[DRAFT] International Energy Markets (IEM)

[NoFrellsGiven]

You know what, just submit this right now. Keep on submitting it as long as it takes to get passed.

Excellent advice. How does one submit for a vote.

I am confident my legislation will pass.

[Wall-e Persons]

You know what, just submit this right now. Keep on submitting it as long as it takes to get passed.

Excellent advice. How does one submit for a vote.

Most people want to make the world a better place instead of pillaging it for their on personal enjoyment before anyone else has a chance to contribute to humanity. I am confident my legislation will pass.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_new_proposal

[Imperium Anglorum]

'Most Excellent Delegates from nearly all the nations of the World Assembly and Honoured Representatives of the Secretariat...

Let the record show that the illegalities in this proposal were shown, displayed, and discussed before its submission and that any claims to the contrary are patent lies.

Thank you, Your Excellencies. The Democratic Empire rests.'

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I'm not sure how I managed to miss this...
But let's see if he responds to a second, or, Nth opinion, rather. Too lazy to count everyone who was here.

First of all, this is illegal, for the following reasons.
1: You cannot link to Forum Threads in a Proposal, fairly certain that's Metagaming.
2: Looks to be a Committee Only Violation.

I cannot see anything else myself, but I am not the most experienced at detecting Illegalities, so I am sure many of the criticisms leveled by other GA Regulars here could be of use to you.
Now, since you have submitted this already, I am going to tell you that it is going to be Pulled, the Mods do not have mercy on Illegal Proposals, so please, take our advice, file a GHR to take it down Yourself, and fix the Illegalities. Remember, we are here to help, and we have been here much longer than you, if we are saying something is Illegal in your Proposal, we are not enacting some agenda against you, it is far more likely that there is actually something Illegal in your Proposal, if there is not, another GA Regular will call them out on it.

Second, this is a bad idea.
Now, hold on, let me explain why, many of the Member States here have no practical methods of Transmitting Energy across Oceans, Inter-dimensional Barriers, or vast regions of Space. Further, if a Member State wishes to share their Energy with another Nation, it is far better if they are able to work that out with the other Nation, by themselves, without the interference of an International Body. While there is a need for WA Committees in many fields, one here would only be restrictive to International attempts to share Energy. And, in any case, you never actually make us transmit any Energy, which is where your Committee Only Violation comes in, you never actually Mandate that Member States do anything.

Finally, regarding your comments in this Thread;
First and foremost, we are here to help you. We always like to see fresh faces willing to jump into the GA, it can get slow around here with only the small group of Regulars we have, and someone new is more than welcome. However, if your first act in the GA is a Proposal, expect some extremely harsh criticism, often, it is justified, and newcomers who try to Legislate on their first day have quite the history of horrid proposals, especially now that one of them has erupted into some of the biggest GA Drama in recent time. Further, if you are actively hostile to our suggestions, you are going to find that we will respond in kind, you can't start throwing around complaints of Conspiracy against you and not expect us to take offense, we know a Bad Proposal when we see one, and a newcomer can often turn their proposal into something worthwhile with only a bit of Effort, and taking our advice. We are not lying to you, and we are not trying to stop particular Ideologies from gaining ground.
Second, calling all of us here a bunch of An-Cap ideologues is not only horribly inaccurate, but outright offensive. Hell, I'm a Socialist myself, and I think you'll find that many of us here are, and even among those that are not, you'll be hard-pressed to find that many hardline Capitalists, as with much of the Internet, it is a moderately left-wing, generally "Progressive" Assembly we've got running here. Outright attacking us is not going to help your Proposal, or your Career in the GA, and many of us here are far more inclined to ignore anything you say now, simply because you refused to listen to our advice, and attacked us, rather than calmly accepting, or even debating, our criticisms. You'll get little help in the future because of your actions here, and the first step to fixing that, is to listen to us. We are here to help, and we have been here far longer than you.

[The Archregimancy]

> Fuck you. It was only a suggestion.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Caracasus]

Ambassador, we note that this draft was rushed rather quickly to submission, we would strongly suggest that you ask in moderation for it to be removed, as we are sure you sent this to quorum as a mistake bought on by your anger towards various contributions.

May we suggest, for the redraft that you focus on your aim? If your aim is to provide a way for energy to be traded, we suggest that you focus on this first. At present, your resolution is simply trying to achieve too much. You are regulating for environmental standards in energy production, sharing of energy production technologies and creating a group to oversee all of this. This is simply too much.

We are also incredibly concerned with your use of the Civilization index. We feel this may be in breach of laws surrounding the implementation of legislation.

As for your legislation itself, this passage causes us considerable alarm:

1.G
The IETF is to be funded by a fee on Energy Transactions made within the International Energy Market (IEM) for its Civilization Index. The initial source of funding for the IETF will be by donations by WA members. Donating states will receive first priority for new IETF development for the next 10 years.

At present, this is open to corruption in one of two ways. Firstly, Caracasus could donate a grand total of 1 Tiny Elephant Figurine and receive preferential treatment from the IETF. Secondly, if this was changed to add weight to the amount donated, richer nations, who often have more than enough capability to power their own nations, would receive preferential treatment at the expense of poorer nations - almost the polar opposite of what this legislation has set out to achieve.

2.A
Establishes an International Energy Market (IEM) for each Civilization Index:

2.B
The IEM enables member states to better manage their domestic energy supply through sales on an international market.

2.C
The creation of the IEM does not exclude or expropriate current or future: domestic and competing international energy markets.

Now this passage here. The creation of an International Energy Market unfortunately would very much exlude or expropriate current or future domestic and competing international energy markets by its very presence. There is a finite amount of the given resource (energy). Having a central body responsible for its trade will exclude or expropriate existing energy markets, even if not done so intentionally. Note, we are not completely against this idea (should a significantly improved proposal be made) we are merely stating that 2.A contradicts 2.C by its presence alone.

3.B
Member nations may impose fees on energy resources based on the amount of pollution they produce. If a nation raises a fee on pollution that nation must apply the fee equally to all international and domestic resources.

This section here appears to stifle growing nations with little or no ability to access less polluting energy production. Caracasus could effectively form a coalition of like minded governments that places a stranglehold on its less developed neighbouring states by imposing ridiculous fees on coal fired power - forcing less developed states out of the market. This aspect is all stick and no carrot. Should you wish to further development of clean energies, we suggest a process that encourages nations to adopt cleaner energy, and not exclude them from any potential energy market through price alone.

We strongly suggest you request that your proposal is taken down, and re-draft this, perhaps with the help of further input from other nations.

[Wrapper]

For the record:

• 49 minutes ago: The proposal "International Energy Markets" was removed from the floor.

[Imperium Anglorum]

For the record:

• 49 minutes ago: The proposal "International Energy Markets" was removed from the floor.

[Caracasus]

Noted. Probably for the best, really. We couldn't see this working in its current form at all.

[Separatist Peoples]

For the record:

• 49 minutes ago: The proposal "International Energy Markets" was removed from the floor.

OOC: that was my GHR. Called it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

For the record:

• 49 minutes ago: The proposal "International Energy Markets" was removed from the floor.

OOC: that was my GHR. Called it.

I submitted one minutes after it was originally posted.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: that was my GHR. Called it.

I submitted one minutes after it was originally posted.

OOC: then maybe not. Teamwork!!

[NoFrellsGiven]

First and foremost, we are here to help you.

Thanks for the post.

1: You cannot link to Forum Threads in a Proposal, fairly certain that's Metagaming.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 3&t=244917

Contains the definition of technology tiers. A GA proposol has a limited amount of space which is why I linked. But I learned even RP links are not allowed which caused the resolution to automatically be pulled. The proposal replaces the link with: NS's seven Technology Tiers. Hopefully this will work because a GA proposal has limited character space.

2: Looks to be a Committee Only Violation.

I removed the management definition. I guess NS does not go into this much detail.

Member States here have no practical methods of Transmitting Energy across Oceans, Inter-dimensional Barriers, or vast regions of Space.

This is the idea where there are separate IEMs for each Technology Tiers. Tier 3 civlizations or higher may have this capability.

And, in any case, you never actually make us transmit any Energy, which is where your Committee Only Violation comes in, you never actually Mandate that Member States do anything.

The rules is a nation must allow the transmission of energy if they have idle transmission capacity. This is to ensure local demand cannot be out bid. For example if A and C want to trade but B is inbetween, B cannot be priced out and forced to shut down its demand so A and C can trade.

[NoFrellsGiven]

You are regulating for environmental standards in energy production,

There are no environmental regulations in this proposal. There are predicted indirect environmental benefits of being able to more easily buy power internationally. The intended requirement was that if a nation has pollution controls they most be applied universally.

sharing of energy production technologies

The suggestion to share tech is removed.

We are also incredibly concerned with your use of the Civilization index. We feel this may be in breach of laws surrounding the implementation of legislation.

I think this is a technical requirement. For example Tier 3 or higher civilizations who may have ZPMs may be incompletely compatible with lower tier civs.

1.G
The IETF is to be funded by a fee on Energy Transactions made within the International Energy Market (IEM) for its Civilization Index. The initial source of funding for the IETF will be by donations by WA members. Donating states will receive first priority for new IETF development for the next 10 years.

At present, this is open to corruption in one of two ways. Firstly, Caracasus could donate a grand total of 1 Tiny Elephant Figurine and receive preferential treatment from the IETF. Secondly, if this was changed to add weight to the amount donated, richer nations, who often have more than enough capability to power their own nations, would receive preferential treatment at the expense of poorer nations - almost the polar opposite of what this legislation has set out to achieve.

The WA is funded by donations, so I went this route. I have switched to: The initial source of funding for the IETF will be 1% of GDP to be paid annually for the next 5 years. Which would benefit growing economies more.

2.A
Establishes an International Energy Market (IEM) for each Civilization Index:

2.B
The IEM enables member states to better manage their domestic energy supply through sales on an international market.

2.C
The creation of the IEM does not exclude or expropriate current or future: domestic and competing international energy markets.

Now this passage here. The creation of an International Energy Market unfortunately would very much exlude or expropriate current or future domestic and competing international energy markets by its very presence. There is a finite amount of the given resource (energy). Having a central body responsible for its trade will exclude or expropriate existing energy markets, even if not done so intentionally. Note, we are not completely against this idea (should a significantly improved proposal be made) we are merely stating that 2.A contradicts 2.C by its presence alone.

True competing markets would be at a disadvantage because the IEM would already be established. I removed 2.C altogether.

3.B
Member nations may impose fees on energy resources based on the amount of pollution they produce. If a nation raises a fee on pollution that nation must apply the fee equally to all international and domestic resources.

This section here appears to stifle growing nations with little or no ability to access less polluting energy production. Caracasus could effectively form a coalition of like minded governments that places a stranglehold on its less developed neighbouring states by imposing ridiculous fees on coal fired power - forcing less developed states out of the market.

Coalitions like this could form before the IEM was created. The IEM intends to limit this. If a nation raises a fee, the fee must be universal so Caracasus cannot tax its neighbors and not itself.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Okay, first of all, while I understand your desire to separate your response to Caracasus, from your response to me, do not make two posts, it just makes things difficult, try the following formatting tags.

Code: Select all

[hr][/hr]

It will create a line, like this one.

---

Thanks for the post. I don't know why I let the troll get to me.

I assure you, Imperium Anglorium, Seperatsist Peoples, Normlpeople, and most everyone involved with this thread is not a Troll.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=244917

Contains the definition of technology tiers. A GA proposol has a limited amount of space which is why I linked. But even RP links are not allowed. The proposal replaces the link with: NS's seven Technology Tiers. Hopefully this will work because a GA proposal has limited character space.

I know about the link, and the 3000 Character Limit (Including Spaces!) that the GA mandates for Proposals, but, yes, you cannot link to anything in the document. Now, I do not see this definition in the OP, so you may want to edit it in, but I should mention that you will want to write this out yourself, otherwise it's Plagiarism.

I removed the management definition. I guess NS does not go into this much detail.

Er, no, it has more to do with the fact that you never actually have Member States do anything, all this proposal does is create a Committee, hence, committee only violation.

This is the idea where there are separate IEMs for each Technology Tiers. Tier 3 civlizations or higher may have this capability.

Okay, let me explain this, you see that Spoiler in my Signature? Says Tech Level on it. If you read that, you'll find that we are a P4 Civilization on the scale you use, that's been there a while now. That means Tier 1, Type 5, Interstellar Civilization, and no, there are no ways to transmit energy efficiently over a distance of several dozen light-years.

The rules is a nation must allow the transmission of energy if they have idle transmission capacity. This is to ensure local demand cannot be out bid. For example if A and C want to trade but B is inbetween, B cannot be priced out and forced to shut down its demand so A and C can trade.

Yeah... Having us interact with the Committee does not count. However, this will seriously bother a lot of the Nations here, both In Character, and Out of Character. We will not be forced to give Energy to other nations, and you will be hard-pressed to convince anyone otherwise.

I have switched to: The initial source of funding for the IETF will be 1% of GDP to be paid annually for the next 5 years. Which would benefit growing economies more.

That, is a horrible idea.
Think about how much that actually is, by my estimation, a theoretical US-Clone in the World Assembly would be paying somewhere around 162,000,000,000 USD, every year, for five years, to a committee they have no power over, which controls a system they do not want, that they are forced to interact with, for no adequate reason. If you want to explain how your proposal is funded, don't. It inevitably runs into problems like this, and mentioning the World Assembly General Fund will only get you a House of Cards Violation. Look, unless there is some reason you cannot be funded by the General Fund, do not mention how you are going to fund it, and just let the General Fund do its job.

[NoFrellsGiven]

That means Tier 1, Type 5, Interstellar Civilization, and no, there are no ways to transmit energy efficiently over a distance of several dozen light-years.

If a nation cannot physically connect to an IEM they would not participate in that IEM.

The rules is a nation must allow the transmission of energy if they have idle transmission capacity. This is to ensure local demand cannot be out bid. For example if A and C want to trade but B is inbetween, B cannot be priced out and forced to shut down its demand so A and C can trade.

Yeah... Having us interact with the Committee does not count.

There is a committee. But there is more than just the committee. There are rules of engagement between nations when using the market.

However, this will seriously bother a lot of the Nations here, both In Character, and Out of Character. We will not be forced to give Energy to other nations, and you will be hard-pressed to convince anyone otherwise.

One is not giving energy to other nations. It does not say any nation is required to sell energy on the market. Nations are only required to not interrupt transmissions.

I have switched to: The initial source of funding for the IETF will be 1% of GDP to be paid annually for the next 5 years. Which would benefit growing economies more.

That, is a horrible idea.
Think about how much that actually is, by my estimation, a theoretical US-Clone in the World Assembly would be paying somewhere around 162,000,000,000 USD, every year, for five years, to a committee they have no power over, which controls a system they do not want, that they are forced to interact with, for no adequate reason. If you want to explain how your proposal is funded, don't. It inevitably runs into problems like this, and mentioning the World Assembly General Fund will only get you a House of Cards Violation. Look, unless there is some reason you cannot be funded by the General Fund, do not mention how you are going to fund it, and just let the General Fund do its job.

I will remove the funding details. Though if one spreads the USA example over 10 years.. 16 billion for 10 years doesnt sound like a bad price to form an international grid.

[Separatist Peoples]

Excellent advice. How does one submit for a vote.

Excellent advice. How does one submit for a vote.

Most people want to make the world a better place instead of pillaging it for their on personal enjoyment before anyone else has a chance to contribute to humanity. I am confident my legislation will pass.

"Always nice to see a redaction like this."

Contains the definition of technology tiers. A GA proposol has a limited amount of space which is why I linked. But even RP links are not allowed. The proposal replaces the link with: NS's seven Technology Tiers. Hopefully this will work because a GA proposal has limited character space.

"You would have to include it in the proposal text for it to be valid."

[NoFrellsGiven]

Excellent advice. How does one submit for a vote.

Excellent advice. How does one submit for a vote.

I am confident my legislation will pass.

Oh I will put that back in. I didnt like the rest where I was starting to get preachy.

"Always nice to see a redaction like this."

Contains the definition of technology tiers. A GA proposol has a limited amount of space which is why I linked. But even RP links are not allowed. The proposal replaces the link with: NS's seven Technology Tiers. Hopefully this will work because a GA proposal has limited character space.

"You would have to include it in the proposal text for it to be valid."

Are tech tiers a built in game concept? Ive got limited space to define tiers. Are these accurate?

Tier 7: Iron Age

Tier 6: Industrial Revolution

Tier 5: Fission Age

Tier 4: Fusion Age

Tier 3: FTL Space Travel

Tier 2: Matter Creation

Tier 1: Gravity Creation

Tier 0: Transcendent

[Separatist Peoples]

Oh I will put that back in. I didnt like the rest where I was starting to get preachy.

"Always nice to see a redaction like this."



"You would have to include it in the proposal text for it to be valid."

Are tech tiers a built in game concept? Ive got limited space to define tiers. Are these accurate?

Tier 7: Iron Age

Tier 6: Industrial Revolution

Tier 5: Fission Age

Tier 4: Fusion Age

Tier 3: FTL Space Travel

Tier 2: Matter Creation

Tier 1: Gravity Creation

Tier 0: Transcendent

"No. Good luck with that, though."

[Imperium Anglorum]

That means Tier 1, Type 5, Interstellar Civilization, and no, there are no ways to transmit energy efficiently over a distance of several dozen light-years.

If a nation cannot physically connect to an IEM they would not participate in that IEM.

Put it in the proposal text. Could run afoul of optionality though.

Yeah... Having us interact with the Committee does not count.

There is a committee. But there is more than just the committee. There are rules of engagement between nations when using the market.

Rules of engagement are synonymous with regulations. Thus, this cannot fall into free trade.

However, this will seriously bother a lot of the Nations here, both In Character, and Out of Character. We will not be forced to give Energy to other nations, and you will be hard-pressed to convince anyone otherwise.

One is not giving energy to other nations. It does not say any nation is required to sell energy on the market. Nations are only required to not interrupt transmissions.

Where is this in the text?

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: that was my GHR. Called it.

I submitted one minutes after it was originally posted.

Make that three GHR's.

[Grays Harbor]

Thanks for the post. I don't know why I let the troll get to me.

OOC: Word of advise, you may want to watch it with the troll naming. That is a forum wide rule.

[NoFrellsGiven]

If a nation cannot physically connect to an IEM they would not participate in that IEM.

Put it in the proposal text. Could run afoul of optionality though.

Would it not be known that if transmission capacity did not yet exist no trades could be made.

There is a committee. But there is more than just the committee. There are rules of engagement between nations when using the market.

Rules of engagement are synonymous with regulations. Thus, this cannot fall into free trade.

The International Transport Law (ITL) passed. And has similarities to the IEM. The ITL establishes a committee. That defines regulations, and its voluntary in that nations do not have to build ships.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=408#p408

One is not giving energy to other nations. It does not say any nation is required to sell energy on the market. Nations are only required to not interrupt transmissions.

Where is this in the text?

Two-C should explain this concept in only using idle transmission capacity. Idle transmission Capacity does not mean idle generating capacity has to be turned on. I added 2.D to try to explain this further though I think it is already covered by 2.C

2.C
Each IEM only has jurisdiction over their corresponding Technology Tier's IETF transmission capacity and right of way over idle member states transmission capacity within their Technology Tier.

2.D
Domestic demand cannot be outbid by international states when the IEM is limited to only use IETF transmission capacity or a nation's idle transmission capacity.

Interruption penality does not require the generation of electricity by intermediate states:

2.E
The interruption of the transmission of energy purchased on the International Energy Market that passes through IETF transmission capacity or a member states idle transmission capacity will impose a fee of twice the purchase price on the interrupting state.

[NoFrellsGiven]

One is not giving energy to other nations. It does not say any nation is required to sell energy on the market. Nations are only required to not interrupt transmissions.

Where is this in the text?

This may be more clear now.

2.D
Transport capacity for domestic demand cannot be outbid by international states when the IEM is limited to only use IETF transmission capacity or a member nation's idle transmission capacity.

[United industrial]

i liked the bill when i started reading it my biggest problem is the tier system i know for a fact that i will never get above tier 4 and that for me is very discouraging. that being said i would like to know how a nation like mine will benefit by receiving or exporting energy to other nations. so at this time i am on the fence on this one i feel it is a good resolution but for m nation the lack of advancement is a problem and the way my nation would profit is what has me on the fence. so if you could message me to further explain this resolution i would really appreciate me