RefugiaBoard

Well, my secularism rate dropped for the first time in several months by 0.2 points or something like that... Sad.

Catching up on recent stuff: strongly support the current religious site repeal, for reasons that we've already stressed here and on the forums. Also in support of the embassy with Spiritus. I don't know the region well, but they seem nice and Salax has always been friendly.

It looks like the next GA proposal likely to reach quorum is Repeal: Rights of the Employed, which I have very mixed feelings about.

Proposal: page=UN_view_proposal/id=cretox_state_1607062375
Forum thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=495070
Target: page=WA_past_resolution/id=491/council=1
Target forum thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=484456

This is a weird one because rather than repealing and replacing, the replacement has already passed and become GAR#527 [page=WA_past_resolution/id=527/council=1]. I didn't know you could do that. So this repeal rests largely on the subtle differences between GAR#491 and GAR#527, which the repeal hits on two main points:

- The definition of "worker": It seems to have been a point of contention whether #491 defines "workers" broadly enough, specifically with regard to subcontractors and the gig economy. I'm not confident evaluating either #491's straightforward definition or #527's ridiculously wordy one, but the texts are linked above.

- The provisions regarding breastfeeding. Judging from the forum thread (which veers into a bunch of OoC bigoted nonsense, so proceed with caution), this was the main reason #491 was such a close vote. It walks a very strange line through this issue: women must prove to their employers that they're unable to avoid having to breastfeed during the work day, which seems kind of invasive and leaves room for the employer to act in bad faith, but it also mandates that employers who employ breastfeeding women must have a dedicated private space for the sole purpose of breastfeeding, which seems a bit much and does appear to discourage hiring women.

The rest of the repeal's text is less interesting. It questions the inclusion of adoption as a qualifying cause for parental leave, even though adoption is covered by pseudo-replacement #527 (as it should be), including the baffling clause of "Adding that this mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to unduly burden adoption of older children to the detriment of adoptees, adopting families, and foster care systems," which I can't make sense of at all. The last section observes, reasonably, that there's some considerable overlap between #491 and older human rights legislation, making some of its clauses less necessary.

I feel it's important to note that GenSec is currently alleging a mild honest mistake for the following clause:

wrote:

Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding," a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses which are likely to have few, if any, breastfeeding employees to begin with,

It's being suggested on the grounds that #491 only requires these spaces for businesses with breastfeeding employees, not as a general mandate for all businesses. I think it's a small quibble, but this proposal may be withdrawn and re-lodged.

I've also observed a second potential violation, though I haven't brought it up on the forums. Take a look at the following comparison from the repeal:

wrote:

GA 527 "Protected Working Leave" providing for far broader parental leave, in addition to other leave which is fully compensated for as opposed to being nonpaid as in the target resolution;

This seems to be a misrepresentation of the parental leave outlined in #491, seen below (emphasis mine):

wrote:

E. Further clarifies that each worker in Member States:
1. shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;
2. shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

If I were feeling bold, I might even argue that this is more than an honest mistake as it contains a second misdirection: #527, which was written by the same author as the repeal, does compensate paid leave, but this leave does not pay out their full wage:

wrote:

1(b)(i): compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents, to be provided by the government of a member nation;
1(b)(ii): all employment-related benefits which would otherwise be provided to that worker, to be provided by their employer;

I'd like to hear some other thoughts on this, because it's really a double-edged repeal in the best case.

Junitaki-cho wrote:

Catching up on recent stuff: strongly support the current religious site repeal, for reasons that we've already stressed here and on the forums. Also in support of the embassy with Spiritus. I don't know the region well, but they seem nice and Salax has always been friendly.

Agree with both sentiments. Salaxalans has never been anything but friendly to me. I've talked to some other people their independently, but any weirdness there I attribute entirely to my own fault.

Junitaki-cho wrote:

This is a weird one because rather than repealing and replacing, the replacement has already passed and become GAR#527

As long as the text of a resolution does not block further legislation on the subject, and so long as the new legislation is not a duplication or a contradiction, it's fine. A good example is how there was a ban on the forced sterilisation of minors, which was then followed up by a more encompassing ban on forced sterilisation in general.

For this topic, the area is a little over my interest level to dissect. But I think the way it works in this case is because definitions are set according to the resolution they're in. Those definitions don't extend past the resolution. So you can define the same term in slightly different ways and as long as the actual legal mandates do not cross wires, there's room if it's different enough.

Junitaki-cho wrote:

If I were feeling bold, I might even argue that this is more than an honest mistake as it contains a second misdirection: #527, which was written by the same author as the repeal, does compensate paid leave, but this leave does not pay out their full wage:

It does not pay out their full wage, no, but the claim is that the leave is unpaid, which it observably isn't. Good find.

It's up to you, but I would raise those concerns in the thread. It looks to me as misrepresenting the target.

Uwusberg wrote:

Hey everyone, I mentioned a few days ago that I might set up an among us game night for Refugians. About how many of you would want to join tomorrow night? (we can pick a time based on when the most people are available)

Er... does this mean today? Or tommorow? I hate timezones.

Sorry for being late on the Among Us game, I can make a lobby right now. It’ll be on mobile (not sure if you can connect with a PC) and I’ll edit this post with the code as soon as I get it

Edit: code is RZLICF. Feel free to join any time tonight (I forgot to announce a time in advance, so I'll just keep it open as long as people are playing) and you're welcome to invite someone from outside as long as the lobby isn't full

Edit #2: the server was kicked for inactivity since we don't have enough people online right now. Again, my fault for not announcing a time. If we get enough people online at the same time tonight, I'll make another lobby. otherwise, we can try again another time

(hopefully) final edit: new code is USLEMF

I didn't realize it was happening :(

Uwusberg wrote:

Apologies to those who missed it. Again, it’s nobody’s fault but mine. Feel free to make a new lobby if you want, let us know here and in the discord if you do.

New lobby! code: gitoof

edit: new code ykictq

New flohovistan wrote:

Hello there y'all's. I am New Flohovistan. My original nation (Flohovistan) was getting a bit too conservative for my tastes, and wasn't getting any more liberal, so I decided to create a new nation. This will be my main from now on.

“You’ve already had flohovistan”
“We’ve had one, yes. but what about second flohovistan?”

Just so everyone knows, in case something similar happens to them, you can always bring a nation back from bad decisions or directions. It can take some doing, especially if you have an older nation where the stats are more set in and established. I ended up jumping off two previous "mains" because I got uncomfortable with decisions I made, but I've ridden every issue out on Sylh Alanor and it's worked out really well.

Not saying you have to stick with any particular nation, just that you don't have to abandon a nation (if you like it).

I play 4 "main" nations, but only this one is in the WA, so it is my "main" in that sense.

I usually don't abandon a nation unless I originally created it as a throwaway, or if it CTE's and I lose interest in it.

I allowed my previous nations to CTE about a year ago, then ended up resurrecting 2 and creating 2 new ones (not in that order nor at once). It took me some time to decide on the theme I wish to establish for each, based on the region I resided it in and how its decision-making turned out. Some focus on high Civil Rights, others are more Authoritarian. One has AI citizenship, another bans Computers.

Ambassador Bele Levy Epies wrote:

Why would anyone abandon a nation at all? Even the ones you don't like can be useful for something.

No one should abandon a nation! Imagine the horror of street nations, abandoned by their owner, rummaging food from trashcan. Who will look for them?

Sylh Alanor wrote:

Just so everyone knows, in case something similar happens to them, you can always bring a nation back from bad decisions or directions. It can take some doing, especially if you have an older nation where the stats are more set in and established. I ended up jumping off two previous "mains" because I got uncomfortable with decisions I made, but I've ridden every issue out on Sylh Alanor and it's worked out really well.

Not saying you have to stick with any particular nation, just that you don't have to abandon a nation (if you like it).

Talking about that, I just had a "Socialist experiment" in my country because I become a socialist yesterday and today I'm again a capitalist ^^
The whole thing was pretty fun I should say, and now at least my employment rate has grown a lot !