[Passed] Reducing Spills and Leaks

[The Dourian Embassy]

Why "non-military?" Bombs don't spill out of an airplane. Bullets don't leak out of a gun. And frankly, if a member state accidentally drops bombs on a neighborhood, there should be some serious consequences to that. But this is the wrong type of resolution to address that issue, when it's obviously we want to talk about toxic substance spills.

We all know what a spill and a leak is. You guys are just making it hard on yourselves by trying to boil everything down into its English language sub-components.

Of course you know from my numerous repeals that the "oh come on guys we all know what that's supposed to mean" doesn't fly with me. It's a lazy way of legislating, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

We've got a definition right now that excludes the things we don't want it to include(such as exhaust, bombs, or a flood). It wasn't hard at all.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Except your current definition is largely meaningless, because there's no clear answer to what exactly this resolution is supposed to target. If you want to target toxic substances, then "toxic substances" is a phrase that already exists.

Murdering the English language isn't going to stop the vicious circle of deceptive repeals based on purposeful misreading of definitions.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Murdering the English language isn't going to stop the vicious circle of deceptive repeals based on purposeful misreading of definitions.

Except those deceptive repeals don't exist. Lazy writing is the problem. It's easy to blame natsovs for deception. It's trendy even. But I repeal based on legitimate arguments and most people are aware of that (even if you aren't). The materials used in bombs and bullets are often toxic, for example. I wouldn't use "toxic substances" for that reason. You cannot just throw out some words drop the mic and walk off. International law has to be nuanced and dealt with delicately. I'm not sure you've ever quite understood that.

And to clear the air here: just because we disagree doesn't mean we're lying to each other. Please, if you can, stop assuming all your opponents are deceptive or purposefully misreading things.

Edit: But after thinking about your points and talking with some folks on IRC about it, I'm testing out a version of this with no definitions. I'm thinking of allowing the committee to define it though.

[HMS Unicorn]

Some comments on the current draft:

Establishing cleanup standards for spills and leaks,

Minor quibble: for stylistic consistency with the preceding and following clause, it may be better to also use "Creating" instead of "Establishing" here.

Collecting appropriately punitive penalties from those entities that cause and/or allow spills or leaks to occur through negligence for distribution to those affected by the spills or leaks,

Like others have said, giving this administrative body the power to impose punitive penalties seems to be excessive. It turns SaLDA from a standard-setting body into essentially a judicial body.

Acquiring technologies that reduce the risk of spills or leaks,

The meaning of "acquiring" here seems unclear to me. Do you mean that the body will purchase patents/use rights to already existing technology? Or that the body will actively work for and fund the development of such technology? Or both? I think it would be worth changing the language to make this clear.

2. Requires nations to establish standards appropriate to their needs and capabilities from SaLDA recommendations,

The way this clause is phrased, it appears to provide way too much leeway for nations to ignore SaLDA standards. The way I read the clause, a nation could circumvent all of them by claiming thatonly a very minimal subset of SaLDA's recommendations are appropriate to the nation's needs. I think it would be more appropriate to tighten this clause, and allow SaLDA to make certain standards obligatory on all nations.

4. Allows exceptions to denials of entry as outlined in clause 4 in the following situations:

This looks like a typo, I think you mean to say "in clause 3".

If said transport is in compliance with all safety standards relating to SaLDA recommendations adopted by the nation it is transiting and/or adopted by its destination country,

I think the exception should apply only if the transport is in compliance with the standards adopted by the nation the transport is about to enter. The other country's standards should not come into play.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

1: Actually for stylistic reason I need to change the 2nd "creating" line to something else. I had missed that.

2: The collecting clause is describing the standards for nations to adopt, the committee itself does not in fact collect anything.

3: I'm waffling on that. "Acquiring" allows them to use a number of methods, and if I specify then they can only do THOSE things.

4: That's the joy of using the word "appropriate" uhm, appropriately. By defining a purpose for it. Nations can claim whatever they want, if we're going to talk about ways to weasel out of this we'll be here all day. It's already mandatory that they comply. Though I think I can tighten that by saying "in order to reduce spills or leaks" and be done with it.

5: Yeah a typo from my taking out the definition's clause.

6: You're right of course. I need to simplify the language. I'd went with "transiting" but then realized it would not apply to a nation that it is traveling TO rather than through, and added the other exception. I'm sure I can find a word that isn't so specific.

Thanks for the input so far guys, keep it coming. I'll be editing this up later tonight to take the feedback into account.

[HMS Unicorn]

Fair enough for the rest.

6: You're right of course. I need to simplify the language. I'd went with "transiting" but then realized it would not apply to a nation that it is traveling TO rather than through, and added the other exception. I'm sure I can find a word that isn't so specific.

The way the clause is phrased right now creates a loophole, not an exception. If a vessel goes through nation A while travelling to nation B, and the vessel meets nation B's standards, then nation A is also required to let the vessel transit through its territory.

I think "transiting" alone would work. When entering the final destination nation (nation B above), the vessel will need to transit some of its territory by definition.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I think you're right. I've shortened it to "transiting". Given the low level of feedback I've got in the last few days, I'm tempted to take this to quorum this weekend. Anyone else have substantive comments?

[Western Borderlands]

"Doesn't this create a committee? I don't think you can propose something like this."

[Lexicor]

"Doesn't this create a committee? I don't think you can propose something like this."

You can create a committee. It just can't be the only thing the resolution does.

[Western Borderlands]

"Doesn't this create a committee? I don't think you can propose something like this."

You can create a committee. It just can't be the only thing the resolution does.

Ok, you got me there, another question though, How does this affect all businesses? As far as I can see, It only affects the oil industry...

[Lexicor]

You can create a committee. It just can't be the only thing the resolution does.

Ok, you got me there, another question though, How does this affect all businesses? As far as I can see, It only affects the oil industry...

It creates standards for cargo vessels and the like while traversing through WA Nation or International Waters (give or take). All businesses use shipping, therefore it affects all businesses.

[Defwa]

You can create a committee. It just can't be the only thing the resolution does.

Ok, you got me there, another question though, How does this affect all businesses? As far as I can see, It only affects the oil industry...

A tanker carrying milk, or soap, or lube also falls under this resolution

[Separatist Peoples]

Ok, you got me there, another question though, How does this affect all businesses? As far as I can see, It only affects the oil industry...

A tanker carrying milk, or soap, or lube also falls under this resolution

"All of which are most definitely as destructive as crude. I'd be upset if this didn't tackle all other forms of tanker cargo."

[Lexicor]

A tanker carrying milk, or soap, or lube also falls under this resolution

"All of which are most definitely as destructive as crude. I'd be upset if this didn't tackle all other forms of tanker cargo."

OOC: Lube tankers would have devestating effects...

[Defwa]

"All of which are most definitely as destructive as crude. I'd be upset if this didn't tackle all other forms of tanker cargo."

OOC: Lube tankers would have devestating effects...

But they're a necessary evil for, you know, your mom[/joke]

[Chester Pearson]

Why did you submit this twice? It is already bad enough with the first submission, did you think twice would make it twice as likely to pass?

[The Dourian Embassy]

Why did you submit this twice? It is already bad enough with the first submission, did you think twice would make it twice as likely to pass?

The first submission was an earlier draft(which I'd already filed a GHR to remove). I submitted the second time(with some edits) to avoid the chance that when my first one got pulled, the competing draft(which was removed yesterday) could get into the queue first. I'll be TGing for this today.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Since this is now at vote, I feel comfortable bumping it(especially since it wasn't on the first page anymore).

[United States Kingdom]

The USK fully supports this resolution.

[Defwa]

A slightly drunk ambassador landfree stops in to place her approving vote, winks at the dourian ambassador, and saunters out

[Kersenboogerd]

I fully approve this, no more leaks!

[Aligned Planets]

Always happy to support a proposal by my honourable colleague, the Ambassador from TDE.

Approve

[Discoveria]

Voted against. It's far too broad IMO. Woe betide those who inadvertently spill their tea, or find themselves far from a toilet when nature calls...

[Defwa]

Voted against. It's far too broad IMO. Woe betide those who inadvertently spill their tea, or find themselves far from a toilet when nature calls...

Way to intentionally radically misinterpret the resolution for no gain

[Separatist Peoples]

Way to intentionally radically misinterpret the resolution for no gain

"That takes all the fun out of being an ambassador. Not all of us even wanted this position," Bell mutters without looking up, busy composing yet another letter of appeal to President Solomon of the C.D.S.P. and the National Judiciary Court decrying his extended tenure as a violation of the General Assembly's Prevention of Torture as he did every week.