NATION

PASSWORD

[REPEAL] GAR #259 "Stopping Invasive Species"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

[REPEAL] GAR #259 "Stopping Invasive Species"

Postby Losthaven » Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:54 am

Repeal GAR #259 "Stopping Invasive Species"
Category: Repeal ~*~ Target: GAR# 259


The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Committed to combating the environmental threat posed by invasive species;

Pausing to note that it is a perfectly natural process for well-adapted species to expand to new areas and compete for resources in new places, and that resorting to extraordinary regulation to prevent such expansion can do more ecological harm than good;

Concerned that flaws in General Assembly Resolution #259, "Stopping Invasive Species," render it problematic, unworkable, and ineffective;

Noting GAR #259's definition of "invasive species," which defines a species as invasive if it poses a "serious risk" of environmental harm regardless of whether that risk, though serious, is very remote and unlikely, or whether the risk is far outweighed by the potential benefits that species could provide to an ecosystem;

Dismayed that GAR #259 flatly prohibits the import of what it calls "invasive species" without any exceptions, meaning that member nations may not allow so-called invasive species even if they have made a fully studied and calculated choice that, despite any risks, importing the species would likely improve the environment;

Further dismayed that GAR #259's absolute prohibition on the import of invasive species prohibits member nations from importing invasive species for academic studies, biological and ecological research, or as zoological exhibits, even if the member nation would take great care in handling, transporting, and managing the species.

Recognizing that scientists and ecologists have provided better definitions of "invasive species" than the one adopted by GAR #259, including definitions that take into account whether a foreign species is in fact causing environmental harm, or whether the risks of harm posed by the species have a high probability of actually occurring, or whether the risks of allowing the species to be introduced outweigh potential ecological benefits.

Disappointed that the measures put forth by GAR #259 to prevent the introduction of invasive species via ballast water are woefully inadequate in that they address only ocean-going vessels, meaning that coastal vessels, river vessels, and many other potential modes of transport for invasive species are left completely unaddressed.

Frustrated that while GAR #259 promised to prevent "economic damage" caused by invasive species, its ham-fisted approach of outlawing all shipping practices that may contribute to "the accidental spread of invasive species" offers scant guidance on what is allowed, required, and prohibited, thus causing confusion and economic uncertainty within the shipping industry.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby Repeals GAR #259, "Stopping Invasive Species."

Repeal GAR #259 "Stopping Invasive Species"
Category: Repeal ~*~ Target: GAR# 259


The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Committed to combating the environmental threat posed by invasive species;

Pausing to reflect on the fact that it is a perfectly natural process for well-adapted species to expand to new areas and compete for resources in new places, and that resorting to extraordinary regulation to prevent such expansion can do more ecological harm than good;

Concerned that flaws in General Assembly Resolution #259, "Stopping Invasive Species," render it problematic, unworkable, and ineffective;

Noting GAR #259's definition of "invasive species," which defines a species as invasive if it poses a "serious risk" of environmental harm regardless of whether that risk is very remote, or whether the risk is far outweighed by the potential benefits that species could provide to an ecosystem;

Dismayed that GAR #259 flatly prohibits the import of what it calls "invasive species" without any exceptions, meaning that member nations may not allow so-called invasive species even if they have made a fully studied and calculated choice that, despite any risks, importing the species would likely improve the environment;

Further dismayed that GAR #259's absolute prohibition on the import of invasive species prohibits member nations from importing invasive species for academic studies, biological and ecological research, or as zoological exhibits, even if the member nation would take great care in handling, transporting, and caring for the species. (Amendment courtesy of the Dark Star Republic)

Recognizing that scientists and ecologists have provided better definitions of "invasive species" than the one adopted by GAR #259, including definitions that take into account whether a foreign species is in fact causing environmental harm, or whether the risks of harm posed by the species have a high probability of actually occurring, or whether the benefits of allowing the species to be introduced outweigh any potential risks.

Disappointed that the measures put forth by GAR #259 to prevent the introduction of invasive species via ballast water are woefully inadequate in that they address only ocean-going vessels, meaning that coastal vessels, river vessels, and many other potential modes of transport for invasive species are left completely unaddressed.

Frustrated that while GAR #259 promised to prevent "economic damage" caused by invasive species, its ham-fisted approach of outlawing all shipping practices that may contribute to "the accidental spread of invasive species" offers no real guidance on what is allowed, required, or prohibited, thus causing confusion and economic uncertainty within the shipping industry.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby Repeals GAR #259, "Stopping Invasive Species."

Repeal GAR #259 "Stopping Invasive Species"
Category: Repeal ~*~ Target: GAR# 259


The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Committed to combating the environmental threat posed by invasive species;

Pausing to reflect on the fact that it can be a perfectly natural process for well-adapted species to expand to new areas and compete for resources in new places, and that resorting to extraordinary regulation to prevent such expansion can do more ecological harm than good;

Concerned that flaws in General Assembly Resolution #259, "Stopping Invasive Species," render it unworkable, detrimental, and incapable of effectively dealing with the problem posed by invasive species;

Noting GAR #259's problematic definition of "invasive species," which defines a species as invasive if it poses a "serious risk" of environmental harm regardless of whether that risk is very remote, or if the risk is far outweighed by the potential benefits that species could provide to an ecosystem;

Dismayed that GAR #259 flatly prohibits the import of what it calls "invasive species" without any exceptions, meaning that member nations may not allow so-called invasive species even if they have made a fully studied and calculated choice that, despite any risks, importing the species would likely improve the environment;

Recognizing that scientists and ecologists have provided better definitions of "invasive species" than the one adopted by GAR #259, including definitions that take into account whether a foreign species is in fact causing environmental harm, or whether the risks of harm posed by the species have a high probability of actually occurring, or whether the benefits of allowing the species to be introduced outweigh any potential risks.

Disappointed that the measures put forth by GAR #259 to prevent the introduction of invasive species via ballast water are woefully inadequate in that they address only ocean-going vessels, meaning that coastal vessels, river vessels, and many other potential modes of transport for invasive species are left completely unaddressed.

Frustrated that while GAR #259 promised to prevent "economic damage" caused by invasive species, its ham-fisted approach of outlawing all shipping practices that may contribute to "the accidental spread of invasive species" offers no real guidance regarding what the law allows, requires, and prohibits shipping companies to do, causing confusion and economic uncertainty within the industry.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby Repeals GAR #259, "Stopping Invasive Species."
Last edited by Losthaven on Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:54 am, edited 12 times in total.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Arach-Naga Combine
Diplomat
 
Posts: 574
Founded: Apr 08, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Arach-Naga Combine » Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:22 pm

The Combine supports this repeal, as it would allow replacement legislation with a workable definition of "invasive species". For instance, humans are constantly encroaching on our borders, building vile cities of metal and stone, then filling them with squealing spawn. If they are not stopped, the native populations of titanoboa and kirktonenses may spiral out of control. Good luck controlling their populations, puny humans.
Last edited by Arach-Naga Combine on Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Undisputed snuggling champions of all realities across all multiverses

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:33 pm

"Might it be worth writing a resolution on ballast water? As your own repeal points out, the original resolution is so inadequate it wouldn't really prevent such an effort on grounds of duplication. Repeals that complain a resolution has not done enough only really have validity if they're associated with some sort of effort to actually do more.

"Haggling over the meaning of the word "risk" is a bit tenuous. While the definition employed in the original is vague, a fair reading of it would seem to allay some of the concerns in the repeal: if the risk really is "remote", then it's not "serious".

"While we don't think Resolution #259 is very good, we are also pretty ambivalent about the merits of this repeal.

"However, given our unflinching opposition to your other proposal, we will support this."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

User avatar
Jean Pierre Trudeau
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1158
Founded: Nov 20, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jean Pierre Trudeau » Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:18 pm

Meh.... Don't really care either way on this one. If it is repealed then good. If not, it is till all good. I'll be a lemming on this one.
Jean Pierre Trudeau
Chancellor, United Federation of Canada,
Premier, The North American Union
World Assembly Resolution Author

Socialism is NOT Communism.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:48 pm

That's one "support" and one "meh, whatever" and one "meh, whatever; support, I guess..." so far.

We should point out that we would be happy to work on a replacement, though we think the better approach to this kind of legislation is a global ecological/environmental study combined with international cooperation, rather than business regulation designed at keeping some "invasive species" boogie man out of national borders.

OOC: In addition, I have developed something of a grudge against environmental proposals that claim to protect the economy. I feel that's something akin to false advertising, as folks who don't understand how the categories work might think they are voting for something that improves their environment stat and their economic stat.
Last edited by Losthaven on Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:08 pm

"Were this out of the way, actual attempts to regulate invasive could be made. So, nominal support. Not all the arguments seem to follow accurately, though. I'll be sure to swing back in when I have more time. Good work, ambassador." Bell says, hastily shuffling papers into a briefcase, with Chuckie the Goat anxiously waiting below for a morsel of stationary to fall.

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:50 pm

"In fairness, with how new members of the WA normally get treated around here, a couple of mehs and couple of tepid yehs is pretty much a standing ovation.

"I wonder if it's worth pointing out that the absoluteness of the ban on transferring invasive species would seem to ban even transporting invasive species for the purposes of scientific study. Again, the vagueness of the definition means it's unclear if this is literally the case, but given it's now legal to lie in repeals it wouldn't seem to matter, and the argument is worth making. The same applies to transferring individual members of a population, all one sex, sterilised, or otherwise incapable of reproducing."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:11 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"In fairness, with how new members of the WA normally get treated around here, a couple of mehs and couple of tepid yehs is pretty much a standing ovation.

"I wonder if it's worth pointing out that the absoluteness of the ban on transferring invasive species would seem to ban even transporting invasive species for the purposes of scientific study. Again, the vagueness of the definition means it's unclear if this is literally the case, but given it's now legal to lie in repeals it wouldn't seem to matter, and the argument is worth making. The same applies to transferring individual members of a population, all one sex, sterilised, or otherwise incapable of reproducing."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

We don't think we'd have to resort to lying. We actually pulled some punches in the first draft to avoid having people respond defensively to us picking on the resolution.

The resolution "PROHIBITS the transfer of invasive species from one nation to another" by "all means" short of closing national borders. That would forbid allowing invasive species for academic use, research/medical purposes, or even as zoo exhibits. It prohibits transferring invasive species from one nation to another even if great care is taken and even if the species is facing extinction in its native habitat for one reason or another. All because the species poses a serious (even if potentially remote) risk of undefined "detrimental effects" (even if those potential effects are mild) if released into a "new environment."

The resolution really goes even further than that! It requires member nations to assemble roving squads to "eliminate or remove invasive species from the environment." Not from a non-native environment, mind you. From "the environment." When read together with the definition (which makes a species invasive if it poses a risk of causing detrimental effects if introduced to a new environment), this provision effectively requires member nations to eliminate species that could-potentially-one-day-maybe-become-invasive-someday by seeking them out and destroying them in their native environment.

But, we are concerned if we make that strong of a case, we may be accused of being uncharitable and that may foster resentment and an anti-repeal backlash.
Last edited by Losthaven on Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21475
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:20 am

Maybeso, but we'd really like to see a suitable replacement prepared before this gets submitted.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:22 pm

New draft up.

We are not concerned with drafting a replacement before submitting this repeal. Given the problems posed by this resolution's absolutist text (including its ban on importing invasive species for purely academic purposes, and the overregulation caused by it's over broad definition), we feel the better avenue is to repeal the defective legislation and allow other members copious time to come up with a workable solution to the potential problems associated with invasive species.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
The Arkam Asylum
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Mar 22, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Arkam Asylum » Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:28 pm

I'll give my support but i agree with the others that it really should have a replacement resolution.

User avatar
Mundiferrum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 830
Founded: Apr 07, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Mundiferrum » Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:05 pm

We agree with some of the other nations here -- we'dd like to see a suitable replacement first before this repeal is submitted.
MARCVSGRAVELLIVSCISTERNAEMAGNORATOR-ORATORMVNDIFERRIADCONCILIVMMNDVM
Marcus Gravellius Cisternae Magnorator, Mundiferri Representative to the World Assembly
"Call me Gravey. Only my really close friends call me Marcus, and I don't think we're that close yet. Maybe."
No, we are not a nation of cat people. We're all humans (and a few annoying gnomes) here. The cat's just there because our king is such a genius, he saw that it would be a good military strategy to have a distractingly cute flag, to blind our enemies to (our) victory!
Technological level: FUTURE TECH. We also have MAGICAL TECH, and a lot of the people here still play with MEDIEVAL TECH and PRESENT TECH. We're cool that way.

User avatar
Ceni
Senator
 
Posts: 4347
Founded: Jun 26, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Ceni » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:13 am

"Obviously the delegate does not know what the words 'serious risk' mean. If an invasive species doesn't have a large likelihood of being introduced in the first place, how could there be a serious risk of ecological harm?

"Also, the delegate obviously missed the portion of the resolution that states, 'OUTLAWS practices of the shipping industry conducive to the accidental spread of invasive species, namely the discharge of ballast water in coastal waters or internal waterways,' obviously making that portion of the repeal bill and void.

"Furthermore, a large part of the resolution hinges on the idea that invasive species can actually be beneficial to the environment. While in the short term, this may be so, in the long run invasive species introduced to the environment actually cause more harm than the short term good.

"The delegate also seems to ignore the fact that there were no invasive species before the dawn of humans. Most, if not all, invasive species are caused by human intervention. Without human intervention, it would be extremely unlikely in today's world for an Asian species to cross over to the Americas. Unfortunately, with human intervention, this has become possible.

"As for your so-called better definitions, this delegate challenges the author to actually provide one.

"Also, your point claiming g that there is no guidance for the ban on shipping procedures is deficient. The resolution clearly states, "namely the discharge of ballast water in coastal waters or internal waterways and use of inadequate vessel-cleaning procedures," as for procedures that are not allowed. This delegate fails to see how cleaning ships better creates economic uncertainties.

"In short, your proposal is deficient in several key areas and the author apparently fails to recognize the harmful effects of invasive species. While the original proposal may have some flaws, the repeal has more, and certainly some protection is better than none,"
THE REPUBLIC OF CENI (the user behind this nation uses he/him/his pronouns)
Air Terranea | The Wanderlust Guide to Ceni | Seven Restaurants in Seven Days: Cataloging Cenian Food
Champions: Di Bradini Cup 38, U-18 World Cup 17
Runners-up: Di Bradini Cup 39, Di Bradini Cup 41
NSTT #1s: Lonus Varalin, Ardil Navsal (singles), Gyrachor Rentos, Val Korekal, Elia Xal/Fia Xal (doubles)
UICA Champions' Cup titles (1): 1860 Azoth
World Cup 76, World Cup 79
Baptism of Fire 61
Cup of Harmony 63
Copa Rushmori 41
International Basketball Championships 20
Cenian Open (Grand Slam) 1-8
<Schottia> I always think of Ceni as what it would be like if Long Island was its own nation, ran by Bernie Sanders lol.

User avatar
LOLAF
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Apr 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby LOLAF » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:46 am

This is one of the repeals I've seen that actually make a good point.

User avatar
Sensimillastan
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 489
Founded: Feb 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Sensimillastan » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:10 am

This Delegation supports this repeal
5-Normal Peacetime Readiness
4-Heightened Alert
3-Increased Readiness
2-Declaration Iminnent, High Readiness
1-Maximimum Wartime Readiness
Current Defcon Level-3

Proud Monarchist and Defender of the People

"For We Shall always be the Light in the Darkness, opening our arms wide to support the oppressed."-HRH King John I

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
Senator
 
Posts: 4343
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:02 pm

In the repeal text as submitted, does the inclusion of a shout-out citation to The Dark Star Republic not constitute branding?
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral [fmr], The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:13 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:In the repeal text as submitted, does the inclusion of a shout-out citation to The Dark Star Republic not constitute branding?

There are plenty of examples of co-author credit that don't follow the traditional "Co-authored by" model, including "I'd like to thank... Yelda!" in GAR #23. I don't think the acknowledgment that DSR provided the impetus for that provision runs afoul of the no branding rule.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:44 pm

Losthaven wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:In the repeal text as submitted, does the inclusion of a shout-out citation to The Dark Star Republic not constitute branding?

There are plenty of examples of co-author credit that don't follow the traditional "Co-authored by" model, including "I'd like to thank... Yelda!" in GAR #23. I don't think the acknowledgment that DSR provided the impetus for that provision runs afoul of the no branding rule.

OOC: There's a difference between listing a co-author at the end and using an in-text credit. I'm not sure about the legality, but do know there's a difference. Also, does DSR approve?

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:52 pm

OOC: I don't think it's illegal but given I don't really like such things - I wish all branding were illegal! - I'd prefer it be removed. Your proposal, though, so your call.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:04 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: I don't think it's illegal but given I don't really like such things - I wish all branding were illegal! - I'd prefer it be removed. Your proposal, though, so your call.

OOC: Seeing how many QoD resolutions were co-authored, I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that DSR would not have any objections. I only submitted this for a test run to gauge interest (and to hopefully get some more feedback). Assuming (as I will, for now) that this won't likely make quorum in the first go round, I would be inclined to remove the reference to DSR's contribution before resubmitting. But, on the off chance this reaches quorum, I will take it as a sign that the voters want a chance to vote on this particular repeal language.

So I'm not going to ask that it be pulled from the submission roll unless DSR explicitly requests that.

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Losthaven wrote:There are plenty of examples of co-author credit that don't follow the traditional "Co-authored by" model, including "I'd like to thank... Yelda!" in GAR #23. I don't think the acknowledgment that DSR provided the impetus for that provision runs afoul of the no branding rule.

OOC: There's a difference between listing a co-author at the end and using an in-text credit. I'm not sure about the legality, but do know there's a difference. Also, does DSR approve?

OOC: I would be very interested in a ruling on whether this sort of "Amendment by:" co-authorship credit is legal. I think it is, and do not want the proposal pulled, but in light of the foregoing I would not be offended if someone else filed a GHR for removal on those grounds.
Last edited by Losthaven on Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9986
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:24 pm

I'm delving into this as we speak.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Tal and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Mall is following those weird beef-only diets now.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9986
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:30 pm

ImageRuling of the SecretariatImage

The rules for proposals clearly states the following:
Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list your co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group. It also includes using the name of a nation, region or group as an acrostic in a proposal. If you are using the [nation] tag to list your co-author make sure you are using the short version ([nation=short] or [nation=short+noflag]).
As such this proposal's failure to use the proper tag constitutes a branding violation.

Approvals: 16 (Miaore, LOLAF, Sensimillastan, The Eternal Kawaii, Discorded Troll, The Midwestern Atlantic Colonies, Ten Cities, Tonaltzintli, Isuba, Palibis, Knootoss, Confederal American Republic, Christian Democrats, The Golden Horse, Collatis, Gradea)

If you don't like the rule, start a thread on why it should be changed. As things stand, this was clear cut.
Last edited by Mallorea and Riva on Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Tal and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Mall is following those weird beef-only diets now.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:49 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:snip

Boooooooo! I was hoping for a ruling about the placement of the "amendment by" language, not a "you didn't shorten the nation tag" ruling. Oh well, I'll resubmit tomorrow without the coauthor credit.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9986
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:50 pm

Losthaven wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:snip

Boooooooo! I was hoping for a ruling about the placement of the "amendment by" language, not a "you didn't shorten the nation tag" ruling. Oh well, I'll resubmit tomorrow without the coauthor credit.

We're still discussing that other bit, but in the process I remembered the tag rule. So far I'm cautiously optimistic regarding the legality of how you placed the credit.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Tal and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Mall is following those weird beef-only diets now.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Losthaven » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:56 am

This proposal made enough progress to quorum without a campaign that we are preparing to submit it again, this time with a campaign. Small changes have been made to the repeal based on the comments made since the last revision.

Tentatively planning to submit this weekend, with a small-scale, handwritten campaign.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dimiourgos

Advertisement

Remove ads