Re: (Passed) WASC Secondary Seats Act

Xolox Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:19 pm

My opinion on the law: The Security Council has already got too many disreputable, irresponsible, and generally unfit members. Do we want to potentially double the amount of trash that comes into what is supposed to be the respected authority of the WA? I don't think so. And why on Earth do we need so much representation? We'd still have some space if we filled every single position with a semi-active nation! If the WA don't need this representation now, don't pass it now! We'll use this when it's relevant! Also, what really seems like a bad idea is Section 6. I guess you're just SOL if your secondary seat holder and the author of a proposal are in a different time zone than you. I don't see the point of taking away Security Council members' primary responsibility in a law like this. A lot of people need time to mull over present arguments in the thread or to form their own decision. With this section, you're going to see a lot of people saving a spot to vote with an abstention, so they can change it later. Section 6 just really seems like a bad idea.

Great Eurussia Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:38 am

Xolox wrote:My opinion on the law: The Security Council has already got too many disreputable, irresponsible, and generally unfit members. Do we want to potentially double the amount of trash that comes into what is supposed to be the respected authority of the WA? I don't think so. And why on Earth do we need so much representation? We'd still have some space if we filled every single position with a semi-active nation! If the WA don't need this representation now, don't pass it now! We'll use this when it's relevant! Also, what really seems like a bad idea is Section 6. I guess you're just SOL if your secondary seat holder and the author of a proposal are in a different time zone than you. I don't see the point of taking away Security Council members' primary responsibility in a law like this. A lot of people need time to mull over present arguments in the thread or to form their own decision. With this section, you're going to see a lot of people saving a spot to vote with an abstention, so they can change it later. Section 6 just really seems like a bad idea.

Although there is no necessity to react to a non-Security Council member's opinion, we find it necessary to negate such views. We believe that the arguments raised have been repeatedly and clearly addressed several times that made many nations convinced on the very purpose of the proposal of the Eurussian Government.

The bottomline is that, it is just for some opinion that there are only few active nations to fill the seats of the SC with its current setup. However, we fail to realize that why we should deprive other more interested quiet nations of getting heard at the Security Council? It maybe a case to case basis for every continent, but why deprive those well populated continents to have their voices more heard at the Security Council? Just because it remains incomplete? Is it the justification for the performance of the SC? Why wait for the future if we can lay the groundwork for the future of a more representative Security Council?

We are just saddened that there are nations that do not look or fail to look at the bigger picture of increasing engagement and cooperation and even competition within the Security Council. Although we respect their views, but we continue to believe that there have been no argument so far that has been raised that defeats the advantages of the aforementioned proposal. In any case, thank you.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:47 am

A vote is hereby called for two (2) days.
The STATUS OF VOTES are:

* Pending - (4) - Chivalry, Scottlands, Ebsotz, Great Eurussia

* Yes - (5) - Muchos Estados Unidos, New Korrea, China China, Ebsotz, Zanland

* No - (3) - Scouting, Serenarea, Empire of Russia,

* Abstain - (1) - New Rhodinia

Serenarea Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:28 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:A vote is hereby called for two (2) days.
The STATUS OF VOTES are:

* Pending - (7) - New Rhodinia, Serenarea, Chivalry, Zanland, Scottlands, Ebsotz, Great Eurussia

* Yes - (5) - Muchos Estados Unidos, New Korrea, China China, Ebsotz, Zanland

* No - (3) - Scouting, Serenarea, Empire of Russia,

* Abstain - (1) - New Rhodinia

It should be noted that my vote is not pending.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:28 am

Serenarea wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:A vote is hereby called for two (2) days.
The STATUS OF VOTES are:

* Pending - (7) - New Rhodinia, Serenarea, Chivalry, Zanland, Scottlands, Ebsotz, Great Eurussia

* Yes - (5) - Muchos Estados Unidos, New Korrea, China China, Ebsotz, Zanland

* No - (3) - Scouting, Serenarea, Empire of Russia,

* Abstain - (1) - New Rhodinia

It should be noted that my vote is not pending.

Thank You.

New Rhodinia Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:44 am

As is mine, apparently.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:45 am

Xolox wrote:My opinion on the law: The Security Council has already got too many disreputable, irresponsible, and generally unfit members. Do we want to potentially double the amount of trash that comes into what is supposed to be the respected authority of the WA? I don't think so. And why on Earth do we need so much representation? We'd still have some space if we filled every single position with a semi-active nation! If the WA don't need this representation now, don't pass it now! We'll use this when it's relevant! Also, what really seems like a bad idea is Section 6. I guess you're just SOL if your secondary seat holder and the author of a proposal are in a different time zone than you. I don't see the point of taking away Security Council members' primary responsibility in a law like this. A lot of people need time to mull over present arguments in the thread or to form their own decision. With this section, you're going to see a lot of people saving a spot to vote with an abstention, so they can change it later. Section 6 just really seems like a bad idea.

Please move these opinions to your appropriate WASC Continent thread if you wish to keep these posts. You have 6 Hours.

Furthermore, please keep in mind to hold a respectful manner towards members of the WASC. We are required to take in your input into considering our vote in matters, however this doesn't mean that we should be verbally assaulted. Thank You.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:46 am

New Rhodinia wrote:As is mine, apparently.

Thanks, still new to this. Working on setting up a personal system to prevent it from repeatedly happening.

Kingdom of Scottlands Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:00 pm

The Scottish Republic is a neutral country. But seeing the good intention of the proposal, I am in favour.

DPRNK Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:26 pm

Favor

Great Eurussia Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:09 pm

Eurussia is in favor.

We express appreciation for the nations that supported the landmark proposal for the interest of the Security Council and the future of the World Alliance. However, we express dismay over the decisions of Scouting, Serenarea, Russia, and New Rhodinia for not supporting the proposal but we do respect their views. On the other hand, we will be more than pleased to address further their doubts and apprehensions over the proposal which we have seen have no negative effect to the overall efficiency of the Security Council.

Thank you.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:42 pm

After further consideration, we are in Favor of this proposal.

Serenarea Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:15 pm

Serenarea wrote:AGAINST.

After careful thought, although we disagree with some parts of the proposal, Serenarea moves to SUPPORT it.

Kingdom of Ireland Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:55 pm

I want to ask Eurussia a question?

Would these seats have the same requirements as the primary seats?

UnitedStatesOfScouting Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:45 am

* Pending - (1) - Chivalry,

* Yes - (9) - Muchos Estados Unidos, New Korrea, China China, Ebsotz, Zanland, Scottlands, Great Eurussia, Scouting, Serenarea

* No - (1) - Empire of Russia,

* Abstain - (2) - New Rhodinia, Snarfia

With a 9 - 1 - 2 vote, the WASC Secondary Seats Act is passed with a 75% approval!

Sponsored content

(Passed) WASC Secondary Seats Act