[PASSED] REPEAL Extinction Preparation Act

[Otrenia]

(OOC: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the title of the topic is spelled incorrectly. It says prepartion instead of preparation.)

[Mallorea and Riva]

(OOC: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the title of the topic is spelled incorrectly. It says prepartion instead of preparation.)

(OOC: My bad)

The law says nothing about janitorial services either: Are you suggesting that the establishment in question must therefore lack those?!?

Not only that, but there are very few resolutions that, for example, spell out accommodations for committees -- and there are a lot of committees. He's also suggesting that they don't have buildings or offices, electricity, computers, telephones, etc, including security. There has and always will be implied powers in resolutions. If the World Assembly reasonably must do something to carry out an obligation, it will do it. In this case, a facility harboring dangerous biological material necessitates a standard level of security; therefore the World Assembly will provide it.

And the resolution says nothing about having incredible machines that cure all diseases, yet it is obvious that such machines are preferable to have! Unfortunately the "common sense" argument does not apply to written law. Facilities may include janitorial crews, but nowhere is security mentioned, and this is despite the fact that security is raised as a concern.

The World Assembly cannot expect to have "Implied powers" written into every resolution to this extent, it is far too subjective.

[Glen-Rhodes]

And the resolution says nothing about having incredible machines that cure all diseases, yet it is obvious that such machines are preferable to have!

This has absolutely no correlation whatsoever to the implied powers argument I just gave.

[Mallorea and Riva]

And the resolution says nothing about having incredible machines that cure all diseases, yet it is obvious that such machines are preferable to have!

This has absolutely no correlation whatsoever to the implied powers argument I just gave.

And your implied powers argument has absolutely no correlation to what is written in the text of the Extinction Preparation Act.

[Mallorea and Riva]

On a side note, any advice for campaigning for Delegate Votes? I am relatively in experienced in dealing with such aspects of our assembly. Usually I stick to critiquing and voting on legislation.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Due to lack of responses I will be submitting within 48 hours

[Mousebumples]

A few general comments before I jump in here:
I personally prefer all of my verbage to be parallel, as I think it makes for a smoother read, but I'd support this even if it were made up of Justin Bieber lyrics.

WHILE NOTING that the Extinction Preparation Act attempted to preserve biodiversity and encourage research amongst all the nations of the world,

AND APPLAUDING the foresight of its authors,

While I can understand the inclusion of the first line, the second seems unnecessary. "foresight" with regards to what? The eventual extinction of animals? I'd scrap that one, myself.

REMEMBERING the resounding “Meh” that arose from the World Assembly at the proposition of this Act,

This seems like commentary and not really an argument for or against the resolution on it's merits. Again, I'd strike this clause from the repeal.

RECOGNIZING that the construction of a single facility to house every genetic sample available is highly impractical, considering the necessary space to examine, store, record information about, and test this material,

Also: it's a huge security risk as a single disaster (be it natural or man-caused) could wipe out the entire facility and the records kept there.

SHOCKED that such scientists and research would be placed into one area, potentially risking all such research and knowledge, and highly inconveniencing the scientists of the Universes,

I don't get how the scientists and research being in one area would "potentially risk all such research and knowledge" as this isn't a clear enough argument.

CONCERNED that a single facility is incapable of servicing all those who may wish to use the facility and access the information within,

Why? Due to the problems with transport? Again, you're making an argument without making ti clear how it ties into the resolution in question.

CONFUSED as to why non-WA member nations must pay a fee in order to use the facilities designed to ensure the survival of all life in the known Universes,

This is common practice to have non-WA members pay a nominal fee to participate in WA-sponsored events. I personally don't have an issue with the inclusion of that clause in the original.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the research of this facility could be used by non-WA member nations to construct advanced biological weapons capable of undoing that which the facility strives for,

This seems like a bit of a stretch. Can you explain to me how you reached the conclusion that non-WA member nations could use the facility for that purpose? I would think that since the facility is under WA control, all research going on within it must comply with all other existing WA laws.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the safety of this single facility from natural or anthropogenic causes is not guaranteed, and that available technology to protect the facility was not utilized,

I think this could be worded a bit more clearly, but I do recognize the merit in this argument.

AWARE that the Act fails to ensure that ANY genetic samples will be sent to the facility,

... will ACTUALLY be sent ... ?

ALSO AWARE that individual nations are capable of funding and researching such projects while maintaining security over the information they glean,

I'm presuming that this clause is meant to ensure that voters/fluffies realize that repealing this resolution doesn't take away their ability to do the same sort of research/etc., on their own. However, I don't think the wording is as clear as it could be. :-/

BELIEVING that without an ensured supply of information and genetic samples this act is essentially meaningless, and merely creates a single, overcrowded, inconveniently located, underprotected, and ultimately fruitless facility,

True!

HEREBY REPEALS World Assembly Resolution #126, the Extinction Preparation Act

YAY!

OOC: Anyhow, I don't have loads of time to critique this in full right now - I'm heading off to work momentarily! - but if you can hold off on submitting for a few more days, I'll try to take a look and give you more concrete suggestions for improvement this weekend. (I'm working both days, but I should have some time after work.)

Of course, if you want to submit for a test run, feel free. And, regardless, best of luck!

[Mallorea and Riva]

A few general comments before I jump in here:
I personally prefer all of my verbage to be parallel, as I think it makes for a smoother read, but I'd support this even if it were made up of Justin Bieber lyrics.

WHILE NOTING that the Extinction Preparation Act attempted to preserve biodiversity and encourage research amongst all the nations of the world,

AND APPLAUDING the foresight of its authors,

While I can understand the inclusion of the first line, the second seems unnecessary. "foresight" with regards to what? The eventual extinction of animals? I'd scrap that one, myself.

REMEMBERING the resounding “Meh” that arose from the World Assembly at the proposition of this Act,

This seems like commentary and not really an argument for or against the resolution on it's merits. Again, I'd strike this clause from the repeal.

RECOGNIZING that the construction of a single facility to house every genetic sample available is highly impractical, considering the necessary space to examine, store, record information about, and test this material,

Also: it's a huge security risk as a single disaster (be it natural or man-caused) could wipe out the entire facility and the records kept there.

SHOCKED that such scientists and research would be placed into one area, potentially risking all such research and knowledge, and highly inconveniencing the scientists of the Universes,

I don't get how the scientists and research being in one area would "potentially risk all such research and knowledge" as this isn't a clear enough argument.

CONCERNED that a single facility is incapable of servicing all those who may wish to use the facility and access the information within,

Why? Due to the problems with transport? Again, you're making an argument without making ti clear how it ties into the resolution in question.

CONFUSED as to why non-WA member nations must pay a fee in order to use the facilities designed to ensure the survival of all life in the known Universes,

This is common practice to have non-WA members pay a nominal fee to participate in WA-sponsored events. I personally don't have an issue with the inclusion of that clause in the original.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the research of this facility could be used by non-WA member nations to construct advanced biological weapons capable of undoing that which the facility strives for,

This seems like a bit of a stretch. Can you explain to me how you reached the conclusion that non-WA member nations could use the facility for that purpose? I would think that since the facility is under WA control, all research going on within it must comply with all other existing WA laws.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the safety of this single facility from natural or anthropogenic causes is not guaranteed, and that available technology to protect the facility was not utilized,

I think this could be worded a bit more clearly, but I do recognize the merit in this argument.

AWARE that the Act fails to ensure that ANY genetic samples will be sent to the facility,

... will ACTUALLY be sent ... ?

ALSO AWARE that individual nations are capable of funding and researching such projects while maintaining security over the information they glean,

I'm presuming that this clause is meant to ensure that voters/fluffies realize that repealing this resolution doesn't take away their ability to do the same sort of research/etc., on their own. However, I don't think the wording is as clear as it could be. :-/

BELIEVING that without an ensured supply of information and genetic samples this act is essentially meaningless, and merely creates a single, overcrowded, inconveniently located, underprotected, and ultimately fruitless facility,

True!

HEREBY REPEALS World Assembly Resolution #126, the Extinction Preparation Act

YAY!

OOC: Anyhow, I don't have loads of time to critique this in full right now - I'm heading off to work momentarily! - but if you can hold off on submitting for a few more days, I'll try to take a look and give you more concrete suggestions for improvement this weekend. (I'm working both days, but I should have some time after work.)

Of course, if you want to submit for a test run, feel free. And, regardless, best of luck!

Posted just as I submitted
Oh well. I will hold off on campaigning for this current draft, if it should sink then I will revise it again and resubmit. If it succeeds then all is well.

[Krioval]

Posted just as I submitted
Oh well. I will hold off on campaigning for this current draft, if it should sink then I will revise it again and resubmit. If it succeeds then all is well.

OOC: Approved on general principle. If you want to re-draft the current version and not wait for three days, you can submit a GHR to ask the mods to remove it from the list. Then you can post the amended version. As far as TG campaigns go, I'd use the voting list for the previous resolution as a guide for who to contact (since those delegates are known to be active), verify that their RFE does not forbid TGs on WA proposals, and create a fairly decent letter of introduction for the proposal including a direct link to it. You can customize a TG for a delegate, but it's not strictly necessary so long as the letter covers all the bases otherwise.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Posted just as I submitted
Oh well. I will hold off on campaigning for this current draft, if it should sink then I will revise it again and resubmit. If it succeeds then all is well.

OOC: Approved on general principle. If you want to re-draft the current version and not wait for three days, you can submit a GHR to ask the mods to remove it from the list. Then you can post the amended version. As far as TG campaigns go, I'd use the voting list for the previous resolution as a guide for who to contact (since those delegates are known to be active), verify that their RFE does not forbid TGs on WA proposals, and create a fairly decent letter of introduction for the proposal including a direct link to it. You can customize a TG for a delegate, but it's not strictly necessary so long as the letter covers all the bases otherwise.

Advice followed. I submitted the GHR. Strictly speaking I wouldn't really be disappointed if this were to be left up there, but I would prefer the best possible repeal to be drafted. I simply noted a lack of responses, but now that I have some more solid feedback I can improve this greatly.

[Krioval]

Advice followed. I submitted the GHR. Strictly speaking I wouldn't really be disappointed if this were to be left up there, but I would prefer the best possible repeal to be drafted. I simply noted a lack of responses, but now that I have some more solid feedback I can improve this greatly.

OOC: The mods work fast! The original version is off the list. I guess you can submit the newer version when you're ready.

[Kryozerkia]

Advice followed. I submitted the GHR. Strictly speaking I wouldn't really be disappointed if this were to be left up there, but I would prefer the best possible repeal to be drafted. I simply noted a lack of responses, but now that I have some more solid feedback I can improve this greatly.

OOC: The mods work fast! The original version is off the list. I guess you can submit the newer version when you're ready.

...and we hide in the shadows, watching your every move.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: The mods work fast! The original version is off the list. I guess you can submit the newer version when you're ready.

...and we hide in the shadows, watching your every move.

Many thanks!
*turns spotlights on around house, illuminates every shadow*

[Mallorea and Riva]

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY
WHILE NOTING that the Extinction Preparation Act attempted to preserve biodiversity and encourage research amongst all the nations of the world,
RECOGNIZING that the construction of a single facility to house every genetic sample available is highly impractical, considering the necessary space to examine, store, record information about, and test this material,
SHOCKED that such scientists and research would be placed into one facility, potentially risking all such research and knowledge should a disaster befall the facility, and highly inconveniencing the scientists of the Universes,
CONCERNED that a single facility is incapable of servicing all those who may wish to use the facility and access the information within, due to both problems with transportation and the inevitable crowding that would occur within the facility,
DEEPLY CONCERNED that the research of this facility could be used by non-WA member nations to construct advanced biological weapons capable of undoing that which the facility strives for, due to a lack of safeguards built into the facility itself such as the non-existent security forces,
FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the safety of this single facility from natural or anthropogenic causes is not guaranteed, and that available technology to protect the facility was not utilized as it has been in the past construction of WA facilities,
AWARE that the Act fails to ensure that ANY genetic samples will actually be sent to the facility,
ALSO AWARE that individual nations are more than capable of funding and maintaining security over their own projects, and that the World Assembly therefore has no need to legislate on this issue,
BELIEVING that without an ensured supply of information and genetic samples this act is essentially meaningless, and merely creates a single, overcrowded, inconveniently located, underprotected, and ultimately fruitless facility,
HEREBY REPEALS World Assembly Resolution #126, the Extinction Preparation Act

Newest draft, also located on the original post.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the safety of this single facility from natural or anthropogenic causes is not guaranteed, and that available technology to protect the facility was not utilized,

I think this might be something to do with natural disasters if I am correct. I think you could add on that the specimen themselves are not protected from decay.

[Flibbleites]

A few general comments before I jump in here:
I personally prefer all of my verbage to be parallel, as I think it makes for a smoother read, but I'd support this even if it were made up of Justin Bieber lyrics.

Heck, I'd support it even if the text was just a YouTube link to "Friday." (OOC: And then I'd have to delete it for being illegal. )

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Mallorea and Riva]

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the safety of this single facility from natural or anthropogenic causes is not guaranteed, and that available technology to protect the facility was not utilized,

I think this might be something to do with natural disasters if I am correct. I think you could add on that the specimen themselves are not protected from decay.

Hmm the Act requires that "Acceptable preservation methods be observed."
This seems to be rather vague, yet at the same time it does attempt to address your concern, although it is questionable.

[Mousebumples]

OOC: Just a quick comment to say that I'm glad my quick thoughts were useful, and I'm not going to have time to do anything with the draft tonight. Presuming work doesn't drive me to drink tomorrow, I'll try to give it a further read-through tomorrow night. (i.e. hopefully 24 hours or less from now)

Plus, with 2 proposals still at quorum atop the queue, there's not much of a rush to get this submitted, necessarily. It's won't be at vote for at least a week, regardless, right?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think this might be something to do with natural disasters if I am correct. I think you could add on that the specimen themselves are not protected from decay.

Hmm the Act requires that "Acceptable preservation methods be observed."
This seems to be rather vague, yet at the same time it does attempt to address your concern, although it is questionable.

Honoured ambassador, the resolution concerned did miss the chance to specify that it was to do with preventing decay. As read preservation could mean just stuffing the sample in a drawer. A shame, really.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Hmm the Act requires that "Acceptable preservation methods be observed."
This seems to be rather vague, yet at the same time it does attempt to address your concern, although it is questionable.

Honoured ambassador, the resolution concerned did miss the chance to specify that it was to do with preventing decay. As read preservation could mean just stuffing the sample in a drawer. A shame, really.

Perhaps a clause that reads:

SADDENED that the Act fails to specify appropriate preservation methods to prevent specimen decay.

Would that be to your satisfaction?

[Bears Armed]

As I recall, that clause was deliberately left vague because -- bearing in mind the diversity of the WA's member nations -- it might well turn out to be the case that better alternatives could exist than any particular technology which might otherwise have been specified. Nevertheless, considering the resolution as a whole and the nature of the facility that it established, I do not consider "they might just have stuffed it into a drawer" to be a reasonable interpretation of the EPA.

[Kangarooia]

instead of repeal, what about amending the project?

[Flibbleites]

instead of repeal, what about amending the project?

Amendments are illegal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

... Nevertheless, considering the resolution as a whole and the nature of the facility that it established, I do not consider "they might just have stuffed it into a drawer" to be a reasonable interpretation of the EPA.

These were essentially my thoughts on this clause as well. Still, however, it is not made clear who the judge of what is reasonable. It is entirely possible that some nations lack a functioning knowledge of preservation techniques yet still wish to contribute to this facility. Their reasonable methods would be vastly inferior to our own.

[Glen-Rhodes]

These were essentially my thoughts on this clause as well. Still, however, it is not made clear who the judge of what is reasonable. It is entirely possible that some nations lack a functioning knowledge of preservation techniques yet still wish to contribute to this facility. Their reasonable methods would be vastly inferior to our own.

The resolution clearly states that WASP staff scientists operate the facility. It is not 'unclear' that those staff scientists would be determining the 'acceptable preservation methods.'