ABANDONED: Corpse Desecration and Zombies act

[ADST World]

If it is not sentient, why does it deserve protection?"

Sapient.
The term is sapient.
We went over this.
Repeatedly.

[Araraukar]

If it is not sentient, why does it deserve protection?"

Sapient. The term is sapient. We went over this. Repeatedly.

If it is a sapient creature, extant civil rights law applies.

[Liagolas]

Sapient.
The term is sapient.
We went over this.
Repeatedly.

"You misunderstand," the Mouth says with a groan. "Mr. Bell is well aware that the term to apply to a rational, thinking, and conscious (OOC: Human-level intelligence) being is 'sapient,' and it is the recollection of the Dominion that Mr. Bell may have been among those who tried to convince you of such previously. However, since sapient undead would be protected by existing civil rights resolutions, why should the World Assembly be concerned about non-sapient undead rights? It should only be concerned if they possess awareness of the world or sentience, much as animals do - though whether or not animals ought to be protected by the World Assembly is disputed as well.

[Separatist Peoples]

If it is not sentient, why does it deserve protection?"

Sapient.
The term is sapient.
We went over this.
Repeatedly.

Sapient.
The term is sapient.
We went over this.
Repeatedly.

"You misunderstand," the Mouth says with a groan. "Mr. Bell is well aware that the term to apply to a rational, thinking, and conscious (OOC: Human-level intelligence) being is 'sapient,' and it is the recollection of the Dominion that Mr. Bell may have been among those who tried to convince you of such previously. However, since sapient undead would be protected by existing civil rights resolutions, why should the World Assembly be concerned about non-sapient undead rights? It should only be concerned if they possess awareness of the world or sentience, much as animals do - though whether or not animals ought to be protected by the World Assembly is disputed as well.

"The ADST ambassador desperately needs to learn a little reading comprehension. The word choice was deliberate, to reflect those laws passed by member states that protect sentient but not sapient species. I was, in fact, stressing clarity.

"But lets pretend I totally misspoke. Your correction is pedantic and misses the entire point of my argument, which is becoming something of a reoccurring theme with you. Would you like to nitpick my intentional word choices, or address my concern?"

[Dooom35796821595]

...and any ghouls currently surviving be executed.

ARI: No, no, a thousand times no! #GhoulLivesMatter

Never! We shall destroy necromorphs wherever we encounter them, as they are a disease to be purged from reality!

[XKZ Coordination Office]

2. Any form of experiment, ritual, or other practise with the intent of creating a sapient undead be monitored by the Undead Preservation and Defense Force.
a. the UPDF being created of volunteers, who will monitor and actively represent the rights of sapient undead, and also assisting in the monitoring of unapproved non-sapient undead, including bringing them to the attention of the nation in question for proper disposal.

Ambassador, does the WA monitor your sex life?! No? Then why on earth do you feel it's appropriate for the WA to monitor the reproductive actions of my species?

[Araraukar]

Ambassador, does the WA monitor your sex life?! No?

Well, it does to some extent, what with child pornography bans and all that. (OOC: Which I'm glad we passed, but it makes the point.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

This isn't an international issue. In your best case, it deals with sapient persons — then it duplicates prior legislation. I would say that it doesn't. I don't care about other nation's cultural practices enough to regulate them. –269

[ADST World]

Sapient.
The term is sapient.
We went over this.
Repeatedly.

"You misunderstand," the Mouth says with a groan. "Mr. Bell is well aware that the term to apply to a rational, thinking, and conscious (OOC: Human-level intelligence) being is 'sapient,' and it is the recollection of the Dominion that Mr. Bell may have been among those who tried to convince you of such previously. However, since sapient undead would be protected by existing civil rights resolutions, why should the World Assembly be concerned about non-sapient undead rights? It should only be concerned if they possess awareness of the world or sentience, much as animals do - though whether or not animals ought to be protected by the World Assembly is disputed as well.

"The ADST ambassador desperately needs to learn a little reading comprehension. The word choice was deliberate, to reflect those laws passed by member states that protect sentient but not sapient species. I was, in fact, stressing clarity.

"But lets pretend I totally misspoke. Your correction is pedantic and misses the entire point of my argument, which is becoming something of a reoccurring theme with you. Would you like to nitpick my intentional word choices, or address my concern?"

If you argument is 'if it is not sapient, why should it have protection', then you misunderstand the purpose of the proposal. The purpose is to ban creating non-sapient undead, which could be a dangerous hazard, and create a bureau to differentiate between the two, without taking any form of military or police action.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The ADST ambassador desperately needs to learn a little reading comprehension. The word choice was deliberate, to reflect those laws passed by member states that protect sentient but not sapient species. I was, in fact, stressing clarity.

"But lets pretend I totally misspoke. Your correction is pedantic and misses the entire point of my argument, which is becoming something of a reoccurring theme with you. Would you like to nitpick my intentional word choices, or address my concern?"

If you argument is 'if it is not sapient, why should it have protection', then you misunderstand the purpose of the proposal. The purpose is to ban creating non-sapient undead, which could be a dangerous hazard, and create a bureau to differentiate between the two, without taking any form of military or police action.

Four questions.

1. Why is it a 'dangerous hazard'?

2. Why is a bureau necessary?

3. Why is a ban necessary?

4. Why is an international ban necessary?

---

Topic: National Security
Strength: Mild

This category does not exist.

[ADST World]

2. Any form of experiment, ritual, or other practise with the intent of creating a sapient undead be monitored by the Undead Preservation and Defense Force.
a. the UPDF being created of volunteers, who will monitor and actively represent the rights of sapient undead, and also assisting in the monitoring of unapproved non-sapient undead, including bringing them to the attention of the nation in question for proper disposal.

Ambassador, does the WA monitor your sex life?! No? Then why on earth do you feel it's appropriate for the WA to monitor the reproductive actions of my species?

We are not attempting to monitor you reproductive actions. However, as sapient undead, you should realize there is a risk of creating non-sapient undead. The bureau does not require being there during the process, they only will approve the process and assist in judgement and regulation on the end product. Understand this: we are not trying to harm your people, we are trying to remove one of the reasons for prejudice, and thus remove elements of racism against your people.

[ADST World]

If you argument is 'if it is not sapient, why should it have protection', then you misunderstand the purpose of the proposal. The purpose is to ban creating non-sapient undead, which could be a dangerous hazard, and create a bureau to differentiate between the two, without taking any form of military or police action.

Four questions.

1. Why is it a 'dangerous hazard'?

2. Why is a bureau necessary?

3. Why is a ban necessary?

4. Why is an international ban necessary?

---

Topic: National Security
Strength: Mild

This category does not exist.

1. It is dangerous, because
a. it is a biological hazard, and some types of undead have no form of immune system, and dangerous bacteria can be implanted through their saliva.
b. A mass creation of non-sapient undead could effectively lead to a 'zombie apocalypse' scenario, which is dangerous in itself.
2. The bureau is necessary to be a independent source of judgement and to help protect those experiments and/or rituals that are deemed appropriate.
3. The ban is necessary to help control the population. If you would prefer different terminology to clarify this clause, recommend some and it will be taken under consideration.
4. Because listing every nation that has sapient and non-sapient undead would take forever, and any future nations that had a similar scenario would be exempt. Also, all nations should be affected in a WA legislation. Thus, it should be international.

Also, I requested a category earlier, and this was the ONLY suggestion. If you have a issue with it, please suggest a alternative category.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Why is it a 'dangerous hazard'? It is dangerous, because (a) it is a biological hazard, and some types of undead have no form of immune system, and dangerous bacteria can be implanted through their saliva; (b) mass creation of non-sapient undead could effectively lead to a 'zombie apocalypse' scenario, which is dangerous in itself. The emergence of supernatural threats is not really within the realm of the World Assembly. This is why we don't have legislation against planet smashers, galaxy destroyers, and molecular disintegration devices a la Ender's Game.

2. Why is a bureau necessary? The bureau is necessary to be a independent source of judgement and to help protect those experiments and/or rituals that are deemed appropriate. Okay then. Let me rephrase that question. Why is allowing power-hungry WA bureaucrats to make expansive standards to justify mass intervention better than specified standards in the text?

3. Why is a ban necessary? The ban is necessary to help control the population. If you would prefer different terminology to clarify this clause, recommend some and it will be taken under consideration. A ban necessarily means that there is no population. I don't understand this response. Why is a ban necessary? Tell me why this is such a massive danger we need to ban it!

4. Why is an international ban necessary? Because listing every nation that has sapient and non-sapient undead would take forever, and any future nations that had a similar scenario would be exempt. Also, all nations should be affected in a WA legislation. Thus, it should be international. I don't see why this necessitates international action. What about this requires that international action be taken that goes above and beyond national action?

Edited for readability. Responses in dark blue.

Also, I requested a category earlier, and this was the ONLY suggestion. If you have a issue with it, please suggest a alternative category.

The category does not exist. You cannot submit legislation in a category which doesn't exist.

---

It seems to me that you want to pass a resolution about zombies more than anything else. Zombies do not exist in many nations. Zombies are supernatural phenomena which are not relevant to most nations. I believe legislation like this has come up before and was voted down for those reasons.

[ADST World]

Also, I requested a category earlier, and this was the ONLY suggestion. If you have a issue with it, please suggest a alternative category.

The category does not exist. You cannot submit legislation in a category which doesn't exist.

Yes, great, I get that, but what should go there instead? I can't fix it if you don't tell me what's wrong, but I also an't fix it if I don't know what would actually go there. If you read my response, you will see a asked for an alternative. If you wish to bring this to my attention again, please please PLEASE provide an alternative, or I will not and cannot address the issue.

[Separatist Peoples]

1. It is dangerous, because
a. it is a biological hazard, and some types of undead have no form of immune system, and dangerous bacteria can be implanted through their saliva.
b. A mass creation of non-sapient undead could effectively lead to a 'zombie apocalypse' scenario, which is dangerous in itself.

"Then it is covered under relevant legislation on epidemic prevention. GARs#53 and 320 cover this appropriately."

[Separatist Peoples]

The category does not exist. You cannot submit legislation in a category which doesn't exist.

Yes, great, I get that, but what should go there instead? I can't fix it if you don't tell me what's wrong, but I also an't fix it if I don't know what would actually go there. If you read my response, you will see a asked for an alternative. If you wish to bring this to my attention again, please please PLEASE provide an alternative, or I will not and cannot address the issue.

"There may not be an alternative. Experienced authors write to the category, they don't write a proposal and try to shoehorn it in. If you don't have a category this fits into, you need to pick a category and rewrite it to fit. Sometimes, though, that isn't possible. I don't believe that is your issue here."

[ADST World]

Yes, great, I get that, but what should go there instead? I can't fix it if you don't tell me what's wrong, but I also an't fix it if I don't know what would actually go there. If you read my response, you will see a asked for an alternative. If you wish to bring this to my attention again, please please PLEASE provide an alternative, or I will not and cannot address the issue.

"There may not be an alternative. Experienced authors write to the category, they don't write a proposal and try to shoehorn it in. If you don't have a category this fits into, you need to pick a category and rewrite it to fit. Sometimes, though, that isn't possible. I don't believe that is your issue here."

Your statement is useful for the future. However, it is not helpful now. If that is not my issue, then great. Give me an example of a relevant category. If you can't, I will leave it as is, and you may take up the issue with the original suggester.

[Separatist Peoples]

Your statement is useful for the future. However, it is not helpful now. If that is not my issue, then great. Give me an example of a relevant category. If you can't, I will leave it as is, and you may take up the issue with the original suggester.

"Ambassador, you have this bizarre notion that what you are doing is salvageable. As it stands, the closest category this would apply to is Moral Decency, but you've got chunks of Health and International Security all over it, and none of it can stand to be pulled apart. I can't suggest an appropriate category, because, once again, you've picked an impossible topic to legally write. The list of categories and their descriptions is here. Pick through them and consider how you want to redesign this to match.

"Yet again, I am going to suggest you drop this and all other authorship attempts. You do not understand the General Assembly. That's fine, because nobody is asking you to withdraw. I am suggesting you give up on authoring for a while and take the time to participate in existing debates and discussions on proposal written by authors who already understand how things work here. You will get to chance to see how drafting works without the compounding frustration that authorship brings on us. I have been where you are. I participated as a debater for two years before I tried to draft anything. It may or may not take that long; I was a cautious soul. But, thanks to the information I had gleaned from watching experienced ambassadors work, I have since passed nine resolutions. You would do well to consider spending time participating in other drafts rather than pursuing your own, currently misguided ideas until you have a better understanding of the nuance of authorship.

"Or, you know, you could keep with the futile efforts. It won't get anything passed, and your learning curve will be full of frustration, and you'll definitely lose a lot of credibility, but...um...no, that's all of it. There are no up sides to that approach."

[Araraukar]

Give me an example of a relevant category. If you can't, I will leave it as is, and you may take up the issue with the original suggester.

OOC: SP is being too nice to you (EDIT: except he ninja'd me as I was typing ); there isn't a category for fairy tale proposals. The proposal categories can be found in the same thread as the rest of the proposal rules. You literally CAN NOT submit something with a category that doesn't exist. The submission form won't let you.

Submitted zombie RP proposals have been shot down before.

Also, what is "corpse desecration" still doing in your title? It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the text. It's making the title too long anyway. You're allowed 30 marks and that includes spaces.

[ADST World]

Your statement is useful for the future. However, it is not helpful now. If that is not my issue, then great. Give me an example of a relevant category. If you can't, I will leave it as is, and you may take up the issue with the original suggester.

"Ambassador, you have this bizarre notion that what you are doing is salvageable. As it stands, the closest category this would apply to is Moral Decency, but you've got chunks of Health and International Security all over it, and none of it can stand to be pulled apart. I can't suggest an appropriate category, because, once again, you've picked an impossible topic to legally write. The list of categories and their descriptions is here. Pick through them and consider how you want to redesign this to match.

"Yet again, I am going to suggest you drop this and all other authorship attempts. You do not understand the General Assembly. That's fine, because nobody is asking you to withdraw. I am suggesting you give up on authoring for a while and take the time to participate in existing debates and discussions on proposal written by authors who already understand how things work here. You will get to chance to see how drafting works without the compounding frustration that authorship brings on us. I have been where you are. I participated as a debater for two years before I tried to draft anything. It may or may not take that long; I was a cautious soul. But, thanks to the information I had gleaned from watching experienced ambassadors work, I have since passed nine resolutions. You would do well to consider spending time participating in other drafts rather than pursuing your own, currently misguided ideas until you have a better understanding of the nuance of authorship.

"Or, you know, you could keep with the futile efforts. It won't get anything passed, and your learning curve will be full of frustration, and you'll definitely lose a lot of credibility, but...um...no, that's all of it. There are no up sides to that approach."

Thank you for the suggestion. This proposal is now officially dropped. This is what I was asking for: More than what was wrong, but what I can do to fix it, or what I can do instead. So thank you for being helpful, it is what I needed to improve my writing.