NationStates

Percussionland wrote:If I were to scrap this and start over with a less extreme piece of environmental legislation, what course of action would you recommend I take?

OOC: Your problem is you are taking too much to heart the comments of a small band of WA forum players in the mistaken belief that they are trying to help you write a better proposal. They are not. They don't want you to write a proposal at all. So even if you do completely start over, you will likely encounter approximately the same volume and intensity of suggestions that you just give up.

How about making a forceful argument in favour of your proposal instead of merely seeking approval? What is it you actually want to write a proposal about - and why?

Percussionland wrote:If I were to scrap this and start over with a less extreme piece of environmental legislation, what course of action would you recommend I take?

OOC: despite DSR's fascinating view into our skulls and the intriguing analysis that followed, which I can only assume has delved so far into the depths of my mind that even I wasn't aware of these intentions, you will likely not receive the same level of vitriol were you to try again with a less extreme attempt. The resistance has been primarily to the radicality of this draf and your unwillingness to back down from it. Starting over will clear both your mind and the record of resistance immediately available.

Funnily enough, environmental legislation isn't something most of the regulars hate; I, and I suspect Ara, am a card-carrying tree-huggers OOCly. You'll always have a few who resist any attempt, but you can't, and shouldn't try, to please everybody.

Percussionland wrote:If I were to scrap this and start over with a less extreme piece of environmental legislation, what course of action would you recommend I take?

OOC: I would do three things:

1) Look at the big picture. Much of your problem was reactive writing, opening holes while trying to close another based on a situation someone brought up. The end result was a complete mess. Anticipate the opposition and write your resolution expecting it. After all, nothing takes care of such situations than tackling them before they are brought up.

2) Less draconian. While it would be great for nature if we abandoned economic progress, its not practical in the slightest. Write for a more moderate audience.

3) Actually listen to feedback.... know when to abandon or scrap specific aspects. Much of your issue here was that you were unwilling to alter your course. Instead of constantly trying to ram your point home, actually face the arguments with something more substantial. If you have to resort to pulling heartstrings, you've lost the point.

All of this can be helped by gaining experience, which is what has been suggested. Should you wish to start anew on another topic, do change the title to [abandoned] and start in a new thread...

I will not be abandoning this proposal, but I will look into preexisting committees I can redirect to use in this proposal instead of creating an entirely new one.

Percussionland wrote:I will not be abandoning this proposal, but I will look into preexisting committees I can redirect to use in this proposal instead of creating an entirely new one.

OOC: Wow...Out of all of that really spectacular advice, all you took away was that you needed a different committee?

Okay, sarcasm aside, yes, I did.

Does anyone have a committee to recommend?

Percussionland wrote:Okay, sarcasm aside, yes, I did.

OOC: please clarify, because I'm not so sure I trust my interpretation, but are you saying publicly "yes, all you got was that you need a new committee"?

Yes, I have decided that the protection of the environment is more important than creating a committee, and I cannot get this to pass when creating a committee as you have pointed out, so I will use a preexisting one. Again, any suggestions? Please include full name, abbreviation, and legislation that created it so I can review it and decide if it is what I am looking for. If you feel I should create a committee as I was going to, please state an argument why, and I will still consider it. I am willing to go either way, as long as the core ideals of this proposal remain unchanged.

Percussionland wrote:Yes, I have decided that the protection of the environment is more important than creating a committee, and I cannot get this to pass when creating a committee as you have pointed out, so I will use a preexisting one. Again, any suggestions? Please include full name, abbreviation, and legislation that created it so I can review it and decide if it is what I am looking for. If you feel I should create a committee as I was going to, please state an argument why, and I will still consider it. I am willing to go either way, as long as the core ideals of this proposal remain unchanged.

Do your own homework.

I am, I am simply asking that other say what they feel should be done as well, so that I can get a better idea of what would be better for the majority of WA nations.

I will not support this. INDUSTRY for the win!

So when you no longer have any natural resources to support your industry because you destroyed the environment, who wins?

Percussionland wrote:So when you no longer have any natural resources to support your industry because you destroyed the environment, who wins?

"Nickel Empire, because they've likely figured out that the natural resources they need and the environment they have are not mutually exclusive, and that cordoning resources off in a sanctuary as ridiculously strict as this is tantamount to not having them, thus proving your bumper-sticker rejoinder entirely facile."

Clover brought a hoof to her face. "So, all this debate, all this advice, all these flaws pointed out and you believe your problem is what the committee is called? Has nothing sunk in? In any case, I am clearly wasting my breath here. Do as you will, I am done here."

Normlpeople wrote:Clover brought a hoof to her face. "So, all this debate, all this advice, all these flaws pointed out and you believe your problem is what the committee is called? Has nothing sunk in? In any case, I am clearly wasting my breath here. Do as you will, I am done here."

That is not all I have gotten out of the constructive criticism that I have recieved, it is simply the issue that I have decided to address first. I have gotten far more out of everyone's input than that.

I am using the WAESC for now, I am still looking into committees, and will select a different one if I find one that fits better.

I will also, having found a committee, start working on fixing the knee jerk reactions to loopholes being pointed out that I have been told I have created so that I can make this more effective and more likely to pass. I have also lightened up on the industrial restrictions.

Please feel free to point out any errors that I have been trying to fix that you feel could be done better.

If no ambassadors have anything to add to this topic after another day, I will give submitting this draft another try. Thank you to all whose constructive criticism has made this draft possible.

I really want to support this, but I am very much against the idea of a WA committee telling us what land we can and cannot zone for development.

I think a better way to do this would be to mandate that all WA members identify areas that contain species critical to the well-being of that nation's ecosystem, or a significant chunk of it (e.g. a keystone species) and ensure that any development doesn't significantly diminish that species' role in the ecosystem. I think that would accomplish your goal without having the WA heavy-handedly come in and say "you can't do this thing over here because we said so."

Biodiversity is certainly a good thing, but not every non-disease-causing species is critical to the biosphere. The proposal as currently written seems to just enable protecting random species for its own sake.

I firmly believe you could rework this proposal to make it less broad and still have the effect of protecting important habitats. As it stands now, though, Lumeau will not be approving this proposal and we will vote against it if it reaches quorum. We are a small, densely populated island nation and available land is quickly becoming a major issue. As we are an island, we have a number of endemic species. We are interested in protecting them, but we are also concerned that the WA will consider vast swaths of land as biodiversity zones, which could really hurt our economic growth.

Leander Macklin
Ambassador to the General Assembly, Commonwealth of Lumeau
International Democratic Union Delegate to the World Assembly

Do you mean this on a lesser scale and eliminating the need for a committee, or this on a lesser scale and using a pre-existing a committee to make sure nations don't ignore this and claim no areas need to be designated for some degree of protection?

Percussionland wrote:Do you mean this on a lesser scale and eliminating the need for a committee, or this on a lesser scale and using a pre-existing a committee to make sure nations don't ignore this and claim no areas need to be designated for some degree of protection?

Either. I think a committee would be a fine enforcement mechanism. I believe the current draft gives it way too much authority, but that doesn't mean I want a resolution without teeth, either.

Still, though, I do know that this body can take action against a nation in clear violation of WA law, though I forget what the exact process is. Maybe a more experienced ambassador can enlighten me?

What exactly is an "industrial landmark", and why does it need it's own defining clause?

"Does this draft include the protection of non-native animals who have been 'liberated' by Animal Rights activists? These animals are extremely dangerous for the surrounding Fauna as these non-native animals tend to be highly aggressive.

We personally had this case once with a Cuckoo plague, which almost drove local birds to regional extinction. While Cuckoos are more common, you got plenty of other animal species who are as dangerous as Cuckoos but rarer and often 'protected' by laws like this."