PASSED: WA Endangered Species Protection Act

[Mad hatters in jeans]

We utterly oppose this absurd nonsense, whaling is a perfectlt legitimate occupation, and when undertaken with proper regard to the health of population numbers of whales has no ill effects on their numbers. We are shocked and dismayed at the lack of logic, discernment and foresight of the authors of this statute.


Yours,

-________________________________________________________________________________-

[Qumkent]

We utterly oppose this absurd nonsense, whaling is a perfectlt legitimate occupation, and when undertaken with proper regard to the health of population numbers of whales has no ill effects on their numbers. We are shocked and dismayed at the lack of logic, discernment and foresight of the authors of this statute.


Yours,

-________________________________________________________________________________-

OOC as a matter of interest how did you think I might respond to this in character ?

[Worldsong]

We applaud the enlightened views of the peoples of Burnination and, as usual, denounce the crass commercialism, greed and general brutish and unsavoury reputation of WhaleCo Global LLC.

It is therefore with some regret that we must point out to the noble Burninational ambassador that the circumstances to which he alludes in his preliminary "Recognizing" clauses appear to be drawn from, perhaps, excessive playing of the well-known MMORPG "RealWorld", rather than from the situation that obtains in the Multiverse.

-- First SInger.

[Greenlandic People]

While I appreciate the aims of this resolution, it doesn't seem viable from a socio-economic standpoint. It would potentially disrupt both the economies and lifestlyes of a great many ethnic groups an/or nations.

A resolution to limit whaling with an aim to ensure stable population levels? That's a far better idea.

Yours,

~Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

[History land]

I would never agree to any limts on whaling.

[Qumkent]

While I appreciate the aims of this resolution, it doesn't seem viable from a socio-economic standpoint. It would potentially disrupt both the economies and lifestlyes of a great many ethnic groups an/or nations.

A resolution to limit whaling with an aim to ensure stable population levels? That's a far better idea.

Yours,

~Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

Limits on whaling which prevent over hunting and harm to population numbers are already in place in the CSKU, we would not oppose sensible limits being imposed by the WA. An outright ban would earn our implacable opposition.

Yours,

[History land]

I oppose any and all liminitations on whaling.

[Greenlandic People]

I oppose any and all liminitations on whaling.

Thanks for reminding me, because I happened to miss that the first 1000 times you said it.

Yours,

~Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

[WhaleCo Global LLC]

as long as the total amount does not exceed 20. Whales and Dolphins captured must be released within a period of one month in physical and mental condition comparable to the time they were captured.

The top paragraph and first sentence under "hereby" are what you quoted. The following sentence, you seem to have ignored.

OK, 20 what? 20 million? Kilotons? And since they are dead or dying when they are taken we will be sure to release whatever is left in a physical and mental condition comparable to the time they were captured. Again, thank you for your interest in our scientific endeavors.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

[Rhinoplastiasts]

If dolphins weren't anthropomorphized into cute, cuddly, little buddies, would anyone care if they were killed? Where's the equivalent outrage over the slaughter of crocodiles or iguanas? If you can find a way to make cattle cute would you favor a ban on the slaughter of tens of thousands of our cute little bovine buddies?

[Qumkent]

If dolphins weren't anthropomorphized into cute, cuddly, little buddies, would anyone care if they were killed? Where's the equivalent outrage over the slaughter of crocodiles or iguanas? If you can find a way to make cattle cute would you favor a ban on the slaughter of tens of thousands of our cute little bovine buddies?

Quite.


Yours,

[James Bluntus]

We utterly oppose this absurd nonsense, whaling is a perfectly legitimate occupation, and when undertaken with proper regard to the health of population numbers of whales has no ill effects on their numbers. We are shocked and dismayed at the lack of logic, discernment and foresight of the authors of this statute.


Yours,

IC: Are you Japanese or something?
Order you will withdraw that.
Withdrawn.

OOC: Seriously though. Whales should be protected not harmed. Since you have opposed this, I will utterly any of your... Nonsence.

Not only have you dished the proposal, you have not provided any admendments to make you support the proposal. I would advse you to think before you comment on proposals and think how people will respond.

[Qumkent]

We utterly oppose this absurd nonsense, whaling is a perfectly legitimate occupation, and when undertaken with proper regard to the health of population numbers of whales has no ill effects on their numbers. We are shocked and dismayed at the lack of logic, discernment and foresight of the authors of this statute.


Yours,

IC: Are you Japanese or something?
Order you will withdraw that.
Withdrawn.

OOC: Seriously though. Whales should be protected not harmed. Since you have opposed this, I will utterly any of your... Nonsence.

Not only have you dished the proposal, you have not provided any admendments to make you support the proposal. I would advse you to think before you comment on proposals and think how people will respond.

OOC no not Japanese, just role playing.


IC.


Your Excellency might do better to keep their advice to themselves, or perhaps offer it to some delegation in need of it.


Yours,

[James Bluntus]

Oh, really. Where is your advice? I just see critiziam, not advice. If you want to be respected, put yourself in my shoes. I am more experienced than you. So don't you go telling me when to offer advice and to whom.

[Quelesh]

While Quelesh in general applauds any attempt to protect animals, such as whales, from unnecessary suffering at the hands of sapient creatures, we feel that this proposal as drafted overreaches. Perhaps a prohibition of certain cruel practices and other reasonable limits would be better.

[Burninati0n]

It is therefore with some regret that we must point out to the noble Burninational ambassador that the circumstances to which he alludes in his preliminary "Recognizing" clauses appear to be drawn from, perhaps, excessive playing of the well-known MMORPG "RealWorld", rather than from the situation that obtains in the Multiverse.

Never heard of it

Therefore, you're going to have to be a little more specific on what it is that you think I should change.

While Quelesh in general applauds any attempt to protect animals, such as whales, from unnecessary suffering at the hands of sapient creatures, we feel that this proposal as drafted overreaches. Perhaps a prohibition of certain cruel practices and other reasonable limits would be better.

I'm seeing a lot of that. I'll redraft this as soon as I finish answering people.

I would never agree to any limts on whaling.

Constantly repeating that is in no way constructive. Thank you.

OK, 20 what? 20 million? Kilotons? And since they are dead or dying when they are taken we will be sure to release whatever is left in a physical and mental condition comparable to the time they were captured. Again, thank you for your interest in our scientific endeavors.

I had meant 20 total individual whales or dolphins, but thank you for having me fill that loophole.

I have far far far less of a problem with their capture if they're dead or dying, and at that point, mind far less if you release them back already dead.

Oh, really. Where is your advice? I just see critiziam, not advice. If you want to be respected, put yourself in my shoes. I am more experienced than you. So don't you go telling me when to offer advice and to whom.

JB, people are definitely allowed to post that they would never support this proposal, especially if they are WA Delegates.


EDIT:
OK, I've updated the draft. The main change was the first section under "HEREBY." There, instead of banning whaling outright, people wanted me to restrict it. The only fair way I could think of to restrict the number being killed was to restrict the number to a fraction of a nation's population. However, that led to the clause being extremely weak; if I have 2 billion residents, I can still legally hunt hundreds of whales.

If anyone has any other ways to restrict the number, please post.

[Qumkent]

Oh, really. Where is your advice? I just see critiziam, not advice. If you want to be respected, put yourself in my shoes. I am more experienced than you. So don't you go telling me when to offer advice and to whom.

Your Excellency is perilously close to sounding like a petulant child, and should be better informed. Your Excellency the delegation of the Principality of Qumkent consists of the former delegation of the Urgench and is the CSKU's representative at the WA. A competition judging relative experience of our delegations would not go well for your Excellency we fear, and we do not look for your Excellency's respect and will not miss the absence of it.

But to your point, it is not our responsibility to write this statute for the delegation responsible for its authorship, nor could it be since we oppose its intent completely. We have indicated that were the statute to put sensible limits on whaling in order to protect species we would be able to support it. Were such a change made we might well be able to offer our help in drafting such a law.


We have done your Excellency the politeness of addresssing the arrogant and erroneous claims your Excellency makes on behalf of your delegation, do us the politeness of not requiring us to do so again.


Yours,

[Bears Armed]

OOC:
1/. 'Environmental' proposals don't have a 'Strength', they have an 'Area of Effect'.
2/. What good is limiting the catching of whales by WA member nations actually going to do while an overwhelming proportion of the nations that exist are not members of the WA and are therefore outside of its control?

[Malikov]

[snip]
DEFINES:
'Scientific purposes' as purposes which are solely for the advancement of scientific knowledge and understanding, such as examining the contents of the stomach, for more information as what the whale's preferred diet is, or for the display of the whale's skeleton as in a museum.

RECOGNIZING:
1) Whales and dolphins are the second most intelligent species on many planets, are self-aware, and are capable of activity above and beyond simple survival.
2) In many cases, populations of almost every known species of whales and dolphins are on the decline.
3) Dolphin meat contains hundreds of times more mercury than is safe to eat.
[snip]

Okay, here are some problems i found:

1) Theres a loop hole in the "scientific purposes" defenition. If a scientist already discovers the favorite food of the Beluga whale, or something, then whale hunters could claim to be hunting them for "scientific purposes, like finding out the Beluga's favorite food. Add a clause that mandates scientists must have some sort of warrant, allowing them to conduct these studys. They would be handed out by some WA council. This would prevent whalers from abusing this clause, but would also allow scientists to retest their peers findings if they were flawed.

...and...

2) a- dolphins and whales may not be the 2nd smartest creatures on the planet. Change it to "are among the smartest speices of the planet"

b- clause 2 is fine

c- clause 3 is not neccessarily true. Some natons may have a small population of mercury free dolphins. Add in a "generally", in between the "Meat... (insert suggestion) ...contains"

[Burninati0n]

OOC:
1/. 'Environmental' proposals don't have a 'Strength', they have an 'Area of Effect'.

Ah, OK. Never made one of these before.

2/. What good is limiting the catching of whales by WA member nations actually going to do while an overwhelming proportion of the nations that exist are not members of the WA and are therefore outside of its control?

Sounds to me like you could say that of nearly every proposal that has ever passed.

Okay, here are some problems i found:

1) Theres a loop hole in the "scientific purposes" defenition. If a scientist already discovers the favorite food of the Beluga whale, or something, then whale hunters could claim to be hunting them for "scientific purposes, like finding out the Beluga's favorite food. Add a clause that mandates scientists must have some sort of warrant, allowing them to conduct these studys. They would be handed out by some WA council. This would prevent whalers from abusing this clause, but would also allow scientists to retest their peers findings if they were flawed.

...and...

2) a- dolphins and whales may not be the 2nd smartest creatures on the planet. Change it to "are among the smartest speices of the planet"

b- clause 2 is fine

c- clause 3 is not neccessarily true. Some natons may have a small population of mercury free dolphins. Add in a "generally", in between the "Meat... (insert suggestion) ...contains"

OK, thanks. I'll look at that in the morning, when it's not midnight in my time zone

[Malikov]

No big. Just make sure you do the edits before you submit it.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

We utterly oppose this absurd nonsense, whaling is a perfectlt legitimate occupation, and when undertaken with proper regard to the health of population numbers of whales has no ill effects on their numbers. We are shocked and dismayed at the lack of logic, discernment and foresight of the authors of this statute.


Yours,

-________________________________________________________________________________-

OOC as a matter of interest how did you think I might respond to this in character ?

OOC could try O.o, or ^__^

[Qumkent]

We utterly oppose this absurd nonsense, whaling is a perfectlt legitimate occupation, and when undertaken with proper regard to the health of population numbers of whales has no ill effects on their numbers. We are shocked and dismayed at the lack of logic, discernment and foresight of the authors of this statute.


Yours,

-________________________________________________________________________________-

OOC as a matter of interest how did you think I might respond to this in character ?

OOC could try O.o, or ^__^

OOC right those aren't in character responses Einstein.

[Danielturner]

Oh, really. Where is your advice? I just see critiziam, not advice. If you want to be respected, put yourself in my shoes. I am more experienced than you. So don't you go telling me when to offer advice and to whom.

Your Excellency is perilously close to sounding like a petulant child, and should be better informed. Your Excellency the delegation of the Principality of Qumkent consists of the former delegation of the Urgench and is the CSKU's representative at the WA. A competition judging relative experience of our delegations would not go well for your Excellency we fear, and we do not look for your Excellency's respect and will not miss the absence of it.

But to your point, it is not our responsibility to write this statute for the delegation responsible for its authorship, nor could it be since we oppose its intent completely. We have indicated that were the statute to put sensible limits on whaling in order to protect species we would be able to support it. Were such a change made we might well be able to offer our help in drafting such a law.


We have done your Excellency the politeness of addresssing the arrogant and erroneous claims your Excellency makes on behalf of your delegation, do us the politeness of not requiring us to do so again.


Yours,

I am sorry. I am a delegate and because of the disrespect you have shown me on this bill. No bill of yours will gain my support. That is my final words.

[Qumkent]

Oh, really. Where is your advice? I just see critiziam, not advice. If you want to be respected, put yourself in my shoes. I am more experienced than you. So don't you go telling me when to offer advice and to whom.

Your Excellency is perilously close to sounding like a petulant child, and should be better informed. Your Excellency the delegation of the Principality of Qumkent consists of the former delegation of the Urgench and is the CSKU's representative at the WA. A competition judging relative experience of our delegations would not go well for your Excellency we fear, and we do not look for your Excellency's respect and will not miss the absence of it.

But to your point, it is not our responsibility to write this statute for the delegation responsible for its authorship, nor could it be since we oppose its intent completely. We have indicated that were the statute to put sensible limits on whaling in order to protect species we would be able to support it. Were such a change made we might well be able to offer our help in drafting such a law.


We have done your Excellency the politeness of addresssing the arrogant and erroneous claims your Excellency makes on behalf of your delegation, do us the politeness of not requiring us to do so again.


Yours,

I am sorry. I am a delegate and because of the disrespect you have shown me on this bill. No bill of yours will gain my support. That is my final words.

Your Excellency, we have shown you no disrespect whatsoever (to our knowledge), nor have we shown the honoured Ambassador for James Bluntus any disrespect. Of course your Excellency is free to support whatever resolution your Excellency chooses, we tend to base our support of a resolution on its merits as a law and not on the basis of our feelings about its authors, we have voted for the efforts of delegations who we have no especially fondness for and conversely have voted against the work of some of our closest allies. We do not allow petty and unimportant personal feelings to impose on our professional and ethical duties. However we accept that other delegations are not quite so adroit in the execution of their duty and are more guided by such trifling inanities.

To be absolutely clear, the honoured Ambassador for James Bluntus is the wrongdoer in this situation. The honoured Ambassador under the mistaken impression that our delegation was new to its work sought to brow beat and intimidate us in to agreeing or collaborating with a law which we absolutely opposed and were perfectly within our rights to express simple opposition to. The Honoured Ambassador embarrassed themselves by claiming a spurious superiority and seniority which was exposed as a misrepresentation by them having no idea that our delegation has in fact been working here for some considerable time and on projects too numerous to count, this can hardly be blamed on us can it ? Perhaps it might be blamed on pride and an overweening sense of righteousness on their Excellency's part.

In any event we commend your Excellency for being a stout defender of the honoured Ambassador for James Bluntus's honour and wish the delegation of Danielturner the very best of luck in all their endeavours.


Yours,