally:
9. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.

Made my nation's finance minister perform a rude hand gesture on reading it. My nation's accounts ARE NOT public documents, especially for outside nations.It only "strongly encourages" you to guard against corruption in your own government. If you want your underlings robbing you and your citizens blind, that's your business.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in support of this proposal. Funding for the WA is an unfortunate necessity considering the obligations placed on it by resolutions passed so far. And as money-raising schemes go, this appears fairly benign.

Socialism is not the form of government or financing the WA should be espousing.
Because...?

8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

Who then will decide WHAT is discriminatory and WHO will then step in and make a nation change said policy?
The WA will, if it passes a resolution on a particular bit of discrimination. The WA may not interfere in your tax policies if they aren't unfairly discriminatory. That's it. It's a protection for you, blocking the WA from fiddling with your internal taxes unneccessarily. After all, as you point out yourself, the WA has no other mechanism for stepping in anywhere.

9. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.

Made my nation's finance minister perform a rude hand gesture on reading it. My nation's accounts ARE NOT public documents, especially for outside nations.
Since the resolution only "strongly encourages", you're perfectly entitled to keep your accounts private. We're entitled to wonder what it is you're so desperate to hide, and whether it has anything to do with your finance minister's new luxury yacht, but that's another matter.

Note too that the resolution talks about "public accountability and transparency in decisions", not making your accounts public. Even if this were mandatory, you wouldn't have to publish your accounts as such. It's about making sure that people know who takes the decisions on budgets(accountability) and what the decisions are (transparency). You tell people who to blame for what, in other words, and a little of the "why" wouldn't go amiss either.

Today there seemed to be more modifications at the Palentine delegation.(its simply amazing how fast things can get moved around when your brother-in-law is a Shop Steward of the Teamsters Local 289:tongue:). Gone were the shelves of things I dare not mention. Now behind the Senator's desk was a table stacked high with custard pies. The unwholesome Senator Sulla, took a drink from his morning restoritive(olde Frothingslosh), and began to speak.

"I wish to congradulate the Kennyites for getting this resolution up for vote. Finally a funding bill that promotes fiscal responcibility. The Palentine full supports this fine resolution. now some of you sharp eyed observers might notice the table behind me. It is part of my way of dealing with the clueless screwhead who will undoubtedly show up with asinine arguements. This is their only warning. If you bring up a stupid arguement, act like a troll, or start spouting off idiotic Marxist arguements, I'm not going to raise my voice, I'm not going to yell, and I am not going to cast aspersions on your mother. no, insted I'm going to grab a pie and hit you in the mush. Remember folks idiocy=Pie in the Face(TM).
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla

The Trilateral Federation enthusiastically supports this resolution and will be casting its vote in favor, barring any regional objections.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Well, I'm might as well be all official about it: PC supports this proposal. :)

And about the word "Donation"...perhaps it will confuse some people, because this word is most often used to emphasize voluntary-ness because the donor is giving (since it comes from the latin dare: to give) as opposed to the recipient taking. But that doesn't mean that's the only way it can be used.

And, most importantly, if we carefully look at the proposal that Omigodtheykilledkenny's crafted, it's clear that the use of "donation" doesn't mean it's voluntary.

donate v.t.:
to give; to present; to contribute;..."To contribute", which is one of the accepted definitions of "to donate", is not necessarily free. That "to contribute" is the definition of "to donate" desired is supported by the fact that in Clause 5 the “donations” of member nations are referred to as "contributions". contribution, n:
1. a contributing.
2. money, aid, etc. contributed.
3. a levy or tax for a special purpose, as for supporting an army in the field.

The word "assess" in Clause 4, and the fact that this assessing is taken depending upon the nation's wealth and ability to give--and not willingness to give-- further clarifies that it is not the type of voluntary donation we're used to talking about, but more of a "contribution" as in a tax, one assessed to provide money for a project (the WA, for example) that's for the good of the group in general. It is voluntary only in the terms of membership in the WA being voluntary. This proposal makes the contributions to the General fund part of the responsibilities included in the contract of WA membership.

So, yes, "donation" is used acceptably here. If not the most common usage, it's clear that it's going to be assessed to all member nations and there's no getting out of it simply by saying it's a "donation" and you just "don't feel like donating".

-Sam Palleel, honorary PC ambassador

I voted against. I dont like the fact, that, like all criminals or murderers or something, get rights. I am sorry, but i voted against.

My region seems to be strongly against it, unanimously. What a 54 point delegate vote doesn't get is how this is supposed to enhance democratic freedoms. This is ridiculous. Actually, I respectfully say that this bill should not have made it to the floor IN ITS CURRENT STATE. Perhaps, down the line after some more work could have been performed on it, but we have problems with this.

However, the word "donation" means that all giving is VOLUNTARY to begin with. With this being said, I can not see how this is even effective. In RL, the United States is very delinquent on its UN dues, which has resulted in underfunding for some time. But, what do you do, eject the US? Not likely. Regardless, the point of the matter is that this is being voted against by our region anyway. If it were involuntary, that is simply poor class on the part of the WA to take from all regions, of course it is by ability to donate based on wealth, but the involuntary taking of funds on the global level is quite concerning. On top of that, with it being voluntary there seems to be no real way that it could prove to be universally effective and beneficial. The idea is solid, but the legislation is not. I wish it had been worked on a bit more before submission.

What's this now? The WA with money? Dear God, sir! What the devil do you think your up to? A WA with money is a WA that can do stuff - madness, complete madness.

Why, I remember when I was on the Shpadoinkle Pass back in 1903 with my company of Fraganoos. We were minding our own business in our camp, polishing our buttons, bulling our boots and obtaining sexual favours from the unmarried Thessadorian camp followers, the usual things an army does when at rest don't you know, when, with the suddenness of a villainous Turk hitting an unsuspecting child, "Bang!" the Pinkalsquirmees were on the ridge, setting off french bangers. We immeadiately opened fire on the ridge, and one by one the Pinkalsquirmees started to fall. It was then one of the native officers came up to me and pointed out how unsporting this all was. After all, we had Lee Enfields, and they had sticks and small fireworks. I agreed, and gave the order to fix bayonets. We formed up, and advanced. This proved to be impossible, for the Fraganoo men were unfamiliar with walking up hills. What's more, they started throwing polystyrene coffee cups at us from above. This was quite intoleable. In retaliation, we threw kittens up at them. This worked, for the Pinkalsquirmee are quite keen on small fluffy animals, and distracted easily. Whilst they were playing with the cute kittens, we found a way up onto the ridge which did not involve going up hill. There, we had the element of suprise. As silently as possible, I formed the men up, and gave the order: the men, as quick as a flash, started to do what they had been trained to do, and sang an ABBA medley. The Pinkalsquirmees were stunned, for they had not heard Swedish Pop before, being, by and large, fans of Hip Hop music. But, just as we were about to suppress these Pinkalsquirmees, something happened. A Zeppelin came over head, and out jumped 30 Chinamen. But we were expecting this, and made silly hand gestures at them. This prooved successful, and the Chinamen started negotiating with us. Well, from there on it was plain sailing...


General Sir Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock
Cobdenian Military Attache to the UN

I know that a WA with money is a WA that can do stuff. But this could have been better accomplished through other legislation. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea as much as I disagree with the means.

On top of that, might I ask...money to do what? All of the legislation in the WA is the encouraging of standards and the bolstering of civil liberties and political freedoms. This is why we joined the WA. What, do we need funding for the paper that the WA resolutions are printed on?

Moreover, for this legislation to have ANY relevance, there would need to be a proposed WA budget to even enforce anything.

I voted against. I dont like the fact, that, like all criminals or murderers or something, get rights. I am sorry, but i voted against.This resolution has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal justice or homicide statutes. Go back and read it again...or for the very first time.

My region seems to be strongly against it, unanimously. What a 54 point delegate vote doesn't get is how this is supposed to enhance democratic freedoms. This is ridiculous. Actually, I respectfully say that this bill should not have made it to the floor IN ITS CURRENT STATE. Perhaps, down the line after some more work could have been performed on it, but we have problems with this.The bit about democratic freedoms is a game-generated proposal description; all Furtherment of Democracy proposals have that subtitle. I can't change that. As the crux of this resolution focuses on transparency and accountability in WA funding and national taxation, FoD was obviously the best fit.

The idea is solid, but the legislation is not. I wish it had been worked on a bit more before submission. Ample attention was paid to the language in the text and its ramifications before it was submitted, which took weeks. I am satisfied with the final product.

The Kingdom of Sanctaria fully supports this proposal and urges all WA members who have not yet voted, to vote IN FAVOUR of this proposal.

His Majesty the King also wishes to send his compliments to the author.

Thank you for the clarification on the matter. I know that you only have so many things that can go in that slot. I wish that the WA had more to choose from, but such is life. I mean, you did do a good job on this legislation from what you said. And, yes, kudos to you and the effort you placed on your work. We congratulate you for that. I mean no offense in my statements there.

I am sure you paid ample attention to the language, and I know that there are not too many logical ways to put some of the things that you put down, and I think you did well with the vocab available. But, like I said, there are some pragmatic loopholes.

And I still stand by my last post about what exactly the WA could or would fund. Would this lead to an operating budget? Otherwise, I am not so sure that this is a practical piece of legislation.

The United Nations prior to its demise was staffed by dozens of committees and commissions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492478), which due to a lack of a UN financial authority were all underfunded and understaffed. We even had an entire criminal court set up for genocide cases. Since then the WA has established an international aid committee and a bureaucracy for building and maintaining an international headquarters -- which admittedly are already supported by special funds. But the WA could conceivably create entities that aren't self-supporting (and with the passage of this bill they won't need be), on top of the Secretariat and the Compliance Commission that the WA already staffs and maintains. The purpose of this bill is to address these funding needs before they become a problem. As such, the GAO will draw up annual operating budgets and implement spending guidelines as budgetary needs become apparent.

The Empire of the Celestial Wolf hasn't any problems with the proposed resolution. Money makes the worlds go 'round after all. My nation feels feels that this resolution achieves its mission of money redistribution quite well. As delegate I am obligated to vote with my region's majority, but I will do my best to support it in my region.

~Norman Alexander Lego,
World Assembly Ambassador

So, I was speaking with another nation on this issue, and you have to consider that a budget would need to be made to complement this bill. So, what would it take to make a budget?

1) Need to know how many WA nations there are that will donate. (This means an actual survey of the tens of thousands of WA nations will have to be taken)
2) Need to know how much each can give and will give or if they even will give.
3) Need to know what it takes to fund each resolution effectively that is in place by the UN/WA.
4) Regularly update this every single time a new budget it made...every month or three months, six months, year, what have you.

There are so many implications that would be involved that it is impossible in this forum or game to comprehend how to begin to do this.

On top of this, there is no way to really gauge the full total that could be donated to a budget. This would then mean that most things are seriously underfunded. So, would that mean that deficit spending would have to occur? I believe so, which is an economic atrocity. While that would almost seem to have to happen, it can not because this bill mandates that deficit spending can not legally occur. This would then go to mean that all of these programs can not meet their budgetary obligations regardless either way.

1) Need to know how many WA nations there are that will donate. (This means an actual survey of the tens of thousands of WA nations will have to be taken)

No, the donations are required. The word donation, is a trick, to make you think its all nice, when really they'll be forcing you to donate whether you want to or not. Some group of people, will decide how much you can spare with.

Ample attention was paid to the language in the text and its ramifications before it was submitted, which took weeks. I am satisfied with the final product.

I am not, I think it could use a lot of wording work. And more specifically, how much we're expected to be donating. As it is, I am voting no.

LOL, Karthonia. Donations are now made mandatory.

May I ask where it says that they are mandatory? Or are you two speculating?

It was sarcasm, my friend.

So, I was speaking with another nation on this issue, and you have to consider that a budget would need to be made to complement this bill. So, what would it take to make a budget?

1) Need to know how many WA nations there are that will donate. (This means an actual survey of the tens of thousands of WA nations will have to be taken)
2) Need to know how much each can give and will give or if they even will give.
3) Need to know what it takes to fund each resolution effectively that is in place by the UN/WA.
4) Regularly update this every single time a new budget it made...every month or three months, six months, year, what have you.

There are so many implications that would be involved that it is impossible in this forum or game to comprehend how to begin to do this.Indeed. That's why all the small details are tasked to a General Accounting Office.

On top of this, there is no way to really gauge the full total that could be donated to a budget.Not unless there is a General Accounting Office to make all the necessary calculations. And there is.

You know, I'm a master at it myself, yet can never recognise it when it is written down...

I voted against. I dont like the fact, that, like all criminals or murderers or something, get rights. I am sorry, but i voted against.This resolution has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal justice or homicide statutes. Go back and read it again...or for the very first time.
Maybe he was referring to those evil murderous accountants that would emigrate from his country to WA headquarters to find safe haven and a satisfying job in the GAO.

Those darn evil murderous accountant immigrants. Everyone forgets to address them in proposals these days.

Maybe he was referring to those evil murderous accountants that would emigrate from his country to WA headquarters to find safe haven and a satisfying job in the GAO.

Those darn evil murderous accountant immigrants. Everyone forgets to address them in proposals these days.
You know, I find gopher poison takes care of them fairly well.

...No wait, that's gophers. I get the two confused at times you see. They're rather similar. You know, my mother always used to say, "There's isn't problem that can't be solved by throwing enough gopher poison at it!' Heh heh... she was a little off in the head. What was I talking about again?

~Norman Alexander Lego,
World Assembly Ambassador

May I ask where it says that they are mandatory? Or are you two speculating?


These donations are compulsory if one wishes to be a member of the w.a., they attend accession to the w.a. Continued membership of the w.a. would mean continued assent to paying these dues. The only way to avoid paying them is to resign the w.a.

yours e.t.c. ,

We already pledged to make a private, weekly donation to support the WA, which holds the humanitarian organization the NS-ICRC, which we created in Resolution #5. This is a very good resolution to watch in the World Assembly: should it pass, it will provide much needed boost of funding for the NS-ICRC as established by us in Resolution #5. We are currently thinking about how we could use any surplus general funds to further knowledge and culture. The plans are, unfortunately, top secret at the moment but keep your eyes peeled as it is knowledge-themed.

We will cast our vote later as we have to listen to what the rest of Funen has to say.

These donations are compulsory if one wishes to be a member of the w.a., they attend accession to the w.a. Continued membership of the w.a. would mean continued assent to paying these dues. The only way to avoid paying them is to resign the w.a.

yours e.t.c. ,

Honourable Ambassador,

Thank you for clearing that up. I suppose a donation in order to help keep the WA efficent isn't too bad.

B~W

Drasanga will vote on this resoloution with some reluctance. Our discontent stems from the fact that the WA and the predecessor were and are already under a funding system made by the Grate Max Berry. We do however see the advantages of this system, so we will vote yes.

Drasangan Ambassador : Mitchell Rapp

Greetings from the fledgling nation of Tchak!

On behalf of my nation, I would like to seek a clarification on clause 4 of this proposal, before we finalise our position on the issue. As far as I understand, donations, by definition, are voluntary. If this is indeed what is being implied here, I fail to understand the need for assessing the donations according to the "donor's national wealth and ability to give".

If on the other hand, the so called donations are mandatory, isn't this but a disguised form of coercion?

-Firanus, Foreign Representative for the Community of Tchak

Definition of donation from various dictionary..

donation n. gift. If made to a qualified non-profit charitable, religious, educational or public service organization, it may be deductible as a contribution in calculating income tax.

DONATION, contracts. The act by which the owner of a thing, voluntarily transfers the title and possession of the same, from himself to another person, without any consideration; a gift. (q.v.)
2. A donation is never perfected until it is has been accepted, for the acceptance (q.v.) is requisite to make the donation complete. Vide Assent, and Ayl. Pand. tit. 9 Clef des Lois Rom. h.t.

1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.

MapleLeafss;14023416']1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.


That would be the common usage understanding of this word but this resolution interprets the word more broadly and includes other forms of words which make sure that the donation is not voluntary if one wishes to be a member of the world assembly.

yours e.t.c. ,

definition of assess

assess

verb

1. To establish and apply as compulsory: exact, impose, levy, put. See obligation, over/under, willing/unwilling.
2. To make a judgment as to the worth or value of: appraise, assay, calculate, estimate, evaluate, gauge, judge, rate, size up, valuate, value. Idioms: take the measure of. See value/worthlessness/evaluation.



Law Encyclopedia: Assess
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.


To determine financial worth. To ascertain the amount of damages. To fix and adjust the individual shares to be contributed by several persons toward a common beneficial objective in proportion to the benefit each person will receive. To tax by having qualified experts estimate the value of property by considering the nature of the property, its size, the value of other comparable property, and the proportionate share of services that is used by that property. To levy a charge on the owner of property that has been improved at the expense of the local government unit, such as when sewers or sidewalks are installed.

That would be the common usage understanding of this word but this resolution interprets the word more broadly and includes other forms of words which make sure that the donation is not voluntary if one wishes to be a member of the world assembly.

Since the word 'donation' is not defined in this resolution, I think it should use the commonly accepted definition of the word, not some contorted definition found deep inside a dictionary.

You know this is all hearsay everyone. There is this magical talk of a GAO being in place. But, the reality is that once it goes down on paper, then what? Do you honestly expect NS to make this happen? This is almost the economic equivalent of asking the NS to propose war, and I can not believe that this was allowed to go through.

On a personal soapbox note, it is quite depressing how futile debate is. No matter what, most of the general masses who vote do not participate or view these debates, so, it's all quite disheartening. In any event, it's also depressing how most things pass just because they make it to the floor. Carry on.

Oh, and donation has always been meant as a voluntary giving. So, I have NO CLUE how this bill has any efficacy?

You know this is all hearsay everyone. There is this magical talk of a GAO being in place. But, the reality is that once it goes down on paper, then what? Do you honestly expect NS to make this happen? This is almost the economic equivalent of asking the NS to propose war, and I can not believe that this was allowed to go through.

If you're trying to claim this is illegal, it isn't, sorry. If you just don't get the spirit behind the whole thing (either IC or OOC, apparently), we're sorry about that too. That's no reason for anyone else to vote against it.

On a personal soapbox note, it is quite depressing how futile debate is. No matter what, most of the general masses who vote do not participate or view these debates, so, it's all quite disheartening. In any event, it's also depressing how most things pass just because they make it to the floor. Carry on.

Nonsense. We just voted down a particularly bad resolution on child pornography not too long ago. Out of the 17 resolutions that we remember seeing since joining the WA, 13 of them passed and 4 failed. Taking into account the fact that most of the proposals that get submitted for approval are utter dreck and get screened out rather ruthlessly, thus leaving a fairly well-scrutinized list of proposals that do make it to vote, I'd say we do a decent job.

Oh, and donation has always been meant as a voluntary giving. So, I have NO CLUE how this bill has any efficacy?

We've got your efficacy right here:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

It's already been explained how this clause makes it a mandate and not voluntary.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

MapleLeafss;14023487']Since the word 'donation' is not defined in this resolution, I think it should use the commonly accepted definition of the word, not some contorted definition found deep inside a dictionary.


If it is in a dictionary ,honoured Ambassador, then it can hardly be called contorted. Just proper usage.

yours e.t.c. ,

We've got your efficacy right here:


Quote:
4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

It's already been explained how this clause makes it a mandate and not voluntary.

The verb 'to assess' can mean different thing. It mainly mean to measure, evaluate, valuate, assess, appraise, value which doesn't suggest compulsory or mandatory. It can also mean to charge (a person or a property) with a payment, such as a tax or a fine which do suggest compulsory. Why did you use such ambiguous expression? Why not make clear or define the verb 'to assess' better. As it stand now it can mean anything.

Main Entry: as·sess
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈses, a-\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Medieval Latin assessus, past participle of assidēre, from Latin, to sit beside, assist in the office of a judge — more at assize
Date: 15th century
1: to determine the rate or amount of (as a tax)
2 a: to impose (as a tax) according to an established rate b: to subject to a tax, charge, or levy
3: to make an official valuation of (property) for the purposes of taxation
4: to determine the importance, size, or value of <assess a problem>
5: to charge (a player or team) with a foul or penalty



If it is in a dictionary ,honoured Ambassador, then it can hardly be called contorted. Just proper usage.

Can I ask you which dictionary you are using? In my dictionary it means a voluntary gift.

Main Entry: do·na·tion
Pronunciation: \dō-ˈnā-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English donatyowne, from Latin donation-, donatio, from donare to present, from donum gift; akin to Latin dare to give — more at date
Date: 15th century
: the act or an instance of donating: as a: the making of a gift especially to a charity or public institution b: a free contribution : gift

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen of the World Assembly (and all you other idiots out there):

I rise in support of this legislation which shall, in a very minor way, encourage the furtherment (is that really a word … not according to Webster) of democracy. Too many times I see a good resolution get bogged down in the annoying nit picking argument of “How are we going to pay for this?” Should this resolution pass such questions will no longer need to be asked. Moreover, given the general limitations of resolution size a resolution can now spend more valuable text real estate on what it is designed to actually do knowing that questions of finance no longer have to be considered within the text of every resolution.

It then gives me great pleasure to announce that the recently elected delegate of the Region of New York has also approved this resolution. No doubt I fear that the “old guard” who still complain about an invasion would have strongly opposed this resolution simply because they strongly oppose all resolutions. I mean for a guy who used to sit and grumble about how stupid the people in the WA were and how mind numbingly boring the position of delegate was it is kind of strange how much he complains now that he has lost the job. I seem to be digressing from the topic; a bad habit I must have acquired from somewhere.

As I said before this resolution will lead, in a very minor way, to furthering democracy. How this would happen I have no clue whatsoever; I’m hopeful that the members of the World Assembly Compliance Committee will work those details out should this resolution pass and we can be assured that should it pass the WACC will have the resources to actually perform their assigned duties.

There seems to be some sort of “joke” about “mandated donations.” I have looked at this resolution in detail and I see nothing mandatory about the donations. The assembly will be clearly funded by donations and all funds in excess of spending will be returned according to the amount of money collected from the nations. Nations will be “assessed” through the GAO but I see no requirement that nations pay their full assessment. In fact I see no requirement that nations cannot pay more than their assessment although should everyone do this the WA would run into a surplus and the monies would then be returned back to the nations.

In order to encourage the delegates to vote for this fine resolution I have ordered a significant number of cases of fine Tzorsland Méthode Champenoise Wine so that every delegate who has voted in the affirmative might be able to open their own bottle in a toast. Unfortunately, do to the limited amount of land available for grape growing in Tzorsland I cannot provide a bottle for the thousands of representatives who will have cast their vote in the affirmative.

Absolutely! So far two WA members in Funen have said yes and I am awaiting opinions from four more. Looking good.

This resolution could have been written in such a way to make it crystal clear that donation to WA is MANDATORY as determined by GAO. Not in such a way that there is some doubt as whether donation is optional as it stands now. Now, esteemed ambassador 'Tzorsland' is voting for this resolution thinking that donation is not mandatory and ambassador 'Urgench' thinks it is in fact mandatory. I fear that such confusion will lead to the downfall of WA in the future when many nation simply refuse to 'donate' to WA on the ground that the donation is voluntary..

If you're trying to claim this is illegal, it isn't, sorry. If you just don't get the spirit behind the whole thing (either IC or OOC, apparently), we're sorry about that too.
i]-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador[/i]

Well actually, if you look at the rules of proposals, this legislation is technically Illegal because (mind you this is paphrasition) ... all committees and orginizations will be funded from an imaginary account and be seated by special fairies / gnomes that don't exist... If I'm misinterperting the rules I welcome any insight, but I do think that's the case.

Well actually, if you look at the rules of proposals, this legislation is technically Illegal because (mind you this is paphrasition) ... all committees and orginizations will be funded from an imaginary account and be seated by special fairies / gnomes that don't exist... If I'm misinterperting the rules I welcome any insight, but I do think that's the case.

We shouldn't be too conserned about if it's illegal or not. If the constitutional court judge (chief moderator) of WA think it's illegal, he/she will simply erased this resolution from existence.

MapleLeafss;14023627']This resolution could have been written in such a way to make it crystal clear that donation to WA is MANDATORY as determined by GAO. Not in such a way that there is some doubt as whether donation is optional as it stands now. Now, esteemed ambassador 'Tzorsland' is voting for this resolution thinking that donation is not mandatory and ambassador 'Urgench' thinks it is in fact mandatory. I fear that such confusion will lead to the downfall of WA in the future when many nation simply refuse to 'donate' to WA on the ground that the donation is voluntary..


That is entirely histrionic esteemed Ambassador. Even were this confusion real it would hardly lead to the downfall of the w.a.

We should point out that Urgench's Ambassador, Mongkha Khan of Kashgar, has been instructed to vote for this resolution, we have no objection to voting for compulsory fees for our membership of this organisation.


yours e.t.c. ,

MapleLeafss;14023644']If the constitutional court judge (chief moderator) of WA think it's illegal, he/she will simply erased this resolution from existence.

Well, not exactly. Once it's on the floor we can't delete it either.

However, I've read over it very carefully for the umpteenth time, and it is legal as written. Had it been filed under Furtherment of Democracy and been more explicit about what "assess" and "voluntary contribution" meant, it probably would have crossed over into illegal territory, as FoD doesn't actually impact economic freedoms as a rule. As a voluntary system, it sorta fits the FoD category.

Well actually, if you look at the rules of proposals, this legislation is technically Illegal because (mind you this is paphrasition) ... all committees and orginizations will be funded from an imaginary account and be seated by special fairies / gnomes that don't exist... If I'm misinterperting the rules I welcome any insight, but I do think that's the case.

You are definitely adding to the rules, since they don't say one word about funding for the WA hence the need for this resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

MapleLeafss;14023604']The verb 'to assess' can mean different thing. It mainly mean to measure, evaluate, valuate, assess, appraise, value which doesn't suggest compulsory or mandatory. It can also mean to charge (a person or a property) with a payment, such as a tax or a fine which do suggest compulsory. Why did you use such ambiguous expression? Why not make clear or define the verb 'to assess' better. As it stand now it can mean anything.But why, if it's a voluntary donation, would the WA be "assessing" as in only "evaluating" or "appraising"? Unless the WA were to require a certain amount be donated, what would be the point of evaluating a member nation's ability to give?

PC OFFICIAL: Why, we love you so much, World Assembly, we're going to donate money to fill your coffers and fund your strangers bar.

WA OFFICIAL: Is this it? You still owe me $5 billion

PC OFFICIAL: What do you mean 'we owe you'? We gave what we voluntarily decided--out of the goodness of our hearts!

WA OFFICIAL: Don't you remember? We went into your nation and assessed how much you could give in your voluntary donation.

PC OFFICIAL: Well, I never! You mean you're going to tell us how much we can give in a voluntary donation? How about we tell you that!

This doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that the WA is assessing as in simply evaluating a member nation: only to tell the member nation how much it could give if and when it decided to donate. The member nation will easily know how much it could give, (unless all of the nation’s evil murderous accountants have emigrated, then it might not know how much money it has...but that's beside the point). That meaning of "assess" doesn't make sense.

It does make sense that the WA is assessing, as in charging a tax.

Okay, now that this business about "mandatory" and "assess" and "my dictionary is bigger than your dictionary" and "don't touch me there or I'll call security" is out of the way, maybe we can talk more about what we're going to do with the money once we get it.

My vote is on plumbing. Our delegation has just been using the old Cluichstani offices since no one seemed to mind the smell before. Or, we could use the funds assized funds to pay off those delinquent bar tabs that Neville has been asking about. He said something about Bar funds being tied into subprime mortgage payments, market liquidity, investment bankers short-selling futures in frozen concentrated orange juice, and something about a federal bailout for the Stranger's Bar, which is, and I quote, "vital to the economy."

Oh- and the States-Federation, delegate of the Antarctic Oasis, casts it's vote FOR the resolution at vote- and may it's first child be a masculine child.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

Indeed the honoured Ambassador for the Powerhungry Chipmunks is correct in their understanding of this resolution's use of the term "Assess" and it should be pointed out that the term "donation" is used by this resolution purely to mean something given, not in the sense of this giving being voluntary.

Of course any club must charge fees, how else would it pay for its amenities and services.

Khan Mongkha does not expect to avail of the services of his club in Tabriz or its affiliates in Urgench or Karakorum for free, how would his club afford him the bananna fritters, Benjen tea and pipe of opium which is his usual afternoon repast?

The member states of this "club" should not expect free services either.

yours e.t.c. ,

I have to side with the people who are saying no. While I see what is trying to be done here, I don't like the wording or the way it is written. I can understand that the WA requires funding, or may require it in the future, there must be more thought put into this.

As far as the word "donate" or "donations", I think it should be replaced with "dues". You are telling us that this is not mandatory and thus making me feel like it is a gift from my country to the WA. But I refer you to two sections of the proposed resolution.

The first:

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

This is the part that I was talking about making this a "donation"

Then section four states:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

This section tells me that someone is going to tell me how much my country has to "donate", therefore mandating a donation.

I stand by my colleague, Stenbeck and the rest of our region, and respectfully decline this resolution in the hope that it can be rethought, rewritten and reintroduced.

I stand undecided on this bill. With more thought, I may have minor support or disapproval of this bill. Why?

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;
Etchasketcha is against this passage of the bill. Where will the money come from, if not localized taxes? Some countries have surpluses which would be better used on the improvement social issues and economic regulation. Others have deficits that can't afford to get worse. Explain where the money comes from.


2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;
Etchasketcha is for this aspect of the bill (no pork!). But then, couldn't the taxes of an individual nation cover the legislation of the WA? Again, where would the money come from?


3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;
Undecided. Sounds like a tax collector. I'd like to know: is the GAO a body of nations, a senate of WA delegates, or a single secretary? The WA budget, I think, should be up to the WA's nations.

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Against. Shouldn't the participating nation decide how much they're willing to give?

5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to national donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;
For.

6. Further instructs the GAO to submit to regular audits from outside agencies;
Against! Outside agencies? What outside agencies? They could be anything.


7. Forbids the WA from engaging in deficit spending;

For. Well, that's just common sense.

Recognizing that donations given to the World Assembly by member nations are likely to originate from public funds,

8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;
For. Makes sense.

Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.
For. Transparency is always good.

This resolution could have been written in such a way to make it crystal clear that donation to WA is MANDATORY as determined by GAO. Not in such a way that there is some doubt as whether donation is optional as it stands now. Now, esteemed ambassador 'Tzorsland' is voting for this resolution thinking that donation is not mandatory and ambassador 'Urgench' thinks it is in fact mandatory. I fear that such confusion will lead to the downfall of WA in the future when many nation simply refuse to 'donate' to WA on the ground that the donation is voluntary..

Klondike the Third agrees with [NS]MapleLeafss. This resolution needs to be more clear about the terms stated above. I do add that the WA needs funding so that it can further civil rights and political freedoms, but that resolution needs to be blunt and straight forward so there is no debate about the consequences of it. Because of this Klondike the Third will vote against this resolution, but strongly urges the creation of another like this one, but not stated in such terms.

-Klondike the Third

Klondike the Third agrees with [NS]MapleLeafss. This resolution needs to be more clear about the terms stated above. I do add that the WA needs funding so that it can further civil rights and political freedoms, but that resolution needs to be blunt and straight forward so there is no debate about the consequences of it. Because of this Klondike the Third will vote against this resolution, but strongly urges the creation of another like this one, but not stated in such terms.

-Klondike the Third


There is no real debate your Majesty, simply a few confused nations who do not understand that a law may be written in such a way as to satisfy competing agenda without the need to actually change its import.

This resolution imposes assessed dues on its members, who by choosing to be members agree to pay these means tested fees.

yours e.t.c. ,

I find this Resolution to be ridiculous. Mainly because the there was a very similar funding scheme used in the United States in its infancy. The United States Federal government, under the original Articles of Confederation, got its funding purely from donations from each of the individual states. This system failed miserably however because the states gave the Federal government little or no funding at all; so when the nation was faced with a small rebellion the Federal government had no way of enforcing their laws, and the states eventually had to hire mercenaries to quell the rebellion after which point, realizing their mistake, the vast majority of the states decided to give the Federal government more power. So right now I can see that this plan of donation will be a colossal failure.

Royal Imperial Prime Minister of the Empire of Greater Japangland,
Masuyo Uehara.

This reminds me of when FL tried to compare the abortion debate to the American Civil War. :rolleyes: I think you're better off firing volleys in the Dictionary Wars, frankly. Run along now.

Collectivity agrees with Ohmigod's general thrust (just watch where you're doing your thrusting!). You can't build bricks without straw. You need a budget to do things. I guess it's what the WA does with its budget that is the issue.
Collectivity's position is that it supports positive and supportive movements for mutual aid. It does not support unresponsive bureaucracies.
That's why we voted FOR the motion.

::Cerys looks across the chamber at the Kennyite delegation, very obviously womanfully not saying "I told you so."::

Look, all this dictionary shennanigans is irrelevant to a large extent. Either you want the WA to be able to do stuff on its own, or you're happy to have it order you to do the stuff whether you want to or not. If it's the first, then you need to give the WA a budget. If it's the second, you've just kissed most of your sovereignty goodbye.

This proposal works out how to give the WA a budget in a fair and affordable manner. Vote for it.

As a law student, I have considered this resolution as a matter of statutory interpretation. I am of the clear opinion that the donations are voluntary. There is no such thing as an involuntary donation. As for the use of the word "assess," I would suggest it can be interpreted in a similar manner to what happens with public school donations in New Zealand, where I live. The school looks at how many children a family has at that school, and sends them a letter asking them to pay the amount they have assessed on this basis according to their donation policy. However, payment is voluntary. The assessment is just of the amount the school thinks you should pay or is asking you to pay.

I would add that there is no international court to decide the interpretation of this resolution, so it will be interpreted by individual nations. Urgench and co are free to regard the donations as compulsory if this resolution passes, but I will certainly regard them as voluntary. I have voted against this resolution because I support a system of compulsory dues to prevent free-rider behaviour (like by the United States with United Nations dues in RL). Having said this, I may pay my full dues because I am a strong internationalist and a supporter of a strong WA. It will probably depend on the amount of free-rider behaviour.

As a law student, I have considered this resolution as a matter of statutory interpretation. I am of the clear opinion that the donations are voluntary. There is no such thing as an involuntary donation. As for the use of the word "assess," I would suggest it can be interpreted in a similar manner to what happens with public school donations in New Zealand, where I live. The school looks at how many children a family has at that school, and sends them a letter asking them to pay the amount they have assessed on this basis according to their donation policy. However, payment is voluntary. The assessment is just of the amount the schools thinks you should pay/wants you to pay.

I would add that there is no international court to decide the interpretation of this resolution, so it will be interpreted by individual nations. Urgench and co are free to regard the donations as compulsory if this resolution passes, but I will certainly regard them as voluntary. I have voted against this resolution because I support a system of compulsory dues to prevent free-rider behaviour (like by the United States with United Nations dues in RL). Having said this, I may pay my full dues because I am a strong internationalist and a supporter of a strong WA. It will probably depend on the amount of free-rider behaviour.

Thank you for this intellingent post. You said exactly what I was thinking in a clear and consice way so that even Urgench may understand people who don't share his thought about this resolution. My point is let's make this resolution clear that 'donation' is mandatory, not voluntary.

The Theocracy of Gastrizein must speak on this matter:

While it is true that donations to the WA may be useful, there is nothing to enforce them. Furthermore; We desire a say in the WA without them taking unnecessary funds from our coffers, or creating implications on how we should govern.

As such, the nation of Gastrizein must decline the proposal on account it is wasteful, misleading, and accomplishes nothing for the good of our nation or the WA as a whole.

However, I've read over it very carefully for the umpteenth time, and it is legal as written. Had it been filed under Furtherment of Democracy and been more explicit about what "assess" and "voluntary contribution" meant, it probably would have crossed over into illegal territory, as FoD doesn't actually impact economic freedoms as a rule. As a voluntary system, it sorta fits the FoD category.

Even the chief moderator, our esteemed suprome judge of WA, thinks the resolution, as it is written, is voluntary.

This reminds me of when FL tried to compare the abortion debate to the American Civil War. :rolleyes: I think you're better off firing volleys in the Dictionary Wars, frankly. Run along now.*ducks under desk as an enormous Hotrodia-Webster dictionary whizzes through the air overhead.

"Oh no, here comes Marx-Rawls with a weapon of mass-argument-destruction: real experience in legal interpretation...RETREAT!"

The Kennyite delegation scurries under its table, as they make ready to return fire. Aids had been scrambled to the office suite upstairs to locate any volume suitable for a projectile. All they could recover from Susa's locker was a half-filled-in "Little Ali's Adventures in Jihad!" coloring book and a dog-eared pamphlet on how to cheat at blackjack, but Commander Chiang's law library -- containing an excess of volumes of precedent in weaseling out of torture allegations -- bore more fruit.

"Try this," pants Jimmy as he thrusts a two-volume edition of the Oxford English Dictionary at Susa.

"Aww, hells yeah!" crows the ambassador approvingly. "If this don't cork those fuckfaces' cryholes, I don't know what will!" Hurriedly he emerges from beneath the table, but only long enough to light both volumes aflame, hurl them in the general direction of the MapleLeafss delegation, cry "ALLAHU AKBAR!!", and dive right back under.

Any organization cannot effectively operate, on any level, if it does not have resources to begin with. It is our nation's consensus that for the WA to be relevant, it must have resources, funding, reserves on-hand, to actually carry out what it needs to do to enforce its policies, without relying on having to go to each individual member state every time there is a policy to be enforced or a crisis to respond to. This process is slow, unreliable and opens up more avenues for corruption -- and I am sure it is also a logistical nightmare for every nation involved.

As a small nation with a small economy, hardly relevant, we know we may not have the ability to contribute much to the fund, but we do not see this as merely an economic commitment. We see this as, more importantly, a symbolic act of trust in the WA and the ideals on which it was created, to strengthen the WA and its capability to carry out its duties. The Free Land of Area 66 supports this resolution, and we believe everyone else should at least consider it as well. We are all in this together.

Thank you.

-- Xela Zaid, Area 66 ambassador to the WA

I think we can stop with the dictionary nonsense (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14023032&postcount=11).

Just pointing out that nowhere in this resolution the verb 'to donate' is used. instead it's the word 'donation' that is used 5 times.

donation

Originally Posted by Online Merriam-Webster dictionary
Main Entry: do·na·tion
Pronunciation: \dō-ˈnā-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English donatyowne, from Latin donation-, donatio, from donare to present, from donum gift; akin to Latin dare to give — more at date
Date: 15th century
: the act or an instance of donating: as a: the making of a gift especially to a charity or public institution b: a free contribution : gift

donation

Originally posted from the free dicionary
do·na·tion (d-nshn)
n.
1. The act of giving to a fund or cause.
2. A gift or grant.

Since the word 'donation' means free contribution, gift, or grant; I fail to see how 'assessing national donation' means it's mandatory.

As a law student, I have considered this resolution as a matter of statutory interpretation. I am of the clear opinion that the donations are voluntary. There is no such thing as an involuntary donation. As for the use of the word "assess," I would suggest it can be interpreted in a similar manner to what happens with public school donations in New Zealand, where I live. The school looks at how many children a family has at that school, and sends them a letter asking them to pay the amount they have assessed on this basis according to their donation policy. However, payment is voluntary. The assessment is just of the amount the school thinks you should pay or is asking you to pay.

I would add that there is no international court to decide the interpretation of this resolution, so it will be interpreted by individual nations. Urgench and co are free to regard the donations as compulsory if this resolution passes, but I will certainly regard them as voluntary. I have voted against this resolution because I support a system of compulsory dues to prevent free-rider behaviour (like by the United States with United Nations dues in RL). Having said this, I may pay my full dues because I am a strong internationalist and a supporter of a strong WA. It will probably depend on the amount of free-rider behaviour.



We are aware that some member states do not take their membership of this organisation very seriously, and we imagine that some simply do not have the money to supply their delegacy with the appropriately experienced foreign service staff. But is it come to such a pass with the great nation of Marx Rawls that they must send their milk faced youth, half trained in law, instead of actual lawyers to do the work of legal interpretation?

We do of course make apology if the great nation of Marx Rawls is exclusively populous in students of the law ( a fate no nation could be expected to bear with equanimity ) and no other mode of life exists there, necessitating the apointment of no actually qualified persons.

But our staff being actually qualified in the law and experienced in the writting of treaties and accords ( O.O.C. My R.L. Boyfriend is an international lawyer and legal advisor to { an unamed } department of foreign affairs ) has assured us that any nation which presumes that the fees levied by this resolution are in anyway voluntary is gravely in error.

Our legal staff have said that though the language of this resolution is seemingly opaque it does not contain any qualifying language which stresses any voluntary status of these donations, and since the assessment is not voluntary the donation must simply be seen as a "giving" , there being no part of "giving" which is specifically voluntary and since the word donation is used as a noun without the verb form then the meaning is clear.

The rest of the resolution, ignored by those claiming this erroneous interpretation of a voluntary nature, is clear also on the compulsory nature of the assessment and the actual giving of monies to the w.a. It does not stress that nations have any right to refuse assessment nor does it stress that they have a right to refuse payment. Any person familiar with the law must know that a law cannot be interpreted on the basis of single words or phrases and that it must be viewed in the round so to speak.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench is willing to make an entirely voluntary donation to the government of Marx Rawl's education system to expedite the process of their providing this organisation with an actual lawyer to act as legal advisor to their delegation.

This would be a gesture of the Empire of Urgench's excellent good will toward that of the great nation of Marx Rawl and should not be seen as an attempt to influence or indebt them to us in any way.

yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps the dontations would be "mandatory", but with no one to enforce the "giving" this resolution misses what it appears to be aiming for. It is a sound idea, perhaps, just not as well executed as it could be.

That said the general accountig office would put many finance officers at ease, as there will be a body to be held accountable for missing or unspent funds. The state of Bananalavatiy would glad give a vote for the resolution once the issue of manadatory donations is cleared up.

Perhaps the dontations would be "mandatory", but with no one to enforce the "giving" this resolution misses what it appears to be aiming for. It is a sound idea, perhaps, just not as well executed as it could be.

That said the general accountig office would put many finance officers at ease, as there will be a body to be held accountable for missing or unspent funds. The state of Bananalavatiy would glad give a vote for the resolution once the issue of manadatory donations is cleared up.


Since this resolution would become a part of all our national codeces immediately upon ratification in vote, there is no need for an "enforcer" , besides if a nation did not pay it would no longer have a legal relationship with the w.a.

yours e.t.c. ,

I have considered the points made by Urgench.

Our legal staff have said that though the language of this resolution is seemingly opaque it does not contain any qualifying language which stresses any voluntary status of these donations, and since the assessment is not voluntary the donation must simply be seen as a "giving" , there being no part of "giving" which is specifically voluntary and since the word donation is used as a noun without the verb form then the meaning is clear.

The rest of the resolution, ignored by those claiming this erroneous interpretation of a voluntary nature, is clear also on the compulsory nature of the assessment and the actual giving of monies to the w.a. It does not stress that nations have any right to refuse assessment nor does it stress that they have a right to refuse payment. Any person familiar with the law must know that a law cannot be interpreted on the basis of single words or phrases and that it must be viewed in the round so to speak.

I am, of course, aware that context is very important in interpretation, but I don't think it makes matters any clearer in this case. It is true that "the language of the resolution does not contain any qualifying language which stresses any voluntary status of these donations." However, in my opinion it does not contain any language that stresses the compulsory nature of the donations, either.

The fact that the assessment is compulsory is not inconsistent with the payment being voluntary. The assessment can be read as simply an assessment of how much the GAO wants a nation to pay, not how much it must pay. I gave the analogy or example of school donations in New Zealand.

I think in ordinary usage a compulsory donation would be widely regarded as an oxymoron. Even "giving", I think, connotes voluntariness. Anyway, the courts will choose ordinary usage over dictionary definitions every time. Context and purpose are more important than ordinary usage, but I cannot see anything decisive either way from them in this case.

Some countries (including this one) want compulsory funding; some want voluntary funding. It is unclear what the author of this proposal wanted; indeed I have a suspicion that he may have been deliberately ambigiuous in an attempt to get support from both camps. In any case, the proposer's intention would not be decisive; it is the collective intention of the WA that matters. It is impossible to know what the nations voting in favour of this resolution think it means. Some (I suspect most, given the connotations of the word "donation") will probably think donations are voluntary; others probably think the opposite; many, I imagine, will not even consider the issue. Thus the intention or purpose is not of help in this case.

Moreover, I would point out that the resolution has been approved as legal by the chief moderator on the basis that the donations are voluntary, and, as I understood his comment, he would have ruled it illegal if he thought they were compulsory. Thus the resolution is illegal if the donations are compulsory. It is a basic interpretative principle that legislation should be interpreted in a manner that saves it from being found to be illegal.

The problem of WA resolutions being given different interpretations by different nations has got me thinking of ways to address it. I have two ideas. The first is the creation of an international court to interpret WA resolutions. The second is a resolution outlining the principles for interpreting resolutions. These proposals are not mutually exclusive. I think ideally both of them should be implemented, but I think the first is the more important. Either of them would help, however. I think I might draft proposals based on these ideas (when I get time - perhaps not until after university finishes in November). In fact, they could probably both be incorporated into one proposal: the resolution would set up an international court to interpret WA resolutions and then tell the court how to go about interpreting them.

OOC:The problem of WA resolutions being given different interpretations by different nations has got me thinking of ways to address it. I have two ideas. The first is the creation of an international court to interpret WA resolutions. The second is a resolution outlining the principles for interpreting resolutions. These proposals are not mutually exclusive. I think ideally both of them should be implemented, but I think the first is the more important. Either of them would help, however. I think I might draft proposals based on these ideas (when I get time - perhaps not until after university finishes in November). In fact, they could probably both be incorporated into one proposal: the resolution would set up an international court to interpret WA resolutions and then tell the court how to go about interpreting them.
While that's all very sensible, there's been quite a tradition (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Creative_Solutions_Agency) of exploiting loopholes in UN/WA laws for fun and profit, and, at least on the level of playing this game for fun, it'd be a shame to see such avenues closed off. I think leaving interpretation up to each nation has two advantages:

1. It can generate some fun RPs, such as the Dodgeball War (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361434) that ensued after an old UN resolution on the law of the sea, or all the creative responses to Promotion of Solar Panels (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Promotion_of_Solar_Panels). There hasn't been much WA-related RPing yet, but there were some interesting examples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13988257&postcount=419) in the recent marriage discussion.

2. It promotes more conscientious writing of proposals. Knowing one's words will be picked over concentrates the mind, and leads to greater attention to detail. My torture proposal was the full 3,500 character limit, with none to spare, but that was all necessary, to avoid loopholes. Had such a demand not been in place, I could simply have written 'Let's ban torture' and been done with it, which would be considerably less fun.

From a legal standpoint, I probably agree with you on the utility of a 'WA Supreme Court' or similar. But as a game function, I think it'd kill interest.

(Though an international court for other purposes, such as ruling on war crimes, would be a great idea.)

The Holy Empire of Tybra is against this resolution because it is in our opinion doomed to faill, mainly because of it relys on donations and is impossible to budgetise plans based on donations, also this creates the ability of nations against certain programs to not donate therefor needing other nations to donate more wich will, in our predictions, only depress them and will not donate, we are in favor of a GAO however we may fear that this will be a corrupt office, after all the GAO will now also rely on donations and makes his own budget, even if there are made audits by outside agencies, the resolution does not make clear it has to be independant agencies, creating an even larger threat of corruption.
Also the resolution does not say clearly how the GAO will be organized so in that point we prefer to see a at most 4 year term for the management otherwise corruption risk is elevated, also we still prefer that they regulate taxes needed to fullfil each plan or allow those taxes to go the the genral fund in wich it will be distributed each year to programs in need of funding.

I have considered the points made by Urgench.

Our legal staff have said that though the language of this resolution is seemingly opaque it does not contain any qualifying language which stresses any voluntary status of these donations, and since the assessment is not voluntary the donation must simply be seen as a "giving" , there being no part of "giving" which is specifically voluntary and since the word donation is used as a noun without the verb form then the meaning is clear.

The rest of the resolution, ignored by those claiming this erroneous interpretation of a voluntary nature, is clear also on the compulsory nature of the assessment and the actual giving of monies to the w.a. It does not stress that nations have any right to refuse assessment nor does it stress that they have a right to refuse payment. Any person familiar with the law must know that a law cannot be interpreted on the basis of single words or phrases and that it must be viewed in the round so to speak.

I am, of course, aware that context is very important in interpretation, but I don't think it makes matters any clearer in this case. It is true that "the language of the resolution does not contain any qualifying language which stresses any voluntary status of these donations." However, in my opinion it does not contain any language that stresses the compulsory nature of the donations, either.

The fact that the assessment is compulsory is not inconsistent with the payment being voluntary. The assessment can be read as simply an assessment of how much the GAO wants a nation to pay, not how much it must pay. I gave the analogy or example of school donations in New Zealand.

I think in ordinary usage a compulsory donation would be widely regarded as an oxymoron. Even "giving", I think, connotes voluntariness. Anyway, the courts will choose ordinary usage over dictionary definitions every time. Context and purpose are more important than ordinary usage, but I cannot see anything decisive either way from them in this case.

Some countries (including this one) want compulsory funding; some want voluntary funding. It is unclear what the author of this proposal wanted; indeed I have a suspicion that he may have been deliberately ambigiuous in an attempt to get support from both camps. In any case, the proposer's intention would not be decisive; it is the collective intention of the WA that matters. It is impossible to know what the nations voting in favour of this resolution think it means. Some (I suspect most, given the connotations of the word "donation") will probably think donations are voluntary; others probably think the opposite; many, I imagine, will not even consider the issue. Thus the intention or purpose is not of help in this case.

Moreover, I would point out that the resolution has been approved as legal by the chief moderator on the basis that the donations are voluntary, and, as I understood his comment, he would have ruled it illegal if he thought they were compulsory. Thus the resolution is illegal if the donations are compulsory. It is a basic interpretative principle that legislation should be interpreted in a manner that saves it from being found to be illegal.

The problem of WA resolutions being given different interpretations by different nations has got me thinking of ways to address it. I have two ideas. The first is the creation of an international court to interpret WA resolutions. The second is a resolution outlining the principles for interpreting resolutions. These proposals are not mutually exclusive. I think ideally both of them should be implemented, but I think the first is the more important. Either of them would help, however. I think I might draft proposals based on these ideas (when I get time - perhaps not until after university finishes in November). In fact, they could probably both be incorporated into one proposal: the resolution would set up an international court to interpret WA resolutions and then tell the court how to go about interpreting them.



Esteemed Ambassador, the donation is a requirement of the resolution, assessment by the w.a. of this donation is a requirement, membership of the w.a. is based on compliance with this resolution (should it pass), therefore there is nothing voluntary about these fees.

Misinterpretation of the statute at this stage by nations who imagine that the donations are voluntary is a usefull side effect of its wording, but it will not change the fact that this resolution will institute a system of means tested fees upon the membership of this organisation.

yours e.t.c. ,

I remain convinced that this resolution needs to be removed, rewritten and resubmitted. There is a poor choice of wording. I also don't think this resolution can be enforced fairly. I am willing to "donate" as it's being called, but I don't like the idea that someone is going to tell me how much I will be required to "donate". If that "donation" is not acceptable because of financial situations that my nation may be required to deal with, I will be removed from the assembly? I suggest suspension of voting rights, suspension of aid or things like that before arbitrarily removing nations from the assembly. I reiterate, this resolution needs to be removed and rewritten.

You are definitely adding to the rules, since they don't say one word about funding for the WA hence the need for this resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I apologize, and I thank you for the clarification.

Esteemed Ambassador, the donation is a requirement of the resolution, assessment by the w.a. of this donation is a requirement, membership of the w.a. is based on compliance with this resolution (should it pass), therefore there is nothing voluntary about these fees.

Misinterpretation of the statute at this stage by nations who imagine that the donations are voluntary is a usefull side effect of its wording, but it will not change the fact that this resolution will institute a system of means tested fees upon the membership of this organisation.

Donation and fee are two very different words. Don't use it interchangably. Beside the word fee is NEVER use in this resolution.

MapleLeafss;14025081']Donation and fee are two very different words. Don't use it interchangably. Beside the word fee is NEVER use in this resolution.


It may be beyond the comprehension of the respected Ambassador, but in this case the actual nature of this donation is that of a fee. This is what we are pointing out.

We would thank the respected Ambassador not to tell us what to say and what not to say. This being especially important where their limited abilities have left them unable to comment with any sense of knowing what they are talking about.

yours e.t.c. ,

This being especially important where their limited abilities have left them unable to comment with any sense of knowing what they are talking about.

I take this as a personal insult for not agreeing with your flawed interpretation and understanding of the word donation.

I think we can stop with the dictionary nonsense (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14023032&postcount=11).
(OOC: Guilty as charged. But hey, since there's no way to avoid being guilty of this nonsense...I'll extract as much enjoyment from my sin as possible ;))

Samuel Palleel slowly walked down the row of interns handing each one a pocket dictionary. The last intern in the row, who wore a scared expression, shook as he passed, almost dropping the miniature book.

"Be strong, soldier!" Sam reassured clasping his hand on the intern's shoulder

"B-b-but...This is all we get." He gazed at the dictionary which hardly spanned from his fingertips to his wrist.

"It's all we have left, son. You and the rest of these interns are our last defense. Your charge on the enemy position--it's our only hope." A tear wriggled free from Sam's eye and flowed down his cheek.

"B-b-but we'll never make it out alive!"

"I know there's that risk, son. But your sacrifice will not go unnoticed. Our Ballads will sing, Our poets will compose, Our sculptors will, er, sculpt...and you will be immortalized for the love of country you displayed this day!"

"B-b-but I'm only an intern, and I don't even like this country! I only signed up for this internship so I could have a resume strong enough to get a job in a more competitive market--like in Urgench or Tzorsland."

Sam paused and looked down at the floor. After a moment he launched his open hand, slapping it loudly across the intern's face,

"This is no time to despair, boy. Just take your little dictionary and dish out as many paper cuts as you can with it!"

Sam turned back to the row of scared youth muttering under his breath,

"Stupid kids. I should've fired y'all a long time ago, but this way we'll save lots of paperwork" Then louder he called out, "Warriors! Interns! Let you blood boil with the adverbial crimes and adjective torture our enemies have committed against us! Go now! Go now! Go NOW!"

UNDERSTANDING that most of the delegates and representatives never visit this forum
REALIZING that these type of debates can in a bizarre way be fun
NOTING that technically speaking the stat wanking effects of this resolution doesn’t do a damn thing to my budget (Furtherment of Democracy … it’s a wonderful thing)
FURTHER NOTING that technically that the stat wanking effects only apply once when the resolution is passed in the first place
EVEN FURTHER NOTING that resolutions which stat wank money from nations will damn well do so whether we pass this resolution or not

:p THE NIFTY REPUBLIC OF TZORSLAND will continue to insist that the assessments are in fact voluntary even though we will as a nation always role play that we automatically pay our full assessment only because I can’t for the life of me see how this institution is ever going to get one damn cent from the nations of Gatesville. SO THERE!

"I think I know a way of solving the problem as to what donate, in this sense, means" said Sir Cyril, reaching into a waistcoat pocket. He pulled out a halfpenny, and shewed it to the World Assembly
"Heads means a voluntary donation, tails a mandatory donation, everyone agree?"

He flicked the coin deftly into the air, and watched it tumble onto his desk, where it began to spin for a few seconds, before stopping. He examined the coin curiously

"Now what were the chances of it landing on the edge?" He said, before having to take cover from a barrage of hefty dictionaries

MapleLeafss;14025093']I take this as a personal insult for not agreeing with your flawed interpretation and understanding of the word donation.


The esteemed Ambassador should of course make whatever pleases them of our words. That has certainly been there approach to the interpretation of legislation in this place thus far, we have no right to ask them to change the habits which seem to suit them so well.

yours e.t.c. ,

The esteemed Ambassador should of course make whatever pleases them of our words. That has certainly been there approach to the interpretation of legislation in this place thus far, we have no right to ask them to change the habits which seem to suit them so well.

The most common definition of the word donation is giving freely, indeed it's the only accepted definition that I can find in 2 dicionaries. No matter how loud you cry out that donation is a fee, it won't change the fact that donation is voluntary.

MapleLeafss;14025108']The most common definition of the word donation is giving freely, indeed it's the only accepted definition that I can find in 2 dicionaries. No matter how loud you cry out that donation is a fee, it won't change the fact that donation is voluntary.



We are sure the respected Ambassador is unaware ( since the depths of that which they are unaware of seems un-plumbable ) that it is not the custom of Urgenchis to engage in the practice of speech above a whisper (hence our habitual use of the written word in w.a. debates ) so we have cried nothing loudly at all.

We are also sure that the honoured Ambassador is accustomed to interpreting a law according to the smallest possible reading of its words and inventing its meaning according to the vissicitudes of their whim, but hanging their entire argument about this resolution upon what are clearly not comprehensive dictionary definitions of a single word is to say the least absurd if not utterly ridiculous.

As we have said, it seems the habit of the respected Ambassador to invent meanings for resolutions which they do not have, so we do not expect future discourse with them on this topic to avail of any utility.


yours e.t.c. ,

We are also sure that the honoured Ambassador is accustomed to interpreting a law according to the smallest possible reading of its words and inventing its meaning according to the vissicitudes of their whim, but hanging their entire argument about this resolution upon what are clearly not comprehensive dictionary definitions of a single word is to say the least absurd if not utterly ridiculous.

Can you cite one reputable source that says 'donation' is compulsory?

The government of Rutianas has read over this proposal and come to the conclusion that 'donation' means something voluntarily given. We have voted for this resolution and will voluntarily donate to this general fund, should it pass.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

MapleLeafss;14025166']Can you cite one reputable source that says 'donation' is compulsory?


The Oxford English Dictionary- " Donate- to give or contribute (especially money) esp {but not exclusively} voluntarily to a fund or institution "

" Donation- the act or instance of donating "

Our point respected Ambassador has never been that the word donation means anything compulsory, simply that it does not always mean anything voluntary and that in this case the rest of the resolution makes it clear that the donation is not voluntary.

If the respected Ambassador continues to need us to explain this to them, over and over again then we seriously worry whether they are qualified to speak for their nation in any capacity.


yours e.t.c. ,

As a law student, I have considered this resolution as a matter of statutory interpretation. I am of the clear opinion that the donations are voluntary. There is no such thing as an involuntary donation. As for the use of the word "assess," I would suggest it can be interpreted in a similar manner to what happens with public school donations in New Zealand, where I live. The school looks at how many children a family has at that school, and sends them a letter asking them to pay the amount they have assessed on this basis according to their donation policy. However, payment is voluntary. The assessment is just of the amount the school thinks you should pay or is asking you to pay.

I would add that there is no international court to decide the interpretation of this resolution, so it will be interpreted by individual nations. Urgench and co are free to regard the donations as compulsory if this resolution passes, but I will certainly regard them as voluntary. I have voted against this resolution because I support a system of compulsory dues to prevent free-rider behaviour (like by the United States with United Nations dues in RL). Having said this, I may pay my full dues because I am a strong internationalist and a supporter of a strong WA. It will probably depend on the amount of free-rider behaviour.

Klondike the Third agrees with Marx-Rawls. The WA needs a fund that all Nation States are required to pay money to. We need a strong WA that can get things done. "Donations" can not get this done. A strong WA has to have resolutions that are cut and dry, and not ones that provide room for interpretation.

Klondike the Third agrees with Marx-Rawls. The WA needs a fund that all Nation States are required to pay money to. We need a strong WA that can get things done. "Donations" can not get this done. A strong WA has to have resolutions that are cut and dry, and not ones that provide room for interpretation.


There is no room for interpretation respected Ambassador, the donations are required, their level is set by the w.a. , compliance is obligatory. How much more clear could it be?

yours e.t.c. ,

Our point respected Ambassador has never been that the word donation means anything compulsory, simply that it does not always mean anything voluntary and that in this case the rest of the resolution makes it clear that the donation is not voluntary.

The point is not that the word "Donation" CAN be voluntary or not, the point is that the word 'Donation CAN be interpreted as voluntary. There can be no question about definitions if a resolution like this one is going to succeed.

Again embassador Urgench make it looks like donation is not voluntary by equating the word donation with the word to donate which I find must disturbing misinterpretation of this resolution. I remind you again that the verb 'to donate' is never used in this resolution.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
do·na·tion /doʊˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[doh-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This do·na·tion (dō-nā'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The act of giving to a fund or cause.
2. A gift or grant.


[Middle English donacioun, gift, benefice, from Old French, from Latin dōnātiō, dōnātiōn-, from dōnātus, past participle of dōnāre, to give, from dōnum, gift; see dō- in Indo-European roots.]

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This donation

noun
1. a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause [syn: contribution]
2. act of giving in common with others for a common purpose especially to a charity [syn: contribution]


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: do·na·tion
Function: noun
1 : the making of an esp. charitable gift
2 in the civil law of Louisiana : a voluntarytransfer of ownership of property from one person to another —compare SALE

The point is not that the word "Donation" CAN be voluntary or not, the point is that the word 'Donation CAN be interpreted as voluntary. There can be no question about definitions if a resolution like this one is going to succeed.

We are begining to think that certain nations have only read one word from this entire resolution. Whether or not the word donation can be used in this way is immaterial, it has been made mandatory by all the other words of the resolution. Carefull reading of the resolution proves this to be the case.

yours e.t.c. ,

Honourable Ambassadors,

May we please be realistic. If this is passed, it applies to all WA members and it doesn't matter if it says donations, they will be taken from all member states. There is no point arguing. Granted, the wording could be different but besides this, my country is supporting this.

MapleLeafss;14025354']Again embassador Urgench make it looks like donation is not voluntary by equating the word donation with the word to donate which I find must disturbing misinterpretation of this resolution. I remind you again that the verb 'to donate' is never used in this resolution.



The honoured Ambassador's line of reasoning is obsessive to the point of imbecility . You may trade meaningless definitions of one word all you like, it is utterly beside the point, every other word in this resolution makes these fees compulsory. We simply will not be drawn in to the esteemed Ambassador's ridiculous circular hell of dictionary definitions which mean nothing in this context, brandish them as they might.

yours e.t.c. ,

8) The UNABS will be a non-profit organisation, being funded by every World Assembly member nation. Each nation must provide a percentage of the funds needed to run the agency, based on a combination of how many member nations there are and the size of their GDP at the time of funding.

That's the article 8 for UNABS which is in queue. This article makes it absolutely clear that funding for UBABS is mandatory. Why can't we have a similar article to fund WA to make it absolutely clear that funding WA is also mandatory, not some ambiguous article as it is now, so we can all stop this pointless bickering..

meaningless definitions of one word

May I remind you that every word in a resolution has meaning and misinterpreting one word can change the meaning of whole resolution as it seems to be the case here.

His Majesty Klondike the Third would like to be shown by e.t.c. exactly were in the resolution that donation has been defined as mandatory.

-Klondike the Third

MapleLeafss;14025392']May I remind you that every word in a resolution has meaning and misinterpreting one word can change the meaning of whole resolution as it seems to be the case here.

Khan Mongkha comes as close as any Urgenchi can to atually screaming, meaning he vigorously strokes his beard and moustaches . His eyes flash with contempt and disbelief, he leans over to his assistant Tarmashirin of Herat and hisses,

" By the name of all the dead Emperors, is the Ambassador for MapleLeafss blind, ill, insane, mentally deficient or just consumed by the desire to prove us wrong in the teeth of reality? "

Tarmashirin looks more nervous than ever, " I think maybe the Ambassador truely believes he is right your Excellency ",

Khan Mongkha looks more incredulous than ever but says nothing, the rate of the elderly Khan's stroking of his moustaches and beard increases.



Honoured Ambassador one word in isolation cannot define the entire import of a law, that would be utter madness. In this case the words "Declares" and "Assess" are the operative words which qualify exactly the nature of these fees i.e. that they are compulsory.

We have outlined to you how the word donations has a much broader meaning than that which you insist is its only meaning, we have pointed out that the complete resolution is what institutes a fee system liked to w.a. membership which is assessed by the w.a. and for which there is no get out clause ( except absolute pennylessness ), what more is there to say on the matter?

To insist the contrary is totally incompatible with reality, is to advocate fantasy and make believe. We must presume that this is the animating spirit of the honoured Ambassador and must therefore commend him to the good offices of a world renowned Urgenchi psychiatrist, Dr. Miraan Tiphlisi, who may well be of greater assistance to the honoured Ambassador than we.

yours in a spirit of concern ,

Klondike the Third feels that the Ambassador from Urgench is more concerned with bashing other highly esteemed ambassadors than debating the pros and cons of this resolution. His Majesty, Klondike the Third strongly urges the Ambassador to show his/her fellow Ambassadors the respect they deserve.


With Regards to the Ambassador from Urgench,
-Klondike the Third

MapleLeafss;14025382']That's the article 8 for UNABS which is in queue. This article makes it absolutely clear that funding for UBABS is mandatory. Why can't we have a similar article to fund WA to make it absolutely clear that funding WA is also mandatory, not some ambiguous article as it is now, so we can all stop this pointless bickering..

How about, because every time someone has submitted a resolution that says that, it's failed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Honoured Ambassador one word in isolation cannot define the entire import of a law, that would be utter madness. In this case the words "Declares" and "Assess" are the operative words which qualify exactly the nature of these fees i.e. that they are compulsory.

The word 'declares' only appears once in this resolution in article 1;

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

It only says WA shall be funded by donations from member states; I fail to see here how the word 'declares' make donation mandatory, it could easily means that WA shall be funded by gifts and/or grants, and indeed this definition of word donation is widely accepted instead of fee.

The word 'assess' only appears once in this resolution in article 4 in the passive form;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

What's being assess here is the 'donation' that each member states can give.
National wealth and ability to give are only criteria by which GAO assess the donation for each member country.
If the resolution said instead 'assess fee' or 'assess tax', to assess would mean to set, to determine, or to charge.
But in this context of assess donation by criteria of national wealth and ability to give, to assess means to estimate.



Also if you look at the preambulatory phrases, which give the reason for this resolution,

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

the word donation is clearly defined in this preambule as solicited donation which certainly don't suggest mandatory donation or fee. It just means GAO will ask persistently, beg, obtain by persuasion, importune...
It is also reinforced by the words coerced taxation scheme which would imply a levy or fee.


Also if you look at article 5 and 7;

5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to national donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

7. Forbids the WA from engaging in deficit spending; and,

this article clearly defines WA as a non profit organigation, and as such it strongly suggest it work on voluntary donation.

Drasanga has reconsidered our position and must remove our support on the grounds that though this resoloution claims not to be a tax, it is just that. If an audit, or assesment is to be taken, and then a fee must be paid... Sound like a tax scheme to me.

Most respectfuly,
King Philip

"A resolution to increase democratic freedoms."
MapleLeafss "Anyone voting against should simply resign from WA and never come back again.."

In the same way as giving a World Organization our Nations money, you MapleLeafss are Fascist, I will remain a member of WA simply to counteract your vote.

This is a ridiculous resolution and deserved nothing but a NO vote. We know how to use our money, We know whats best for our people, We know how to use our money, not some faceless international organization.

I urge the members to vote NO on this resolution.

USSC

What MapleLeafss has pointed out about the preamble is the king-hit, in my opinion. If you solicit a donation, you are asking for it, not requiring it - i.e., as the resolution says, it is not a coerced taxation scheme. The preamble (as here) often sheds light on the purpose or intent of the legislation, and therefore the law recognises that legislation should be interpreted in light of it. I cannot see how Urgench can reasonably suggest the donations are mandatory, with this in the preamble.

I was voting for in the understanding that donation is voluntary.

What MapleLeafss has pointed out about the preamble is the king-hit, in my opinion. If you solicit a donation, you are asking for it, not requiring it - i.e., as the resolution says, it is not a coerced taxation scheme. The preamble (as here) often sheds light on the purpose or intent of the legislation, and therefore the law recognises that legislation should be interpreted in light of it. I cannot see how Urgench can reasonably suggest the donations are mandatory, with this in the preamble.


Honoured Ambassador, the esteemed Ambassador for MapleLeafss is beyond the reach of reason, we suspect that you may not be. Therefore we must tell you that we are intimately aware of the motives and intent of the authors of this resolution in wording it in this way.

The only operative parts of this resolution clearly make these fees mandatory, this was the intent of the authors. The preamble as with most resolutions is essentially meaningless, in this case however it has been carefully worded in order to allay any panic on the part of governments who would not vote for this resolution if they thought it introduced a mandatory fee system.

Be under no illusions, this resolution has been extremely carefully worded, it walks a very thin line between two very different and strongly felt views on w.a. funding. But carefull reading will show exactly which of these views this resolution imbibes of.

Preambles are not strictly operative unless the authors have made them so.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Therefore we must tell you that we are intimately aware of the motives and intent of the authors of this resolution in wording it in this way.


Intent of the author, as you presumary know, is irrelevent. What is important is the preambule written in this resolution. I certainly don't know the author of this resolution, as the vast majority of member who votes, wheater for or against this resolution. What we only have to go for, as intent of the resolution, is the preambule only, not some intent that the author didn't apparently write in fear that his/her resolution may not pass.

MapleLeafss;14026210']I was voting for in the understanding that donation is voluntary.

O.O.C. So i'm sure you explained this before but Mongkha was busy doing other things, so please explain why there are two MapleLeafss? Its highly suspicious.

U.

MapleLeafss is the forum account I created because when I first joined the game, it won't let me post in the forum. [NS]MapleLeafss is an account authomatically created by the game without me noticing 1 or 2 days ago..

What Urgench is essentially saying is that this resolution has been made ambigious to try to trick nations opposed to voting for compulsory dues to actually vote for them without realising it. This sort of dishonesty is not an argument likely to go down well with any court. Anyway, it is the intentions of those who vote on it, not just the proposer, that matters.

I was not saying that preambles are operative; I was saying that the courts regard them as very important interpretational tools that shed light on the purpose and intention of the resolution and clarify its meaning.

I will probably pay my voluntary donations, but I have no doubt that other nations who oppose a large or strong WA will not.

Necronensis will be withdrawing the Region of 7-0's support of said resolution until we can ascertain how our majority move in regard to this Act of WA

Nekleigh gives its support of this issue under the assumtion that the WA will be assessing nations ability to pay, so a fair and balanced request can be made. I also believe that nations that achieve more than the assessed amount for donation be given special recognition. If these 'donations' become mandatory then appropriate action will need to take place, most likely an amendment.

Nekleigh gives its support of this issue under the assumtion that the WA will be assessing nations ability to pay, so a fair and balanced request can be made. I also believe that nations that achieve more than the assessed amount for donation be given special recognition. If these 'donations' become mandatory then appropriate action will need to take place, most likely an amendment.

Amendment is illegal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7)

Hey, remember when I said to stop the linguistic debate? I wasn't kidding.

The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

This sounds like an alright idea, but I want to mention the fact that voluntary funds won't get us many places. It would mean that we will have a minimal budget with the countries with greater economies holding up the WA. With poor nations not able to contribute much, the nations with greater economies will be supporting more weight, and therfore will have more weight in the legislature. If this is going to be so then you are giving too much power to these nations. They leave, and you lose the fund, along with the economic stability of the assembly. Not a great way to have a fund. Take the U.N. and the United States, for example.

As read from the Department of State:

"The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs." (2002).

That's over 1/5 of its regular budget, and they provide even more in voluntary contributions (up to 50% in some areas). If they left the U.N., the assembly would most certainly drop into economic depression, if not collapse. Not to mention, they have their building right in N.Y.C.

The only way to counteract this would be to give everyone equal voting rights. Even then, that's not right, because now what's the incentive to give more to the fund? This isn't economically sound. This shouldn't even be on the floor. Voting no, unless someone can give me a good argument about how this could actually help us politically and socially (because it isn't economically).

Would suggest perhaps that this be revised to contribute a small compulsory fund based on the income rate of a country, along with a voluntary fund, just like the U.N. so that, if voluntary contributions fail, you still have a minimal budget to keep your back to (unless we already have one, which I haven't heard we have).

Hey, remember when I said to stop the linguistic debate? I wasn't kidding.

The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

There is nothing illegal or wrong about debating the meaning of a proposed resolution - we need to understand what it means to know how to vote on it.

thanks for clearing it up :)

There is nothing illegal or wrong about debating the meaning of a proposed resolution - we need to understand what it means to know how to vote on it.When a Moderator tells you to quit being pedantic, it's a good idea to follow those instructions. Especially since the first time I told you to knock it off, I linked to a post that addressed your semantic problems.

Waffling about the definition of "donate" and the supposed difference between "to donate" and "donation" have grown tiresome. We've had enough selective dictionary quoting to last for several lifetimes.

I agree with Marx. If the proposal reads badly or it is unclear, why cant we debate the semantics of it?

That is what goes on in "real" politics. And since we (as far as I know) have no way of amending the resolution, then we need to know what the meaning if the word is, is in this case.

USSC

When a Moderator tells you to quit being pedantic, it's a good idea to follow those instructions. Especially since the first time I told you to knock it off, I linked to a post that addressed your semantic problems.

Waffling about the definition of "donate" and the supposed difference between "to donate" and "donation" have grown tiresome. We've had enough selective dictionary quoting to last for several lifetimes.


The government of the Emperor thanks The Most Glorious Hack, perhaps the life shortening frustration of refuting silly arguments about dictionary defintions will no no longer afflict his Excellency Khan Mongkha, the luxuriousness of his beard is renowned and it would be a pity if he tore it out.

yours e.t.c. ,

I agree with Marx. If the proposal reads badly or it is unclear, why cant we debate the semantics of it?

That is what goes on in "real" politics. And since we (as far as I know) have no way of amending the resolution, then we need to know what the meaning if the word is, is in this case.

USSC


Honoured Ambassador it is not the meaning of a single word which matters, but rather the meaning of the entire resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

When a Moderator tells you to quit being pedantic, it's a good idea to follow those instructions. Especially since the first time I told you to knock it off, I linked to a post that addressed your semantic problems.

Waffling about the definition of "donate" and the supposed difference between "to donate" and "donation" have grown tiresome. We've had enough selective dictionary quoting to last for several lifetimes.

I have looked at the post referred to, and it certainly doesn't clear up matters. Firstly, the fact that some dictionary considers that a donation can be compulsory does not establish that it is voluntary in this case, particularly when the more common meaning is that it is voluntary. Secondly, dictionaries are hardly the most important thing in statutory interpretation, thought they do have some role. Different dictionaries will have different definitions. Moreover, the courts are more interested in how words are ordinarily understood than the possible meaning enumerated by dictionaries.

In the post referred to, the poster admitted that this was not the most use of the word "donation." The most common usage is the one that will prevail in the absence of any contextual or purposive factors that sufficiently indicate that another meaning is intended. For reasons that I have already given, I do not consider that there are any such factors in this resolution. I must therefore respectfully disagree with the Moderator's interpretation of the resolution.

I agree that citing umpteen dictionaries is not very helpful, given that (as I explained above) dictionaries are not actually that important in statutory interpretation. Therefore I haven't cited any dictionaries. As for the difference between the noun "donation" and the verb "donate", the person who brought this up is quite right. Students frequently make this mistake in statutory interpretation classes, and are warned that it is dangerous. It may seem pedantic, but there can be relevant differences in meaning between the different forms.

Seems very idealistic to me.
In addition to all of the problems of definition, I do not think the World Assembly should rest upon the chance that enough nations will donate. If the WA needs more funds it should be able to get them. I do not think we should be gambling with the power of our World Assembly.

Also, this seems to be an attempt to promote capitalism and marginalize socialist and communist nations. Feel free to do that in your own nations. The WA should not be used to promote your own wellbeing and political agenda, but rather to make sure that all nations are safe from unfair disadvantage. A tax that is representational of each nation's ability to give would be much more fair and in the spirit of the WA.

Seems very idealistic to me.
In addition to all of the problems of definition, I do not think the World Assembly should rest upon the chance that enough nations will donate. If the WA needs more funds it should be able to get them. I do not think we should be gambling with the power of our World Assembly.

Also, this seems to be an attempt to promote capitalism and marginalize socialist and communist nations. Feel free to do that in your own nations. The WA should not be used to promote your own wellbeing and political agenda, but rather to make sure that all nations are safe from unfair disadvantage. A tax that is representational of each nation's ability to give would be much more fair and in the spirit of the WA.


In essence, respected Ambassador, that is exactly what this resolution creates. The fees are not optional regardless of what they are called, their rate is assessed by the w.a. according to member's ability to pay and surpluses are returned to member governments should such surpluses occur.

yours e.t.c. ,

This is a travesty of a resolution, which attempts to get in by the back door what has already been rejected. Although it talks about "donations instead of taxes", these 'donations' are in fact compulsory contributions from member state governments - which obtain that money from taxation. We in the Holy Empire of Bakamyht agree with the preamble to this proposal, which states that voluntary donations are the only acceptable way to fund the World Assembly.

This is a travesty of a resolution, which attempts to get in by the back door what has already been rejected. Although it talks about "donations instead of taxes", these 'donations' are in fact compulsory contributions from member state governments - which obtain that money from taxation. We in the Holy Empire of Bakamyht agree with the preamble to this proposal, which states that voluntary donations are the only acceptable way to fund the World Assembly.


Honoured Ambassador what the preamble means by the phrase "solicited donations" is that members are voluntarily members of this organisation and the donations are incumbent on members, therefore the voluntary nature of this transaction is the choice to be a member of the w.a. This choice meaning that a member voluntarily accepts the conditions of membership which include a fee.

yours e.t.c.,

A tax that is representational of each nation's ability to give would be much more fair and in the spirit of the WA.

Isn't that precisely what this proposed resolution does? :confused:

Don't faint.

I voted FOR this.

This is why:

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to national donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

6. Further instructs the GAO to submit to regular audits from outside agencies;

7. Forbids the WA from engaging in deficit spending;

The preambule in this resolution doesn't say 'voluntary membership to WA', it says 'solicited donation' which certainly doesn't presume of mandatory donation or fee.

MapleLeafss;14027767']The preambule in this resolution doesn't say 'voluntary membership to WA', it says 'solicited donation'.

We have corrected our answer to the respected Ambassador for Bakamyht, it was our intention to explain the voluntary nature of the phrase "solicited donations" not voluntary donations. Oh and this should not be construed as a willingness on our part to engage in this silly debate about word meanings, merely a correction statement.

yours e.t.c. ,

Oh and this should not be construed as a willingness on our part to engage in this silly debate about word meanings

That's quite welcomed. I have no intention either, of explaining to you again, the commonly accepted definition of the word 'donation'. Let's agree to desagree and stop this pointless argument.

MapleLeafss;14027833']That's quite welcomed. I have no intention either, of explaining to you again, the commonly accepted definition of the word 'donation'. Let's agree to desagree and stop this pointless argument.


It is self evident that we dissagree honoured Ambassador. On that there is no dispute.

yours e.t.c. ,

President Jerzy 'Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor, looking rushed.

He catches his breath, the begins:

"Comrades of the World Assembly,

First, please forgive my tardiness...He had a backlog of issues to vote on in the USSJ State Senate to catch up on...but I am here, now.

After being briefed of the discussion here on this bill, I must vote AGAINST. I think that the spirit of this bill is right, but there a a few fatal flaws.

Obviously, this discussion that has come about is one of Semantics. In reading the bill, I can only come to the conclusion that the "donations" in this case are voluntary. They are "solicited", but...let me speak plainly here. When I was traveling abroad, while my own country was rulled by The Soviet Socialist Republics of the West Pacific, I spent some time in Exurbistan. While there, I was made aware of a young man who needed surgery for cancer. He could not afford the surgery, so his family went door-to-door, soliciting donations. Money was asked for, and not passivly; the family members actively sought the money.

What is my point? Soliciting donations, assessing donations (which I read as figuring out the proper amount to ask for), and even the word donations in general, all suggest to me, the USSJ State Senate, and to its citizens, that this is a voluntary donation.

However, I feel that we must have a mandatory system to raise funds. I am not here to sugest how to do this...Our nation is new to the WA, and we are still rebuilding our economy after years of Soviet rule. A voluntary system may raise more money than what we have, but it will nit do enough to be effective.

The WA does not need donations; it needs taxes.

If this bill is a tax, it needs to say so, plainly. There can be no room for interpretation.

Thank you."

The Dictionary Wars were not going well. Not only had the enemy broke considerable ground with its double-wing Supreme Wankery formation, but the expected MODBOMB attack by the allies had backfired. The enemy persisted with its attack, leaving the allies to vest their last desperate hope in a forumban offensive. The Chipmunk intern human shields-- er, "infantry," valiantly wielded their pocket dictionaries to ward off the enemy's advance, but things still looked grim. The Kennyites and the Palentines had constructed a makeshift barricade with their respective tables, behind which Jimmy and the office intern Ryan continued to hurl volumes at the advancing troops, and Senator Sulla lazily snored in the corner, cradling his usual bottle of Wild Turkey. Velma had left them momentarily to find more ammunition in the Enodian Memorial Library.

"Dude, this dictionary says 'donation' is 'what you bribe the Inflatable Gandalf with if you want to pass over a REALLY QUITE LARGE HIPPO crossing.' Should I use it?"

"Whatever! Throw anything!" Jimmy hissed as he tossed a Second Abidged Urgenchi-English Dictionary, Fourth Edition at the Bakamyht contingent.

Just then, Susa arrived, wheeling a large device that loosely resembled a wood chipper in front of him.

"Ambassador, what is that thing?" Jimmy inquired, ducking for an incoming barrage of Webster's International, Third Editions.

"A dictionary cannon!" Susa said proudly. "Something my cousin Achmed came up with. See, you feed the dictionaries here, and they fly out the chute here, instantly delivering Divine Knowledge to the heart of the infidel!"

"Dude, I don't know if we can trust an improvised weapon your crazy cousin cooked up," Jimmy said uneasily, as Ambassador Foroun rushed by with a stack of Ardchoillean Standard MODNAZI!!!!! Unabridged volumes.

"And what other option do we have right now?" Susa demanded. "Stop being a pussy, and give up those thesauruses!"

Jimmy fed the hardbacks into the slot near the bottom, and dove out of the way as the machine began to whir. Susa stood behind it and began firing at the oncoming horde. Amazingly enough, the cannon seemed to work, pulverizing delegates with volley after volley of AP Stylebooks. Susa began to cackle maniacally as the cannon fire sent the Jaynovans diving for their desks.

Then the cannon suddenly exploded.

Moments later, Jimmy and Susa were seated on the floor, blanketed in black soot.

"Any more bright ideas?" Jimmy wondered as he tried to clear out his eyes.

Susa spat ash from his mouth. "What do you mean? A few more modifications, and I think this baby could shoot at least 90 Complete Bushisms™ a minute!"

The Dictionary Wars were not going well. Not only had the enemy broke considerable ground with its double-wing Supreme Wankery formation, but the expected MODBOMB attack by the allies had backfired. The enemy persisted with its attack, leaving the allies to vest their last desperate hope in a forumban offensive. The Chipmunk intern human shields-- er, "infantry," valiantly wielded their pocket dictionaries to ward off the enemy's advance, but things still looked grim. The Kennyites and the Palentines had constructed a makeshift barricade with their respective tables, behind which Jimmy and the office intern Ryan continued to hurl volumes at the advancing troops, and Senator Sulla lazily snored in the corner, cradling his usual bottle of Wild Turkey. Velma had left them momentarily to find more ammunition in the Enodian Memorial Library.

"Dude, this dictionary says 'donation' is 'what you bribe the Inflatable Gandalf with if you want to pass over a REALLY QUITE LARGE HIPPO crossing.' Should I use it?"

"Whatever! Throw anything!" Jimmy hissed as he tossed a Second Abidged Urgenchi-English Dictionary, Fourth Edition at the Bakamyht contingent.

Just then, Susa arrived, wheeling a large device that loosely resembled a wood chipper in front of him.

"Ambassador, what is that thing?" Jimmy inquired, ducking for an incoming barrage of Webster's International, Third Editions.

"A dictionary cannon!" Susa said proudly. "Something my cousin Achmed came up with. See, you feed the dictionaries here, and they fly out the chute here, instantly delivering Divine Knowledge to the heart of the infidel!"

"Dude, I don't know if we can trust an improvised weapon your crazy cousin cooked up," Jimmy said uneasily, as Ambassador Foroun rushed by with a stack of Ardchoillean Standard MODNAZI!!!!! Unabridged volumes.

"And what other option do we have right now?" Susa demanded. "Stop being a pussy, and give up those thesauruses!"

Jimmy fed the hardbacks into the slot near the bottom, and dove out of the way as the machine began to whir. Susa stood behind it and began firing at the oncoming horde. Amazingly enough, the cannon seemed to work, pulverizing delegates with volley after volley of AP Stylebooks. Susa began to cackle maniacally as the cannon fire sent the Jaynovans diving for their desks.

Then the cannon suddenly exploded.

Moments later, Jimmy and Susa were seated on the floor, blanketed in black soot.

"Any more bright ideas?" Jimmy wondered as he tried to clear out his eyes.

Susa spat ash from his mouth. "What do you mean? A few more modifications, and I think this baby could shoot at least 90 Complete Bushisms™ a minute!"



Respected Ambassador in aid of the effort the government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to make available our nations entire (unsold) stock of " My life in Philology" by our nations famous philologist professor Sum Ding Wong. This tome is weighty and substantial and will make excellent amunition.

yours in the spirit of allegiance,

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich, of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, climbs out from under his desk, brushes his clothes off, fixes his hair, and cautiously takes the floor.

"Um...hello again, comrades.

I would like to point out that I was not disagreeing that the word 'donation' can mean a mandatory contribution, just that there was enough ambiguity in this bill to render it ineffective. We have a saying in the village where I was born that goes 'Не препятствуйте вашим словам получить в путе вашей смысли, '. That translates roughly to 'Speak plainly!'

We can all see how much fighting is happening while this issue is being discussed...how can we expect the fighting to stop if it is passed. We still vote AGAINST.

Thank you."

President Novakovich returnes to his place under his desk.

MapleLeafss;14026692']Amendment is illegal [/URL]
sorry, im new and was not aware of this, however, it can just be changed to overrulling the proposal.

sorry, im new and was not aware of this, however, it can just be changed to overrulling the proposal.


We are not sure what the honoured Ambassador is suggesting so we apologise if we have misunderstood their suggestion. However the only way to allay the effects of this resolution, were it to pass, would have to be a repeal resolution striking the resolution from the code.

yours e.t.c.

A distraught Ambassador Carina Talchimio-Spicolli entered the WAGA, seemingly looking around for someone, or something. Spotting her subordinate, the snarky Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola, she went over to the desk of the delegation of Brutland and Norden and talked with her. After some mild debate, the corporal accompanied her boss up to the podium.

Ambassador Spicolli didn't look that well today. Bad hair day, perhaps? Bad make-up? She took the floor after the delegate of Urgench, not minding about what was being talked about on the floor of the WAGA, and not wondering about the tomes of dictionaries and books, burnt and unburnt, lying on the floor.

"Hello," she said. She was too desperate to bother about decorum or something. After all, she just barged into the WAGA with only this intention. "Hello my fellow delegates. I am looking for my children," she said, holding a picture of twins, a boy and a girl. "They had just been playing at the office one moment, and the next moment, they're gone!" The Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador was barely able to hold on to what little composure she had. "Please help me find my children. If you see them, they're those nice cute toddlers, about nearly a year old, blond hair, blue eyes. I'd really appreciate your help - "

The corporal then whispered something to the ambassador.

"Er, as for the resolution at vote, we have no opinion. Abstain," Ambassador Spicolli said hurriedly. "Thank you very much."

The Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador then quickly left the WAGA hall, joining the legion of embassy staff looking for her children. The corporal was left there, wearing a half-amused, half-condescending expression.

[i]The Dictionary Wars were not going well.
Samantha Benson rose.

"Unaccustomed as we are to finding ourselves on the same side of debate as the representative of Darkesia, we do today acknowledge their forward-thinking vote on the current WA resolution."

THUMP

"We have cast the votes of the nation of Quintessence of Dust, representing the Green and Pleasant Region of Wysteria, in favour of the resolution, 'WA General Fund'. Our regional polling currently shows Wysterians unanimously in favour of passage of said proposal."

THUMP

The water in her glass gently ripples.

"Furthermore, the Senate of the Quintessential Congress today passed an extraordinary motion to expedite payment of our first annual donation to the Fund in the event this resolution passes, while indicating that its supporters at present only cautiously optimistic of those chances."

THUMP

A pile of papers scatters.

"I wish to briefly speak on the importance of this resolution. Absent funding, the WA can never engage in large projects, and will forever be condemned to discussing largely abstract matters. Well might this proposal's opponents condemn it as a violation of national sovereignty - yet the truth is, its passage is likely to open up policy alternatives for the WA that will allow it to explore complex international issues with all due sensitivity, instead of being confined to tinkering with constitutional niceties."

THUMP

One or two ambassadors exchange puzzled glances.

"We hope that the WA will not devote its funds, should this proposal pass, to frivolous causes. But we do feel there are many areas where the ability to engage in full-scale international humanitarian efforts, without the need to depend on donations or corporate sponsorship, will strengthen the ability of the...oh...uh...oh no!"

THUMP

"It's...THESAURUS REX! Run!"

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7850/epicdrawingak1.png

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7850/epicdrawingak1.png

The entire Kawaiian delegation screamed in unison. "KAIJU!!!"

There was a mad dash as cat-girl dressed secretaries and sailor-suited security officers made a mad dash for the exits.

The Army of XANA, long may He live, votes in favor of this WA Financial plan, with the assumption that a budget will come to vote in the coming days.

For Luna!

While Despoticania is not a member of the World Assebly, I, the Despot, have taken control of another nation, Great Waterland, which is a member... I am a long-time supporter of the concept of a "Benevolent Dictator", and I've been ruling Despoticania with great success for several years: thanks to my benevolent rule, Despoticania has now almost nonexistent unemployment, high civil rights, extremely large GDP/capita and a mighty military.

Great Waterland has been subject to many social and political reformations over the past few months, and now I feel that everything is going as planned... But if this foolish resolution to increase "democratic freedoms" is about to be enabled, I see no other alternative but to resign Great Waterland from the World Assebly.

Democracy is an inefficient, extremely foolish and hopefully short-lived way to run any organization, and I cannot allow it to ruin my heroic struggle to build a better tomorrow for the people of Great Waterland. No "furtherment of democracy", no matter how insignificant, can be tolerated by Despoticania or her satellite states... Vote against this pathetic attempt to mess with our political systems.

Death to Democracy!

For the Right Order!

- The Despot of Despoticania

Remember that scene from "My Cousin Vinny" where Vinny tries to fool the judge into thinking he's bigshot attorney Jerry Gallow, only he doesn't realize Gallow is dead because he only scans headlines and never reads the actual articles? That was hilarious!...Kind of like the above post. :p

Does anyone know, and would anyone please tell us, how many votes "for" and "against" this resolution there have been so far?

Does anyone know, and would anyone please tell us, how many votes "for" and "against" this resolution there have been so far?


Why wouldn't the respected Ambassador check for themselves?

We believe that this resolution will set up a system of collecting money that some think is mandatory and some voluntary. It sets up an organisation {WA General Accounting Office (GAO)}which does not appear to be accountable to the World Assembly. (I think it is impossible to have such a body). It appears to interfere with a nations domestic taxation policy without defining what it means by “unfair discriminatory practices”. It “strongly encourages” “an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency” with regard to a nations domestic budget and taxation policies.

We would support a resolution that clearly set up a mandatory level of membership fee based on the ability to pay and for the annual budget to be approval by the WA. That also did not interfere with a nations domestic taxation policy. Therefore regrettably we are inclined to vote against this resolution.

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

How is forcing every nation in the WA to "donate" forwarding democracy. The resolution says that it will not get involved with a nations tax system, but isn't forcing payment on the nation doing just that? Any country that is not run by a rich oil baron is forced to increase taxation on its population in order to support such an act. The citizens of Si-Don are already highly taxed supporting themselves, they do not need to pay more in order to protect another nation that might be an enemy. Si-Don is already doing its part by accepting all refugees, we do not need to be overburdened with this misplaced resolution.

Truly a wonderous resolution; its meaning is all in the dictionary you use. Of course, the honorable representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny means it to be mandatory, which is how I read it as well, but I'm sure Xanthal's lawyers will find a loophole somewhere.

As I said in response to the telegram from said representative, although the Triumvirate supports mandatory WA funding, it cannot support a resolution that allows the WA to tax member nations without a proportional and absolute cap on annual assessments. I doubt very much that I am alone in my skepticism of allowing officials within the World Assembly to dictate how much money the organization is owed with only a vague directive to not ask more from any country than it is able to give. How much a government is "able" to allocate to a budget item is, after all, quite dependent on the priorities of the person answering the question.

Furthermore, although the ends are not entirely disagreeable, I hate to vote for a resolution that openly depends for its success on deceptive language; it is an insult to the integrity of the WA as a democratic institution, and leaves itself open to a quick repeal.

In summary, I find the spirit of the resolution corrupt, and its protections against excessive taxation inadequate. Regardless of my own feelings on the issue, perhaps since the WA has so overwhelmingly rejected such funding proposals, when its members were not actively deceived into approving them, a change in the substantial rather than the rhetorical strategy of such proposals is required. Once the WA General Fund is repealed, which I suspect will happen sooner than its true supporters- those who actually understand what it means- wish, maybe we can work on that. Assuming, of course, that the backlash from this resolution doesn't lead the WA to pass an outright ban on collections to prevent such trickery in the future. I apologize for my harsh words here, my friends, particularly those whom I stand with in supporting WA taxation but differ with me on the matter of the present resolution, but I really feel I must convey to you how incredibly counterproductive I feel the WA General Fund is likely to be in the long run.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

His Majesty has become concerned with the debate about whether the resolution will make the donations mandatory. However, we have assured him that although it is mandatory it will benefit the WA members. Would this be the correct assumption? If not, please correct me.

Macwick;14030425']We believe that this resolution will set up a system of collecting money that some think is mandatory and some voluntary. It sets up an organisation {WA General Accounting Office (GAO)}which does not appear to be accountable to the World Assembly. (I think it is impossible to have such a body).

In short this resolution reflects, in its most glorious detail, the state of the WA and of the member nations, as well as their delegates and representatives. It is, in other words, nothing short of brilliant. Yes my friends, behold the great Wizard of Oz and pay no attention to the stat wanking that goes on behind the curtain.

OOC: Stat Waking happens, whether we want it to or not. Every resolution PAYS FOR ITSELF should the stat wank for the category be so inclined and those to whom the category code does not impact budgets will never stat wank a cost. This happens and it will happen, no matter what we say or do here. That is a fact, and facts can be stubborn things. This resolution is that curtain that hides the Wizard of Oz. It's a cover. It allows us to maintain the illusion. Voluntary, Mandatory? The system charges you once upon passage of the resolution and that's it.

Truly a wonderous resolution; its meaning is all in the dictionary you use. Of course, the honorable representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny means it to be mandatory, which is how I read it as well, but I'm sure Xanthal's lawyers will find a loophole somewhere.

As I said in response to the telegram from said representative, although the Triumvirate supports mandatory WA funding, it cannot support a resolution that allows the WA to tax member nations without a proportional and absolute cap on annual assessments. I doubt very much that I am alone in my skepticism of allowing officials within the World Assembly to dictate how much money the organization is owed with only a vague directive to not ask more from any country than it is able to give. How much a government is "able" to allocate to a budget item is, after all, quite dependent on the priorities of the person answering the question.

Furthermore, although the ends are not entirely disagreeable, I hate to vote for a resolution that openly depends for its success on deceptive language; it is an insult to the integrity of the WA as a democratic institution, and leaves itself open to a quick repeal.

In summary, I find the spirit of the resolution corrupt, and its protections against excessive taxation inadequate. Regardless of my own feelings on the issue, perhaps since the WA has so overwhelmingly rejected such funding proposals, when its members were not actively deceived into approving them, a change in the substantial rather than the rhetorical strategy of such proposals is required. Once the WA General Fund is repealed, which I suspect will happen sooner than its true supporters- those who actually understand what it means- wish, maybe we can work on that. Assuming, of course, that the backlash from this resolution doesn't lead the WA to pass an outright ban on collections to prevent such trickery in the future. I apologize for my harsh words here, my friends, particularly those whom I stand with in supporting WA taxation but differ with me on the matter of the present resolution, but I really feel I must convey to you how incredibly counterproductive I feel the WA General Fund is likely to be in the long run.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE



We would agree with almost everything the honoured Ambassador says, if we thought that this resolution were the sort of conceit they suggest. However as we have argued from the begining, this resolution clearly indicates its purpose, and proper reading of it would show this.

Those whom the honoured Ambassador thinks have been "deceived" by the authors of this resolution ( should there actually be any ) have merely not given this resolution the proper attention it deserves when reading it.


yours e.t.c. ,

His Majesty has become concerned with the debate about whether the resolution will make the donations mandatory. However, we have assured him that although it is mandatory it will benefit the WA members. Would this be the correct assumption? If not, please correct me.


Indeed respected Ambassador it could not be anything but a good thing. The Honoured Ambassador should tell his majesty that without this system no proper funding for much needed w.a. projects can reliably be secured.

A new and much more comprehensive programme of w.a. projects may be implemented should this resolution be passed.

yours e.t.c. ,

Ambassador of Urgench,

Thank you for your hasty reply. We have already voted FOR and His Majesty has given the order to continue voting FOR.

Ambassador of Urgench,

Thank you for your hasty reply. We have already voted FOR and His Majesty has given the order to continue voting FOR.


It was prompt not hasty, respected Ambassador, but you are welcome.

yours e.t.c. ,

I have consulted with several top Scotchpine legal experts and they have all advised me that the "donations" in the proposal would be voluntary. I personally feel this will result in the WA being severely underfunded. A bad solution to a problem is worse than no solution at all IMHO; a resolution that would make it clear that the WA is funded by a system of mandatory contributions would be the only way the WA could be funded properly.

Despite my personal objections to this resolution, as WA delegate my vote is determined by the nations of Europeia, and they have directed me to vote FOR this resolution. I do hope to soon vote in favor of a repeal, and then a better resolution, one that will not spark any "dictionary wars".

It was prompt not hasty, respected Ambassador, but you are welcome.

yours e.t.c. ,


My dear Ambassador,

I do apologise but the fault lies with me. I did mean to say quick reply and finish with I apologise with the hasty reply...etc.

In regards to the current resolution at vote, Sanctaria was going to prepare a detailed response but unfortunatly time has run aground.

regards,

As I said in response to the telegram from said representative, although the Triumvirate supports mandatory WA funding, it cannot support a resolution that allows the WA to tax member nations without a proportional and absolute cap on annual assessments. I doubt very much that I am alone in my skepticism of allowing officials within the World Assembly to dictate how much money the organization is owed with only a vague directive to not ask more from any country than it is able to give. How much a government is "able" to allocate to a budget item is, after all, quite dependent on the priorities of the person answering the question.Considering the GAO under this resolution is charged with collecting and spending only what is necessary for "the administration of the WA and missions approved by a vote of the World Assembly," and that anything left over must be returned proportionally to member states, I can hardly think of what purpose a cap would even serve. I suppose it's a quaint little addition for those of you who like arbitrary numbers, but curiously enough, a similar "cap" was apparently never considered when the current tax system was implemented in Xanthal, whose citizens currently enjoy a 100% average tax rate. Luckily this resolution makes sure the WA never forces you to abandon your draconian revenue scheme.

Furthermore, although the ends are not entirely disagreeable, I hate to vote for a resolution that openly depends for its success on deceptive language; it is an insult to the integrity of the WA as a democratic institution, and leaves itself open to a quick repeal.

In summary, I find the spirit of the resolution corrupt, and its protections against excessive taxation inadequate. Regardless of my own feelings on the issue, perhaps since the WA has so overwhelmingly rejected such funding proposals, when its members were not actively deceived into approving them, a change in the substantial rather than the rhetorical strategy of such proposals is required. Once the WA General Fund is repealed, which I suspect will happen sooner than its true supporters- those who actually understand what it means- wish, maybe we can work on that. Assuming, of course, that the backlash from this resolution doesn't lead the WA to pass an outright ban on collections to prevent such trickery in the future. I apologize for my harsh words here, my friends, particularly those whom I stand with in supporting WA taxation but differ with me on the matter of the present resolution, but I really feel I must convey to you how incredibly counterproductive I feel the WA General Fund is likely to be in the long run.I find this analysis wholly disingenuous and frankly offensive. We couldn't have been more honest about the ramifications of the legislation during the drafting phrase, and even right before its submission -- with you, openly and in public -- don't you remember? We've explained this to you multiple times, but I guess it bears repeating yet again: we already tried a funding scheme more to your liking, twice in fact, and got fucked royally in the ass both times, by lopsided margins. So maybe it might be a good idea to consider securing funding by other means?

But in the end, reasoning with you seems essentially pointless at this stage, as your rhetoric has grown increasingly hostile and bombastic this past week, which leads us to conclude that you are the one planning a "quick repeal," a feat accomplished exactly three times in the repeal's four-and-a-half-year history. Having been present for all three of them, and even the author of one, I must warn you that they only work on the terribly egregious and illegal resolution. And I can assure you this resolution meets neither of those conditions.

Nonetheless, good luck.

- Susa Batko-Yovino, Ambassador
[by TelePrompter, obviously]

I do hope to soon vote in favor of a repeal, and then a better resolution, one that will not spark any "dictionary wars".Good luck writing one that doesn't also spark a humiliating (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12672730&postcount=198) defeat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13722071&postcount=144).

Ambassador Batko-Yovino,

While I humbly agree with you that system provided is an improvement; it is still a form of taxation upon the member-nations of the WA. As such it is also form of taxation against the people of said nations, the same people who you claim to protect from taxation with this bill.

Taking a portion, or "donation", from a nations based on it's current wealth is quite frankly synonymous with taking a percentage of tax out of a nation's overall budget. It provides the same function just a different swing as both formula's requirements and designs are the same.

That said, I also sympathize with the fact that you can not leave a resolution that provides no fashion of enforcement in the way of collecting funds. Obviously, if you did that would leave the WA helpless to enact anything. However, what you or your emboldened party have proposed is not a donation, it is quite compulsory and as such Taxation without choice.

While I admit to not having read the entire debate between Ambassador Fluffer and yourself, I can see how a use of a dictionary would have been appropriate in this matter. Masking your proposition behind words which, in truth, have no relation to the bill itself is an untruth; and rather uncouth in this assembly from what I have seen so far.

So, while I agree that your proposition has an astounding amount of promise and potential. I must ask that you word your title and body in such a way as to convey the actual message and to remember that nothing MANDATORY is ever democratic.

Sincerely,

Ambassador MacBaine
Jingoistic States of Primearia
Representative of Despozicione

and to remember that nothing MANDATORY is ever democratic."Well, that's certainly the silliest thing anyone's said in at least the last 23 seconds. By your logic, a law prohibiting intimidation of voters, or requiring the secret ballot, could only be optional."

Samantha Benson reels off this quick response, then dives back under her desk to hide from the lurking dinosaur that has just sent the Kawaiian fleeing in terror.

Muttering to himself under the desk, Nemo takes a quick swig of Allashan spirits from his flask.

"Dinosaurs! Talking whales, cyborg squid, unseen lagomorphs... I should've taken the posting in Taxilha, but no! 'You'll see the myriad peoples of the world, Nemo.' Last time I listen to myself..."

A copy of Fordyce's Sermons whizzed overhead, and the ambassador stood up, his hair disheveled.

"Now now! Let's stop this nonsense! Rampaging carnosaurs, throwing books? Next we'll be firing the IGNORE cannons willy-nilly! We shouldn't be defiling our books by flinging them at the opposition, what would our scholasticly-inclined ancestors say?! No, let's not debase ourselves by wasting arguments on the stupidity of the opposition, let us "do as the pagan kings of old" and simply toss them out the window!"

An arbalest, a rather crossbow looking thing, is wheeled in by several Snefaldian interns, who manhandle the representative from Xanthal into the chamber, aim it at a window, and release the button with a shout of "hurrah!" Taranton lights a cigarette and takes a drag.

"Brilliant! Next time, boys, aim for the window and not the mirror! Let not your fenestral confusion obfuscate your vision! Let fling the dogs of opposition!"

I voted against. Member nations should not be required to give money to the WA.

I voted against. Member nations should not be required to give money to the WA.

While the rest of the Altan Steppes delegation dives for cover under their desk, Arjan Khazaran takes inspiration from the flying books, rampaging creatures and medieval war weapons. He runs out of the room, dragging several of the FSI agents under his command with him.

Several minutes later, the group wheels in a standard Altan Steppes defenestration device, which looks vaguely like a catapult. The bucket, however, has been replaced by what appears to be a massive and very old book. For good measure, Khazaran places a dinosaur puppet on his hand while several FSI agents throw the ambassador from Amon Sheri onto the open book.

"Are you sure this will hold, sir?" one of the agents asks Khazaran, pointing at the ropes holding the book to the catapult.

"Yeah, pretty sure," Khazaran says, pulling the handle to fire the catapult. Unfortunately, his prediction proves incorrect, as the ropes give way, launching book and ambassador in the vague direction of a window.

"Well, at least the book went through the window," Khazaran muses, as the guards wince at the impact of the Amon Sheri rep on the wall next to the window.

Jaris Krytellin walks over with an angry glare. "Did you have to use my Compendium of Altan History for your contraption?"

"Yes, I did. It was the biggest book in our library," Khazaran says, unfazed by the glare.

"You owe me another copy. But since it's already been used, reattach it to this thing and keep defenestrating," Krytellin says, ducking back under the desk.

This proponants of this resolution are being deceptive. They may have been clear in forums debates/discussions, but they are not being upfront to most WA members, who just vote on the resolution from looking at the text.

This proponants of this resolution are being deceptive. They may have been clear in forums debates/discussions, but they are not being upfront to most WA members, who just vote on the resolution from looking at the text.

Having slicked his hair and lit another cigarette, Nemo Taranton hears the Marx-Rawls delegate's declaration, and slowly begins to shake, his hair losing its adhesion and flying about wildly.

"The text. The text? The TEXT!?!?!? If it doesn't say it in the text, where on earth would it say it? Do you suppose we supporters have hidden some clause in the game code that will give us control over your government, that you can't see? Do you imagine that the law doesn't mean what the law says, as the dearly departed Ausserlanders were so fond of saying?"

He sucks down his cigarette, angrily smashing it onto a desk and flinging the butt at the representative from Marx-Rawls.

"Voters reading the text? Hah! Haha! Ahahahaha! AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!"

The Snefaldian ambassador collapses to the ground, laughing hysterically. An office intern injects him with a shot, and he goes limp. Turning to his comrades, he adusts his tie and gazes grimly at the defenstration device- a plaque on the side identifies it as "ArbaFenestra v2.5."

"He'll wake up in an hour. We must carry on our mission. Snefaldians- take hold!" The interns manhandle the Marx-Rawls ambassador into the ArbaFentestra, aim, and release the massive crossbow's taut rope, flinging the diplomat out the window of the building.

This proponants of this resolution are being deceptive. They may have been clear in forums debates/discussions, but they are not being upfront to most WA members, who just vote on the resolution from looking at the text.


Respected Ambassador that is an unecessary insult, we have been completely honest with you from the start about the meaning of this resolution, and about how it obviously states its meaning, we are a very pro this resolution, have we deceived you in any way?

yours e.t.c.,

This proponants of this resolution are being deceptive. They may have been clear in forums debates/discussions, but they are not being upfront to most WA members, who just vote on the resolution from looking at the text.

Dear Marx-Rawls, may I suggest you to do like me and don't argue with those ideologues. You will just tired up and waste your time arguing with them.

Ideologue: Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating.

...
I fear you continue to misunderstand my purpose. I do not intend to submit a repeal of my own; I fully expect it will be done for me. Even if it fails, which I think, despite your experience, you are entirely too sure it will, it does not follow that the means you employed to pass your resolution were proper.

I don't dispute that you have been honest... when you had to be. Unfortunately, the rhetoric you've employed here, where your opponents can lay bare the true effect of the resolution and everyone in attendance can hear, is quite different from that you chose to employ in the telegram campaign you undertook to gain the support of delegates who do not frequent these chambers. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of those who will vote on this issue are not here and will never read the minutes of this discussion.

If you are offended I apologize, but I cannot believe that you are ignorant of the fact that you have offended the very democratic principles upon which the World Assembly is founded by resorting to trickery in the solipsistic belief that your assessment of what is best for the WA is so superior that you are justified in imposing it against the wishes of the vast majority that has defeated the past funding resolutions of which you speak. The Federation's objections to the practical terms of the resolution have been made clear, whether you think them valid or not, and do not bear further repeating. What I am telling you now is that regardless of how much you or I or anyone supports the World Assembly's right to tax, if the majority of WA members are in opposition it is irrelevant.

If its resolutions are deliberately worded so that members will not realize what they are voting for, the WA has ceased to be a democratic body and become a fiefdom. Despite my or my government's or my region's position on the provisions of the resolution itself, to play a part in its passage on such terms would be, to me at least, unconscionable; I will not support such a blatant perversion of democracy. If we must resort to coercion or deception to pass a resolution, the resolution should never be passed; your opinion and mine both be damned.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

This proponants of this resolution are being deceptive. They may have been clear in forums debates/discussions, but they are not being upfront to most WA members, who just vote on the resolution from looking at the text.Madame Secretary-General, I was going to direct these comments to the representative from Marx-Rawls, but seeing as he's been summarily ejected from the chamber, I'd just like to state for the record that if the text of this resolution was unnecessarily "deceptive," it would have been removed for rules violations. That has not happened, and in fact, the gentleman from Frisbeeteria said he had reviewed the text several times, and found nothing delete-worthy. I realize time's running out on this vote, and the opponents of this bill are getting desperate, but come on, give us a little credit! I would remind the gentleman from Marx-Rawls (if he was still here) that it was the opponents who introduced the word "voluntary" to this discussion, not the proponents -- even though the word appears nowhere in the resolution text!

That said, Madame Secretary-General, I yield back.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

MapleLeafss;14031537']Dear Marx-Rawls, may I suggest you to do like me and don't argue with those ideologues. You will just tired up and waste your time arguing with them.


The respected Ambassador is right of course. Some here are ideologues and some do suffer cognitive dissonance. We will not be so bold as to say which are which, but we imagine it is obvious in any case.

yours e.t.c.,

The only operative parts of this resolution clearly make these fees mandatory, this was the intent of the authors. The preamble as with most resolutions is essentially meaningless, in this case however it has been carefully worded in order to allay any panic on the part of governments who would not vote for this resolution if they thought it introduced a mandatory fee system.
Be under no illusions, this resolution has been extremely carefully worded, it walks a very thin line between two very different and strongly felt views on w.a. funding. But carefull reading will show exactly which of these views this resolution imbibes of.

Preambles are not strictly operative unless the authors have made them so.

Obviously the authors of this resolution already conceded that they were, at best, deceitful and deceptive.

that it was the opponents who introduced the word "voluntary" to this discussion, not the proponents -- even though the word appears nowhere in the resolution text!

And who introduced the word 'fee' in this discussion even though it appears nowhere in this resolution? 'Voluntary gift' was introduced because it is the commonly accepted definition of the word 'donation'.

MapleLeafss;14031709']Obviously the authors of this resolution already conceded that they were, at best, deceitful and deceptive.



And who introduced the word 'fee' in this discussion even though it appears nowhere in this resolution? 'Voluntary gift' was introduced because it is the commonly accepted definition of the word 'donation'.



that is the exact opposite of what we have said. There is no deception, and no underhandedness, and we do not speak for the authors of this resolution in any case. The point we have made is our own. Which is that it is obvious what this resolution does even to the most casual reader. but that it was clearly necessary to frame this resolution in such a way as to be sensitive to the those nations who's opinion was contrary to the authors.

yours e.t.c.,

but that it was clearly necessary to frame this resolution in such a way as to be sensitive to the those nations who's opinion was contrary to the authors.

Isn't this the definition of 'deception'?

MapleLeafss;14031781']Isn't this the definition of 'deception'?

No it is the definition of diplomacy honoured Ambassador, the difference is profound.

yours e.t.c.,

MapleLeafss;14031781']Isn't this the definition of 'deception'?

No. It's the definition of 'tact'. I can understand how you wouldn't be familiar with it.

The only operative parts of this resolution clearly make these fees mandatory, this was the intent of the authors. The preamble as with most resolutions is essentially meaningless, in this case however it has been carefully worded in order to allay any panic on the part of governments who would not vote for this resolution if they thought it introduced a mandatory fee system.

that is the exact opposite of what we have said. There is no deception, and no underhandedness, and we do not speak for the authors of this resolution in any case. The point we have made is our own. Which is that it is obvious what this resolution does even to the most casual reader. but that it was clearly necessary to frame this resolution in such a way as to be sensitive to the those nations who's opinion was contrary to the authors.

Two days ago, you said you knew the 'intent au the authors.
Now you are saying you do not speak for the authors.
So you were speaking the truth then or are you speaking the truth now?

MapleLeafss;14031781']Isn't this the definition of 'deception'?
The intern from Snefaldia, hearing this accusation, fires a dart at the Urgenchi diplomat occupying the podium, who slumps over, unconscious. Taking the dais and shoving the limp body of the central Asian diplomat over, he clears his throat.

"I think this resolution is perfectly wonderful. My delegation hasn't argued at any point about the meaning of the words, nor were we involved at any point in the drafting phase. We never suggested anything to the authors, and yet we are still supporting this resolution because it accomplishes a needed goal.

Nor, I should say, have we taken part in any so-called "deception" of the opposition, who have seen fit to bang on and on about the meaning of words, and once told by the Honorable Secretariat to "lay off", decided instead to attack the authors and general supporters of lying. The Delegate from MapleLeafss (apparently your country can't even spell, by the way...) has decided to interpret what is considered good proposal writing by the rest of the world to be "deception."

Needless to say, we are not amused. The delegation from Mmaplelleaffss has gained a reputation in this assembly of late as an obtuse and maddeningly illogical group of diplomats, and thus there is no unhappiness we feel at the course of action we must take- boys!"

The group of interns bumrushes the Maapleleeafss ambassdor, hauling him bodily to the ArbaFenestra, strapping him in. The Head Intern gives a mock salute, intoning balefully:

"We condemn your body to whatever is outside the window! Fire!"

The Mappleeleaffss ambassador is ejected posthaste from the machine and the General Assembly with a satisfying sproing.

"Excellent shot, gentlemen. Though next time, adjust your aim- the gentleman seems to have paid a visit to the South Tower instead of the Reflecting Pool."

The intern from Snefaldia, hearing this accusation, fires a dart at the Urgenchi diplomat occupying the podium, who slumps over, unconscious. Taking the dais and shoving the limp body of the central Asian diplomat over, he clears his throat.

"I think this resolution is perfectly wonderful. My delegation hasn't argued at any point about the meaning of the words, nor were we involved at any point in the drafting phase. We never suggested anything to the authors, and yet we are still supporting this resolution because it accomplishes a needed goal.

Nor, I should say, have we taken part in any so-called "deception" of the opposition, who have seen fit to bang on and on about the meaning of words, and once told by the Honorable Secretariat to "lay off", decided instead to attack the authors and general supporters of lying. The Delegate from MapleLeafss (apparently your country can't even spell, by the way...) has decided to interpret what is considered good proposal writing by the rest of the world to be "deception."

Needless to say, we are not amused. The delegation from Mmaplelleaffss has gained a reputation in this assembly of late as an obtuse and maddeningly illogical group of diplomats, and thus there is no unhappiness we feel at the course of action we must take- boys!"

The group of interns bumrushes the Maapleleeafss ambassdor, hauling him bodily to the ArbaFenestra, strapping him in. The Head Intern gives a mock salute, intoning balefully:

"We condemn your body to whatever is outside the window! Fire!"

The Mappleeleaffss ambassador is ejected posthaste from the machine and the General Assembly with a satisfying sproing.

"Excellent shot, gentlemen. Though next time, adjust your aim- the gentleman seems to have paid a visit to the South Tower instead of the Reflecting Pool."

Your dark humor entertains my ambassador greatly.. again..

No it is the definition of diplomacy honoured Ambassador, the difference is profound.

yours e.t.c.,

No. It's the definition of 'tact'. I can understand how you wouldn't be familiar with it.

Well, at best it's deceptive diplomacy or deceptive tact...

I am rather amused at Urgench taking offence my supposed insult. The Ambassador has been tossing many insults around. They have not tended to be directed at me, or at least the ones I found truly offensive were not directed. Urgench is not alone in this regard; others who take his position have also done this. Frankly, I think it lowers the tone of discussion and is disrespectful. It fails to realise that people may reasonably and in good faith disagree with you.

As Xanthal said, "the vast majority of those who will vote on this issue are not here and will never read the minutes of this discussion." The text is deceptive. In the forum, Urgench and co have been quite upfront. But if they have nothing to hide, they should have made their intention that the "donations" be mandatory explicit in the resolution.

In any case, while I do not approve of the methods of Urgench and co in attempting to secure the passage of this resolution, I do not mean to question their good intentions in working for its passage.

I must report my Region is deadlocked on this issue, therefore I must Abstain from casting my regions vote.


La Mafia - Abstains

Thank you.

MapleLeafss;14031802']Two days ago, you said you knew the 'intent au the authors.
Now you are saying you do not speak for the authors.
So you were speaking the truth then or are you speaking the truth now?


The aged Khan finds himself on the floor, the side of his head hurts inordinately, and his devoted assistant Tarmashirin frantically tends to to him.

" What happened? " the khan asks

"I don't know your Excellency perhaps the MapleLeafssian Ambassador threw a flimsy volume of dubious platitudes at you, i saw and you fall to the ground just before the honoured Ambassador for Snefaldia spoke . Will i fetch you some tincture of opium? ", the elderly khan brushes at his robes and indicates that Tarmashirin should cease to fuss over him, he stands proudly and slowly.

"No Tarmashirin i am fine i will refresh myself later, let me deal with the situation first. " , the khan begins to dictate a note for the assembly.


The honoured Ambassador for MapleLeafss is depressingly unsubtle in their understanding of language.

Clearly in saying that we understood the inentions of the authors of this resolution we were pointing out that it was manifest in the wording of the resolution and that they had made their intent clear during the drafting process.

If this qualifies as speaking on behalf of the authors in the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafss' book then we fear they will mistake many other Ambassadors here for the mouth pieces of each other.

We suspect that the honoured Ambassador simply suffers from a difficiency of accurate perception, and for this they have our condolences, but we recommend they find adequate instruction in the comprehension of the written word as a cure for this malady, this we feel will save them much distress and others the calumny of their erroneous accusations.

yours e.t.c. ,

I am rather amused at Urgench taking offence my supposed insult. The Ambassador has been tossing many insults around. They have not tended to be directed at me, or at least the ones I found truly offensive were not directed. Urgench is not alone in this regard; others who take his position have also done this. Frankly, I think it lowers the tone of discussion and is disrespectful. It fails to realise that people may reasonably and in good faith disagree with you.

As Xanthal said, "the vast majority of those who will vote on this issue are not here and will never read the minutes of this discussion." The text is deceptive. In the forum, Urgench and co have been quite upfront. But if they have nothing to hide, they should have made their intention that the "donations" be mandatory explicit in the resolution.

In any case, while I do not approve of the methods of Urgench and co in attempting to secure the passage of this resolution, I do not mean to question their good intentions in working for its passage.



So are we to suppose that wildly innacurate interpretation of legislation, infuriating insistance on erroneous definitions of words ( to the exclusion of all other debate) and wild accusations of deceit are in some way elevatory?

Must we remind the esteemed Ambassador that this resolution ( as we have said all along) makes it perfectly obvious what it intends, no deception on anyones part was needed, and none was offered.

Have we not told you over and over again that these fees are not optional? how is this deceit? The Authors have made their intention clear in no uncertain terms in the wording of this resolution, only the most deliberately mendacious or negligent, would read any other result from this resolution.

It is heart warming to be told that our motives are not questioned by the honoured Ambassador for Marx Rawls, but since our honour has never actually been in question it is entirely unecessary for them to reassure us. We should reassure the respected Ambassador that we're they to have questioned our motives we would have taken it very seriously indeed.

In any event we need no confirmation of our good intentions from anyone at any time. We have the comfort of our own consciences for that purpose.

yours e.t.c. ,

So are we to suppose that wildly innacurate interpretation of legislation, infuriating insistance on erroneous definitions of words ( to the exclusion of all other debate) and wild accusations of deceit are in some way elevatory?

Must we remind the esteemed Ambassador that this resolution ( as we have said all along) makes it perfectly obvious what it intends, no deception on anyones part was needed, and none was offered.

Have we not told you over and over again that these fees are not optional? how is this deceit? The Authors have made their intention clear in no uncertain terms in the wording of this resolution, only the most deliberately mendacious or negligent, would read any other result from this resolution.

It is heart warming to be told that our motives are not questioned by the honoured Ambassador for Marx Rawls, but since our honour has never actually been in question it is entirely unecessary for them to reassure us. We should reassure the respected Ambassador that we're they to have questioned our motives we would have taken it very seriously indeed.

In any event we need no confirmation of our good intentions from anyone at any time. We have the comfort of our own consciences for that purpose.

yours e.t.c. ,

I do not dispute that you have told us in the forums that the fees are not optional, but this has not been told to people who simply look at the text. I cannot agree with your interpretation of the text, and I think it is absurd to suggest that it is clear from the text that it has this meaning. So I would contend that it is you who has engaged in inaccurate interpretation of legislation (in good faith, no doubt). The meaning I have given to words is quite normal, and my interpretation of the legislation has been based on an application of the proper principles. As for the deception matter, I was not suggesting that the proponants of the resolution had lied, but rather that they were not being fully frank in terms of the text (doubtless with admirable intentions) - which is all the most WA members will see.

I do not dispute that you have told us in the forums that the fees are not optional, but this has not been told to people who simply look at the text. I cannot agree with your interpretation of the text, and I think it is absurd to suggest that it is clear from the text that it has this meaning. So I would contend that it is you who has engaged in inaccurate interpretation of legislation (in good faith, no doubt). The meaning I have given to words is quite normal, and my interpretation of the legislation has been based on an application of the proper principles. As for the deception matter, I was not suggesting that the proponants of the resolution had lied, but rather that they were not being fully frank in terms of the text (doubtless with admirable intentions) - which is all the most WA members will see.


How does the respected Ambassador presume to know what thousands of delegacies have or have not understood about this resolution? We could equally contend ( and do ) that the generality has the sense to see exactly what this resolution does and have concurred with it.

Just because a minority of delegacies have seen fit to misinterpret this resolution, hardly means that the generality have done so also.

Is it only the most willfully contrary reading of this resolution which is the mark of the good legislative comprehension of this organisation?

Must we read what we wish to read inspite of the glaringly obvious if we are to be good legislators in the eyes of the respected Ambassador?

Or should we rather be assured that in reading this resolution correctly thousands of experienced diplomats have excercised good judgement commensurate with their national interest and voted for this resolution?

We prefer to think the second, instead of the policy of condescending paternalism espoused by the respected Ambassador for Marx Rawls.


yours e.t.c. ,

The Grand Duchy of Dalmantia reserves the right to spend its money however it pleases. Such budgetary transparency as mentioned in this resolution will not be tolerated. I urge my fellow WA members to not support this resolution, and by doing so protect their nation's budgetary discretion.

How does the respected Ambassador presume to know what thousands of delegacies have or have not understood about this resolution? We could equally contend ( and do ) that the generality has the sense to see exactly what this resolution does and have concurred with it.

Just because a minority of delegacies have seen fit to misinterpret this resolution, hardly means that the generality have done so also.

Is it only the most willfully contrary reading of this resolution which is the mark of the good legislative comprehension of this organisation?

Must we read what we wish to read inspite of the glaringly obvious if we are to be good legislators in the eyes of the respected Ambassador?

Or should we rather be assured that in reading this resolution correctly thousands of experienced diplomats have excercised good judgement commensurate with their national interest and voted for this resolution?

We prefer to think the second, instead of the policy of condescending paternalism espoused by the respected Ambassador for Marx Rawls.


yours e.t.c. ,

I do not want to read the resolution in the way that I do. I want a mandatory donation system, not a voluntary one. You are reading it as you want it to be i.e. mandatory.

My point is that what the reasonable person would understand the resolution to be saying from its text is different from what he or she would understand it to be saying if he or she had been privy to the explanations and designs of those promoting it (as those of us in the forums are).

I do not want to read the resolution in the way that I do. I want a mandatory donation system, not a voluntary one. You are reading it as you want it to be i.e. mandatory.

My point is that what the reasonable person would understand the resolution to be saying from its text is different from what he or she would understand it to be saying if he or she had been privy to the explanations and designs of those promoting it (as those of us in the forums are).


So the respected Ambassador is once again equating their own native abilities with those of the entire w.a. Are they the paragon, the exemplar of "the reasonable person" they mention? Is no other standard possible?

Is it not more probable that those delegacies who have voted in their thousands for this resolution have simply better understood this resolution than the respected Marx Rawls delegacy?

yours e.t.c.

The nation of Deus Ordo believes that this debate is pointless.

Donations whether they are “voluntary” or “mandatory”…..WILL BE VOLUNTARY

1. The World Assembly has NO power or authority to make anything mandatory.
2. The WA can simply ask and/or beg for things to be done.
3. The WA consists of voluntary membership and as such nations are allowed to come and go as they please.

Nearly half of all member nations oppose this resolution.

What recourse will there be if member nations refuse to submit payment? Will they be “removed” from the WA? Is the WA prepared to remove hundreds of member nations?

If the WA removes all of these nations for failure to comply, what legitimacy will the WA have as an international organization?

In closing, it brings me great pride to make Deus Ordo’s first official decision as a member of the WA.

Deus Ordo hereby votes a resounding NO on this resolution and should it pass, will support any and all efforts to repeal.

Minister to the World Assembly
Deus Ordo

I belive the ambassador from Marx-Rawls is correct, the only way people will know the real intent of this resoloution is to read the forum post. Now before my head gets chopped off by the ambassador from Urgench, consider this, the only way that I caught the unvolentary nature of these "donations" was to read the original post in the forum and then, I was looking for it. The sales pitch at the end (which isn't included in the floor presentation in the WA) was my only clue that these fees were anything but voluntary.

The nation of Deus Ordo believes that this debate is pointless.

Then go away.

Donations whether they are “voluntary” or “mandatory”…..WILL BE VOLUNTARY

No, they won't.

1. The World Assembly has NO power or authority to make anything mandatory.
2. The WA can simply ask and/or beg for things to be done.
3. The WA consists of voluntary membership and as such nations are allowed to come and go as they please.

You obviously don't understand how this works. Compliance is mandatory and enforced, and your only recourse is to depart this organization if you don't like it. Sorry to break it to you that way, but you should've read the fine print.

Nearly half of all member nations oppose this resolution.

Nearly half isn't a majority. Apparently math isn't your strong suit either.

I also find the unwillingness of "nearly half" of the WA membership to pay their own way to be a supreme annoyance. Get a job and pay your bills, you lazy swine!

The Trilateral Federation casts its vote, on behalf of its region, FOR this resolution.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

The nation of Deus Ordo believes that this debate is pointless.

Donations whether they are “voluntary” or “mandatory”…..WILL BE VOLUNTARY

1. The World Assembly has NO power or authority to make anything mandatory.
2. The WA can simply ask and/or beg for things to be done.
3. The WA consists of voluntary membership and as such nations are allowed to come and go as they please.

Intriguing. Wrong as hell, but intriguing. Here, catch.

::Cerys fires Lexicon Gobbannaeg: LLAF-LLAFF at the Deus Ordo ambassador, using what looks like a large schoolboy catapult with far too many heavy elastic bands for anyone's good. "Much more satisfying than the Infonator," she mutters::

All WA resolutions are mandatory. Every last one of them. Elements may be just suggestions or subject to interpretation, but if a resolution says that member nations will do something, then they will do it. Your laws get changed, hadn't you noticed? Likewise, the gnomes will find some way to get at your bank accounts -- they're very good with money, for some reason.

Only your third "fact" is accurate. If you don't want to pay up, you always have the option of leaving. Don't let the door hit you on the way out -- which shouldn't be too hard since no one's installed any doors yet. If you stay, though, and this passes, and the GAO agrees that "donations" are mandatory, you will pay.

Then go away.

NO

No, they won't.

Yes they will.

You obviously don't understand how this works.

We are a simple people, forgive us.

Compliance is mandatory and enforced, and your only recourse is to depart this organization if you don't like it.

Make me and rest of those who won't comply

Nearly half isn't a majority. Apparently math isn't your strong suit either.

Never stated that it was a majority, but thank you for the insult.

I also find the unwillingness of "nearly half" of the WA membership to pay their own way to be a supreme annoyance.

I think that you will see that it will be more than an annoyance.

Get a job and pay your bills, you lazy swine!

Jobs are overrated....Oink Oink

If you don't want to pay up, you always have the option of leaving.

I don't want to leave and I don't want to pay


you will pay.

I don't think I will. But good luck making me and the rest of us.

And suddenly Offspring's "Why Don't You Get a Job? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqHkuHy39eA)" pops in my head...

The tune's a total ripoff of the Beatles' "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da," but still, it's catchy. :tongue:

I don't think I will. But good luck making me and the rest of us.

OOC: Yes, you will. Consider this your Official Notification from a game official that you have no choice in the matter. As a WA member, you ARE bound by all proposals, and they ARE most certainly mandatory. See the game FAQ

>What's the World Assembly?

The WA is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations.

Free free to continue your discussion, but don't use non-compliance as an option. Your choices are "comply" or "leave". Period.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator

Charlotte Ryberg expresses its full and cemented approval for this resolution. The biggest benefactor will be the NS-ICRC. By the looks of it: it's going to pass, so we need to spring to life another or two mythical beings to do the accountings bit for the agency.

OOC: Yes, you will. Consider this your Official Notification from a game official that you have no choice in the matter. As a WA member, you ARE bound by all proposals, and they ARE most certainly mandatory. See the game FAQ

Free free to continue your discussion, but don't use non-compliance as an option. Your choices are "comply" or "leave". Period.

OCC: Well that kills my fun. Wanted to make things a little difficult and interesting. Real nations don't always comply with UN resolutions and real nations don't just leave the UN, they stay there and disregard the resolutions and force the other nations to deal with their noncompliance. And here I thought this was a real nation simulation game. But at this point its clear to see that its worthless to argue that point.

NationStates nations use loophole manipulation in the same manner that RL nations simply ignore the effects. I prefer our method, as it's actually more challenging to use the law against itself than to simply pretend it didn't happen.

The resolution just passed! Good job, Omigodtheykilledkenny.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench is heartily pleased with the passage of this bill. We are delighted that this organisation may now engage upon more usefull and vital work with the confidence of proper funding being available.

yours e.t.c. ,

Sanctaria would like to second the honourable representitive of Urgench.

The Head Intern, seeing Khan Mongkha rise, makes a mental note to mix a stronger sedative next time. Once again taking the podium, he brandishes a large and rather cumbersome book, fraying at the edges and bound in several different colors of leather. Struggling against the weight and size, he holds it aloft with two hands, like Moses proffering two slightly unwieldy stone tablets to a bunch of ungrateful Jews.

"This, my fellow supporters, is the Snefaldian-language copy of the Collected Debates of the NationStates United Nations, Volume 1. It weighs 35 pounds- that that, metric-firsters!- and is filled with enough pointless arguing, humorous speeches, and vivid descriptions of the various sexual, violent, illegal, and myriad other acts performed by delegates to the United Nations, may it rest unhappily!"

With a grunt, he tosses it to three Snefaldian interns, who nearly collapse under the weight. Fitting it into the ArbaFenestra, they aim carefully. Assuming the style of a holy-roller, the Head Intern raise his hands aloft, voice shaking like the spirits themselves were coming down.

"Oh yes-ah! Cry "grammar" and let fling the tomes of idiocy! Fire, my internish brethren, fire upon those who wish to take something for nothing! I say-ah, no free lunch! I say-ah, get a job, you freeloaders! I say-ah buy a dictionary, my illiterate neighbours! I declare-ah, no more will lack of funding necessitate defecation in the less popular delegates offices! No more will our beloved drinking establishment be forced to speculate on oil prices and shanghai shipments of booze to the Bahgumian offices! No more will we be forced at gnomish gunpoint to pony up pocket change and lunch money for "administrative overhead" or "replacement windows" and "Manny Fernanda's bail! Oh yes-ah, I have seen the light! Show them, my internish brothers!"

The ArbaFenestra lets shoot the leviathan book with another satisfying sproing, and it arcs gracefully over the heads of the delegates, pages flying, to land with a sickening *crunch* on the face of the Deus Ordo delegate, slamming him to the floor.

"Praise your aim, my brothers! Now, fix up the repeater and fire Volumes 2-18!"

Soon, gigantic books are flung with deadly precision across the cavernous hall, delegates scrambling for dear life. The Thesaurus Rex, peppered with page after page from the debate on "Repeal Gay Rights," crumbles under the weight of the stupidity, nearly crushing the hysteric Kawaiians running from the deadly kaiju.

Buy something goes wrong- the repeating function on the ArbaFenestra v2.5 was set to be repaired in v2.6, and a small but vital metal strip breaks, and the large crossbow begins to fire indiscriminately, hurling the best and worst of the debates of the UN across the hall with reckless abandon.

Seeing his handiwork, the Head Intern clasps his head in his hands and backs slowly out of a side door, muttering to himself.

"Well, at least now the gnomes will have a reason to clean up- they'll be paid in cash, not sexual favors from the Thessadorians..."

The Ambassador from Karianis, Serifina Karin, stared at the final tally, unable to believe her eyes. A funding resolution? Passed? Clearly not possible. But there it was. After a few more seconds of staring, her eyes roll up into her head and she faints.

OOC: Yes, you will. Consider this your Official Notification from a game official that you have no choice in the matter. As a WA member, you ARE bound by all proposals, and they ARE most certainly mandatory. See the game FAQ

OOC: And the Stat Wank effect of a Furtherment of Democracy - Mild Resoltuon as it pertains to Nation State tax rates is ... ? Hmmm I thought so, it's Mandatory all right ... Mandatory mostly nothing. Moreover this is a one time effect. Stat Wanking is mandatory ... Role Playing (a completely different aspect) is not.

Any laws passed as a result of WA resolution passage can be just as equally reversed by subsequent daily issue decisions. Once again this resolution is a "feel good" role playing tool; nothing more and nothing less.

Now where was I. I seem to recall that I said I would give each regional delegate who voted for this fine resolution a bottle of the best Tzorsland bubbly to celebrate the passage in fine style. Now where is my secretary Ms. Sophie Reaper? Ah here she is so let's pass out the bottles and offer a toast!

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/13075459/221080604.jpg

(Ms. Sophie aren't you taking the "wrapping the resolution in red tape" joke a little too far? On second thought from the looks on the floor I think they approve!)

Please note that all representatives and regional delegates who did not approve this measure you can still get a bottle of bubbly (while supplies last) for the unbelievably high rate of T25. A portion of the price will be given to the WA as a part of Tzorsland's assessed dues for the next fiscal year.

Now where was I. I seem to recall that I said I would give each regional delegate who voted for this fine resolution a bottle of the best Tzorsland bubbly to celebrate the passage in fine style. Now where is my secretary Ms. Sophie Reaper? Ah here she is so let's pass out the bottles and offer a toast!

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/13075459/221080604.jpg

(Ms. Sophie aren't you taking the "wrapping the resolution in red tape" joke a little too far? On second thought from the looks on the floor I think they approve!)

Please note that all representatives and regional delegates who did not approve this measure you can still get a bottle of bubbly (while supplies last) for the unbelievably high rate of T25. A portion of the price will be given to the WA as a part of Tzorsland's assessed dues for the next fiscal year.



We will happily take twelve Nebuchadnezzars if that is ok, honoured Ambassador. Our minister for foreign affairs has epicurean tastes and is eager to imbibe of the Oenological fruits of the mighty land of Tzorsland.

Though we did approve this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

Intriguing. Wrong as hell, but intriguing. Here, catch.

::Cerys fires Lexicon Gobbannaeg: LLAF-LLAFF at the Deus Ordo ambassador, using what looks like a large schoolboy catapult with far too many heavy elastic bands for anyone's good. "Much more satisfying than the Infonator," she mutters::

All WA resolutions are mandatory. Every last one of them. Elements may be just suggestions or subject to interpretation, but if a resolution says that member nations will do something, then they will do it. Your laws get changed, hadn't you noticed? Likewise, the gnomes will find some way to get at your bank accounts -- they're very good with money, for some reason.

Only your third "fact" is accurate. If you don't want to pay up, you always have the option of leaving. Don't let the door hit you on the way out -- which shouldn't be too hard since no one's installed any doors yet. If you stay, though, and this passes, and the GAO agrees that "donations" are mandatory, you will pay.

The resolution does not give the GAO authority to decide the proper interpretation of the resolution. It would be wrong to do so, because they have a conflict of interest - they are the body trying to get money off member nations. As there is no international court with jurisdiction to interpret the resolution, it will be interpreted by the courts of member nations. It is clear that, on the principles applied by the courts of Marx-Rawls, they will hold donations to be voluntary.

The Government of Marx-Rawls will be making voluntary contributions to the WA because we regard a strong WA as important for international cooperation and welfare.

The resolution does not give the GAO authority to decide the proper interpretation of the resolution. It would be wrong to do so, because they have a conflict of interest - they are the body trying to get money off member nations. As there is no international court with jurisdiction to interpret the resolution, it will be interpreted by the courts of member nations. It is clear that, on the principles applied by the courts of Marx-Rawls, they will hold donations to be voluntary.

The Government of Marx-Rawls will be making voluntary contributions to the WA because we regard a strong WA as important for international cooperation and welfare.



How quaint,


yours e.t.c. ,

It is clear that, on the principles applied by the courts of Marx-Rawls, they will hold donations to be voluntary.

The Government of Marx-Rawls will be making voluntary contributions to the WA because we regard a strong WA as important for international cooperation and welfare.

Another hefty volume comes flying out of the Gobbannaen delegation. This one isn't a dictionary, for once; it's entitled Having Your Cake And Eating It: Sovereignty Wanking For Beginners.

"Praise your aim, my brothers! Now, fix up the repeater and fire Volumes 2-18!"

Soon, gigantic books are flung with deadly precision across the cavernous hall, delegates scrambling for dear life. The Thesaurus Rex, peppered with page after page from the debate on "Repeal Gay Rights," crumbles under the weight of the stupidity, nearly crushing the hysteric Kawaiians running from the deadly kaiju.

But something goes wrong- the repeating function on the ArbaFenestra v2.5 was set to be repaired in v2.6, and a small but vital metal strip breaks, and the large crossbow begins to fire indiscriminately, hurling the best and worst of the debates of the UN across the hall with reckless abandon.Jimmy swerves wildly as "Volume 12: Promotion of Solar Panels to Rights of Biological Sapients" whizzes by. Susa is not so quick, however, and is hit squarely in the face by the chronicle. For some reason, many ambassadors applaud at this. Jimmy quickly straightens himself up and addresses the assembly:

Well, boys and girls, despite the widespread and substantial damage done to this grand assembly hall in the course of the debate, we're almost disappointed that the vote had to end so soon; the eleventh-hour tactics of the opposition were rather riveting. We haven't seen so many conspiracy theorists screaming "deception!!" since the last "4/01 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2008/04/01/index.html#deathtotheun) Was an Inside Job!" rally. The arguments had become so increasingly desperate it was almost like we were right there on Wisteria Lane with them! Next thing we know, Samantha Benson will be faking a pregnancy so no one will know her teenage daughter got knocked up, and Cerys Coch will be running down her mother-in-law so she won't tell her husband about her affair with their teenage gardener! We look forward to the added drama of the barely legible and legal repeals to come.

Anyhow, we'd care to thank the Urgenchi for their valiant defense of this bill, as well as Powerhungry Chipmunks for their invaluable assistance during the dictionary scuffle; the Altanari, Gobbannean, and Snefaldian delegations for helping "take out the trash," so to speak, near the end of the debacle; and the illustrious delegates for the unlikely regions of Wysteria, Texas and Gatesville, for adding to our vote total.

We leave you now with a performance from our former deputy ambassador, and current diplomat to Xirnium, Jessie McArthur. Jessie?

"Whooooooo!!!!!" comes the cry from the back of the chamber, as the delegates turn to find McArthur (www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Jessie_McArthur), in the same outfit as the hot chick at the end of the Offspring video (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14032737&postcount=202) played earlier, and twirling a baton. A familiar tune begins to thump from the sound system as she marches down the aisle, as the Kennyites file behind her and begin to sing:

I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no waaaaaaay!
Nah-nah, why don't you get a job?!
Say no way, say no way, no waaaaaaay!!
Nah-nah, why don't you get a job?!

Well I guess it ain't easy doin' nothin' at aaaaaall...
Oh yeah!
But, hey man, free rides just don't come aloooooong
Everyday...

I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no waaaaaaay!
Nah-nah, why don't you get a job?!
Say no way, say no way, no waaaaaaay!!
Nah-nah, why don't you get a job?!

I won't give ya no money;
I always pay!
Nah-nah, why don't you get a job?!
Say no way, say no way, no way!!
Nah-Nah, why don't you get a joooooooooob?!

Examine, if you will, clause 9. It may not seem like it does much, but let us look up some of the important words in "Carsdike and Malhounie-Frobisher's Cobdenian Descriptive Dictionary, 1933 edition"

Member states, noun. Obsolete term for Cobdenia; originates from the South Asian Company, in comment about the extraordinary size of the the apendages of the Fruou tribe, the first tribe most British came in contact with. The Fruou are now an extinct tribe, probably due to jealousy on the part of the British traders.

Appropriate3, adjective. Awfully large, originating from the military (as in "An appropriate number of men were sent to quell the rebellion), but beginning to be used in other circumstances ("I have an approporate number of mistresses for a politician of my stature")

Degree13 noun. Number. Look a fucking protractor if you don't believe me. What are those things on it? Degrees. And what are they? Numbers. I rest my case.

Public2b, noun. Of or relating to a government.

Accountability, noun. Military forces, originating from a malapropism by General Blatherstock when he meant "military". He is a particular thick man, and had he not used it repreatedly in print, we wouldn't need to include this definition in this dictionary. But seeing as someone might see him refer to accountability as such, and as this dictionary is descriptive, and not perscriptive, we felt obliged to stick it in.

Transparency, noun. The name given to Cobdenia's attempt at stealth aircraft, by making a zeppelin out of glass. Hence all cutting edge military technology.

Budgets, noun. Nations unwilling to pay the World Assembly dues, usually because they think "donations" are voluntary, due to the fact they are clearly nations on a budget

Taxation, noun. The neccessary invasion of such. From the Calumpee word "Takchayshun", where neccessary invasions form important part of their cultural heritage, for example in the Calumpee proverb "Regolo Frettsch Mugalloo Fraganoo fornstico Takchayshun", meaning "The Fragan people have pissed in our stream once to often, precipitating the necessary inavasion of such"

Thus, pay your bills, or else you'll find your nation full of heavily beweaponed annoyed looking Cobdenian soldiers.

Here's one:

Delinquent: People who are behind in payments of money that would've gone to the people who really need it!

Roleplay-wise, there will be bailiffs for those not paying.

[fake "heavy" accent]

Nice nation you've got there. Shame if anything happened to it. Hur hur.

[/fake "heavy" accent]

Roleplay-wise, there will be bailiffs for those not paying.

Roleplay-wise there are nations that shoot gnomes on sight! :p

Not that my nation does those things, but there are such nations. :tongue:

Seriously, how are you going to get the Gatesville nations to pay their assessment? Huh? Well? I really want to know. ;)

Seriously, how are you going to get the Gatesville nations to pay their assessment? Huh? Well? I really want to know. ;)

Pyramid sales schemes :)