I was actually thanking you, but take it as you will....
*Slaps Landsfree on the ass again, this time while not drunk*
Advertisement
by Chester Pearson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:02 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Defwa » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:04 pm
by Chester Pearson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:11 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Araraukar » Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:59 pm
Defwa wrote:Draft three is up along with a title that means "space junk is bad".
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Defwa » Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:48 pm
by Lexicor » Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:19 pm
Defwa wrote:As irresponsible as it may be, since things are quiet, I'm going to make a few minor mainly grammar adjustments here and then look towards submission in a few days.
Could someone advise me- I hear that weekends are not great times to submit proposals. When should it be done?
by Chester Pearson » Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:45 pm
Defwa wrote:As irresponsible as it may be, since things are quiet, I'm going to make a few minor mainly grammar adjustments here and then look towards submission in a few days.
Could someone advise me- I hear that weekends are not great times to submit proposals. When should it be done?
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Ainocra » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:33 pm
Creating debris with the intent of disrupting orbital operations is prohibited
by Defwa » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:41 pm
Ainocra wrote:We still have concerns with this portionCreating debris with the intent of disrupting orbital operations is prohibited
Blockade is a vital aspect of interstellar warfare.
Other than that we see no issue. Should the objectionable bit be removed we could support this.
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:13 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Defwa » Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:59 pm
by Ainocra » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:02 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:05 pm
Defwa wrote:Does anyone have suggestions for services that WASC can offer to complying nations.
by Defwa » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:12 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Defwa wrote:Does anyone have suggestions for services that WASC can offer to complying nations.
"Collision warnings? Perhaps even creating a collision warning system which sends alerts to nations that comply.
"At the risk of harping on minor details, 'OiOs' makes me think of Old McDonald had a farm, OiOiO...
"I also dislike the automatic resort to 'fining' as a method of punishment. Fines are often ineffectual where the cost of the fine is less than the cost of the profit incurred for the fined action."
~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
by Defwa » Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:48 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:52 pm
by Defwa » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:01 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK, what is the problem with actually calling the proposal what it is, legislation on space junk. Inimical Debris is even worse and more confusing than the Kessler Syndrome thing.
edit: also, how are you doing on word count?
by Bears Armed Mission » Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:36 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK, what is the problem with actually calling the proposal what it is, legislation on space junk
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:42 am
Defwa wrote:OOC: Oh, but it is such a perfect term. I'll look at changing it back
The draft I have open at home had a couple hundred characters left. I don't know once I add the new compliance portion
by Defwa » Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:24 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Defwa wrote:OOC: Oh, but it is such a perfect term. I'll look at changing it back
The draft I have open at home had a couple hundred characters left. I don't know once I add the new compliance portion
OOC: Do forgive my replying to OOC with IC, but I hate OOC debate when it can be avoided.
IC:"I think the scope of your plan is too great, ambassador. There are too many facets to your current draft. I would suggest splitting off the Rescue section into a different proposal altogether. You can, potentially, create a proposal that requires careful classification and tracking of objects in orbit such as your WASP section does without gasping for space or delving into rescue or even debris removal. I recognize the need for such coverage, but your political capital is perhaps best spent on several incremental steps instead of one large one.
"Besides, it's harder to repeal two or three resolutions then just one, in case you acquire any hostile rivalries!"
by Defwa » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:22 am
by Wrapper » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:57 am
REQUIRES nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects into orbit that have not been certified as compliant with this resolution, allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actions
CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space so long as all damage done is part of a declared act of war against the owner of the object, the nation the object was launched from, or if the object services or benefits the enemy
by Defwa » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:18 pm
Wrapper wrote:Well... we think this is a problem, at least the way we interpret the following lines:REQUIRES nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects into orbit that have not been certified as compliant with this resolution, allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actionsCLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space so long as all damage done is part of a declared act of war against the owner of the object, the nation the object was launched from, or if the object services or benefits the enemy
Now, we the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, as you may know, are a pacifist nation, with outer colonies stationed on other planets and in deep space. As pacifists, we have no weapons, aside from our Big Honking Ignore Cannons (BHICs), which only work on forces from other WA nations (OOC: thanks to GAR #2). At some of our more remote outposts, our entire defense system consists of.... Well, have you ever heard of submarines, and their anti-torpedo countermeasures? Basically, our outpost defenses are similar -- we launch a whole lot of, for lack of a better word, junk, which can shield the outpost from many different types of attacks in a similar way. Now, when we read these definitions... well, we don't think that launching these countermeasures fit into the exception in the first quoted clause, which to us really says, prevent the launches of these objects unless doing so (that is, the act of preventing the launch) will cause death. As for the second clause, the BHICs only work when war is declared on us by a WA nation, resulting in immediate peace, but BHICs do not always work on non-WA nations, so an unprovoked, undeclared attack would mean our outpost cannot launch its countermeasures.
Is our objection making sense?
by Wrapper » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:25 pm
Defwa wrote:My problem is I want to avoid giving license to create random debris or else this whole exercise is for nothing.
by Flamels Stone » Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:29 pm
Wrapper wrote:Well... we think this is a problem, at least the way we interpret the following lines:
REQUIRES nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects into orbit that have not been certified as compliant with this resolution, allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actions
CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space so long as all damage done is part of a declared act of war against the owner of the object, the nation the object was launched from, or if the object services or benefits the enemy
Now, we the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, as you may know, are a pacifist nation, with outer colonies stationed on other planets and in deep space. As pacifists, we have no weapons, aside from our Big Honking Ignore Cannons (BHICs), which only work on forces from other WA nations (OOC: thanks to GAR #2). At some of our more remote outposts, our entire defense system consists of.... Well, have you ever heard of submarines, and their anti-torpedo countermeasures? Basically, our outpost defenses are similar -- we launch a whole lot of, for lack of a better word, junk, which can shield the outpost from many different types of attacks in a similar way. Now, when we read these definitions... well, we don't think that launching these countermeasures fit into the exception in the first quoted clause, which to us really says, prevent the launches of these objects unless doing so (that is, the act of preventing the launch) will cause death. As for the second clause, the BHICs only work when war is declared on us by a WA nation, resulting in immediate peace, but BHICs do not always work on non-WA nations, so an unprovoked, undeclared attack would mean our outpost cannot launch its countermeasures.
Is our objection making sense?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement