NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] REPEAL Extinction Preparation Act

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Sun May 15, 2011 9:00 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote: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.'


The relevant section of text is here:
b.) The facility is to be staffed, constructed and maintained by the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP).
c.) Member nations may use this facility freely, while non-member nations may use it for a nominal fee, which will provide additional funding for upkeep.

Now the question is how involved member nations' scientists are in the direct handling of the specimens. I leave this open to debate, I originally did not include it within the repeal due to its open nature.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8425
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon May 16, 2011 8:45 am

Okay, I've basically tried to amend some of the language below to make it as clear as possible - and, yes, I added in my beloved parallel verbage. See commentary for other details, etc.

And, obviously, feel free to discard any/all that you don't like. :)

The World Assembly:

REALIZES that GA#126, Extinction Preparation Act, attempts to preserve biodiversity and encourage research amongst all the nations of the world, (One general comment on writing repeals: Simple language is often best, just to make it easy for everyone to understand your point. "biodiversity" isn't a bad word, but it may be better to simplify this with something like "ensure the continued existence of all species" or something. It's a bit different in meaning, though, so I figured I wouldn't make such a wholesale change myself.)

BELIEVES that using a single facility is highly impractical, for the following reasons:
  • A large amount of space is necessary to allow for proper examination of all contributed materials.
  • A variety of storage conditions would be required to safely preserve all contributed genetic samples; for example: embryonic samples would need to be stored differently from agricultural seeds.
  • A single disaster - whether caused by nature or by man - would take out all of the materials, information, and employees of the facility, which places the entire project at risk.
  • Transportation issues may make it difficult for some nations to make contributions and/or send their scientists to the facility to conduct research.
FEARS 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, (I'm having second thoughts on this clause, as I'm not sure if it's necessary, and it may be unnecessary scare-mongering.)

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, (I think I have this covered in the above list format, so I'd take this line out.)

NOTES that this resolution fails to ensure that a wide array of genetic samples will actually be sent to the facility as it merely urges for specimens to be sent with minimal detail listed and with no provision that the WASP can request specific samples be sent.

RECOGNIZES that individual nations are more than capable of funding and maintaining security over similar projects on a national and/or regional level; therefore, the World Assembly 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, (This really just recaps everything and doesn't provide any new information. I don't think this is necessary in the repeal text itself.)

REPEALS World Assembly Resolution #126, Extinction Preparation Act. (I know Kenny's list calls it WAR#126, but that might not be accurate as there were more than a few SC resolutions passed by this point. GA resolution would probably be more accurate .... )
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon May 16, 2011 8:54 am

The World Assembly:

REALIZES that GA#126, Extinction Preparation Act, attempts to preserve biodiversity and encourage research amongst all the nations of the world,

BELIEVES that using a single facility is highly impractical, for the following reasons:
  • A large amount of space is necessary to allow for proper examination of all contributed materials.
  • A variety of storage conditions would be required to safely preserve all contributed genetic samples; for example: embryonic samples would need to be stored differently from agricultural seeds.
  • A single disaster - whether caused by nature or by man - would take out all of the materials, information, and employees of the facility, which places the entire project at risk.
  • Transportation issues may make it difficult for some nations to make contributions and/or send their scientists to the facility to conduct research.
FEARS 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,


NOTES that this resolution fails to ensure that a wide array of genetic samples will actually be sent to the facility as it merely urges for specimens to be sent with minimal detail listed and with no provision that the WASP can request specific samples be sent.

RECOGNIZES that individual nations are more than capable of funding and maintaining security over similar projects on a national and/or regional level; therefore, the World Assembly has no need to legislate on this issue.


REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #126, Extinction Preparation Act.


This is the alternative draft. Give me a bit to process it, I am a bit swamped as things currently stand.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18767
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Mon May 16, 2011 10:19 am

"About the complaint that the resolution only established one single facility: Of course there's nothing in its terms to prevent member-nations setting up such facilities of their own as well, with the WA's site then effectively serving as an additional back-up to those, is there? You all do realise that your governments don't actually need the WA's permission to establish such facilities, hrright?"

"Hrright?"



Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


^_^
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 16, 2011 11:13 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Now the question is how involved member nations' scientists are in the direct handling of the specimens.

Member nations can obviously be as directly involved as they wish. However, the issue is not nearly as open for debate as you think it is. It's wrong to think that the Extinction Preparation Act needs to be detailed. You seem to want literally an operations manual, safety protocol, terms of service, codes of conduct, etc. None of these belong in a resolution. They belong instead in bureaucratic regulations established by the WA Scientific Programme. While you may not like the idea that the World Assembly does things that aren't literally spelled out in resolutions, the fact is that nothing makes sense otherwise. In this case, WASP dictates protocol and any nations using the facility -- regardless of tech level, scientific ability, whatever -- have to follow it.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon May 16, 2011 6:00 pm

Bears Armed wrote:"About the complaint that the resolution only established one single facility: Of course there's nothing in its terms to prevent member-nations setting up such facilities of their own as well, with the WA's site then effectively serving as an additional back-up to those, is there? You all do realise that your governments don't actually need the WA's permission to establish such facilities, hrright?"

"Hrright?"




This argument refutes itself. If member nations already have their own facilities then there is no need for the WA to create one. If member nations do NOT have such facilities, then the WA would need to create multiple facilities to complete its mission.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Now the question is how involved member nations' scientists are in the direct handling of the specimens.

Member nations can obviously be as directly involved as they wish. However, the issue is not nearly as open for debate as you think it is. It's wrong to think that the Extinction Preparation Act needs to be detailed. You seem to want literally an operations manual, safety protocol, terms of service, codes of conduct, etc. None of these belong in a resolution. They belong instead in bureaucratic regulations established by the WA Scientific Programme. While you may not like the idea that the World Assembly does things that aren't literally spelled out in resolutions, the fact is that nothing makes sense otherwise. In this case, WASP dictates protocol and any nations using the facility -- regardless of tech level, scientific ability, whatever -- have to follow it.


The facility is "staffed, constructed, and maintained" by the WASP. Member nations and non-member nations are free to operate within whatever parameters they see fit. Nowhere does it say that WASP dictates the protocol that all nations must follow. Once again you are wording the resolution as it should be written, not as it actually is written.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 16, 2011 6:28 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:The facility is "staffed, constructed, and maintained" by the WASP. Member nations and non-member nations are free to operate within whatever parameters they see fit. Nowhere does it say that WASP dictates the protocol that all nations must follow. Once again you are wording the resolution as it should be written, not as it actually is written.

The resolution does not allow states to operation without restrictions. You are not understanding that the facility is owned and operated by the WA Scientific Programme. For some reason, you are treating a living, breathing, dynamic bureaucracy as a static object that doesn't actually exist except on paper.

Do you really think that the WASP is going to let scientists work without restrictions? If you do, you are purposefully ignoring the power of World Assembly bureaucracies. Of course, you wouldn't be the first. There have been many before you who have advocated that idea of law. However, it is outmoded and illogical. It's not even a textualist approach, since the text clearly ascribes significant power to the WASP. What it is is an approach to statutory interpretation that (a) ignores reasonableness and (b) implicitly invalidates regulatory power.

The WASP is explicitly given the authority to maintain the facility. The resolution itself mandates preservation methods. It is follows by any reasonable reading of the law that the WASP is going to set and enforce those standards. You simply cannot argue otherwise. Saying that the resolution does not explicitly say it in those terms is nonsensical semantics; the meaning is quite clear, unless you're purposefully attempting to not see it. Additionally, the approach you're using fails the common sense doctrine. There's no reason to add safety protocols because it's common sense that there will be safety protocols. It simply goes without saying; it's inherent in the authorities given to the WASP. The committee was utilized for a reason: to remove the need for wonkish detail.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon May 16, 2011 8:23 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:The facility is "staffed, constructed, and maintained" by the WASP. Member nations and non-member nations are free to operate within whatever parameters they see fit. Nowhere does it say that WASP dictates the protocol that all nations must follow. Once again you are wording the resolution as it should be written, not as it actually is written.

The resolution does not allow states to operation without restrictions. You are not understanding that the facility is owned and operated by the WA Scientific Programme. For some reason, you are treating a living, breathing, dynamic bureaucracy as a static object that doesn't actually exist except on paper.

Do you really think that the WASP is going to let scientists work without restrictions? If you do, you are purposefully ignoring the power of World Assembly bureaucracies. Of course, you wouldn't be the first. There have been many before you who have advocated that idea of law. However, it is outmoded and illogical. It's not even a textualist approach, since the text clearly ascribes significant power to the WASP. What it is is an approach to statutory interpretation that (a) ignores reasonableness and (b) implicitly invalidates regulatory power.

The WASP is explicitly given the authority to maintain the facility. The resolution itself mandates preservation methods. It is follows by any reasonable reading of the law that the WASP is going to set and enforce those standards. You simply cannot argue otherwise. Saying that the resolution does not explicitly say it in those terms is nonsensical semantics; the meaning is quite clear, unless you're purposefully attempting to not see it. Additionally, the approach you're using fails the common sense doctrine. There's no reason to add safety protocols because it's common sense that there will be safety protocols. It simply goes without saying; it's inherent in the authorities given to the WASP. The committee was utilized for a reason: to remove the need for wonkish detail.


The WASP cannot enforce any standard that is left explicitly vague, especially when that standard is subjective to each member state. ""Maintain" is used in referring to the facility, not necessarily the specimens within. It is never specified within the text. As for your statement that there's no reason to add safety protocols, I would simply state that you are reading things into the resolution that are never even mentioned. The committee was utilized in order to add credibility to the project, but the WASP has no security component within it! It is a scientific committee, the authorities given to the WASP in previous resolutions do not include defense, and it is certainly not stated in this resolution.

You state that I lack common sense, that certain things are obvious about this resolution, yet you simply fail to realize that while I agree certain things should be contained within the resolution, they most certainly are NOT stated. Indeed the resolution contradicts common sense by explicitly creating a single building to house a massive research project, and at the same time it implies that nations will trust the security of such research to "common sense". I'm afraid that common sense is something that is very lacking in the Universes these days, and is most certainly lacking within the Act.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 16, 2011 10:00 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:The WASP cannot enforce any standard that is left explicitly vague, especially when that standard is subjective to each member state. ""Maintain" is used in referring to the facility, not necessarily the specimens within. It is never specified within the text.

What is subjective about the standard? Where are you reading that 'acceptable preservation methods' is 'subjective to each member state?' That only beings to make sense if you assume that WASP has no regulatory power. Even then, it's difficult to argue your point because of the very wording itself: 'acceptable' implies objectivity, not subjectivity. The clause itself clearly reads as requiring an objective standard.

Furthermore, the fact that you keep having to use the phrase 'not necessarily' shows that you're being overly semantic in both your reading and argument. The facility is used for scientific research. The organization running it is a scientific research organization. They aren't going to be just changing light bulbs -- the OBM can do that. If you take context into account (which you certainly should, but you currently aren't), 'maintain' means exactly what you think it would mean: operating the facility.

Taking context into account also shows the inherent regulatory power over preservation methods. Why would the author say that acceptable methods need to be used, but not in any way point out what those methods are? Out of context, you're arguing that that's exactly what the author did. But that's simply absurd. Obviously, the author intended for those methods to be declared by some authority. WASP is given substantial authority already. WASP scientists are tasked with many research obligations. In this context, it is abundantly clear that WASP would have the authority to set out the preservation standards.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:As for your statement that there's no reason to add safety protocols, I would simply state that you are reading things into the resolution that are never even mentioned.

It doesn't need to be. As I've argued before, obviously necessary mandates need not be included in a resolution's text. There is an implied security by the mere characteristic of the facility and in the authorities over that facility given to WASP. What you're quibbling over is that the resolution doesn't mention specifically security. Well, the resolution doesn't mention specifically that it will have electricity or scientific equipment or even that it be more than ten square feet in area. No reasonable person, however, is going to argue that these things aren't included just because the resolution doesn't specifically include them. They are all implied. What you're asking for is unreasonable and indeed impractical for World Assembly resolutions.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Indeed the resolution contradicts common sense by explicitly creating a single building to house a massive research project...

You haven't given this argument up, yet? It's been refuted so many times.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18767
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Tue May 17, 2011 10:10 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:"About the complaint that the resolution only established one single facility: Of course there's nothing in its terms to prevent member-nations setting up such facilities of their own as well, with the WA's site then effectively serving as an additional back-up to those, is there? You all do realise that your governments don't actually need the WA's permission to establish such facilities, hrright?"

"Hrright?"




This argument refutes itself. If member nations already have their own facilities then there is no need for the WA to create one. If member nations do NOT have such facilities, then the WA would need to create multiple facilities to complete its mission.

No, it doesn't. The nations that are concerned about this resolution only creating a single facility can create one of their own as well and use this one as a back-up so that they don't need to create another one of their own for that role, and any nations that would be content with the existence of a single such facility can use this one without needing to build any of their own.
(And any nations who don't see the need for any such facility at all? Hwell, hokay so they'll see a tiny share of their "donations" to the WA being used to support this one, but spreading the cost of maintaining one such facility across all of the members should make that share an almost unnoticeable amount by most governments' standards...)
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Tue May 17, 2011 10:51 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:The WASP cannot enforce any standard that is left explicitly vague, especially when that standard is subjective to each member state. ""Maintain" is used in referring to the facility, not necessarily the specimens within. It is never specified within the text.

What is subjective about the standard? Where are you reading that 'acceptable preservation methods' is 'subjective to each member state?' That only beings to make sense if you assume that WASP has no regulatory power. Even then, it's difficult to argue your point because of the very wording itself: 'acceptable' implies objectivity, not subjectivity. The clause itself clearly reads as requiring an objective standard.

Furthermore, the fact that you keep having to use the phrase 'not necessarily' shows that you're being overly semantic in both your reading and argument. The facility is used for scientific research. The organization running it is a scientific research organization. They aren't going to be just changing light bulbs -- the OBM can do that. If you take context into account (which you certainly should, but you currently aren't), 'maintain' means exactly what you think it would mean: operating the facility.

Taking context into account also shows the inherent regulatory power over preservation methods. Why would the author say that acceptable methods need to be used, but not in any way point out what those methods are? Out of context, you're arguing that that's exactly what the author did. But that's simply absurd. Obviously, the author intended for those methods to be declared by some authority. WASP is given substantial authority already. WASP scientists are tasked with many research obligations. In this context, it is abundantly clear that WASP would have the authority to set out the preservation standards.


My problem is that the resolution is so horrifically vague in regards to preservation methods and the role of WASP that it is left open to interpretation. Member nations are involved in the science being done here, there is no doubt of that. Nowhere does it say that WASP controls their handling of the specimens. The resolution states that nations may use the facility, that is all. There is no explicit oversight. Again I will state that I myself am not sold on this particular argument, I await further debate from others to determine its future.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:As for your statement that there's no reason to add safety protocols, I would simply state that you are reading things into the resolution that are never even mentioned.

It doesn't need to be. As I've argued before, obviously necessary mandates need not be included in a resolution's text. There is an implied security by the mere characteristic of the facility and in the authorities over that facility given to WASP. What you're quibbling over is that the resolution doesn't mention specifically security. Well, the resolution doesn't mention specifically that it will have electricity or scientific equipment or even that it be more than ten square feet in area. No reasonable person, however, is going to argue that these things aren't included just because the resolution doesn't specifically include them. They are all implied. What you're asking for is unreasonable and indeed impractical for World Assembly resolutions.


Once again I will point out that you are putting things into the resolution that are not in there. As much as I enjoy being an unreasonable person I would contend that a reasonable person would not look at a resolution and begin to add in features that simply are not there! The electricity is a part of the facility, that is common sense I agree. Security measures and defense measures, however are not! Besides the main argument against the security is not vulnerability to direct attack but rather the folly of creating a single facility.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Indeed the resolution contradicts common sense by explicitly creating a single building to house a massive research project...

You haven't given this argument up, yet? It's been refuted so many times.

see below

Bears Armed wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:
This argument refutes itself. If member nations already have their own facilities then there is no need for the WA to create one. If member nations do NOT have such facilities, then the WA would need to create multiple facilities to complete its mission.

No, it doesn't. The nations that are concerned about this resolution only creating a single facility can create one of their own as well and use this one as a back-up so that they don't need to create another one of their own for that role, and any nations that would be content with the existence of a single such facility can use this one without needing to build any of their own.
(And any nations who don't see the need for any such facility at all? Hwell, hokay so they'll see a tiny share of their "donations" to the WA being used to support this one, but spreading the cost of maintaining one such facility across all of the members should make that share an almost unnoticeable amount by most governments' standards...)


In order for the WA facility to serve as a capable backup to the facilities of the rest of the Universes it would need to be able to replicate the capabilities of each of these facilities. A single facility cannot fulfill the needs of every nation in existence! Even if only a few dozen nations choose to pursue this research a single facility would still be unable to hold all of the samples, scientists, and information. There is simply no benefit to the WA creating this facility.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Thu May 19, 2011 11:27 am

After perusing previous legislation I found this example from the Ambassador of Darenjo
The General Assembly,

RE-ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations are not able to reach outer space, either due to financial or technological restraints,

BELIEVING that all nations who desire to reach outer space should be able to do so,

NOTING the wide margin with which "Space Research Station Program" passed,

BUT FINDING several flaws with said resolution, including that:

1. It only creates one space station to fit the needs of over 12,000 World Assembly member-states spread over several star systems,

2. It requires that the WASRS rely solely on the donations of nations, corporations, and individuals, but does not require said nations, corporations, and individuals to donate anything at all, calling into question the ability of the space station to fund itself,

3. The WASRS, due to both the rules of the World Assembly and the wording of the resolution that created it, cannot defend itself from attack, in a current situation where some space-faring WA members have openly declared their hostility to the WASRS, or from space objects which pose a threat to the WASRS,

4. There is no specified purpose for the space station, meaning that the only actual effect of it at this point is the creation of purposeless bureaucracy,

5. Nations have no obligation to participate, and those that do choose to participate have no obligation to participate in a responsible manner, leaving the way open for more subtle opponents of the WASRS to sabotage or damage the station from the inside, needlessly endangering the lives of some of the WA's best scientists,

6. There is no provision or set-aside funding for either replacing, repairing, or even maintaing the WASRS in the case of attack, internal sabotage, and normal space wear,

BELIEVING that the problems with the resolution far outweigh its potential benefits,

NOTING that many nations have managed to reach outer space without the WA's help, and that several others have no desire to reach outer space at the present time,

The General Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #115, "Space Research Station Program"


You can see the shared flaws that the WASRS has with the facility constructed in the Act. The arguments I am making are not groundbreaking or experimental, they have already proven themselves in the legislative process.
Last edited by Mallorea and Riva on Thu May 19, 2011 11:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Fri May 20, 2011 9:15 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Nowhere does it say that WASP controls their handling of the specimens. The resolution states that nations may use the facility, that is all. There is no explicit oversight. Again I will state that I myself am not sold on this particular argument, I await further debate from others to determine its future.

That's a product of your lack of any ability to comprehend legislative interpretation, not a product of the resolution's apparent vague-ness.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Once again I will point out that you are putting things into the resolution that are not in there. As much as I enjoy being an unreasonable person I would contend that a reasonable person would not look at a resolution and begin to add in features that simply are not there!

A reasonable person would be able to look at the resolution and know exactly what's going on. An unreasonable person would nitpick words and moan about how they're so vague and so confusing. Maybe you should try and read some real international law. Or maybe just read up on how bureaucracy really works, because what you're obsessing over is bureaucratic regulations and not international law.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:The electricity is a part of the facility, that is common sense I agree. Security measures and defense measures, however are not!

Are you going to explain this? You are arguing that security is necessary, yet you're arbitrarily separating the necessity of security from the necessity of electricity. Either both are necessary and thus implied, or resolutions can only possible do exactly what the text says and nothing more, and thus electricity and numerous other common-sense things are not actually provided. Aren't you experiencing some massive cognitive dissonance by now?

Mallorea and Riva wrote:A single facility cannot fulfill the needs of every nation in existence! Even if only a few dozen nations choose to pursue this research a single facility would still be unable to hold all of the samples, scientists, and information. There is simply no benefit to the WA creating this facility.

You're assuming that hundreds of thousands of scientists are going to be using the facility. You're assuming that genetic samples are the size of football fields. You're assuming that Bears Armed said the facility was a backup in the way you're characterizing it. All of your assumptions are false, in spite of whatever you wish to believe is true. The facility is the same as any other. If you want to argue that it's useless and the World Assembly shouldn't be spending money on it, then do that. But stop being unreasonable and stop giving these absurd arguments.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Fri May 20, 2011 9:35 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Nowhere does it say that WASP controls their handling of the specimens. The resolution states that nations may use the facility, that is all. There is no explicit oversight. Again I will state that I myself am not sold on this particular argument, I await further debate from others to determine its future.

That's a product of your lack of any ability to comprehend legislative interpretation, not a product of the resolution's apparent vague-ness.


It is a product of the fact that the resolution is a poorly constructed blueprint for an ultimately useless facility.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Once again I will point out that you are putting things into the resolution that are not in there. As much as I enjoy being an unreasonable person I would contend that a reasonable person would not look at a resolution and begin to add in features that simply are not there!

A reasonable person would be able to look at the resolution and know exactly what's going on. An unreasonable person would nitpick words and moan about how they're so vague and so confusing. Maybe you should try and read some real international law. Or maybe just read up on how bureaucracy really works, because what you're obsessing over is bureaucratic regulations and not international law.


I refer you to the international law that has been passed by this assembly which repealed previous scientific research on the grounds that it was bloody stupid and incapable of fulfilling its mandate.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:The electricity is a part of the facility, that is common sense I agree. Security measures and defense measures, however are not!

Are you going to explain this? You are arguing that security is necessary, yet you're arbitrarily separating the necessity of security from the necessity of electricity. Either both are necessary and thus implied, or resolutions can only possible do exactly what the text says and nothing more, and thus electricity and numerous other common-sense things are not actually provided. Aren't you experiencing some massive cognitive dissonance by now?


A facility requires electricity. This is obvious. It also requires walls, a ceiling, and a floor. These are part of the definitions of scientific facility. They are not options, if they are lacking, then you don't have a facility. You have a heap of building materials. Security however, is an optional feature. It was not included in the resolution, and you cannot simply add in whatever features you deem to be necessary. Indeed I wonder how you could ever vote against any resolution if you can simply infer anything you wish into the text.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:A single facility cannot fulfill the needs of every nation in existence! Even if only a few dozen nations choose to pursue this research a single facility would still be unable to hold all of the samples, scientists, and information. There is simply no benefit to the WA creating this facility.

You're assuming that hundreds of thousands of scientists are going to be using the facility. You're assuming that genetic samples are the size of football fields. You're assuming that Bears Armed said the facility was a backup in the way you're characterizing it. All of your assumptions are false, in spite of whatever you wish to believe is true. The facility is the same as any other. If you want to argue that it's useless and the World Assembly shouldn't be spending money on it, then do that. But stop being unreasonable and stop giving these absurd arguments.


You are assuming that only a few scientists are going to be using the facility. You're assuming that the facility will be the size of dozens of football fields. You're assuming that the facility will be used exactly as you imagine. Due to the fact that the resolution is so flawed you cannot prove any of your arguments. You can say "This should say this" and "A reasonable person might say this", but the fact is that this resolution is not reasonable.

The facility is useless, and the World Assembly shouldn't be spending money on it. This statement is true due to the arguments listed above.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat May 21, 2011 6:10 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:I refer you to the international law that has been passed by this assembly which repealed previous scientific research on the grounds that it was bloody stupid and incapable of fulfilling its mandate.

You're assuming that those repeals were necessary and intelligence themselves.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:A facility requires electricity. This is obvious. It also requires walls, a ceiling, and a floor. These are part of the definitions of scientific facility. They are not options, if they are lacking, then you don't have a facility. You have a heap of building materials. Security however, is an optional feature. It was not included in the resolution, and you cannot simply add in whatever features you deem to be necessary. Indeed I wonder how you could ever vote against any resolution if you can simply infer anything you wish into the text.

You have yet to explain how you're drawing your arbitrary line between the necessity of 'obvious' thing like electricity and the necessity of security, which you are arguing is also an obvious necessity. You cannot argue that electricity is included regardless of a mandate and in the same breath argue that security isn't included because there is no mandate. Security is as obvious a necessity as electricity. Can you provide a cogent reason for why there's a difference?

Mallorea and Riva wrote:You are assuming that only a few scientists are going to be using the facility. You're assuming that the facility will be the size of dozens of football fields. You're assuming that the facility will be used exactly as you imagine.

No, I have not made any of these assumptions. It is obvious that a decent number of scientists are going to use the facility. It is obvious that the facility is not going to be the size of a nation, which you are arguing that it needs to be. On a side note, here, a facility the size of 'several dozen football fields' is not out of the realm of possibility or reasonableness. Neither am I assuming that nobody will ever try and use the facility for nefarious reasons. Indeed, I have maintained that the facility will be like most others, in size and population. I have also maintained that necessary security prevents the development of biological weapons, as the World Assembly has clearly expressed its disapproval of those weapons. You are the one relying on assumption, not me.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:You can say "This should say this" and "A reasonable person might say this", but the fact is that this resolution is not reasonable.

I believe the conclusion you should be reaching is that you are, indeed, not a reasonable person.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:The facility is useless, and the World Assembly shouldn't be spending money on it. This statement is true due to the arguments listed above.

That statement is opinion and cannot be true or false. You aren't arguing that the facility is useless. If you were, I would responding with how useful the facility is, not rebutting your clearly delusional interpretation of both the resolution and World Assembly bureaucratic power.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8425
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon May 23, 2011 11:24 am

Grammar/Punctuation nitpicky-ness ahead:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the aim of GA#126, Extinction Preparation Act, which attempted to preserve biodiversity and encourage research amongst all the nations of the world;

BELIEVES, however, that using a single facility for this purpose is highly impractical for a number of reasons, most notably:
  • The variety of storage conditions would be required to safely preserve all contributed genetic samples; for example: embryonic samples would need to be stored differently from agricultural seeds,
  • The logistical issues that some nations may encounter when making contributions and/or sending their scientists to the facility to conduct research;
  • The large amount of space required to allow for proper examination of all contributed materials may be better suited for multiple facilities due to the aforementioned items,
  • The security risk as a single disaster - whether caused by nature or by man - would take out all of the materials, information, and employees of the facility, which places the entire project at risk,
FEARS that the research at 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;

NOTES that this resolution fails to ensure that a wide array of genetic samples will actually be sent to the facility as it merely "urges member nations to supply specimens" with minimal detail listed and lacks any clause to allow the WASP to request specific samples be sent;

RECOGNIZES that individual nations are more than capable of funding and maintaining security over similar projects on a national and/or regional level; therefore, the World Assembly has no need to legislate on this issue;

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #126, Extinction Preparation Act.

Co-authored by: [nation=short]Mousebumples[/nation]


I think that the repeal may be stronger without the FEARS clause. Non-WA member nations are allowed to use the facility, but I would think it's safe to presume that they would be held to the same WA-resolutions standards (for said research) as this is a WA-funded facility. Otherwise, I would think if we wait another day or two - just to be sure no further objections arise - this is ready for submission.

I don't believe that GR will ever support this repeal, and while your continued exchanges with him can be interesting, they seem as if they're going in circles, to me.
Last edited by Mousebumples on Mon May 23, 2011 11:38 am, edited 4 times in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Yuktova
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11882
Founded: Feb 09, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Yuktova » Mon May 23, 2011 11:29 am

I am against this repeal. The Act does as it is accorded to. Most nations who support this repeal do not believe that Global Climate Change is a serious threat. As my nation, Yuktovania, is located in Antarctica, the effects of massive Global Climate Change is very real. To other nations, it may not be the case, but in Yuktovania, it is.

Sincerly, Prime Minister Nikolai Benski.
I'm Morrissey... Nice to meet you.
Goldsaver said: This is murder, not a romantic date!

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8425
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon May 23, 2011 11:39 am

Yuktova wrote:I am against this repeal. The Act does as it is accorded to. Most nations who support this repeal do not believe that Global Climate Change is a serious threat. As my nation, Yuktovania, is located in Antarctica, the effects of massive Global Climate Change is very real. To other nations, it may not be the case, but in Yuktovania, it is.

I do see global climate change as being a real threat. However, my nation is more than capable of preventing the extinction of our native species without the helping hand of the WA.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 23, 2011 1:38 pm

Mousebumples wrote:I do see global climate change as being a real threat. However, my nation is more than capable of preventing the extinction of our native species without the helping hand of the WA.

Then don't use the helping hand of the WA?

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8425
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon May 23, 2011 8:40 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:I do see global climate change as being a real threat. However, my nation is more than capable of preventing the extinction of our native species without the helping hand of the WA.

Then don't use the helping hand of the WA?

Exactly why I am assisting with the repeal of this unneeded resolution. :clap:
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 23, 2011 9:04 pm

Mousebumples wrote:Exactly why I am assisting with the repeal of this unneeded resolution. :clap:

So, if you don't want to use it, then you'll make sure nobody uses it.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8425
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon May 23, 2011 9:05 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:Exactly why I am assisting with the repeal of this unneeded resolution. :clap:

So, if you don't want to use it, then you'll make sure nobody uses it.

Well, since optionality is ILLEGAL, I'd rather not pay for something I don't need.

So, yes. Although I'm more than happy to coordinate with other nations who feel that they are unable to undertake a project such as this on their own.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 23, 2011 9:15 pm

Mousebumples wrote:Well, since optionality is ILLEGAL, I'd rather not pay for something I don't need.

Ah, yes. The response of a taxpayer with an over-inflated ego. You don't pay for it. First of all, you pay into a block grant program, so you can't ever say with certainty of truth that you pay for any given program at any given time. Once money goes to the General Fund, it's not yours anymore, it's the General Fund's. Besides that, the money that does go into this program from the single contribution Mousebumples makes is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that contribution.

You pay $1,000,000 to the General Fund and spend $1.00 on this particular program. And that's an exaggeration. This facility costs the same as any other analogous facility in any state or university. If a university can afford it, Mousebumples can afford it, if they even pay anything at all. It's highly likely the contributions from nations with much higher quotas than yours already cover the costs of the EPRF.

Mousebumples wrote:So, yes. Although I'm more than happy to coordinate with other nations who feel that they are unable to undertake a project such as this on their own.

Except, of course, if you were indeed 'more than happy' to do so, you would find no problem doing so through the World Assembly.
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Mon May 23, 2011 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8425
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon May 23, 2011 9:22 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:So, yes. Although I'm more than happy to coordinate with other nations who feel that they are unable to undertake a project such as this on their own.

Except, of course, if you were indeed 'more than happy' to do so, you would find no problem doing so through the World Assembly.

Except my program is not subject to many of the same risks and issues inherent with the problematic structure created within this resolution.

So because it almost costs me nothing, we should just keep it. Even though it's a waste of money and space and resources that could be better allocated to almost anything else that actually does what it sets out to do - rather than what you've decided that it must be doing, even though the resolution's text isn't as precise as you have inferred.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9255
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Sat May 28, 2011 6:25 am

Mousebumples wrote:Grammar/Punctuation nitpicky-ness ahead:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the aim of GA#126, Extinction Preparation Act, which attempted to preserve biodiversity and encourage research amongst all the nations of the world;
BELIEVES, however, that using a single facility for this purpose is highly impractical for a number of reasons, most notably:
  • The variety of storage conditions required to safely preserve all contributed genetic samples; for example: embryonic samples would need to be stored differently from agricultural seeds,
  • The logistical issues that some nations may encounter when making contributions and/or sending their scientists to the facility to conduct research;
  • The large amount of space required to allow for proper examination of all contributed materials may be better suited for multiple facilities due to the aforementioned items,
  • The security risk as a single disaster - whether caused by nature or by man - would take out all materials, information, and employees of the facility,
NOTES that this resolution fails to ensure that a wide array of genetic samples will actually be sent to the facility as it merely "urges member nations to supply specimens" and lacks any clause to allow the WASP to request specific samples;

RECOGNIZES that individual nations are more than capable of funding and maintaining security over similar projects on a national and/or regional level:

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #126, Extinction Preparation Act.

Co-authored by: [nation=short]Mousebumples[/nation]


I think that the repeal may be stronger without the FEARS clause. Non-WA member nations are allowed to use the facility, but I would think it's safe to presume that they would be held to the same WA-resolutions standards (for said research) as this is a WA-funded facility. Otherwise, I would think if we wait another day or two - just to be sure no further objections arise - this is ready for submission.

I don't believe that GR will ever support this repeal, and while your continued exchanges with him can be interesting, they seem as if they're going in circles, to me.



OOC: Verrrrry busy recently, and with limited internet access. I will agree with and adopt this draft here as the official one, and will submit.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads