FC.A. 3-3 Amendement to the charter, Chapter 5: The WA Delegacy

Quote :

It's possible, but it's also a very risky action to take. When each person
adopts the WA nation being passed around, said person needs to have
zero nations within the World Assembly when it is passed over to them.
I would strongly recommend against doing this sort of action, as it's
most likely going to get fumbled up.

Doesn't sound too much like fine to me, but rather it is possible but don't do it! Which is exactly what I'm telling you... and giving you reasons why, which the mods didn't give you.

Alancar wrote:

Either way it's not an issue for now. Latter I will make another amendment adding the stipulation that people must resign from the WA a week before taking control of prime.

After all you can't error on the side of caution right?

Yes you can, and most definitely in this case! If we get our delegate ejected from the WA as well, then we just open the doors to invaders! We are already weak, why put ourselves under more risk for being invaded. Just seems crazy to me.

Look, I already said I will add that stipulation latter. The mod clearly said that it was fine for as long as no one had more than one WA nation at the same time.

I don't see what the problem is...

I'm voting no, and frankly I don't think the convenience outweighs the potential consequences.

However, if the majority of you decide that this is a risk you're willing to take, then I guess we'll see how it turns out.

On another note, please remember that Mongolia has been playing longer than all of you. I've played since '03. I'm not trying to flaunt seniority, but what I am saying is that in both of our experiences we've never seen this done. There's a reason for that; this idea is in no way something that has never been thought of before.

I guess we will see what happens. Now I'm having my doubts a bit.

I doubt this will work. Thinking back on my experience, Im sure things will get mixed up. Thats just how itll go. and the Mods will be wanting to make an example of it for sure.

Well, for what it's worth, if the vote were called right now, it would fail because it lacks the necessary 2/4rds majority. The next vote will either make or break this amendment.

Well, at this point it's certain that the whole process was rushed. Considering that the discussion only began when half the votes where already in the docket. And that the people presenting arguments against probably voted immediately against it, before their arguments could be considered, we can hardly consider the results valid.

Is it possible to stop the voting and return to the second reading? So we can do things properly this time?

Well, frankly, I don't see this as any sort of infringement on the rules. All a valid procedure. Let me think about this.

Well, I wasn't claiming we infringed any rules per say...but this was kinda rushed. Considering how important the bill is, I think it would be best if we took a step back and considered this with time.

Meanwhile, if the new chairman agrees, RFN Prime will become the new WA delegate. If later on this bill isn't approved and we get a new chairman, RFN Prime will no longer be the WA delegate. But if the bill is approved we will be right on track.

To be fair, it did get the minimum 72 hours to debate. Then, once the debate had lulled, it was motioned to a vote. Not much of what I would call rushing it.

A minimum doesn't always address satisfactory discussion, especially concerning something that could potentially topple our control over the region.

True, but the motion to vote (which was seconded) was in order. Who am I to object? The rules don't discriminate based on urgency unless we decided to amend them to leave that discretion up to the Council President.

Well, there's one way around the issue. This amendment will only truly become significant when the soon to be chairman steps down. So for the time being there are no security issues.

If it passes, all we have to do is to proceed according to this and meanwhile create 2 new amendments, one whose purpose is to introduce the new rule proposed by Mongolia and another to eliminate article 21 altogether.

If it doesn't pass, we create a new amendment (similar to this one). In case the chairman uses RFN Prime as his WA delegate nation, the whole thing can go into full force soon. If he uses his own nation it will only be implemented in 4 months.

This way we can discuss the issue properly...sounds reasonable?

Step down? Step down as a WA member? Or Step down as Chairman?

Aren't they the same?

The point is, if this passes, this legislation will only become significant the moment there is a switch in the ownership of RFN Prime - which will only happen when the chairman steps down

Ok, I see what you mean. Basically, the trigger for this to go into effect is for a change in the Chairmanship.