NationStates

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:07 am**

Original here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... 0&start=97

The World Assembly,

Accepting that accidents involving oil tankers are an issue of importance to this body,

Regretting, however, that World Assembly Resolution #98, the "Oil Tanker Standards Act," is an incredibly flawed and problematic solution to those problems,

Noting that the World Assembly Oil Transportation Committee (WAOTC) is assigned the task of ensuring oil tankers are "kept up to meet requirements" without outlining exactly what those requirements are or how they even pertain to the resolution,

Further noting that the WAOTC is tasked with acquiring "new technology from member states already possessing it at the member state's consent" without defining what kind of technology it would acquire,

Understanding that requiring "non-proprietary double-hulled technology be made available to shipbuilders", without actually requiring the WAOTC to provide it, makes many of the WAOTC's assignments superfluous,

Further understanding that the requirement to "phase out" the use of single-hulled tankers is both costly and needless, as such tankers could find use hauling materials that are not as damaging to the environment,

Acknowledging that WA#98 places an unreasonable burden on nations with pre-existing fleets of single-hulled tankers while failing to provide any relief to this burden by funding this requirement,

Observing that the resolution imposes a requirement for a “proper” ventilation system without explaining what the purpose of such a system would be, and given that there are many ventilation systems which may have completely opposing purposes, this requirement is both ambiguous and unenforceable,

Astonished that the resolution urges nations to implement "other or better safety features aboard oil tankers other than what is specified here" despite the fact that "other safety features" may be inferior and used by nations to circumvent the requirements imposed on them previously in the resolution,

Believing that WA#98 is insufficient for the purpose of reducing spills, as there are many types of oil tanker designs that would not necessarily benefit from the technologies outlined here, nor would they see any benefit to the added costs these technology's integration would incur,

Recognizing that the sum of the flaws present in WA#98 both in format and in application have led to a resolution that is nearly ineffective in achieving its stated goals,

Hereby repeals World Assembly Resolution #98, the "Oil Tanker Standards Act."

Co-Authored by Renaissancistic People.

So. It's been a while since I worked on a repeal. Thought I'd come out with this one. My Co-Author is r3n and he's given me a ton of great feedback for it. Critique away!

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:38 am**

As Treize said, I helped him author this proposal (with my other nation, Renaissancistic People), in my first venture into the General Assembly. Any feedback would be appreciated

.

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:46 am**

An awful lot of this is basically excessive nitpicking. Don't know if that ruling is still active, but regardless of whether the repeal is legal or not, it's questionable whether the WA really needs to define every last word in its resolutions. Resolutions are limited to 3500 characters, cannot interact (House of Cards), cannot have apendices, amendments or protocols, and yet have to be written for a non-technical audience. There are reasonable limits to how much a resolution can be expected to define a word like "proper".

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:49 am**

Though technically functional, the resolution is so poorly written that I will support the repeal effort in the hopes of creating a superior replacement.

A few of these points are a bit off either for being nitpicky or willfully ignorant, though nothing illegal or technically wrong. I will be in later to offer more specific commentary and suggestions.

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:49 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:There are reasonable limits to how much a resolution can be expected to define a word like "proper".

OOC: I agree that asking for a definition of "proper" would be excessive... but back during the debate when the resolution was being passed, I was tempted to suggest that some nations might 'reasonably' interpret the undefined term "double-hulled" as referring to catamaran-style construction...

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:18 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote:There are reasonable limits to how much a resolution can be expected to define a word like "proper".

OOC: I agree that asking for a definition of "proper" would be excessive... but back during the debate when the resolution was being passed, I was tempted to suggest that some nations might 'reasonably' interpret the undefined term "double-hulled" as referring to catamaran-style construction...

~~Wait it doesn't?~~
joke

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:18 am**

The point of that line about "proper" ventilation is that it doesn't say why. I'm not taking issue with not defining "proper". I'm taking issue with "proper for what"? Is it to ensure that fumes do or don't build up? To ensure that the fumes aren't a safety hazard to the people on the ship? To ensure that the fumes don't catch on fire (which I'm guessing was probably the intent)? It's flawed for not specifying why we need a proper ventilation system, because "proper" can mean a lot of things depending on the whys.

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:48 pm**

Out of interest, do you have any intention of writing or helping to write a replacement? Or is this just a "let's get resolutions off the table" attempt, no matter how well argued-for?

EDIT: I'm not necessarily against the "let's get resolutions off the table", just wanting to know your plans.

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:12 pm**

Araraukar wrote:Out of interest, do you have any intention of writing or helping to write a replacement? Or is this just a "let's get resolutions off the table" attempt, no matter how well argued-for?

EDIT: I'm not necessarily against the "let's get resolutions off the table", just wanting to know your plans.

With this particular resolution I'd rather get it off the table than not, but I've been discussing the details of a replacement with r3n, and we have a few ideas that we're working out.

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:33 pm**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:With this particular resolution I'd rather get it off the table than not, but I've been discussing the details of a replacement with r3n, and we have a few ideas that we're working out.

OOC: Fair enough. I was mostly asking, because WA nations to whom environmental things are important - and "all businesses" has the biggest impact - will likely object to overturning an even slightly flawed resolution without any sign of said flaws being addressed in a new attempt.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:57 am**

So uh... anyone got some more input?

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:15 pm**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:So uh... anyone got some more input?

OOC: I can't currently arrange my brainwaves properly onto the WA wavelengths, so would you be willing to wait until Thurs/Fri? (Got company coming tomorrow and now making a last-ditch attempt to clean up my creative chaos of an apartment...)

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:09 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Dourian Embassy wrote:So uh... anyone got some more input?

OOC: I can't currently arrange my brainwaves properly onto the WA wavelengths, so would you be willing to wait until Thurs/Fri? (Got company coming tomorrow and now making a last-ditch attempt to clean up my creative chaos of an apartment...)

Sure. Unless someone raises some serious concerns I plan to move on this Saturday or Sunday.

Posted: **Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:03 pm**

Anyone have any other comments? As Douria said, provided nothing important comes up, we'll be submitting this sometime during the weekend.

Posted: **Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:23 pm**

OOC: Alright, brain's more in tune with NSverse now, so let's have a look-see. All the comments below are in-character unless marked otherwise.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Noting that the World Assembly Oil Transportation Committee (WAOTC) is assigned the task of ensuring oil tankers are "kept up to meet requirements" without outlining exactly what those requirements are or how they even pertain to the resolution,

Fair enough, though one might argue that in a rational world (which, in my personal opinion, the WA multiverse is not) the requirements would be of basic safety both for the transporters and environment.

Further noting that the WAOTC is tasked with acquiring "new technology from member states already possessing it at the member state's consent" without defining what kind of technology it would acquire,

Knowing that requiring "non-proprietary double-hulled technology be made available to shipbuilders", without actually outlining the source of that technology, makes many of the WAOTC's assignments superfluous,

I've underlined the two parts, since I think the one above answers the question below it.

Understanding that the requirement to "phase out" single-hulled tankers is both costly and needless, as such tankers could find use hauling materials that are not as damaging to the environment,

I felt it obvious that the single-hulled tankers were being "phased out" of the business of transporting oil, not completely phased out of existence.

Further understanding that GA#98 places an unreasonable burden on nations with pre-existing fleets of single-hulled tankers while failing to provide any relief to this burden by funding this requirement,

Considering how many people complain every time the General Fund is tapped into for help in projects like this, it might've been smart to leave out. If, as you suggested above, "such tankers could find use hauling materials that are not as damaging to the environment", they could be sold off to help cover the costs.

Observing that the resolution imposes a requirement for a “proper” ventilation system without explaining what the purpose of such a system would be, and therefore renders the requirement ambiguous and unenforceable as a mandate,

Must every little bit be spelled out, ambassador? Would not common sense tell you what is and what isn't "proper" when it comes to ventilation onboards an oiltanker. If a certain type of ventilation is not enough to minimize risks for those onboard, then one would argue it's not adequate.

Astonished that the resolution urges nations to implement "other or better safety features aboard oil tankers other than what is specified here" despite the fact that "other safety features" may be inferior and used by nations to circumvent the requirements imposed on them previously in the resolution,

A sensible person would read that as "other [in addition to those mentioned here] or better [than what was mentioned here] safety features". A company that wants to circumvent requirements of any one resolution, can certainly find ways to do so, no matter what the WA or national law say. [OOC: If the argument is going to be "non-compliant nations will find ways to not comply to this", it's a pretty weak one as they would do so anyway.]

Believing that GA#98 is insufficient for the purpose of reducing spills, as there are many types of oil tanker designs that would not necessarily benefit from the technologies outlined here, nor would they see any benefit to the added costs these technology's integration would incur,

What types of oil tanker designs would these be, then?

Hereby repeals World Assembly Resolution #98, the "Oil Tanker Standards Act."

It would be comforting to know that a better replacement was in the works, since it seems the current resolution is being shot down for "not being effective and detailed enough".

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:10 am**

Noting that the World Assembly Oil Transportation Committee (WAOTC) is assigned the task of ensuring oil tankers are "kept up to meet requirements" without outlining exactly what those requirements are or how they even pertain to the resolution,

"This clause is not necessarily correct. There are several requirements for oil tankers throughout the text of the resolution. For example:"

MANDATES that every new oil tanker must be equipped with at least a double hull or double bottom to decrease chances of an oil spill;
MANDATES that each new tanker be equipped with a proper ventilation system for the main tank; MANDATES that every tanker is to have proper equipment on board to quickly put out fires aboard the vessel;

Further noting that the WAOTC is tasked with acquiring "new technology from member states already possessing it at the member state's consent" without defining what kind of technology it would acquire,

"I would say that this it's pretty pedantic to say that "technology" acquired by the World Assembly Oil Transportation Committee, created by the Oil Tanker Standards Act, would include anything other than those related to Oil Tankers, but I guess the argument is not strictly incorrect."

Knowing that requiring "non-proprietary double-hulled technology be made available to shipbuilders", without actually outlining the source of that technology, makes many of the WAOTC's assignments superfluous,

The operative verb 'knowing' is unusual and reads awkwardly, so I would suggest replacing it. Furthermore, this argument is, again, very nit-picky. Although the clause is vague enough to make this a reasonable argument.

Further understanding that GA#98 places an unreasonable burden on nations with pre-existing fleets of single-hulled tankers while failing to provide any relief to this burden by funding this requirement,

I would develop this argument in more depth - it seems to be the only one that addresses a serious flaw in the original.

Astonished that the resolution urges nations to implement "other or better safety features aboard oil tankers other than what is specified here" despite the fact that "other safety features" may be inferior and used by nations to circumvent the requirements imposed on them previously in the resolution,

"The clause could certainly be worded better, but these are additional safety features on top of what's already required. The last bit of the argument 'despite the fact that "other safety features" may be inferior and used by nations to circumvent the requirements imposed on them previously in the resolution,' is simply false."

"Sciongrad believes that preserving the environment is a major policy goal that the World Assembly should achieve, and GAR#98 fails to achieve that goal. As such, Sciongrad is likely to support this repeal."

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:46 am**

This has been posted with a few fairly minor edits(which are in the OP). I'll likely start the campaign tonight.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:21 am**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:This has been posted with a few fairly minor edits(which are in the OP). I'll likely start the campaign tonight.

"Why was this submitted before any of my concerns were addressed?" asked a skeptical Ambassador Santos.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:55 am**

Sciongrad wrote:
The Dourian Embassy wrote:This has been posted with a few fairly minor edits(which are in the OP). I'll likely start the campaign tonight.

"Why was this submitted before any of my concerns were addressed?" asked a skeptical Ambassador Santos.

Actually your concerns were the only ones really addressed. As you actually made some salient points(though I disagree with a few of them, it's a minor thing). I've clarified the ventilation clause, replaced the operative clause "knowing", and added a clause near the bottom pointing out that even if a majority of the flaws are minor(except the point about requiring things without funding them), their sum total is that they lead to a resolution that is difficult if not impossible to enforce.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:02 am**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:their sum total is that they lead to a resolution that is difficult if not impossible to enforce.

OOC: That goes for every single resolution in the books, and I'm not sure it's a valid reason for repeal, since presumably all resolutions are followed to the letter by member nations.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:57 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Dourian Embassy wrote:their sum total is that they lead to a resolution that is difficult if not impossible to enforce.

OOC: That goes for every single resolution in the books, and I'm not sure it's a valid reason for repeal, since presumably all resolutions are followed to the letter by member nations.

OOC: Y'all know every line in a repeal doesn't have to be valid, right? I try to keep my opinions to the preamble lines and concluding lines, but technically I could put an opinion in the middle of it if I wanted. That said, the original resolution has quite a few more flaws than the average resolution. If you don't believe that, take a look at the original. To me it has glaring flaws as well, but even the minor ones, when taken together, lead to a piece that is difficult or impossible to enforce.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:02 pm**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:OOC: Y'all know every line in a repeal doesn't have to be valid, right?

OOC: Even if this new assumption is true - that is, that repeals can intentionally lie or mislead so long as the lying and misleading is minor - I still find the whole line of reasoning disturbing at best and damaging to the integrity of the entire game at worst. There is a difference between infusing your own opinion into the argument and making arguments that can be proven false just by reading through the text and this line has become blurred recently.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:28 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:
The Dourian Embassy wrote:OOC: Y'all know every line in a repeal doesn't have to be valid, right?

OOC: Even if this new assumption is true - that is, that repeals can intentionally lie or mislead so long as the lying and misleading is minor - I still find the whole line of reasoning disturbing at best and damaging to the integrity of the entire game at worst. There is a difference between infusing your own opinion into the argument and making arguments that can be proven false just by reading through the text and this line has become blurred recently.

OOC: In this particular case I come to a completely different conclusion when reading it than you do. I also noticed that others I've talked to have tended to agree that our interpretation is just as valid as the supposed "common sense" version. The problem is that kind of assumption of black and white. That I read it and intentionally intended to misread it, or that I must have misread it somehow because some alternative to what I've stated MUST be true.

The obvious flaw in that logic is the assumption of just one truth. This isn't like when someone says that GA#4 bans child labor and it can be demonstrated that it does not. These arguments are sound. You've even stated for most of them that even if you feel even if they're pedantic they are still valid. I was just pointing out how "that is not valid" isn't a viable argument.

I don't want you to think I'm dismissing your arguments. I've integrated the feedback but I disagree on a basic fundamental point about the original resolution. I implore you to vote your conscience (or your ambassador's conscience). And whilst I fully intend to begin work with r3n on a replacement (and he'll tell you the same), there is nothing barring y'all from working on one as well. This one, though, has to go. It has so many errors in grammar, phrasing, and construction that it combines into a useless piece of paper (or paper analogue). Period.

Besides, we all know someone (my money is on DSR) will probably file a GHR over this. I'm confident that it will fail but we can all get back to arguing when it comes back, right?

Posted: **Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:27 am**

The Dourian Embassy wrote:OOC: Y'all know every line in a repeal doesn't have to be valid, right?

OOC: That's what I've tried to get the mods to confirm/admit, but so far I've been told it's none of their/mine business. Personally I still view it as lying, and thus not something that credible authors should resort to.

That said, the original resolution has quite a few more flaws than the average resolution. If you don't believe that, take a look at the original.

OOC: I've never argued against that OOCly, but claiming that it can't be enforced because of its flaws is a lie, since nations can't help but obey the WA laws. And I don't want to spark off the mandatory compliance argument again, just repeating what the FAQ says.

Posted: **Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:33 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Dourian Embassy wrote:OOC: I've never argued against that OOCly, but claiming that it can't be enforced because of its flaws is a lie, since nations can't help but obey the WA laws. And I don't want to spark off the mandatory compliance argument again, just repeating what the FAQ says.

OOC: If you're calling it a "lie" then you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The resolution doesn't do what it was intended to do. The spirit of the law is unenforceable because the letter of the law doesn't support it well enough. No resolution is perfect, and we'll never have one that can't be circumvented somehow, but I hold us to a higher standard than 98 does.

NationStates

[Passed] Repeal "Oil Tanker Standards Act"

[Passed] Repeal "Oil Tanker Standards Act"