[Draft] (REPEAL) Convention On Wartime Deceased

[Unified Heartless States]

Argument: Although I understand the need for moral decency and compassion on the battle field, I am simply confused as to how this bill provides this. This bill is too broad, poorly defined, and offers no real protection.

[Definitions]

1. Let us start with the defining of "Wartime", which applies to two and only two armed entities. This creates the circumstance where a genocide against an unarmed populace is not considered a period of conflict. It also means that a war between three or more armed entities is also not a period of conflict. So, effectively, this bill will only ever apply to two and only two nations fighting it out. If a third party enters this conflict, this bill becomes obsolete.

2.Worst still, this bill is also hindered by the misspelling of the word "casualties" when defining the term "Field of Battle". Effectually, at this point, this bill become completely obsolete. Though, even if it did not, this bill is filled with additional issues.

[Issues]

1. Now we will get to the additional issues stated at the end of the the definitions section and mentioned in the beginning of this argument. This bill, due to the broadly used terms of "nation" and "state" make it so that this bill applies to all nations within this World Assembly as opposed to the nationstates partaking in the conflict. So now, all World Assembly members must take measures to prevent the desecration of individuals who fall on the field of battle & all World Assembly members are suggested to make provisions for the burial of its citizens and foreigners.

• 1a. Just like how the World Assembly sends Peace Keepers on various missions, we will now have to send World Assembly sanctioned Grave Diggers into conflict zones to bury the dead. . .
• 1b1. Both this nation, and many in this assembly, will be forced to bury the dead of our neighboring nationstates if they so choose to dispose of their dead along our borders. . .
• 1b2. Further-still, this bill acts as a way to prevent the privatization of cemeteries and other burial grounds. . .

2. Due to this bills attack on weapons that mutilate people this bill can also be used as a means to prevent or outright ban the use of explosives and other weapons, be them WMDs or not, that tend to mutilate and/or cause high levels of trauma to combatants on the field of battle. Effectively, it also acts as a poorly written weapons ban.

3. This bills protections are not just limited to World Assembly members. This bill requires that we extend the protections in this bill to non-WA members. This bill only further entices non-WA combatants and terrorists to use deceased bodies as a means of spreading disease or simply booby trapping them for similar effects. I don't want to deal with plagues and limbless soldiers because this nation is forced to comply with this outrageous bill, as a result extending protections to non-WA members that in all honestly will not be reciprocated.

4. As a bit of a closing statement, the purpose of this bill is to prevent soldiers from mutilating the bodies of enemies so the families of said enemies do not have to deal with additional distress after/outside the battlefield. This is a noble goal, though bodies cannot always be returned to their families. This bill provides caveats for this situation, effectively, burying them (bodies that cannot be returned) would be our responsibility. Though, this brings up and interesting question. If every enemy was hit in the face with a hatchet and we buried them afterward. . . Then simply put, what would it matter? The families would never be harmed because they would never see their dead relative, only the memorial we build (for our enemies, on our land) after they were already buried. Which, simply makes this bill pointless.

HERBY, under the authority of the World Assembly, General Assembly Bill 136 (Convention On Wartime Deceased) shall be rendered null & void!

[Unified Heartless States]

Stuff

First (Defeated) Draft: https://goo.gl/eVvnBm

Bill: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... ?start=135

[Araraukar]

Are you trying to repeal or make a new resolution? Because if the first, you need to change your wording. Every time you say "this bill" (and please, use "resolution", not "bill"), you're effectively referring to this proposal, which creates tons of confusion for the reader.

Use "target resolution" to refer to the one you want to repeal, or better yet, its GAR number or its name.

[Unified Heartless States]

"This bill(s)" is used in reply to the targeted bill.

Edit: Though, I see what you are getting at. I'll likely change "This Bill" to "Resolution 136" wherever applicable. I'd like to get in a few more suggestions before I make any changes yet.

[Araraukar]

I'd like to get in a few more suggestions before I make any changes yet.

It's a nightmare to read, currently, but sure:

1. Using definitions is something that legislating proposals do, not repeals.
2. It reads like an essay with things like "Now we will get to the additional issues". No. Just no.
3. 1a is bullshit, the WA is currently forbidden from having any sorts of armed forces (GAR #2), so it doesn't have peacekeepers.
4. 1b with "this nation" reads as a reference to your own nation, which causes branding violation. You also use "I", which does the same thing.
5. 1b2 is bullshit, nothing in the target resolution prevents private burial sites.
6. Arguing that the resolution would be illegal (banning WMDs) won't fly, not only because it's not true, but because the resolution is, due to passing, legal.
7. I think you've missed the word "needless" before "dismembering" in the target resolution.
8. Herby doesn't render resolutions null and void.

Now get to fixing. Or better yet, scrap what you had and start again, as it'll likely be less work. There's a lot more wrong with it than what I listed, and a lot of the arguments would make this illegal under Honest Mistake violation, but those can be addressed after you've made it less of a mess.

[Unified Heartless States]

Hmm, I'll likely have to revisit my old format then.

Alright:

Argument: Although I understand the need for moral decency and compassion on the battle field, I am simply confused as to how Resolution 135 provides this.

CONFOUNDED by the definition of "Wartime", which applies to two and only two armed entities. This creates the rather unfortunate circumstance where a genocide against an unarmed populace is not even considered a period of conflict. Furthermore, any war between three or more armed entities is also no considered a period of conflict. Since Resolution 136 will only ever be applied to two and only two nations at war, it already becomes obsolete If a third party enters the conflict.

FRUSTRATED with the hindrance brought on by the misspelling of the word "casualties" when defining the term "Field of Battle". Effectually, at this point, Resolution 136 become completely obsolete as no know war contains what Resolution 135 calls "casulties".

PUZZLED by the fact that Resolution 136 does not specify that the nation partaking in a conflict should be the ones to bury the dead afterword. Instead all World Assembly member states should have to take measures to prevent the desecration of individuals who fall on the field of battle, as opposed to those engaging in the wartime conflict.

CONCERNED Resolution 136 can be used as a means to prevent or outright ban the use of explosives and other weapons, be them WMDs or not, that tend to mutilate and/or cause high levels of trauma to combatants on the field of battle.

ASTONISHED that Resolution 136 does not take into account the spread of diseases that comes with warfare and may only end up hindering the disposal of infected bodies which would undoubtedly be for the worst, as diseases can spread far past any initial field of battle. Furthermore, since Resolution 136 offers no exceptions when dealing with non-World Assembly nationstates, Resolution 136 further entices non-WA combatants and terrorists to use deceased bodies as a means of spreading disease or simply booby trapping corpse them for similar effects.

PERPLEXED as to why no caveat or exception was given when dealing with non-member states. Now, any time two non-member states go to war, it will be the duty of this assembly under Resolution 136 to send World Assembly sanctioned Grave Diggers into conflict zones to bury the dead.

AMUSED that Resolution 136, due to its broad wordings, strongly suggests all nations should make provisions for the burial of its citizens and foreigners; again, as opposed to those engaging in the wartime conflict. It seems that, according to Resolustion 136, it is now the suggested responsibility of this assembly to bury the dead of our neighbors.

HEREBY, under the authority of the World Assembly, General Assembly Resolution 136 (Convention On Wartime Deceased) shall be rendered null & void!

Very quick touchup, pretty much just brought back format from first draft.
Left in the first two I's under "Arguments:" as it acts as a means starting the bill off.

[Unified Heartless States]

6. Arguing that the resolution would be illegal (banning WMDs) won't fly, not only because it's not true, but because the resolution is, due to passing, legal.

Could you clarify this point for me?

[Tinfect]

Although I understand the need for moral decency and compassion on the battle field, I am simply confused as to how Resolution 135 provides this.

"This is a Branding Violation, Ambassador. Quite the obvious example of one, in fact. The Imperium recommends that you review the laws of the Secretariat, they can be found pinned to many, many walls within these halls."

[Unified Heartless States]

Although I understand the need for moral decency and compassion on the battle field, I am simply confused as to how Resolution 135 provides this.

"This is a Branding Violation, Ambassador. Quite the obvious example of one, in fact. The Imperium recommends that you review the laws of the Secretariat, they can be found pinned to many, many walls within these halls."

Branding: Proposal authors cannot list their names or use acronyms to circumvent this. However, they can and should credit their co-author(s), where contribution is notable or significant. Authors may list up to three co-authors.

"UHS" would be an acronym, referring to the self (I, Us, We) is not a "branding violation" as quite a few resolutions also do the same. The only reason I removed the previous uses of "this nations" and "I" was to make the bill more formal.

Perhaps I am indeed in violation, though if that is the case then you have pointed to the wrong document.

[Araraukar]

as quite a few resolutions also do the same

Quote one.

Perhaps I am indeed in violation, though if that is the case then you have pointed to the wrong document?

OOC: You're supposed to write from the WA's point of view, not your own, not your nation's, not "ours", but the WA's.

[Unified Heartless States]

as quite a few resolutions also do the same

Quote one.

Well, dame, I actually couldn't find one use of "I" that was not used as a roman numeral.
Welp, then I shall be the first.

Perhaps I am indeed in violation, though if that is the case then you have pointed to the wrong document?

OOC: You're supposed to write from the WA's point of view, not your own, not your nation's, not "ours", but the WA's.

OCC: Yes, though the use of "I" can be chalked up to the WA ambassador who wrote this. Also, there really is nothing in these rules that states one cannot write from the perspective of their own nations leader if they so choose. Perhaps I overlooked it, please quote the rule I've broken.

[Araraukar]

Also, there really is nothing in these rules that states one cannot write from the perspective of their own nations leader if they so choose. Perhaps I overlooked it, please quoting the rule.

(OOC: "NationStates is not your blog.")

Argument: Although I understand the need for moral decency and compassion on the battle field, I am simply confused as to how Resolution 135 provides this.

Besides reading like a blog or homework essay, that makes it look like you're misunderstanding the "Description" in the submission form.

CONFOUNDED

You don't need to bold them if you're using capitals.

CONFOUNDED by the definition of "Wartime", which applies to two and only two armed entities.

That's because of how GAR #2 defines war.

This creates the rather unfortunate circumstance where a genocide against an unarmed populace is not even considered a period of conflict.

That's because GAR #38 and GAR #334 do that separately.

Furthermore, any war between three or more armed entities is also no considered a period of conflict. Since Resolution 136 will only ever be applied to two and only two nations at war, it already becomes obsolete If a third party enters the conflict.

GAR #2 again.

FRUSTRATED with the hindrance brought on by the misspelling of the word "casualties" when defining the term "Field of Battle". Effectually, at this point, Resolution 136 become completely obsolete as no know war contains what Resolution 135 calls "casulties".

(OOC: This is technically a correct one, but if your only nitpick with the proposal is a typo, you're on really shaky ground.)

PUZZLED by the fact that Resolution 136 does not specify that the nation partaking in a conflict should be the ones to bury the dead afterword.

Speaking of typos... And it's because the resolution applies to everyone; all member states should be prepared for it. No matter who wins or where it's fought, if member nations are involved, they should be prepared to do their duty to the deceased.

Instead all World Assembly member states should have to take measures to prevent the desecration of individuals who fall on the field of battle, as opposed to those engaging in the wartime conflict.

Not "as opposed to" but "in addition to".

CONCERNED Resolution 136 can be used as a means to prevent or outright ban the use of explosives and other weapons, be them WMDs or not, that tend to mutilate and/or cause high levels of trauma to combatants on the field of battle.

Already pointed this out:

I think you've missed the word "needless" before "dismembering" in the target resolution.

ASTONISHED that Resolution 136 does not take into account the spread of diseases that comes with warfare and may only end up hindering the disposal of infected bodies which would undoubtedly be for the worst, as diseases can spread far past any initial field of battle.

That's because GAR #53 and GAR #320 - and some common sense - do.

Furthermore, since Resolution 136 offers no exceptions when dealing with non-World Assembly nationstates, Resolution 136 further entices non-WA combatants and terrorists to use deceased bodies as a means of spreading disease or simply booby trapping corpse them for similar effects.

Yes, and nothing also stops them from lobbing nukes at major civilian targets. Your point? (OOC: WA can't legislate for non-member nations, so that's not a valid argument.)

PERPLEXED as to why no caveat or exception was given when dealing with non-member states. Now, any time two non-member states go to war, it will be the duty of this assembly under Resolution 136 to send World Assembly sanctioned Grave Diggers into conflict zones to bury the dead.

I'm sure you're just pretending to be stupid for the sake of the argument, but if you honestly believe that, then there are plenty of resolutions out there that also lack the distinction, because it's in the most basic rules of the Secretariat (OOC: Mods) that the WA can only legislate on WA nations. (OOC: It's a very, very flimsy argument and while technically valid, you'll have to present it better than that.)

AMUSED that Resolution 136, due to its broad wordings, strongly suggests all nations should make provisions for the burial of its citizens and foreigners; again, as opposed to those engaging in the wartime conflict.

I think you missed the name of the resolution. It is "Convention On Wartime Deceased".

It seems that, according to Resolustion 136, it is now the suggested responsibility of this assembly to bury the dead of our neighbors.

In addition to having missed the point, I'm not entirely sure how you manage to get that out of "make provisions for the proper burial".

HEREBY, under the authority of the World Assembly, General Assembly Resolution 136 (Convention On Wartime Deceased) shall be rendered null & void!

Just say "HEREBY repeals GAR #136, Convention On Wartime Deceased."

[Unified Heartless States]

CONFOUNDED by the definition of "Wartime", which applies to two and only two armed entities.

That's because of how GAR #2 defines war.

This creates the rather unfortunate circumstance where a genocide against an unarmed populace is not even considered a period of conflict.

That's because GAR #38 and GAR #334 do that separately.

Furthermore, any war between three or more armed entities is also no considered a period of conflict. Since Resolution 136 will only ever be applied to two and only two nations at war, it already becomes obsolete If a third party enters the conflict.

GAR #2 again.

You are mostly correct but I'm afraid you might have missed the issue at hand. The reason these definitions have been brought up is because the protections in Resolution 136 are dependent on them. The poor way "Wartime" has been defined actually does little within the Resolution. So, I should remove and adapt my statement "Since Resolution 136 will only ever be applied to two and only two nations at war, it already becomes obsolete If a third party enters the conflict." to fit the next point. That being said, Resolution 2 offers little in the definition of war:

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

though at least Resolution 38 is more hearty (even though it really doesn't really help here). Still, quite a few conflicts would still not be considered "a period of conflict" due to their inability to fall within the definition of "Wartime". So this point still stands, even though it's a bit battered.

Lets look at the bill:

DEFINING wartime as a period of conflict between two armed entities, (poor definition)

DEFINING desecration as the act of defiling, profaning, or otherwise mutilating and causing undue trauma, (fine)

DEFINING the field of battle as the location at which an armed conflict resulting in casulties has occurred or is occurring, (this is the important one)

NOTING that in wartime situations there are casualties and deaths,

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior, (The poor definition of "Wartime" amounts to little in this resolution, it is just a shame these are not considered a period of conflict.)

CONCERNED that the bodies of deceased combatants and civilians may be desecrated in acts of rage, violence, or malice,

AWARE that the bodies of the deceased should be treated with respect,

COGNIZANT of the impact that the desecration of a body can have on the family, friends, and relations of the deceased, (not all that important, just highlights why this bill exists)

The World Assembly hereby

DEMANDS that states take appropriate measures to prevent the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall on the field of battle, (nowhere is considered a "Field of Battle" as "casulties" do not exist; therefor the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall is not required)

CONDEMNS those who partake in such acts, as well as those governments that support said activity, (Still stands)

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible, (STRONGLY SUGGESTS + RECOMMENDS + whenever possible = Toothless Statements)

PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle

(nowhere is considered a "Field of Battle" as "casulties" do not exist; therefor the needless dismembering of deceased combatants is not required)

Also, I am not sure why you brought up Resolution 334 in this matter.

PUZZLED by the fact that Resolution 136 does not specify that the nation partaking in a conflict should be the ones to bury the dead afterword.

Speaking of typos... And it's because the resolution applies to everyone; all member states should be prepared for it. No matter who wins or where it's fought, if member nations are involved, they should be prepared to do their duty to the deceased.

Afterward
Then this is simply a position we disagree on rather than matter of fact, as I would assert that nations who are prepared to take lives should be prepared to live with the consequences that fallow (i.e. burying the dead). Since the goal of this resolution is to prevent the distress that comes from mutilating the corpse of a loved one, then simply not warring with another state will greatly prevent that. Forcing burial costs onto those who do the fighting, as opposed to making it a issue of all World Assembly member states, reduces the profit margins of those fighting and in turn makes war a less convenient option.

PUZZLED by the fact that Resolution 136 does not specify that the nation partaking in a conflict should be the ones to bury the dead Afterward. Instead all World Assembly member states should have to take measures to prevent the desecration of individuals who fall on the field of battle, as opposed to JUST those engaging in the wartime conflict.

Not "as opposed to" but "in addition to".

Fixed.

CONCERNED Resolution 136 can be used as a means to prevent or outright ban the use of explosives and other weapons, be them WMDs or not, that tend to mutilate and/or cause high levels of trauma to combatants on the field of battle.

Already pointed this out:

I think you've missed the word "needless" before "dismembering" in the target resolution.

Then I guess we just disagree on Whether that section actually provide any protection.

That's because GAR #53 and GAR #320 - and some common sense - do.

Resolution 53 only helps after the fact and although Resolution 320 offers some helpful tips, we are talking about warzones. It can be difficult to hedge exposure when you are required to actually find and then bury these bodies.

Furthermore, since Resolution 136 offers no exceptions when dealing with non-World Assembly nationstates, Resolution 136 further entices non-WA combatants and terrorists to use deceased bodies as a means of spreading disease or simply booby trapping corpse them for similar effects.

Yes, and nothing also stops them from lobbing nukes at major civilian targets. Your point? (OOC: WA can't legislate for non-member nations, so that's not a valid argument.)

The issue I'm highlighting here is: World Assembly member states should not have to bury the dead of a non-World Assembly member state if the two go to war since it creates a situation where this bill can be used against a member state.

PERPLEXED as to why no caveat or exception was given when dealing with non-member states. Now, any time two non-member states go to war, it will be the duty of this assembly under Resolution 136 to send World Assembly sanctioned Grave Diggers into conflict zones to bury the dead.

I'm sure you're just pretending to be stupid for the sake of the argument, but if you honestly believe that, then there are plenty of resolutions out there that also lack the distinction, because it's in the most basic rules of the Secretariat (OOC: Mods) that the WA can only legislate on WA nations. (OOC: It's a very, very flimsy argument and while technically valid, you'll have to present it better than that.)[/quote]Meh, I'll take suggestion.

AMUSED that Resolution 136, due to its broad wordings, strongly suggests all nations should make provisions for the burial of its citizens and foreigners; again, as opposed to those engaging in the wartime conflict.

I think you missed the name of the resolution. It is "Convention On Wartime Deceased".

It seems that, according to Resolustion 136, it is now the suggested responsibility of this assembly to bury the dead of our neighbors.

In addition to having missed the point, I'm not entirely sure how you manage to get that out of "make provisions for the proper burial".

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

I'm just pointing out that, because the above section is alone, it could also be used outside of "wartime" or the "field of battle". Luckily, this section has no teeth to it so it ultimately doesn't matter.

Less Important Stuff

(OOC: "NationStates is not (just) your blog.")

(Statement several times more accurate now)

Besides reading like a blog or homework essay, that makes it look like you're misunderstanding the "Description" in the submission form.

I can live with it.

You don't need to bold them if you're using capitals.

This is more style over substance, I just prefer it bolded.

FRUSTRATED with the hindrance brought on by the misspelling of the word "casualties" when defining the term "Field of Battle". Effectually, at this point, Resolution 136 become completely obsolete as no know war contains what Resolution 135 calls "casulties".

(OOC: This is technically a correct one, but if your only nitpick with the proposal is a typo, you're on really shaky ground.)

No need to argue when we agree, though I'll likely add an addition statement to boost this point.

HEREBY, under the authority of the World Assembly, General Assembly Resolution 136 (Convention On Wartime Deceased) shall be rendered null & void!

Just say "HEREBY repeals GAR #136, Convention On Wartime Deceased."[/quote]I'd rather it be long and fancy at the end.

[Araraukar]

OOC: "NationStates is not your blog.")

(Statement several times more accurate now)

OOC: Re-fixed it. I'll get back to you on the proposal stuff later, but you asked me to quote the rule that tells you to not write "I" or "we", and I did. You don't get to change how the game works just to suit yourself.

Besides reading like a blog or homework essay, that makes it look like you're misunderstanding the "Description" in the submission form.

I can live with it.

Except it'll get thrown out because of this.

Just from a practical point of view, you'd do better to quote things in bits to write your replies, because there are colour-blind people on this forum, and especially red and green are not a good idea for text editing. Preferably use underlining or italics or something like that, not colour. Also it makes it easier for other people to comment on your comments.

Lastly, I hope you appreciate (or in the future can do so) all the effort I've put on helping you out. I could've just said "blogposal, Honest Mistake, illegal" and that would have still been considered helpful.

[Unified Heartless States]

OOC: Re-fixed it. I'll get back to you on the proposal stuff later, but you asked me to quote the rule that tells you to not write "I" or "we", and I did. You don't get to change how the game works just to suit yourself.

OOC: Ah, then I should have also asked for an accompanying url v.v

Lastly, I hope you appreciate (or in the future can do so) all the effort I've put on helping you out. I could've just said "blogposal, Honest Mistake, illegal" and that would have still been considered helpful.

Most defiantly, as it is much appreciated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Argument: Although I understand the need for moral decency and compassion on the battle field, I am simply confused as to how Resolution 135 provides this.

Besides reading like a blog or homework essay, that makes it look like you're misunderstanding the "Description" in the submission form.

It's been changed to proposal text.

[Araraukar]

It's been changed to proposal text.

OOC: The submission form thing? I don't think I've looked at it myself since... 2012? Whenever it was that I was faffing around with that visual history museum thing.

And it still reads like a blog or an essay.

[Bears Armed]

Lastly, I hope you appreciate (or in the future can do so) all the effort I've put on helping you out. I could've just said "blogposal, Honest Mistake, illegal" and that would have still been considered helpful.

Most defiantly, as it is much appreciated.

"defiantly"?

[Araraukar]

Most defiantly, as it is much appreciated.

"defiantly"?

OOC: Considering the other typos I fixed earlier when quoting, they're suffering from an advanced cased of Autocorrection. Like SP when his phone is having a bad day.

[Kaboomlandia]

Besides reading like a blog or homework essay, that makes it look like you're misunderstanding the "Description" in the submission form.

It's been changed to proposal text.

OOC: Finally changed, eh?
And how long have you been on the warpath with that suggestion?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's been changed to proposal text.

OOC: Finally changed, eh?
And how long have you been on the warpath with that suggestion?

OOC: Quite a long time. But now, "the battle is over. We have won!"

---

I support this proposal. Nations are able to negotiate the release and return of their wartime dead in treaties, agreements, etc.