NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "International Radio Act"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Repeal "International Radio Act"

Postby Milograd » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:30 pm

I'd appreciate any critiques and suggestions. GA#75 can be found here.

The World Assembly,

Realizing that GA#75 "International Radio Act" intends to establish certain regulations on radio signals,

Fearing, however, that GA#75's intentions are undermined by the resolution's flaws, which include:

  • The resolution's fifth clause, which allows the "unrestricted use of any radio power and frequency in the immediate protection of life or property in situations", which includes radio frequencies and radio power which could be harmful to life,

  • Requirements that nations must maintain radio services dedicated to services such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication, and radiolocation which are wholly inefficient and financially wasteful to nations that do not need such services,

  • The International Radiocommunications Commission's requirement to set general frequency allocations internationally will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective, and therefore the resolution inhibits governmental, corporate, and hobby radio operations by forcing them to move away from the frequency that they are accustomed to using,
Understanding that this resolution exposes civilians to highly powerful waves, which can cause long-term health issues such as cancer,

Believing that such risks can easily be mitigated with appropriate regulation on this matter, which the existence of this resolution prohibits the World Assembly from considering,

Regretting the unnecessary expense imposed upon WA member nations, as this resolution requires nations to maintain radio services that they do not use or need within their borders,

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue more refined legislation regarding regulating radio signals and their uses,

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).

Co-authored by [nation=short]The Dourian Embassy[/nation].

The World Assembly,

Realizing that GA#75 "International Radio Act" intends to establish certain regulations on radio signals,

Fearing, however, that GA#75's intentions are undermined by the resolution's flaws, which include:

  • The resolution's fifth clause, which allows the "unrestricted use of any radio power and frequency in the immediate protection of life or property in situations", which includes radio frequencies and radio power which could be harmful to life,

  • Requirements that nations must maintain radio services dedicated to services such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication, and radiolocation which are wholly inefficient and financially wasteful to nations that do not need such services,

  • The International Radiocommunications Commission's requirement to set general frequency allocations internationally will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective, and therefore the resolution inhibits governmental, corporate, and hobby radio operations by forcing them to move away from the frequency that they are accustomed to using,

Believing that this resolution presents an inadvertent danger to civilians, since exposing civilians to highly powerful waves can cause long-term health issues including cancer, and believing that the requirement for nations to maintain radio services for utilities that they may not even have is too inflexible for a body as diverse as the WA, and further believing that maintaining superfluous services is costly to member states,

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue more refined legislation regarding regulating radio signals and their uses,

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).

Co-authored by [nation=short]The Dourian Embassy[/nation].

The World Assembly,

Realizing that GA#75 "International Radio Act" intends to establish certain regulations on radio signals,

Fearing, however, that GA#75's intentions are undermined by the resolution's flaws, which include:

  • The resolution's fifth clause allows "unrestricted use of any radio power and frequency in the immediate protection of life or property in situations", which includes harmful radio frequencies and radio power that could be used within the vicinity of human life,

  • The requirement that nations must maintain radio services dedicated to things such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication, and radiolocation is wholly inefficient and financially wasteful to nations that do not have such utilities at their disposal,

  • The International Radiocommunications Commission's requirement to set general frequency allocations internationally will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective, and therefore the resolution permits issues such as governmental, corporate, and hobby radio operations having to move away from the frequency that they are accustomed to using,
Believing that this resolution represents an inadvertent danger to civilians, since exposing civilians to highly powerful waves can cause long-term health issues such as leukemia and cancer, that the requirement for nations to maintain radio services for utilities that they may not even have is too inflexible for a body as diverse as the WA, and that maintaining superfluous services is costly to member states,

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue more refined legislation regarding regulating radio signals and their uses,

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).

Co-authored by [nation=short]The Dourian Embassy[/nation].


Repeal "International Radio Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GA#75 || Proposed by: Milograd

The World Assembly,

Realizing that GA#75 "International Radio Act" intends to establish certain regulations on radio signals,

Concerned, however, that the successful realization of GA#75's intentions is undermined by the resolution's flaws, such as:

• The resolution's fifth clause allows nations to use harmful radio frequencies and power within the vicinity of human life if said actions are taken in the defense of life or property,
• The requirement that nations must maintain radio services for utilities that may not be available to them, such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication and radiolocation, is wholly inefficient and wasteful,
• The International Radiocommunications Commission is required to set general frequency allocations internationally, which will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective,
Believing that this resolution represents both an inadvertent danger to civilians and an unnecessary inconvenience to member states, despite its intentions and superficial impression of cohesion,

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue refined legislation regarding the topic of radio signal and regulation,

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).

Co-authored by The Dourian Embassy.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:09 pm, edited 15 times in total.
Retired

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:49 pm

I'm neutral, but it's really meh to repeal since there's always microwave to use if radiowave is regulated. Anyway...

Milograd wrote:
  • The resolution's fifth clause allows for nations to use harmful radio frequencies and power within the vicinity of human life if it's in the defense of life or property, (I'm not getting this totally - allows for harmful use within vicinity of human life to save life??)
  • A requirement that nations to maintain radio services for utilities that may not be available to them, such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication and radiolocation, which is wholly inefficient and wasteful, (The reso didn't specifically mention maintaining radio services for utilities they don't have.)
  • The International Radiocommunications Commission (IRC) is required to set general frequency allocations internationally, which will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective,
(Given that the reso has already done that - by repealing it you are just making things worse - or no effect - since no one is going to uproot again.)
Believing that this resolution represents both an inadvertent danger to civilians and an unnecessary inconvenience to member states, despite its intentions and superficial impression of cohesion,

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue more refined legislation regarding the topic of radio signal and use regulation,

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).

Co-authored by The Dourian Embassy.


Good luck anyway! ;)
Last edited by Elke and Elba on Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Milograd » Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:16 pm

Hello, and thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback.

There's always microwave to use if radiowave is regulated. Anyway..

That's another issue, yes. The logical next step would be to replace this with a stronger, more carefully executed proposal about international signals in general.

(I'm not getting this totally - allows for harmful use within vicinity of human life to save life??)

Yes. It may sound contradictory, but the logical contradiction is similar to, say, killing a would-be murderer to save someone. There are a lot of plausible situations, especially in the types of emergencies alluded to in the resolution, where this could come up, and simply permitting unrestricted use of radio powers even if they transcend borders is absurdly dangerous.

The reso didn't specifically mention maintaining radio services for utilities they don't have.

It does:

REQUIRES that radio services include amateur, broadcast, experimental, personal communications, business communications, life and safety communications, radiolocation, governmental and military communications, and aerocraft, spacecraft, and watercraft communications.


Given that the reso has already done that - by repealing it you are just making things worse - or no effect - since no one is going to uproot again.

The logistical turmoil for those who haven't uprooted yet, the resistance to the requirement, and legal disputes sparked by the resolution would be curtailed. Furthermore, we can't forget about new WA members. The damage has been done but it's easy to imagine that we could limit further damages.
Last edited by Milograd on Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Retired

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:06 pm

Yeah, new members of the WA will be immediately subject to the new frequency allocations, for no real reason. It would've made more sense for the committee to catalog the extant frequencies and make that information public(which would allow for self regulation).
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5442
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:39 pm

Milograd wrote:
The reso didn't specifically mention maintaining radio services for utilities they don't have.

It does:

REQUIRES that radio services include amateur, broadcast, experimental, personal communications, business communications, life and safety communications, radiolocation, governmental and military communications, and aerocraft, spacecraft, and watercraft communications.

The clause (as, IIRC, was discussed during drafting) does not impose a significant burden. For services irrelevant to a given member state, their mandate would be fulfilled by a regulation stating that the service would be useless, and therefore shall not be used.

While I don't believe the concerns (even cumulatively) raised are sufficient to warrant repeal, I have minor changes I'd like to make myself, so I won't strongly oppose a repeal attempt. Should it pass, I would be happy to consider any concerns whether mentioned here or not.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:10 pm

The clause about the radio service is actually quite confusing - as it has two meanings.
OOC: I'm not at home now, so I'll probably create a minimalist bill later that will address the concerns of the pro-regulation and anti-regulation parties on bandwidths.
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Milograd » Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:47 pm

Elke and Elba wrote:The clause about the radio service is actually quite confusing - as it has two meanings.
OOC: I'm not at home now, so I'll probably create a minimalist bill later that will address the concerns of the pro-regulation and anti-regulation parties on bandwidths.

Yes, it is confusing.

Seeing as the original author would prefer to improve the resolution, I think this should be fine unless there are any further critiques.
Retired

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:46 am

Elke and Elba wrote:
Radiowaves and Microwaves Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade || Strength: Mild || Proposed by:


Recognising that radio waves and microwaves have useful scientific and trade applications, including but not limited to, amateur, broadcast, experimental, personal communications, business communications, life and safety communications, radiolocation, governmental and military communications, and aircraft, spacecraft, and watercraft communications;

Further recognising that these radio waves and microwaves do not and cannot be made to respect and adhere to trans-national boundaries;
Believing that international legislation is required to resolve radio and microwave transmission interference between member nations and non-member nations alike;

Understanding that such legislation must not dictate frequency allocation between member nations due to the prohibitive cost of implementing the legislation for current and future World Assembly members alike;

The World Assembly,

Establishes the International Telecommunications Authority (ITA) as an international body overseeing issues related to radio waves and microwaves;

Mandates the International Telecommunications Authority to advise nations represented in the World Assembly on the most suitable frequency for each specific purpose and need of these member nations based on the properties of radio waves and microwaves;

Further mandates the International Telecommunications Authority to resolve radio and microwave transmission interference between different member nations through arbitration, however;

Forbids the International Telecommunications Authority to dictate specific services and frequency allocation standards for member nations, [with the exception of setting specific frequencies for emergency calls, or as a result of a resolution mandated by the International Telecommunications Authority on regional radio waves and microwaves transmission interference between nations;

Clarifies that the International Telecommunications Authority has only the mandate and authority to resolve transmission interference between member nations and nothing else;

Further clarifies that the resolution reached on regional transmission interference as mandated by the International Telecommunications Authority must be followed by the member nations affected by the decision as decided by the Authority, and;

Affirms the right for individual member nations to use any radio wave or microwave frequency for any purpose the nations deem fit, unless otherwise ruled contrary by the International Telecommunications Authority in cases of transmission interference between member nations.



It's terrible, I know.

Obviously it isn't so much 'free trade' anymore than I-don't-know-what; but I've used the same category as proposed in GA #75.
I'm thinking maybe original submitter Linux and the X should resubmit this after the repeal - with me, Milograd and Dourian as co-submitters. It makes more sense and adds legitimacy to the repeal especially for delegates who don't read the forums without rubber-stamping or shooting down every proposal.

Edit #1: Added portions in underline, to try to make myself sound not contradictory.
Edit #2: Need to mentioned I did reference back to Linux and the X's GA #75; hence the credit should be his. I've just made it in such a way anyone can use their own frequencies - so long as there isn't arbitration requested (that would require ITA's mandate to come in). After all I believe tuning into the waves are quite a simple job; and won't affect too much free trade unless in cases of interference. It also solves the problem of unused frequency spectrum as abovementioned by Dourian and Milograd.
Last edited by Elke and Elba on Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:40 am

"This has quite a few grammatical issues. The argument is essentially sound, but it needs some proofreading. Unfortunately, it looks like the campaign is already underway?"

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:17 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"This has quite a few grammatical issues. The argument is essentially sound, but it needs some proofreading. Unfortunately, it looks like the campaign is already underway?"


If you are talking about the replacement proposal - it was typed in five minutes... :P

And no, I don't think the campaign is underway as of yet. We probably are having our own little circlejerk over here ;)
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:53 am

OOC:
Elke and Elba wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"This has quite a few grammatical issues. The argument is essentially sound, but it needs some proofreading. Unfortunately, it looks like the campaign is already underway?"


If you are talking about the replacement proposal - it was typed in five minutes... :P

My character wasn't talking about the replacement, no.
And no, I don't think the campaign is underway as of yet. We probably are having our own little circlejerk over here ;)

The rate of approvals suggests otherwise.

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:00 am

OOC:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC:
Elke and Elba wrote:
If you are talking about the replacement proposal - it was typed in five minutes... :P

My character wasn't talking about the replacement, no.
And no, I don't think the campaign is underway as of yet. We probably are having our own little circlejerk over here ;)

The rate of approvals suggests otherwise.


I realised after typing my message, but was a bit lazy to edit it.

Well then I'm not sure, but original submitter Linux and the X said he had stuff he had wanted to add, so I'm guessing it has his defacto approval to repeal so that something better can come into force?

Edit: It seems Milograd's resolution has been removed from the floor. Does anyone know the reason why?
Edit 2: It seems he double-submitted. Stupid me, guess I've to sleep :P
Last edited by Elke and Elba on Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5442
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:30 am

Elke and Elba wrote:Well then I'm not sure, but original submitter Linux and the X said he had stuff he had wanted to add, so I'm guessing it has his defacto approval to repeal so that something better can come into force?

It does not have our approval, de facto or otherwise. We will take the opportunity to make some changes, but we would rather let it be, else we would have repealed it already.

OOC: I'm not sure if you meant to be OOC or IC. If OOC, the correct pronoun is they; if IC, she.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:34 am

Linux and the X wrote:
Elke and Elba wrote:Well then I'm not sure, but original submitter Linux and the X said he had stuff he had wanted to add, so I'm guessing it has his defacto approval to repeal so that something better can come into force?

It does not have our approval, de facto or otherwise. We will take the opportunity to make some changes, but we would rather let it be, else we would have repealed it already.

OOC: I'm not sure if you meant to be OOC or IC. If OOC, the correct pronoun is they; if IC, she.


OOC: They? :eyebrow: But anyway, DSR has a point - it's gaining ground, even if y'all (referring to Linux and the X), or whoever else doesn't like it. Since Milograd and Dourian's intention is not just to repeal but to replace with another resolution, I'm putting forth a draft that would satisfy the reasons for repeal and conciliate it with the original proposal. I'm not sure what y'all (referring to Linux and the X) have in mind, though.
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
Iastein
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Dec 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Iastein » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:34 am

Support this resolution will help nations who want to save money on radio signals, protect their citizens, and have more efficient radio systems.
The Honorable Regional Delegate
For The World of Middle Earth

Iastein

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8412
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:59 pm

Less than one day of drafting? REALLY? And as mentioned above, I spot at least a handful of grammar errors that could have (and would have) been easily caught with a few additional days of drafting.

And considering your SC proposal doesn't even have a thread, so far as I can see ... really does not make me want to support either of these at this time.

I'm afraid that if/when this makes quorum - provided no changes are made to the text - I'll be voting against.
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
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2981
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:06 pm

It's my delegation's policy to vote against all repeals with grammatical errors - they're very avoidable if the author is patient enough to respect the drafting process, and they're indelible reminders of unnecessary shoddiness. So while I can support the content of this repeal, I'm disappointed that the author has submitted it in its current state and regretfully intend to vote nay.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Milograd » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:21 pm

Yeah, it was a mistake. This is my first time trying a GA resolution so I wasn't really sure what to expect or do. I hope y'all won't hold that against me. :blush:

I've asked the mods to take it down. What grammatical mistakes can I fix, and how else can I improve it?
Last edited by Milograd on Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Retired

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:32 pm

Milograd wrote:Yeah, it was a mistake. This is my first time trying a GA resolution so I wasn't really sure what to expect or do. I hope y'all won't hold that against me. :blush:

I've asked the mods to take it down. What grammatical mistakes can I fix, and how else can I improve it?


To be fair, he did ask me about it, but I didn't get back to him in time. He's removing it himself and is asking for help guys. I'm trying to introduce new folks to the GA, please be gentle. ;)
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Milograd » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:41 pm

I removed the superfluous acronym for the International Radiocommunications Comission, removed some errors that were the result of my original draft mix-mashing with TD's edits, and addressed some other typos I found. What else am I missing, and would you all think that these changes are for the better versus the original draft?

The World Assembly,

Realizing that GA#75 "International Radio Act" intends to establish certain regulations on radio signals,

Concerned, however, that the successful realization of GA#75's intentions is undermined by the resolution's flaws, such as:

• The resolution's fifth clause allows nations to use harmful radio frequencies and power within the vicinity of human life if said actions are taken in the defense of life or property,
• The requirement that nations must maintain radio services for utilities that may not be available to them, such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication and radiolocation, is wholly inefficient and wasteful,
• The International Radiocommunications Commission is required to set general frequency allocations internationally, which will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective,

Believing that this resolution represents both an inadvertent danger to civilians and an unnecessary inconvenience to member states, despite its intentions and superficial impression of cohesion,

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue refined legislation regarding the topic of radio signal and regulation,

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).
Retired

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8412
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:46 pm

This is purely a grammatical attack for now. That I can do with half of a brain - the content stuff (from me) will have to wait a few more days ....

The World Assembly,

Realizing that GA#75 "International Radio Act" intends to establish certain regulations on radio signals,

Concerned Fearing, however, that the successful realization of GA#75's intentions is are undermined by the resolution's flaws, such as which include:
  • The resolution's fifth clause allows for nations to use harmful radio frequencies and power within the vicinity of human life if it's in the defense of life or property,
    {{The "radio frequencies and power" bit needs some refining. Because using power within the vicinity of human life seems logical, and I'm guessing that's not what you're trying to say. This may be a clause where quoting the problematic clause in the original may help your point, but I'm not taking the time to check the details on that right now, I'll admit ... This argument may need a few additional tweaks, but I'd rather see a refined clause to better make your argument and go from there, rather than tweak this one now, and have to make more adjustments later.}}
  • A requirement that nations to maintain radio services for utilities that may not be available to them, such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication and radiolocation, which is wholly inefficient and wasteful,
    {{ This needs some work too. "that nations to maintain" ? Something's missing in there. Also is "radiolocation" one word? In additional argument world, does the resolution in question allow for nation's to collaborate on maintenance and the like for such services? Because that would be logical and help to save on costs and duplicative efforts, as well. It seems like that might flow well out of this argument, if that's the case. }}
  • The International Radiocommunications Commission (IRC) is required to set general frequency allocations internationally, which will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective,
    {{ This argument could probably use some elaboration for those who don't understand this topic at all. Radio frequencies (and Radio waves, in general) is probably not a topic on which most people have a base level of knowledge. I've found that writing repeals - thinking of the lowest common denominator - definitely helps your case. You're using awesome prose and words and language here - but why should Joe Nation care? }}
Believing that this resolution represents both an inadvertent danger to civilians and an unnecessary inconvenience to member states, despite its intentions and superficial impression of cohesion,
{{ Again, you might be better served to recap WHY this is a danger to civilians and an inconvenience to member states AND a money pit, etc., to really bring the point home. }}

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue more refined legislation regarding the topic of radio signal and use regulation,
{{ "radio signal and use regulation" looks like it's missing a comma or something to me. Which may be my lack of knowledge on this subject shining through, but is there any way to reword that, if that's the case? Because it's making me twitchy, even if it's technically right. :P }}

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).


And what do you know? I did end up working in some content comments. I may have more to offer later, once I have time/brain enough to read through the original and offer suggestions. And, of course, I may have new suggestions based on whatever edits you elect to make going forward.

Cheers,
Mouse
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
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:50 pm

Radiolocation is in fact one word, in the dictionary and in the original resolution. I had to look it up.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Elke and Elba
Minister
 
Posts: 2757
Founded: Aug 24, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Elke and Elba » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:51 pm

... That doesn't look like a grammatical attack on your part; more like an "I like it phrased this way rather than something else".

No wonder the Roleplay forums are doing so well compared to WA - this place is circlejerky :p

Linux and the X used radiolocation too, anyway.
Last edited by Elke and Elba on Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Represented permanently at the World Assembly by Benjamin Olafsen, and on an ad-hoc basis by Alethea Norrland and rarely Gaia Pao and Gabriel Dzichpol.
OOCly retired from the GA/SC for something called 'real life'.
Author of GA#288 and SC#148.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.

User avatar
Milograd
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5894
Founded: Feb 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Milograd » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:09 pm

I tried to incorporate what I could from Mouse's initial suggestions.

The World Assembly,

Realizing that GA#75 "International Radio Act" intends to establish certain regulations on radio signals,

Fearing, however, that GA#75's intentions are undermined by the resolution's flaws, which include:

* The resolution's fifth clause allows "unrestricted use of any radio power and frequency in the immediate protection of life or property in situations", which includes harmful radio frequencies and radio power that could be used within the vicinity of human life,

* The requirement that nations must maintain radio services dedicated to things such as spacecraft communication, aircraft communication, and radiolocation is wholly inefficient and financially wasteful to nations that do not have such utilities at their disposal,

* The International Radiocommunications Commission's requirement to set general frequency allocations internationally will result in pre-existing radio signals with designated uses having to be uprooted for the sake of achieving this objective, and therefore the resolution permits issues such as governmental, corporate, and hobby radio operations having to move away from the frequency that they are accustomed to using,

Believing that this resolution represents an inadvertent danger to civilians, since exposing civilians to highly powerful waves can cause long-term health issues such as leukemia and cancer, that the requirement for nations to maintain radio services for utilities that they may not even have is too inflexible for a body as diverse as the WA, and that maintaining superfluous services is costly to member states,

Encouraging the World Assembly to pursue more refined legislation regarding regulating radio signals and their uses,

Hereby Repeals "International Radio Act" (GA#75).

Co-authored by [nation=short]The Dourian Embassy[/nation].
Last edited by Milograd on Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Retired

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2981
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:54 pm

I'm most pleased with your Excellency's course of action, and offer our support for the repeal now that the grammatical issues have been resolved. Best of luck, ambassador.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads