[DISCARDED] Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:13 pm

Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild
Realising that duplicitous actors may hide bombs, chemicals, and other weapons intended to maim or kill in supplies posing as humanitarian aid,

This august World Assembly hereby:

Defines 'duplicitous aid' as supplies posing as humanitarian aid that contain bombs, chemicals, or other traps intended to kill or maim;

Prohibits the transfer, manufacture, or distribution of duplicitous aid by any person or organisations within the jurisdiction of member nations.

Parsons, in another conference room at the Imperial delegation, writes up a ridiculously short resolution on his typewriter and opens the door. He then puts a sign up saying 'Drafting' and like normal, asks for the delegation's culinary department to prepare some refreshments. He comments, 'it's meant to be like 234 GA, ridiculously short'.

by **Bears Armed** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:12 am

As written, without more of a preamble to justify your declared Category, I'd call it 'Global Disarmament' rather than 'Human Rights'...

Supported in principle, though.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:53 am

"'Booby traps' is a little too informal for a piece of international legislation. Do you not think so?"

by **Thermodolia** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:55 am

Wallenburg wrote:"'Booby traps' is a little too informal for a piece of international legislation. Do you not think so?"

"Agreed Ambassador but what else would one call them?"

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:10 am

Bears Armed wrote:As written, without more of a preamble to justify your declared Category, I'd call it 'Global Disarmament' rather than 'Human Rights'...

Supported in principle, though.

Thank you! I wanted to write a resolution I was sure everyone could get behind. On the subject of category, after rereading the list, I think Moral Decency or Global Disarmament are the best fits. Your thoughts?

Wallenburg wrote:"'Booby traps' is a little too informal for a piece of international legislation. Do you not think so?"

I thought of it, initially using weapons. But that title is ... unhelpful. Basically, it doesn't get the point across. Then, I looked at what one actually calls aid that persons have but a bomb into, and turns out, it's booby traps. I wish there were a more formal word as well. Certainly still beats 'Ban on Profits from Worker Deaths' on the sliding scale of non-incindiary.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:10 am

Thermodolia wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"'Booby traps' is a little too informal for a piece of international legislation. Do you not think so?"

"Agreed Ambassador but what else would one call them?"

"I would suggest a title such as 'Prohibition on False Aid'. Or perhaps 'Prohibition on Militarized Humanitarian Aid'."

by **Thermodolia** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:12 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:"Agreed Ambassador but what else would one call them?"

"I would suggest a title such as 'Prohibition on False Aid'."

"That seams a bit broad"

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:13 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:"Agreed Ambassador but what else would one call them?"

"I would suggest a title such as 'Prohibition on False Aid'."

OOC: I considered that as well, last night. But then I realised that certain factions in the World Assembly would view that as an assault on their ability to not give aid (you see, I have two OOC motivations here: write the shortest resolution possible and make it the highest per-letter vote-getter).

by **Bears Armed** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:42 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:As written, without more of a preamble to justify your declared Category, I'd call it 'Global Disarmament' rather than 'Human Rights'...

Supported in principle, though.

Thank you! I wanted to write a resolution I was sure everyone could get behind. On the subject of category, after rereading the list, I think Moral Decency or Global Disarmament are the best fits. Your thoughts?

If you're more concerned with governments ordering this, then Global Disarmament; if it's "rogue" operatives doing so without official sanction that you fear, and against whom you want their own governments to take action, then Moral Decency.
OOC: Unfortunately those are probably two of the three categories most likely to be opposed by players whose concern in such matters is primarily for their nations' stats, but...

Wallenburg wrote:"Or perhaps 'Prohibition on Militarized Humanitarian Aid'."

30-character limit, including spaces, remember?

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:49 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Thank you! I wanted to write a resolution I was sure everyone could get behind. On the subject of category, after rereading the list, I think Moral Decency or Global Disarmament are the best fits. Your thoughts?

If you're more concerned with governments ordering this, then Global Disarmament; if it's "rogue" operatives doing so without official sanction that you fear, and against whom you want their own governments to take action, then Moral Decency.
OOC: Unfortunately those are probably two of the three categories most likely to be opposed by players whose concern in such matters is primarily for their nations' stats, but...

That was my fear. Moral decency, however, is an oft-unused category. Global disarmament is obvious in what it is going to do. The proposal also deals with rogue operatives, so that's why I put it in moral decency already.

by **Kilimantonian** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:10 am

Ambassador Franklin carefully studies the text. "Yes, I believe that we could easily support this - providing aid with intention of causing bodily harm is a disgusting breach of international law. But, I must agree with the Wallenburgian ambassador, in that the title is extremely informal. Perhaps "Ban on Weaponized Aid" would suffice? Oh, and stick a slash or hyphen between "and or"

Also, I must ask that Clause 1 be modified so that it does not just protect the "end-user" - rather, it should protect all persons engaged in the production, transport, and use of said aid."

by **New Leppikania** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:20 am

I'm pretty sure that this is already covered under GA#6: Humanitarian Transport.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:23 am

New Leppikania wrote:I'm pretty sure that this is already covered under GA#6: Humanitarian Transport.

Which clause, because I checked it before writing (and just a few seconds ago) and found that 6 GA deals with... transport, not the content of that cargo.

by **Wallenburg** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:26 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
New Leppikania wrote:I'm pretty sure that this is already covered under GA#6: Humanitarian Transport.

Which clause, because I checked it before writing (and just a few seconds ago) and found that 6 GA deals with... transport, not the content of that cargo.

"Indeed. By a very subjective interpretation, you could argue that 'Humanitarian Transport' encourages nations to keep military and humanitarian supplies separated, but nothing in it prohibits such behavior."

by **New Leppikania** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:29 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Which clause, because I checked it before writing (and just a few seconds ago) and found that 6 GA deals with... transport, not the content of that cargo.

"Indeed. By a very subjective interpretation, you could argue that 'Humanitarian Transport' encourages nations to keep military and humanitarian supplies separated, but nothing in it prohibits such behavior."

"In that case, New Leppikania will fully support this proposal. I would advise a clause about said wording, however."

by **Atomic Utopia** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:47 pm

"I have a question, who is the end user? Is the end user of a bomb the bomber or the bombed?"

by **Kilimantonian** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:11 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Defines 'duplicitous aid' as supplies posing as humanitarian aid that contain bombs, chemicals, and or other traps intended to kill or maim their end-user;

I would really like to see the first clause modified. Instead of the above, can we instead say "Defines 'duplicitous aid' as supplies posing as humanitarian aid that contain bombs, chemicals, and or other traps intended to kill or maim any person(s) involved in their manufacture, transport or use."

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:15 pm

Kilimantonian wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Defines 'duplicitous aid' as supplies posing as humanitarian aid that contain bombs, chemicals, and or other traps intended to kill or maim their end-user;

Please, I NEED the first clause modified. Instead of the above, can we instead say "Defines 'duplicitous aid' as supplies posing as humanitarian aid that contain bombs, chemicals, and or other traps intended to kill or maim any person(s) involved in their manufacture, transport or use."

PLEEEEAAAASEEE???

OOC: Why?

by **Kaboomlandia** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:27 pm

Why don't you just set the title to "Ban on Duplicitous Aid", since that is what you defined in the first clause.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:31 pm

OOC: I know you have a thing for it, but do you really need to number two clauses? It looks over-formatted with the unnecessary numbers.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:49 pm

Kaboomlandia wrote:Why don't you just set the title to "Ban on Duplicitous Aid", since that is what you defined in the first clause.

That isn't clear enough to the voter who only reads the title.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I know you have a thing for it, but do you really need to number two clauses? It looks over-formatted with the unnecessary numbers.

by **The Silver Sentinel** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:53 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:Why don't you just set the title to "Ban on Duplicitous Aid", since that is what you defined in the first clause.

That isn't clear enough to the voter who only reads the title.

Precisely. "Ban on Duplicitous Aid" isn't quite misleading enough to convince people to vote for it. And on that note, why is this needed?

by **Wallenburg** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:53 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:Why don't you just set the title to "Ban on Duplicitous Aid", since that is what you defined in the first clause.

That isn't clear enough to the voter who only reads the title.

I didn't think we were supposed to encourage violation of GAR #122.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:58 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:That isn't clear enough to the voter who only reads the title.

I didn't think we were supposed to encourage violation of GAR #122.

OOC: In-character I would agree, but out-of-character, the facts speak for themselves. People don't read resolutions.

by **Kaboomlandia** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:07 pm

OOC: On another note, why is it that when I read this act, all I can think about are those damn parachutes from Mockingjay?

[DISCARDED] Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid

[DISCARDED] Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid

Who is online