[PASSED] First Responder Protection Act

[BushSucks-istan]

...so let me get this straight.

Let's assume you drive your car into another car. The firemen and police come to cut you out of your car. They can't completely numb your pain as you need to be able to say when the pressure around your legs eases. If then the cutting instrument causes vibrations which aggravate possibly broken bones, and makes you swear in an attempt to verbally alleviate the pain, you can then be charged for "verbal assault" towards your helpers, even though you weren't swearing at them?

(I'm so glad cars have been banned in Araraukar.)

It says "on purpose", which --at least to me-- does not include the situation you describe.

[Kryozerkia]

The mods have reviewed the legality challenge. The strength is not appropriate. This proposal affects a very narrow area of policy. However, we will not remove the proposal immediately. The mods have decided to give Boftie an alternative option. If Boftie voluntarily submits a GHR to have this proposal removed, there will be no penalty,. The proposal can then be resubmitted as a "Human Rights", "Mild" proposal. It is in Boftie's interests to submit that GHR sooner than later.

[Bears Armed]

First responders hereby defines ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel or any other civil defense units''.

What about ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel " who aren't members of 'civil defence' units?!?

[Boftie]

The mods have reviewed the legality challenge. The strength is not appropriate. This proposal affects a very narrow area of policy. However, we will not remove the proposal immediately. The mods have decided to give Boftie an alternative option. If Boftie voluntarily submits a GHR to have this proposal removed, there will be no penalty,. The proposal can then be resubmitted as a "Human Rights", "Mild" proposal. It is in Boftie's interests to submit that GHR sooner than later.

Alright, I sent something to the GHR. It saddens me though, all this hard work campaigning for nothing.

[Ossitania]

The mind boggles that this got to quorum. It's not even written in grammatically-correct English.

[Araraukar]

The mind boggles that this got to quorum. It's not even written in grammatically-correct English.

It's got a nice name. That's how most proposals seem to reach quorum.

[Laeriland]

The mind boggles that this got to quorum. It's not even written in grammatically-correct English.

It's got a nice name. That's how most proposals seem to reach quorum.

And there are some folks that would endorse anything.

[Boftie]

I think we campaigned a lot...

[Laeriland]

I think we campaigned a lot...

All for naught it seems as it's been removed again.

[United Federation of Canada]

This seems to have been yanked once more.

[Boftie]

This seems to have been yanked once more.

wow wtf, it was there for ages. This is lame, very fucking lame.

[Grays Harbor]

Moderators have lives too. They don't always see everything within the first 5 minutes.

[Boftie]

Moderators have lives too. They don't always see everything within the first 5 minutes.

The problem is that a mod told me via the Getting help thingy that if I changed the category to ''mild'' there would be no reason to remove it again. They still did.

[United Federation of Canada]

Moderators have lives too. They don't always see everything within the first 5 minutes.

True, but they were informed that it could be re-submitted as Human Rights-Mild, which they did without changing the text itself.

We are opposed to it anyway, and originally filed the first legality challenge, but this is pretty lame if you ask us.

[Quadrimmina]

I'd recommend also ensuring that first responders are given adequate health coverage and benefits.

[Boftie]

Moderators have lives too. They don't always see everything within the first 5 minutes.

True, but they were informed that it could be re-submitted as Human Rights-Mild, which they did without changing the text itself.

We are opposed to it anyway, and originally filed the first legality challenge, but this is pretty lame if you ask us.

I know man. I was so exited for it to go to vote tomorrow afternoon. Now it's gone. This is the reason:

Your proposal needs more work. The way it was phrased (noting, proposing) meant that there was no solid mandate for nations to follow. The committee was not given an overall task, merely an "including" directive that could have allowed contradictory additions.

It's excuse after excuse. This is starting to get annoying. Apparently they don't even know their own rules.

[Grays Harbor]

True, but they were informed that it could be re-submitted as Human Rights-Mild, which they did without changing the text itself.

We are opposed to it anyway, and originally filed the first legality challenge, but this is pretty lame if you ask us.

I know man. I was so exited for it to go to vote tomorrow afternoon. Now it's gone. This is the reason:

Your proposal needs more work. The way it was phrased (noting, proposing) meant that there was no solid mandate for nations to follow. The committee was not given an overall task, merely an "including" directive that could have allowed contradictory additions.

It's excuse after excuse.

Excuse? No, that is called "advice". Instead of complaining about how "unfair" it is, why not listen to it and do something about it?

[Boftie]

I know man. I was so exited for it to go to vote tomorrow afternoon. Now it's gone. This is the reason:

Your proposal needs more work. The way it was phrased (noting, proposing) meant that there was no solid mandate for nations to follow. The committee was not given an overall task, merely an "including" directive that could have allowed contradictory additions.

It's excuse after excuse.

Excuse? No, that is called "advice". Instead of complaining about how "unfair" it is, why not listen to it and do something about it?

Already did. It just annoys me that they said it was ok, and now (probably another mod) removed it again (after 148 fucking approvals). THAT to me, is bullshit. But I changed the WHOLE 4 WORDS they wanted changed and added 1 SENTENCE. Gonna await their reply and then resubmit.

[Ossitania]

I was just about to rewrite the proposal in legible English legalese for the benefit of those who have to try and read the thing, but then I realised that that might give the proposal some semblance of not being tripe, so I decided to have a cigar and a tall cranberry and vodka instead.

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz
... what the... ?!
WHAT IS THAT?

Apart from its (in parts) questionable content its also badly written! "First responders" defines? That's just wrong.
Louisistan has cast its vote against this

[Zintai]

This proposal seems to include a very large legal loophole by including the term "first responders" in the definition of "first responders."

[Eireann Fae]

"While we admire the goals set out with this resolution, we have two problems with it. First, the definition of 'first responders' seems to have recursion issues, as noted by other Ambassadors. Second, the requirement that all new ambulances be outfitted with a 'small camera'. The term 'ambulance' is not defined in the text of the resolution - does it pertain specifically to a vehicle, or would a litter as used in my native low-tech Eireann Fae apply? If the former, any particular vehicle, or one specially outfitted in some manner? Also, only a small camera? Like a pinhole camera? Positioned where? What if nations, like mine, lack the technology for such a device?"

"All that said, should this law pass, we will use a technologically advanced definition of 'ambulance' as it would apply to our nation and, never building any, have no need to worry about the requirement of a camera in the first place. As we would respect the spirit of this resolution and not the text of it, the troublesome definition mentioned before will not effect us, either. Because of these issues, we are unfortunately unable to cast our vote in support of the resolution. Because of the minor impact of these issues, however, we are willing to abstain entirely rather than cast a vote against it."

(OOC: Which means that (1) is going to bother the hell out of me for the next couple of days -_-;)

[Kahlenberg]

I really do not understand why this issue should be tackled on the international level. I think this act is in conflict with the principle of subsidiarity. Obliging all WA-member states to install cameras on ambulances, for example, is really not the duty of an inter-governmental institution such as the World Assembly. This is absolutely no international issue and it should therefore not be tackled on the international level. Therefore, we are fiercly opposed to this act.

[Delegate Vinage]

Did another case of MustHaveSomethingToVoteOn Syndrome strike several Delegates? This is, without matter of doubt, poop.

Nay.

[Kanneronic]

I really do not understand why this issue should be tackled on the international level. I think this act is in conflict with the principle of subsidiarity. Obliging all WA-member states to install cameras on ambulances, for example, is really not the duty of an inter-governmental institution such as the World Assembly. This is absolutely no international issue and it should therefore not be tackled on the international level. Therefore, we are fiercly opposed to this act.

I agree. I oppose as well.