[IN QUEUE] Debris Removal

[Defwa]

This will be the voting thread for this proposal. Unfortunately its too late for me to do anything about complaints other than take notes for the future, but I can try to address and alleviate your concerns.
The original drafting thread can be seen here

Debris Removal
Social Justice / mild
SEEKING to protect access to space for all nations

RECOGNIZING that a sizeable quantity of debris is incapable of removing itself from orbit

TROUBLED by the lack of accountability for incidents in orbit

RESOLVING to reduce the amount of debris in orbit

DEFINES Debris as any artificial object in space that meets any of the following descriptions:
-has failed to comply with any World Assembly regulation governing the object deployed after said regulation was put in place
-has ceased to be operational or currently serves no purpose
-has no known owner
-poses a danger to objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-poses a danger to developed territory on a celestial body

GUIDES the World Assembly Science Program [WASP] to begin contracting out all duties of rescue, repair, removal, and destruction of debris to entities within the World Assembly in the event no other entity has initiated actions to do so

I- Removal
A- Debris shall be subject to unwarned removal at the determination of WASP
B- Debris will be deorbit in a fashion that avoids damage to other artificial objects in space and the developed surface of any celestial body
C- Destruction of debris will be used as a last resort if deorbiting cannot be performed and must be done in a fashion that minimizes additional debris

II- Rescue
A- Rescue of occupants or repair of debris will be attempted prior to removal or destruction if it is believed that sapient life is present on the debris or at the request of the owner or occupants

III- Reparations
A- Should debris cause damage to the property of others or to developed territory, WASP shall determine reparations to be paid for the full value of the damage and a portion of the cost of replacement as well as for personal injury and loss of life to be paid to all relevant victims by the debris’ owner
B- Fines will be assessed to pay for all costs of rescue, repair, removal, and destruction of debris incurred by WASP during its duties to be paid by the debris’ owner

REQUIRES member nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects into orbit from their territory by entities that have failed to pay fines and reparations charged to them

ALLOWS salvage of any object considered debris without recourse in accordance with WA law

In its operation WASP will:
1- cease to act under this resolution to protect the property of individuals and entities that fail to pay fines and reparations charged to them or objects launched from the territory of nations that have failed to pay
2- hold nations financially and legally accountable for unpaid fines and reparations incurred by objects launched from their territory
3- not interfere with any declared acts of war in its efforts to eliminate harmful debris nor will it assess fines or reparations
4- consider requests for rescue, repair, removal, and destruction of debris by nonmember nations as long as costs are prepaid and said nation is in compliance with all World Assembly legislation they are reasonably capable of complying with
5- deny service to any member nation not in full compliance with all World Assembly legislation

[Hakio]

"May good luck grace this proposal also!" Hedishi tosses a fat cigar to Alexander Trahl as she lights one up for herself.

[Defwa]

"May good luck grace this proposal also!" Hedishi tosses a fat cigar to Alexander Trahl as she lights one up for herself.

*the cigar flies out the window, over thousands of miles, and hits the federation leader in the head, reminding him he should actually be here*

[Defwa]

I have received a legality challenge on this resolution on the grounds that DEFINES clause 1 would affect any nation launched from a non WA nation.
I replied that DEFINES clause 1 only labels the object for the administrative purposes of WASP and does not require any action from non WA nations and provided precedent resolutions that labeled non WA objects or entities and required they be treated differently by member nations including Humanitarian Transport and Rights of Neutral States.

Hopefully they will have a positive response.
[OOC GHR is the right place for that sort of thing, right?]

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'd be more worried about category. Although, heh, I just realized:

SEEKING to protect access to space for all nations

According to at least two previous rulings by Kryozerkia (the second relayed by Ardchoille as is now traditional given Kryozerkia's seeming inability to post in this forum) this really is illegal.

[Wrapper]

I'd be more worried about category. Although, heh, I just realized:

SEEKING to protect access to space for all nations

According to at least two previous rulings by Kryozerkia (the second relayed by Ardchoille as is now traditional given Kryozerkia's seeming inability to post in this forum) this really is illegal.

But... it's in the preamble and not in a legislative clause, so it isn't directly affecting all nations. Even if "all" means both member and non-member nations as previously ruled, it isn't mandating or even mildly suggesting or recommending that any non-member nations take action. It's merely stating that we, as member nations, wish to keep open access to space for all nations.

[The Dark Star Republic]

But... it's in the preamble and not in a legislative clause,

Yeah, I agree. Thing is though, I'm not sure the mods do. I've seen before Frisbeeteria say that he doesn't share the view that the preamble of a resolution has no effect (I can't find the post off hand, but I don't suppose you'd care anyway as it was in the NSUN era). Past resolutions have been ruled legal or illegal based on language in the preamble - though admittedly most of that precedent was rendered obsolete by the reversal on National Economic Freedoms.

Of course, I don't actually challenge the proposal on those grounds as I think the "all nations" crap is stupid; this was just an opportunity for the ruling to be gracefully withdrawn, perhaps. Still a bit confused by the category, though.

---

"We have significant objections to this proposal; however, we were not active enough during the drafting debate to justify voting against, so we will likely abstain. That said, we'd welcome an explanation of what the situation would be if this resolution fails, and the other one - as now seems likely - passes. Given the proposals were drafted in tandem, we wouldn't want to create a legal black hole."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Defwa]

But... it's in the preamble and not in a legislative clause,

Yeah, I agree. Thing is though, I'm not sure the mods do. I've seen before Frisbeeteria say that he doesn't share the view that the preamble of a resolution has no effect (I can't find the post off hand, but I don't suppose you'd care anyway as it was in the NSUN era). Past resolutions have been ruled legal or illegal based on language in the preamble - though admittedly most of that precedent was rendered obsolete by the reversal on National Economic Freedoms.

Of course, I don't actually challenge the proposal on those grounds as I think the "all nations" crap is stupid; this was just an opportunity for the ruling to be gracefully withdrawn, perhaps. Still a bit confused by the category, though.

---

"We have significant objections to this proposal; however, we were not active enough during the drafting debate to justify voting against, so we will likely abstain. That said, we'd welcome an explanation of what the situation would be if this resolution fails, and the other one - as now seems likely - passes. Given the proposals were drafted in tandem, we wouldn't want to create a legal black hole."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

That line is also present in Debris Prevention so it should not be an issue.

[Bananaistan]

We also paid little attention to the drafting process as we are not a space faring nation. We are also slightly concerned about the category, not so much that we have significant issues with that particular category, but more the automatic response of many voter to vote against any proposal in the particular category. Could we ask that a copy of the relevant part of the debate, if it exists, be forwarded to our office, please Comrade Landfree?

[Defwa]

We also paid little attention to the drafting process as we are not a space faring nation. We are also slightly concerned about the category, not so much that we have significant issues with that particular category, but more the automatic response of many voter to vote against any proposal in the particular category. Could we ask that a copy of the relevant part of the debate, if it exists, be forwarded to our office, please Comrade Landfree?

Its been added to the top of the first post.
The category was an issue I struggled with for all of this second phase of drafting. Social justice resolutions do have a chance here and a couple have passed recently so I decided to settle for it as I could not find a way to shoehorn it into any other type.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The category was an issue I struggled with for all of this second phase of drafting. Social justice resolutions do have a chance here and a couple have passed recently so I decided to settle for it as I could not find a way to shoehorn it into any other type.

If I were EVIL (oh wait I am) and I had the time to argue with a MOD until the MOD turned blue, I would argue that this resolution should be "Advancement of Industry" / "Environmental Deregulation."

Argument: Under the laws of the Free Market if a thing were possible and profitable it would be done by someone seeking to make said profit. If it is not, it clearly must be the result of some government regulation of some kind because only government regulation can keep the free market from doing its wonderful "invisible hand" thing. Therefore, a resolution that encourages industry to remove debris must be removing those regulations that already exist that prevent said industry from forming to remove those debris naturally ... Q.E.D.

(This is followed by rewording this explanation a million times to the confused MOD. Then repeating this process differently for the other confused MOD and so forth.)

One can even argue for the sake of the stat wank. Consider if there was no one to collect your garbage. Would you do things differently knowing that all your garbage will pile up around your house? What happens once people collect your garbage? Do you give up all those garbage minimization plans at great expense to yourself?

[Defwa]

The category was an issue I struggled with for all of this second phase of drafting. Social justice resolutions do have a chance here and a couple have passed recently so I decided to settle for it as I could not find a way to shoehorn it into any other type.

If I were EVIL (oh wait I am) and I had the time to argue with a MOD until the MOD turned blue, I would argue that this resolution should be "Advancement of Industry" / "Environmental Deregulation."

Argument: Under the laws of the Free Market if a thing were possible and profitable it would be done by someone seeking to make said profit. If it is not, it clearly must be the result of some government regulation of some kind because only government regulation can keep the free market from doing its wonderful "invisible hand" thing. Therefore, a resolution that encourages industry to remove debris must be removing those regulations that already exist that prevent said industry from forming to remove those debris naturally ... Q.E.D.

(This is followed by rewording this explanation a million times to the confused MOD. Then repeating this process differently for the other confused MOD and so forth.)

One can even argue for the sake of the stat wank. Consider if there was no one to collect your garbage. Would you do things differently knowing that all your garbage will pile up around your house? What happens once people collect your garbage? Do you give up all those garbage minimization plans at great expense to yourself?

I was considering that as this would drive business from non WA nations into WA ones with WASP acting as an agency.
But I couldn't find any active clauses to support that so I'm hanging on to salvage rights.

[Defwa]

So I find myself a little perturbed. I got this telegram from the secretariat yesterday.

You've got two proposals, one at-vote and one in queue. Your proposal in queue, Debris Removal, is legally dubious, Its wording can be read as affecting nonmember nations. It is easily resolved by tweaking your definition.
Your definition of "space debris" allows for any ONE condition to be met. One of those conditions is: "has failed to comply with any World Assembly regulation governing the object deployed after said regulation was put in place". Due to the wording, it appears that it would affect any objects launched into space by nonmember nations. This can be remedied by tweaking your definition to explicitly exclude nonmember nations' space objects or debris unless it poses an explicit/immediate threat to member nations.
We recommend you send a reply requesting the removal of your proposal. In doing so, you avoid incurring a penalty for an illegal proposal. If not, your proposal will be removed by the Mods. Consider this a "get out of jail free" card.

I appealed explaining that the classification as debris was only for WASP record keeping and provide two examples of passed resolutions that labled non WA things.
I left out that since there was no problem with labeling something as debris and destroying it if it poses an immediate danger, the criticism was contradictory.

Not only was this rejected without further explanation,

You submitted a Proposal that was unfortunately invalid. If you would like to submit another proposal, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines in the Proposal Rules forum thread. We highly recommend that you post a draft to the General Assembly Forum first to be checked before submitting it to the game! The people there are very helpful at polishing drafts so they meet the guidelines.
Your appeal was denied. Also, upon further reflection we have some reservations with the category. For the previous stated reasons and this, your proposal was pulled. For your records, you had the following approvals:

South Pacific Republic, Kestvala, Hiskjriaana, Archeuland and Baughistan, Jimmy Carter, Alruniea, Timmy City, Nouvelle Tealand, Aquatur, The Republic of Middle Albion, Republic of South Carolina, Brunerist Delegate, Samholm, Skappola, Suceavija, The Democratic Nation of Unovia, Scotatrova, North Campbell Nation, Theoniatium, Talonthia, Coriban, Keytopite, Xolox, Killadonia, Zorbae, The Stalker, The Archiepelago, Exaequatio, Teutionia, Crisisies, The Imperial Spatial Hispanic Federation, SkillCrossbones, The Cobalt Sky, Apox, The United Assassin Emirates, HashtagSwiggitySwag, Democratic Yezdijan, Treanemark, Sacred Reich, Carcharodontidae, Lilth, Turmenista, Capisaria, Smiley Bob, The United Kingdoms of Austinarya, Organized States, Brechalht, Grand Britaria, Northern European Senates remnants, Tezzarules690, Island People of Sayaj, Vermithrax Perjorative, The Donbass, Chester Pearson, Oslwald Town, SovietSparta, The Dogma States, Northern Thermonia, Rehundia, Jydara, Aeiouia, Dilanica, Rapallo, Salikawood, Aeuria, Free Law, Ninja Kittens, New Nationale Einheit, Shahak, Northern Socialist States, Isolaria, Campbell Millar, Metalvania, Elemental North, The Antarctic Republic, Manchovia, The Ancient World, Tasty Water, Mateara, The Derrak Quadrant, Versus Militia, Seherron, Salah Jadid, The new Albania, The UCOA, Maoist People, Lingang, The United Republic of Freiheit, Imperial Eagle, Advelard, UmbraQuant, Athens City, The Black Stallion, Anacove states, New Zanbia, Amiria, Indian Joint States, Evanicaland WA Mission, H2O Delirious, Natalva, Franklin And Jefferson, Galactic Russian Empire, The BaRen, Wilorin, Dracoemboria, Rzeczpospolita Krakowska, Tridekia

I got a somewhat offensively ignorant form letter that questioned the category as well, even though international storage rights is the same category (the only non committee clause). And the committee is all about bringing justice.

[The Dark Star Republic]

So I find myself a little perturbed. I got this telegram from the secretariat yesterday.

While you're obviously under no obligation to bring private telegrams to a public forum - did you not consider relaying their message here? Other players might have been able to help you formulate a counterargument.

international storage rights

Do you mean International Salvage Laws? If so, that may not be the greatest precedent to invoke. The discussion of that resolution shows Flib* and others questioning that category quite vigorously. Sydia claimed he was in conversation with the mods, but he never relayed what that conversation actually was.

* I don't think he was a mod at the time, definitely not a game mod, but still one of the most experienced WA players on rules questions.

[Ainocra]

So do you plan to resubmit?

[Defwa]

OOC sorry, autocorrect. There are no storage right I'm aware of.
I didn't want to publicize the issue at that time because I was hoping to resolve it quietly. The salvage rights thing, I didn't get a chance to respond before it was removed.
Yes, I plan on trying again after a very short redraft

My issue remains the lack of response for me providing ancient and recent precedent for WASP labeling non WA objects and the contradiction. And I'll be requesting some expansion in that topic soon

[Sierra Lyricalia]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO banquet! Congratulations, Ang--

Uh...

Steph looks around, the champagne bottle in her raised fist gradually drooping back to a more boring and dignified elbow height.

Hmm. Alright, well... glad I didn't pop this bitch quite yet. I'll just, uh, leave it in the office minifridge for later.

Looking forward to the next draft of this one, Ms. Landfree. You'll get there.

[Defwa]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO banquet! Congratulations, Ang--

Uh...

Steph looks around, the champagne bottle in her raised fist gradually drooping back to a more boring and dignified elbow height.

Hmm. Alright, well... glad I didn't pop this bitch quite yet. I'll just, uh, leave it in the office minifridge for later.

Looking forward to the next draft of this one, Ms. Landfree. You'll get there.

You open that right this instant! We're getting work drunk

[The Dark Star Republic]

I will come up with some IC comments on the content if you're looking to redraft this, but you can't do so until you solve the OOC legality issue.

[Defwa]

I will come up with some IC comments on the content if you're looking to redraft this, but you can't do so until you solve the OOC legality issue.

The issues are trivial. So much so that I continue to believe they are nonexistent.
Don't expect much to change just for the legality concern.

[The Dark Star Republic]

That's admirably stubborn, but you're forgetting that the mods are likely to be just as stubborn, if history is a guide. At the very least, you need to rewrite the preamble to make it clearer how this "reduces income equality and increases basic welfare", even if little changes in the operative section.

There's no point our wasting time offering comments on a proposal if it's just going to be deleted again anyway.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I was hoping you'd say that!

Steph draws her 20-cm SLhA-issue utility blade from the sheath at her right hip, lets her coat fall back into place, and flips the handle over in her hand to bring the blunt edge around to the front. She brings her knee up to rest the bottle on it and adjust her grip, her hand around the top of the wider part now, and rotates it a little before setting the flat of the blade against the neck of the bottle, and her booted foot back on the floor.

Stand back, I've actually fucked this up a few times... well, maybe more than a few... She stops and looks around for a second. Hey, hang on, we don't actually have any glasses in here, do we? Never mind, don't wanna go cutting ourselves on broken glass, now... Lemme just get my fingers in here, and--

**POmP**

There we go! Steph takes a two-second swig directly from the bottle, wipes her left coat sleeve with that hand still holding the bottle across her mouth, and hands the bottle to Angela.

**Urrrrrp**-ahhh. Anyway, sincere congratulations. Part Two reached quorum before, I don't see why it couldn't again once the tweaks are put in. Oh yeah...--

She nudges the right side of her coat aside with the butt of the knife and uses both hands to secure the blade once again in its sheath.

Drinking and drafting is bad enough, don't need that laying around too, now, do we?

[Ardchoille]

I'll get back to you in detail on this tomorrow, but in the meantime, please don't submit it. Category is not the only concern.

EDIT:

That line is also present in Debris Prevention so it should not be an issue.

In Debris Prevention you've tied your active clauses down solidly with "member nations", and there's no mention of non-member nations to raise any doubts about its extent. The clause can be read as rainbows-and-unicorns fluff, along the lines of "all children should be happy"; something with no impact on the meaning of the proposal.

In the version of Debris Removal you submitted, that clause remains low-impact, but the cumulative effect with others that aren't specific, plus the fact that you have non-member nations mentioned in the body of the text, sets the scene for confusion. True, you don't commit the illegality of directly instructing non-member nations to act. But consider the effect on a non-member nation of having their "artificial object in space" shot down by the WA because it "has failed to comply with any World Assembly regulation governing the object deployed after said regulation was put in place". Or think about the practical application of clause 2 of the WASP operations section.

Those are just examples; we're not saying they're the only bits that need attention. We want you to go through the proposal to tie down the effects, actors, subjects, etc, as solidly as you did in Debris Prevention. (The actual clause that mentions non-member nations is fine as is.)

5- deny service to any member nation not in full compliance with all World Assembly legislation.

This runs into Game Mechanics. Member nations can embrace "creative compliance" and "RPd non-compliance". But, as far as the game is concerned, the effects of Resolutions are felt instantly. A WA member nation can't avoid suffering those changes. Implying in the text that some do contradicts the way the game works on nations. If you consider this clause essential, fluffy it up -- for example, failing to meet the requirements of WASP could be reason to deny service.

Re category: re-reading the discussion of International Salvage Laws that Dark Star linked to might help. But if you decide to stay with SJ, you will have to show (not just tell) that some government spending is required from each member nation. You'll also have to show the connection between the spending and "welfare", which we've previously allowed to be interpreted generally. What aspect of the proposal decreases income inequality?