[Defeated] Pollution Control Act

[Sakash]

It's not too late for you to withdraw it, make it sensible and good, and then resubmit it.

Thank you for the suggestions. I dont mind the results.

[Araraukar]

Thank you for the suggestions. I dont mind the results.

Please, ask mods to remove it from the queue. Here, I'll even give you the link to the GHR: http://www.nationstates.net/page=help

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Given how the legality challenge hasn't had any response with less than 2 days to go and the holidays coming up, I really do think withdrawing it is the smart approach.

[Chester Pearson]

This is going to be destroyed on the voting floor... I am so very much looking forward to voting AGAINST this load of bullshit.

Warmest regards,

[The Black Hat Guy]

I'm opposed simply based on the definition of "Pollution". Not only is it incredibly vague, but pollution is still pollution even if it doesn't cause economic harm. It's also still pollution if it doesn't affect the surrounding areas, but affects other areas. Ever wondered why smokestacks are so tall? Because they're not liabilities to the surrounding areas that way, just the areas downwind.

[Sakash]

I'm opposed simply based on the definition of "Pollution". Not only is it incredibly vague, but pollution is still pollution even if it doesn't cause economic harm. It's also still pollution if it doesn't affect the surrounding areas, but affects other areas. Ever wondered why smokestacks are so tall? Because they're not liabilities to the surrounding areas that way, just the areas downwind.

First of all any pollution will damage environment if it causes harm to people far away. So tall stacks have been taken care of. nearby/surrounding could mean 2 miles radius or 10 miles radius. It depends on kind of pollution and how it harms people and economy. WASP decides those specifics.

[Sakash]

OOC: Given how the legality challenge hasn't had any response with less than 2 days to go and the holidays coming up, I really do think withdrawing it is the smart approach.

Moderators have already ruled that it isnt illegal or they might have taken it down by now.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Given how the legality challenge hasn't had any response with less than 2 days to go and the holidays coming up, I really do think withdrawing it is the smart approach.

Moderators have already ruled that it isnt illegal or they might have taken it down by now.

OOC: Really? I find that incredibly disappointing. I never received a response beyond "we're looking at it" to my legality challenge; if they have indeed dismissed it they could have at least given notice of that.

[Alqania]

OOC: Given how the legality challenge hasn't had any response with less than 2 days to go and the holidays coming up, I really do think withdrawing it is the smart approach.

Moderators have already ruled that it isnt illegal or they might have taken it down by now.

OOC: That is a false assumption. See:

OOC: Is the absence of moderator action against a submitted proposal necessarily indicative of its legality?

No it's not.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Hmm, I see. I read Sakash's post as saying that he'd received a response that it wasn't going to be deleted; sorry if I pulled the trigger a little fast if he was saying otherwise.

[Sakash]

OOC: Hmm, I see. I read Sakash's post as saying that he'd received a response that it wasn't going to be deleted; sorry if I pulled the trigger a little fast if he was saying otherwise.

I have in fact received response from moderators in this regard. I has requested for a check and they have ruled it legal. I suppose that clarifies it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Hmm, I see. I read Sakash's post as saying that he'd received a response that it wasn't going to be deleted; sorry if I pulled the trigger a little fast if he was saying otherwise.

I have in fact received response from moderators in this regard. I has requested for a check and they have ruled it legal. I suppose that clarifies it.

OOC: Then I reinstate my expression of disappointment that I did not receive a response to my legality challenge.

[Sakash]

I have in fact received response from moderators in this regard. I has requested for a check and they have ruled it legal. I suppose that clarifies it.

OOC: Then I reinstate my expression of disappointment that I did not receive a response to my legality challenge.

TG a moderator after couple of days of requesting help. They do respond as per my experience.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: It has literally never been my experience that moderators encourage TGs; I've seen them explicitly warn players not to send them random enquiry TGs before. Not that it's ever been necessary for me to consider doing so, because in the past legality requests - even those decisively rejected - have always received some kind of response. Instead, on the 23rd of December, with less than 16 hours to go, we find out third hand that a legality challenge - one that seems utterly open-and-shut to me, incidentally - has been rejected. Nice.

[Conservative Kingdom]

I think its a interesting issue. But I think that its pointless and usfel for many reasons. Also I would be rather supried if the WA thought it neccesery to raise.
Reasons its pointless:
1 It should be up to a country on their enviromental polices.
2. Its alredy raised in issues alot.
3. More important issues for most nations.
4. Alot of people with dissmiss its importance.

Good ideas:
1. Its gonna help some econimes.

Id leave the issue for know.

[Separatist Peoples]

I think its a interesting issue. But I think that its pointless and usfel for many reasons. Also I would be rather supried if the WA thought it neccesery to raise.
Reasons its pointless:
1 It should be up to a country on their enviromental polices.
2. Its alredy raised in issues alot.
3. More important issues for most nations.
4. Alot of people with dissmiss its importance.

Good ideas:
1. Its gonna help some econimes.

Id leave the issue for know.

Couple things. First of all, use a spell-checker. Please.

It should not be up to individual countries to determine environmental policies, especially when one nation's policies can undermine other nations' attempts to. It needs to be a concerted effort, focused on regional communication and global awareness. Unfortunately, this proposal doesn't effectively do that. So it can expect our strong opposition. Thanks, however, to a complex, bureaucratic nightmare of loopholes, disingenuous agreements, and other legal tricks, the C.D.S.P. isn't technically in the WA, despite retaining voting rights. We will, certainly, be doing everything we can to assist others in noncompliance if this passes.

[Ardchoille]

OOC: ... in the past legality requests - even those decisively rejected - have always received some kind of response. Instead, on the 23rd of December, with less than 16 hours to go, we find out third hand that a legality challenge - one that seems utterly open-and-shut to me, incidentally - has been rejected. Nice.

Flib's comment remains true. Legality challenges are not always answered directly. The mod handling the request replied to the author, saying that either formulation -- his wording or the one you proposed in this thread -- was acceptable.

I would speculate that the mod considered that "extreme hazard" was indicated by the text, though I can't confirm this, owing to the effect of holidays on communications.

We have also received another legality challenge, based on the "fines are taxes" argument that has been put forward previously in relation to other proposals. We rejected it then and we're rejecting it now.

Another point raised was the possibility of contradiction of Fairness in Criminal Trials. That might have flown if the proposal had suggested that polluters would be subjected to a criminal trial, but it doesn't.

On the question of mod TGs: we don't welcome questions on interpretation or illegality of proposals, because we don't want protests about "but the other mod said ...!" when what the other mod said was a personal comment. To avoid confusion, rulings have to be given publicly (on the forums) or officially (via Voice of Mod TG). Nor do we want to spend our time reiterating rules that are already set out in the Rules, or answering questions that could have been asked in Q&A (and should also be answered publicly).

Personal TGs, however, are at your discretion. Especially limericks and puns.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: ... in the past legality requests - even those decisively rejected - have always received some kind of response. Instead, on the 23rd of December, with less than 16 hours to go, we find out third hand that a legality challenge - one that seems utterly open-and-shut to me, incidentally - has been rejected. Nice.

Flib's comment remains true. Legality challenges are not always answered directly. The mod handling the request replied to the author, saying that either formulation -- his wording or the one you proposed in this thread -- was acceptable.

OOC: And you're ok with this mod directly overruling you? Because your own ruling stated:

But mods (and delegates) shouldn't be required to interpret a proposal to the extent of trying to make it legal. It should already be legal.

The solution would be for the proposal itself to tell us that the legality requirements were met; that those conditions were, in fact, conditions that cause extreme hazard. Then the GA itself can consider the point, rightly making that question part of the debate -- are they hazardous? To whom?

...
As to your proposal, there's no need to repeal Krioval's, but to make yours fit its requirements, you need some terminology along the lines suggested in the original debate.

I understand that you don't want rules-lawyering, and that sometimes moderator opinions on one proposal are not applicable to another. But this issue is exactly the one you previously ruled on, and there is absolutely no trace of consistency in the application of the rules. This ruling serves to:

1. completely overturn your ruling (and therefore implicitly suggest you made Unibot jump through unnecessary legalistic loopholes)
2. completely neuter a previous resolution (National Economic Freedoms) which now has absolutely no legal force whatsoever
3. flatly contradict much longer standing precedent - see many pages of ping-pong circa UNSA*
4. deny voters the right to decide whether the terms of this proposal constitute an extreme hazard

I would speculate that the mod considered that "extreme hazard" was indicated by the text, though I can't confirm this, owing to the effect of holidays on communications.

By ruling this proposal legal the moderators, and not the voters, have decided that the situation described in the proposal meets that qualification: that should have been a political decision for the voters to make, not something forced on us by mod fiat. If Sakash's proposal had specified that these things constituted an 'extreme hazard', we could vote accordingly. But because this proposal has been ruled not to contradict National Economic Freedoms the only logical way of interpreting it is that the moderators have already decided that these circumstances expressly do meet that qualification. What other political issues are you going to start deciding for us instead of us allowing to make that decision based on a vote?

On the question of mod TGs: we don't welcome questions on interpretation or illegality of proposals, because we don't want protests about "but the other mod said ...!" when what the other mod said was a personal comment. To avoid confusion, rulings have to be given publicly (on the forums) or officially (via Voice of Mod TG). Nor do we want to spend our time reiterating rules that are already set out in the Rules, or answering questions that could have been asked in Q&A (and should also be answered publicly).

Yeah, except this wasn't answered publicly. I received a TG saying it was under discussion, and no follow-up; had Sakash not posted here, I literally wouldn't have known the outcome of the challenge. So I don't understand how the process here "avoid[ed] confusion".

Personal TGs, however, are at your discretion. Especially limericks and puns.

Edit:nm, scratched.

Rules discussions have always been public. It's something that I've seen mods expressly encourage, in fact, so that newer players can learn from seeing comments from older players.

I'm really disappointed in how this was handled, but I know there's not enough time left for any kind of appeal, so submitting one would doubtless be futile.

* Edit:

Assuming that the Security Act passes, any attempt to ban any non-Nuclear weapons system will need to (at the very least) pay lip service to the Act. This is accomplished by inserting language to the effect of "REALISING that $weapon is not necessary for the defence of a nation," or "PROCLAIMING that $weapon is only useful as an offensive weapon."

[Chester Pearson]

Flib's comment remains true. Legality challenges are not always answered directly. The mod handling the request replied to the author, saying that either formulation -- his wording or the one you proposed in this thread -- was acceptable.

OOC: And you're ok with this mod directly overruling you? Because your own ruling stated:

But mods (and delegates) shouldn't be required to interpret a proposal to the extent of trying to make it legal. It should already be legal.

The solution would be for the proposal itself to tell us that the legality requirements were met; that those conditions were, in fact, conditions that cause extreme hazard. Then the GA itself can consider the point, rightly making that question part of the debate -- are they hazardous? To whom?

...
As to your proposal, there's no need to repeal Krioval's, but to make yours fit its requirements, you need some terminology along the lines suggested in the original debate.

I understand that you don't want rules-lawyering, and that sometimes moderator opinions on one proposal are not applicable to another. But this issue is exactly the one you previously ruled on, and there is absolutely no trace of consistency in the application of the rules. This ruling serves to:

1. completely overturn your ruling (and therefore implicitly suggest you made Unibot jump through unnecessary legalistic loopholes)
2. completely neuter a previous resolution (National Economic Freedoms) which now has absolutely no legal force whatsoever
3. flatly contradict much longer standing precedent - see many pages of ping-pong circa UNSA*
4. deny voters the right to decide whether the terms of this proposal constitute an extreme hazard

I would speculate that the mod considered that "extreme hazard" was indicated by the text, though I can't confirm this, owing to the effect of holidays on communications.

By ruling this proposal legal the moderators, and not the voters, have decided that the situation described in the proposal meets that qualification: that should have been a political decision for the voters to make, not something forced on us by mod fiat. If Sakash's proposal had specified that these things constituted an 'extreme hazard', we could vote accordingly. But because this proposal has been ruled not to contradict National Economic Freedoms the only logical way of interpreting it is that the moderators have already decided that these circumstances expressly do meet that qualification. What other political issues are you going to start deciding for us instead of us allowing to make that decision based on a vote?

On the question of mod TGs: we don't welcome questions on interpretation or illegality of proposals, because we don't want protests about "but the other mod said ...!" when what the other mod said was a personal comment. To avoid confusion, rulings have to be given publicly (on the forums) or officially (via Voice of Mod TG). Nor do we want to spend our time reiterating rules that are already set out in the Rules, or answering questions that could have been asked in Q&A (and should also be answered publicly).

Yeah, except this wasn't answered publicly. I received a TG saying it was under discussion, and no follow-up; had Sakash not posted here, I literally wouldn't have known the outcome of the challenge. So I don't understand how the process here "avoid[ed] confusion".

Personal TGs, however, are at your discretion. Especially limericks and puns.

Edit:nm, scratched.

Rules discussions have always been public. It's something that I've seen mods expressly encourage, in fact, so that newer players can learn from seeing comments from older players.

I'm really disappointed in how this was handled, but I know there's not enough time left for any kind of appeal, so submitting one would doubtless be futile.

* Edit:

Assuming that the Security Act passes, any attempt to ban any non-Nuclear weapons system will need to (at the very least) pay lip service to the Act. This is accomplished by inserting language to the effect of "REALISING that $weapon is not necessary for the defence of a nation," or "PROCLAIMING that $weapon is only useful as an offensive weapon."

OOC: Would you do us all a favour and take a Xanax please? This... This right here, is why I have started ignoring every comment you post in a thread I am involved in. No matter what ANYONE says, if they disagree with you, it turns into a wall of text, rules lawyering, and you throwing a tantrum. A mod ruled against you, DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

[Ardchoille]

<snip>

Chester, cut it out; Dark Star, please don't reply. We don't need an OOC threadjack that risks devolving into personal abuse and red text (however festive the colour may seem).

<snip>

DS, I disagree fairly strongly with the points you raised but can't reply in detail right now (it's the 24th here, and I'm in the midst of family preparations). When I do reply, it will be either via TG or in a spoiler, as I don't wish to threadjack, either.

[The Dark Star Republic]

<snip>

Chester, cut it out; Dark Star, please don't reply.

I wasn't planning to...

<snip>

DS, I disagree fairly strongly with the points you raised but can't reply in detail right now (it's the 24th here, and I'm in the midst of family preparations). When I do reply, it will be either via TG or in a spoiler, as I don't wish to threadack, either.

Like I said, it's far too late for any kind of appeal; this proposal is clearly going to vote. That means there is no longer any hurry, so just reply when you can: I have two more England collapses to keep me busy over the next few days anyway.

Edit: On reflection, I'm probably not allowed to tell a mod to "chill".

[Sakash]

It should not be up to individual countries to determine environmental policies, especially when one nation's policies can undermine other nations' attempts to. It needs to be a concerted effort, focused on regional communication and global awareness.

I appreciate your acceptance of purpose of this proposal.

Unfortunately, this proposal doesn't effectively do that. So it can expect our strong opposition. Thanks, however, to a complex, bureaucratic nightmare of loopholes, disingenuous agreements, and other legal tricks, the C.D.S.P. isn't technically in the WA, despite retaining voting rights. We will, certainly, be doing everything we can to assist others in noncompliance if this passes.

That said, your view and opinions about how it is supposed to be are still welcome. This draft has not been voted yet and may yet be repealed later. So its never too early to start preparing for better draft i guess. This submission was to see how WA members respond to this draft on vote. I expect it to get more attention and discussion than it has past few months because of this vote.

[Moronist Decisions]

I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs and World Assembly Delegate of Europeia, votes NAY on this "resolution" after a 0-4 vote in our region dictated such an action. The resolution in question is extremely poorly written, micromanages, and arguably would require nations to allow their anti-pollution watchdogs to prescribe fines without legislative or other oversight.

/s/ Moronist Decisions
World Assembly Delegate of Europeia

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

While our delegation is normally well-favored toward Environmental legislation, we must rise in opposition to this proposal. It contains within it the seeds of WA overreach. We wish to draw the representatives' attention to two clauses:

4. PROHIBITS Specific Industries/companies which do not have technology to reduce Pollution to safe limits.

6. MANDATES
A. Creation of International Pollution Monitoring Commission (IPMC) with following responsibilities
ii. To establish safe pollution limits for Industry to prevent hazard to environment & common people living around such industry.

As written, this proposal will allow the WA to set up a committee that can effectively ban any industry it wishes by setting on it "safe pollution limits" so strict that no one could meet them. As well-intentioned as this proposal is, we cannot risk allowing that much power in the hands of the gnomes.

[Sakash]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

While our delegation is normally well-favored toward Environmental legislation, we must rise in opposition to this proposal. It contains within it the seeds of WA overreach. We wish to draw the representatives' attention to two clauses:

4. PROHIBITS Specific Industries/companies which do not have technology to reduce Pollution to safe limits.

6. MANDATES
A. Creation of International Pollution Monitoring Commission (IPMC) with following responsibilities
ii. To establish safe pollution limits for Industry to prevent hazard to environment & common people living around such industry.

As written, this proposal will allow the WA to set up a committee that can effectively ban any industry it wishes by setting on it "safe pollution limits" so strict that no one could meet them. As well-intentioned as this proposal is, we cannot risk allowing that much power in the hands of the gnomes.

B. Member Nations to establish National Pollution Control Authority with powers & funds to implement the following tasks.
i. To adapt IPMC safe pollution limits as far as possible and prescribe national safe pollution limits as required.

It is individual nations who actually prescribe what their pollution control limits are. So your concern is already met. kindly reconsider.