NationStates

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:40 pm**

Repeal "Nuclear Testing Safety"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#119 | Proposed by: Jean Pierre Trudeau

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #119 to protect the environment from harmful radioactive byproducts associated with nuclear testing,

Concerned clause #1 defines nuclear testing as " usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian, military, or prisoner populace", thus allowing nations to circumvent this by testing nuclear weapons connected to an actual delivery system,

Confused that clause 2 states "BANS nuclear testing within the area between the edge of a populated celestial body's atmosphere and twice the distance of geosychronous orbit - measured at the equator of said celestial body", while failing to take into account the magnetosphere of a celestial body, which can trap highly dangerous high energy particles, creating dangerous radiation belts,

Disappointed in the lack of clear language and typos that make this resolution a travesty to international law,

Hoping the World Assembly passes clear and concise guidelines that actually prevent unaffiliated persons from being affected by nuclear testing in the future,

Hereby repeals "GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 119 Nuclear Testing Safety".

Posting here as a courtesy. Has been submitted with a campaign.

Link to replacement: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=332294

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:44 pm**

Very concerned about clause #1.

I'd support this if submitted.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:46 pm**

CreepyCut wrote:Very concerned about clause #1.

I'd support this if submitted.

It has been submitted, and your support is greatly appreciated. Clause one is a very serious problem, and with any luck that will be rectified.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:49 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
CreepyCut wrote:Very concerned about clause #1.

I'd support this if submitted.

It has been submitted, and your support is greatly appreciated. Clause one is a very serious problem, and with any luck that will be rectified.

Aaaaand, I feel stupid for forgetting to read the tag properly.

I shall now whip myself mentally until I overcome this trauma.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:34 pm**

CreepyCut wrote:
Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
It has been submitted, and your support is greatly appreciated. Clause one is a very serious problem, and with any luck that will be rectified.

Aaaaand, I feel stupid for forgetting to read the tag properly.

I shall now whip myself mentally until I overcome this trauma.

Please don't feel bad? Also do not cause too much permanent harm, as we will be counting on your vote.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:42 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
CreepyCut wrote:
Aaaaand, I feel stupid for forgetting to read the tag properly.

I shall now whip myself mentally until I overcome this trauma.

Please don't feel bad? Also do not cause too much permanent harm, as we will be counting on your vote.

You needn't worry, dear sir. My wounds heal pretty quickly only to be returned unto others through greater medians- entertainment and politics.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:31 pm**

It's not clear to me from this text what exactly the loophole is in the DEFINES clause that you claim is so easily circumvented.

And there's a whole shitload of radiation in the magnetic belts to begin with, so I'm not sure how much worse that can realistically get from high altitude tests.

Far more troubling is the lack of definition for "edge of the atmosphere," which leaves open the possibility of relatively high altitude EMP bursts (which is to say, continental to global disruption of electromagnetic communications).

Therefore, undecided at this point, on the theory that even where you require a reinforced concrete bunker, an open trench with barbed wire on top is still better than hanging your bare ass out in the open. I see no such bunker forthcoming.

Nevermind that foolishness, lemme read the replacement. Much more inclined to support now, but will confirm that upon reading.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:36 pm**

OOC: Link to the replacement would always be helpful.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:42 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC: Link to the replacement would always be helpful.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=332294

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:49 pm**

"While we don't particularly like the resolution in question and would probably support a repeal, we can't help but wonder what screams of outrage would have been directed at anyone else who had immediately submitted such, given how different this text is to the prior draft. Does this mean we're entering into a new exciting age of proposals being judged on their content and not on ephemeral bullshit?

"In terms of the repeal text, we share the confusion about the loophole in the definition, but at the same time, it is an awfully written definition.

"The point about the magnetosphere seems a reasonable point.

"It made us smirk a little to see "the lack of clear language and typos" being bemoaned.

"While we wish the repeal text were more compelling and had been redrafted, it's not actively bad enough for us to oppose, so we will likely support it when it comes to vote."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:58 pm**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"While we don't particularly like the resolution in question and would probably support a repeal, we can't help but wonder what screams of outrage would have been directed at anyone else who had immediately submitted such, given how different this text is to the prior draft. Does this mean we're entering into a new exciting age of proposals being judged on their content and not on ephemeral bullshit?

"In terms of the repeal text, we share the confusion about the loophole in the definition, but at the same time, it is an awfully written definition.

"The point about the magnetosphere seems a reasonable point.

"It made us smirk a little to see "the lack of clear language and typos" being bemoaned.

"While we wish the repeal text were more compelling and had been redrafted, it's not actively bad enough for us to oppose, so we will likely support it when it comes to vote."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: Why do you assume this wasn't drafted on a forum? I can assure you it was, just not this forum. Also the original repeal I drafted, was drafted a long time ago, before I changed styles. Since I had drafted that I have gained significant experience, and am confident that I have a legal proposal. As for drafting on these forums? I am really not seeing any point any longer, as you get absolutely no useful feedback, until a resolution is submitted, and you can't change it. The everyone comes out of the woodwork, and hammers it.

Sorry for responding OOC to your in character response. I know it is bad form, but I really didn't feel like trying to put that all in character right now. Your support is appreciated by the way.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:08 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:As for drafting on these forums? I am really not seeing any point any longer, as you get absolutely no useful feedback, until a resolution is submitted, and you can't change it. The everyone comes out of the woodwork, and hammers it.

OOC: Obviously, I completely agree given I have made exactly this argument myself a number of times myself before. I'm hoping it's finally going to catch on.

Good luck, anyway.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Sorry for responding OOC to your in character response.

Not a problem. The only thing I can't stand is when people reply IC to OOC comments, which makes no sense.

And with that, have your thread back...

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:12 pm**

As this goes to vote at the major:

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:10 pm**

And we're voting.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:43 pm**

I can see where this is coming from, but does the resolution in its entirety really need to be removed in order to make that change? We can't make some sort of amendment or other variant?

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:47 pm**

Opposed. The following is why.

Concerned clause #1 defines nuclear testing as " usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian, military, or prisoner populace", thus allowing nations to circumvent this by testing nuclear weapons connected to an actual delivery system,

I don't feel that this is an issue. As long as the bombs don't screw anyone up, its fine. Look at the real life example of the planet Earth. We're not all radioactive cockroaches after nuclear testing. I don't see the problem with it here either.

Confused that clause 2 states "BANS nuclear testing within the area between the edge of a populated celestial body's atmosphere and twice the distance of geosychronous [sic] orbit - measured at the equator of said celestial body", while failing to take into account the magnetosphere of a celestial body, which can trap highly dangerous high energy particles, creating dangerous radiation belts,

While I agree that twice geosynchronous orbit is not a good definition, I certainly do not see it as reason to repeal this legislation. Naturally, about this, I don't trust a word you say about magnetism and science, for reasons clearly shown in your repeal text^{Note: Read the entire thing}.

Disappointed in the lack of clear language and typos that make this resolution a travesty to international law,

Mate. You spelt geosynchronous incorrectly. And you don't use semicolons after your clauses, and you don't italicise the operative verbs at the start. You use past tense in some of these things?! Present tense is where it is at! Look at actual UN resolutions! Oh the horror!

Hoping the World Assembly passes clear and concise guidelines that actually prevent unaffiliated persons from being affected by nuclear testing in the future,

They were already passed. You're trying to repeal them. Your replacement text got shot down for scientific errors, and now what? Leave the field of nuclear testing lying wide open?

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:48 pm**

New Rhodinia wrote:I can see where this is coming from, but does the resolution in its entirety really need to be removed in order to make that change? We can't make some sort of amendment or other variant?

This is the World Assembly in NationStates. There are no amendments. There is an FAQ question about this. You can find it in one of the stickies. EDIT: Found it -> CLICKY. Just scroll down to the section on Amendments.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:14 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Mate. You ~~spelt~~ spelled geosynchronous incorrectly. And you don't use semicolons after your clauses, and you don't italicise the operative verbs at the start. You use past tense in some of these things?! Present tense is where it is at! Look at actual UN resolutions! Oh the horror!

I didn't spell anything wrong. The original author did. That was a direct excerpt from the original resolution, henceforth the quotation marks. Also talk about spelling mistakes. I corrected one there for you. "Spelt" has never been a word. As for my writing style? I would say four passed resolutions make it acceptable. Just because you had to write up a whole thread of bullshit demanding people write resolutions your way, doesn't mean anyone actually takes your seriously. (And you were told as much in that thread). Also this is not the real U.N.

All in all your opposition means diddly squat. You are one vote, and that is all. The fact that you have resorted to criticizing the style of the resolution means you really don't have anything better to bitch about in regards to it. Your opinion is duly noted, and summarily dismissed. Shall we move along?

Regards,

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:15 pm**

The Star Empire of Ainocra supports this repeal.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:16 pm**

Ainocra wrote:The Star Empire of Ainocra supports this repeal.

As expected. It would be nice if you supported the replacement as well, but I guess we can't win'em all.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:17 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Mate. You ~~spelt~~ spelled geosynchronous incorrectly. And you don't use semicolons after your clauses, and you don't italicise the operative verbs at the start. You use past tense in some of these things?! Present tense is where it is at! Look at actual UN resolutions! Oh the horror!

I didn't spell anything wrong. The original author did. That was a direct excerpt from the original resolution, henceforth the quotation marks. Also talk about spelling mistakes. I corrected one there for you. "Spelt" has never been a word. As for my writing style? I would say four passed resolutions make it acceptable. Just because you had to write up a whole thread of bullshit demanding people write resolutions your way, doesn't mean anyone actually takes your seriously. (And you were told as much in that thread). Also this is not the real U.N.

All in all your opposition means diddly squat. You are one vote, and that is all. The fact that you have resorted to criticizing the style of the resolution means you really don't have anything better to bitch about in regards to it. Your opinion is duly noted, and summarily dismissed. Shall we move along?

Regards,

Then place the [sic] marker. Oh, did you forget the entire bloody thing at the top, the 'This is by no means official or required, but I feel that it would make proposals look better and ease the entrance of new players into the General Assembly'.

I have no statements of requirements. It was not me who stated that spelling errors 'make this resolution a travesty to international law'.

It is also not me who cannot recognise the differences between regional varieties of English, namely, the fact that American English states that the past tense of 'to spell' is 'spelled' while British English states that the past tense of 'to spell' is 'spelt'.

Back to topic, did you not read the rest of the bloody post? Or are you going to simply keep repeating things with fingers in your ears?

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:19 pm**

Girls, girls, you're both pretty.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:28 pm**

Defwa wrote:Girls, girls, you're both pretty.

Thank you, Defwa. I nearly forgot about decorum. I yield the floor for whoever would like to speak.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:48 pm**

Frenchy.... you are an arrogant prick, butcha did a decent job at this so I will throw my hat in the ring in support of it.

Im sure that makes your day.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:08 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"While we don't particularly like the resolution in question and would probably support a repeal, we can't help but wonder what screams of outrage would have been directed at anyone else who had immediately submitted such, given how different this text is to the prior draft. Does this mean we're entering into a new exciting age of proposals being judged on their content and not on ephemeral bullshit?

"In terms of the repeal text, we share the confusion about the loophole in the definition, but at the same time, it is an awfully written definition.

"The point about the magnetosphere seems a reasonable point.

"It made us smirk a little to see "the lack of clear language and typos" being bemoaned.

"While we wish the repeal text were more compelling and had been redrafted, it's not actively bad enough for us to oppose, so we will likely support it when it comes to vote."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Weeeell! This here gal seems ta be a pretty straight talkin woman. Thats a refreshin exception to the typical big talkin raskals that love usin them five dollar words, even when most of aint got but a buck fiddy of common sense ta back em up.

But I aint gonna say that part out loud or somebody might have a hissy fit an throw a hip out or somethin.

Daisy Chinpuncher, your presence lends a redeeming quality to these chambers. It's been a pleasure to run into you.

Now... some of the opposition I've seen here seems ta be based in a real strong likelyhood that the person opposin either aint read everythang real clear like, or they just caint stand the guy that is behind it.

Good grief an chicken grease folks, yall grow up and look at it like big boys and girls ok?

If ya got a legit gripe with it, spit it out. But dont be petty just cause the author is a fruitloop.

NationStates

[PASSED] Repeal GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety

[PASSED] Repeal GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety