[PASSED] Repeal: Biological Weapons Conference

[Knootoss]

The bright colours are confusing me.

[Knootoss]

CONCERNED that the Biological Weapons Conference does not explicitly ban Member States from using biological weapons, except if a nation were to use them in response to being attacked with... biological weapons;

The ellipses are unnecessary. I realize that they are for emphasis, but they just break up the statement. The arguments above for removing this particular paragraph are pretty convincing (to me), but if you decide to keep it in you should at least reword it so that the "pause of surprise" in here is indicated in the wording instead.

The appropriate change has been made.

[Bergnovinaia]

The bright colours are confusing me.

They actually confuse me too, in hindsight. It's pretty simple though to figure what the bright ones say, especially if you read the actual text.

[Sagatagan]

Support if and only if a suitable replacement draft, one in line with the observations of this proposal and seeking to fix this flawed act, is proposed.

[Krioval]

Support if and only if a suitable replacement draft, one in line with the observations of this proposal and seeking to fix this flawed act, is proposed.

Was that the sound of Your Excellency volunteering?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Sagatagan]

Support if and only if a suitable replacement draft, one in line with the observations of this proposal and seeking to fix this flawed act, is proposed.

Was that the sound of Your Excellency volunteering?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

If nobody else will, we'll give it a shot.

-Comrade Unforma, Sagat delegate

[Knootoss]

Red: Although, does NAPA not do that as well...?
Blue: I think you missed the memo. WA resolutions are written to be intentionally vague. If they were so specific, not only would they get no support, but they could be illegal.
Underlined: Actually... it does. Read it carefully. Again, vague, but worded the only way that it could possibly be legal and not super micro-managey.
Greenish: Again... vague, as intended. I'd also go as far as to argue that the definition, upon reading the section where peaceful usage of biologial agens are allowed, would allow for their usage in insecticides, pesticides, etc. (unless, of course, some nation flips out, claiming that a nation is waging a war against an insect population). However, as already stated, these are moslty made out of chemicals anways.

I think I saw the memo, disagreed with, and threw it in some dumpster. There is a difference between demanding micromanagement and using words that, well, make sense. Finding a workable definition of 'biological weapons' and related terms would have been extremely easy. Here, let me show you..

The resolution that is on the books now is composed of constituent parts that do not mesh (perhaps suggested by different co-authors?), and starts off with an insane premise.

[Knootoss]

Submitted for a test run! Endorse here.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Endorsed. Lets get this repeal passed. So I can oppose a replacement.

[Bergnovinaia]

Red: Although, does NAPA not do that as well...?
Blue: I think you missed the memo. WA resolutions are written to be intentionally vague. If they were so specific, not only would they get no support, but they could be illegal.
Underlined: Actually... it does. Read it carefully. Again, vague, but worded the only way that it could possibly be legal and not super micro-managey.
Greenish: Again... vague, as intended. I'd also go as far as to argue that the definition, upon reading the section where peaceful usage of biologial agens are allowed, would allow for their usage in insecticides, pesticides, etc. (unless, of course, some nation flips out, claiming that a nation is waging a war against an insect population). However, as already stated, these are moslty made out of chemicals anways.

I think I saw the memo, disagreed with, and threw it in some dumpster. There is a difference between demanding micromanagement and using words that, well, make sense. Finding a workable definition of 'biological weapons' and related terms would have been extremely easy. Here, let me show you..

The resolution that is on the books now is composed of constituent parts that do not mesh (perhaps suggested by different co-authors?), and starts off with an insane premise.

Ok... well you and everyone else is entitled to your opinion on the resolution. However, I find it ironic that you say that you aren't waving some dictionary around, claiming that the wording is to hard, when in reality, you're shooting dictionaries out of a cannon and the wording is the way it should to be. Is this what we want writing WA proposals to come to? A series of definition after definition???

There is a very large specturm of between being too vague and being a micromanager, and I personally think that the proposal lies somwhere near the middle (where most proposals should indeed be). What I am genuinely concerned about is this repeal reaching the floor, passing, and having no replacement passed because the replacement is too finely worded, leaving no room for interpretation, and thus being labeled as a micromanagement resolution. Wording a resolution to tightly is bad... it'll never, ever, ever, ever get enough support.

Just my thoughts... but again, I am one super biased and concerned person about this bill.

Yours,

Ms. Spenanda Thekenbail Ph.D
Ambassador for Bergnovinaia to the World Assembly
Author of the Biological Weapons Conference, Cultural Heritage Protection, and Assitance Givers Protection [sic]

[Knootoss]

This reminds me about the debates on the General Fund, where a tax was cloaked as "donations" in order to increase support. Political expediency is no excuse for writing bad resolutions.

[Bergnovinaia]

This reminds me about the debates on the General Fund, where a tax was cloaked as "donations" in order to increase support. Political expediency is no excuse for writing bad resolutions.

So... may I inquire where your repeal binge will stop then?

[Knootoss]

I wasn't aware that one failed repeal, and one attempt, constitute a "binge".

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Was that the sound of Your Excellency volunteering?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

If nobody else will, we'll give it a shot.

-Comrade Unforma, Sagat delegate

How hard can it be? Pretty hard, but here's something I whipped up in [make your guess of the amount of time]

The World Assembly,

DEFINES Biological Warfare as warfare conducted with the use of biological or infectious agents such as viruses, bacteria, or other disease causing biological agents.

DEFINES Biological Weapons as those weapons used for biological warfare,

BANS member nations from using biological weapons against another nation, be they a member of the World Assembly or not.

that took me

2 minutes

.


Obviously if I pursue this i'd spend more time developing it. But it can be done.

[Parti Ouvrier]

First of all, Ambassador Koopman, let me express my deepest gratitude that you are not the ambassador for Luthiland.

Like Grays, I must refrain from expression support or opposition for the repeal you have given us: while the repeal certainly has substance, and very good points, I must admit to a little apphrehension that, so far, there is no mention of a replacement.

If there is a viable replacement that comes up, then I'll be happy to support. Until then, however, I cannot endorse this.

This reflects my position pretty much.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I think I saw the memo, disagreed with, and threw it in some dumpster. There is a difference between demanding micromanagement and using words that, well, make sense. Finding a workable definition of 'biological weapons' and related terms would have been extremely easy. Here, let me show you..

The resolution that is on the books now is composed of constituent parts that do not mesh (perhaps suggested by different co-authors?), and starts off with an insane premise.

Ok... well you and everyone else is entitled to your opinion on the resolution. However, I find it ironic that you say that you aren't waving some dictionary around, claiming that the wording is to hard, when in reality, you're shooting dictionaries out of a cannon and the wording is the way it should to be. Is this what we want writing WA proposals to come to? A series of definition after definition???

There is a very large specturm of between being too vague and being a micromanager, and I personally think that the proposal lies somwhere near the middle (where most proposals should indeed be). What I am genuinely concerned about is this repeal reaching the floor, passing, and having no replacement passed because the replacement is too finely worded, leaving no room for interpretation, and thus being labeled as a micromanagement resolution. Wording a resolution to tightly is bad... it'll never, ever, ever, ever get enough support.

Just my thoughts... but again, I am one super biased and concerned person about this bill.

Yours,

Ms. Spenanda Thekenbail Ph.D
Ambassador for Bergnovinaia to the World Assembly
Author of the Biological Weapons Conference, Cultural Heritage Protection, and Assitance Givers Protection [sic]

I understand Mousebumples is critical of excessive definition, yet she endorsed this in what can only be an opportunist endorsement!

[Mahaj WA Seat]

First of all, Ambassador Koopman, let me express my deepest gratitude that you are not the ambassador for Luthiland.

Like Grays, I must refrain from expression support or opposition for the repeal you have given us: while the repeal certainly has substance, and very good points, I must admit to a little apphrehension that, so far, there is no mention of a replacement.

If there is a viable replacement that comes up, then I'll be happy to support. Until then, however, I cannot endorse this.

This reflects my position pretty much.

Would you consider, even for a second, the mini-draft posted right above your comment?

[Maroza]

We are very close to this coming to a vote. 7 votes needed and 12 hours left.

[Bergnovinaia]

Well... it looks like it's in queue. You have my blessings (as this is the best repeal I've seen by far).

Just on a side note, I'd love to possibly be involved in drafting as much of an insta-replacement as possible, so whoever is interested, please contact me. Thanks.

[Bears Armed]

Just on a side note, I'd love to possibly be involved in drafting as much of an insta-replacement as possible, so whoever is interested, please contact me. Thanks.

"Ahem!"

[Bergnovinaia]

Just on a side note, I'd love to possibly be involved in drafting as much of an insta-replacement as possible, so whoever is interested, please contact me. Thanks.

"Ahem!"

Well then...

OOC: Anyways, I'll read through that later and give some feedback, because I have several errands to run this morning.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Endorsed. Lets get this repeal passed. So I can oppose a replacement.

Zakath narrowed his eyes and grinned

I see what you did there.

[Ventienza]

We here at the United Socialist States of Ventienza, vote strongly against the repeal.

As we do see that are some good things that are included with the repeal, we feel that the risks outweigh the pros.
We vote against for this issue.

[Of Gardens]

We just repealed the environmental version of this (metaphorically speaking) and we haven't something better to replace that yet?

When will there be a better environmental protection law?

Also do resolutions always pass so fast? Everything I have seen has just gone right to 2/3 majority then goes up? Pretty much the same pastern every time.

[Slackeristan]

If Biological weapons are outlawed what will our children play with? Guns?