NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

[PASSED] Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:16 pm

Approve here.

Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"
Category: Repeal

Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,

Concerned that these restrictions place an unnecessary technological constraint on food production that increases the chance of famine as populations grow faster than food output,

Noting that the target resolution does not ban the domestic for-proft production of these seeds whilst burdening governments with unnecessary restrictions that compromise competitiveness, technological advantages, trade secrets, and national autonomies, and

Believing that 249 GA's ban on a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile' would make it significantly harder to protect native species from the accidental spread of transgenic organisms without prohibitively expensive administrative protocols,

This august World Assembly hereby:

  1. Objects to the ban on 'government funding [of] any for-profit entity that is engaged in GURT or [its] research', as nations should be able to fund those emergent technologies they believe are necessary to maintain their competitiveness in the global economy;

  2. Protests the fact that private companies must disclose trade secrets developed after significant investment to a world agency without any guarantee that their investments will be protected, opening the door for foreign corporate espionage;

  3. Disapproves of the ban on 'transport across a national border, without preapproval from WAFDRA, of any plant or seed that has been modified using GURT' as national governments are quite able to regulate their own foodstuffs without the pre-approval of an inefficient international committee;

  4. Hopes for replacement legislation that corrects these issues without the collateral damage noted to the environment, national competitiveness, technological advantages, trade secrets, and national autonomies;

  5. Repeals 249 GA 'Stopping Suicide Seeds'.

OOC: This, admittedly, is quite the uphill battle. The title is absolutely fantastic.

Replacement.

Drafted to assist Knootoss in pursuing their 2015 targets.
Last edited by Crazy girl on Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:34 pm, edited 23 times in total.
Reason: MODEDIT: passed

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
John Turner
Diplomat
 
Posts: 961
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby John Turner » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:21 pm

Support! Support! Support! *takes shoe off and bangs it on desk* SUPPORT!
Sir John H. Turner
Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs, United Federation of Canada
Premier, The North American Union
World Assembly Resolution Author

Socialism is not Communism
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:22 pm

John Turner wrote:Support! Support! Support! *takes shoe off and bangs it on desk* SUPPORT!

Parsons: (joins in the banging) Thank you!

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:23 pm

"We take strong objection with clauses 1 and 3. Clause 1 suggests that the short-term monetary outlook of government-supported research is somehow more important that safeguarding the global agricultural foodstuff supply from cross-contamination and death. Regardless of what is best for a nation's economic self-interests, the concerns of the world as a whole need to be considered. Indeed, there is no way to safeguard national sovereignty from foreign interference if nations can funnel money into such business interests and create a product with significant danger to domestic agriculture.

"Clause 3 is misguided. If nations were capable of regulating their own transportation in the manner you assume they can, this would never be a risk. The international transportation of dangerous material is absolutely within the purview of the World Assembly, especially if the transportation is managed by the same government that puts profit over the well-being of the rest of the world, and is inclined to cut costs at many corners. The risks involved with genetically modified agricultural products with suicide genes is great enough to warrant additional protection, and the benefits from such oversight pays itself a thousandfold when considering the potential damage."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:28 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:Clause 1 suggests that the short-term monetary outlook of government-supported research is somehow more important that safeguarding the global agricultural foodstuff supply from cross-contamination and death. Regardless of what is best for a nation's economic self-interests, the concerns of the world as a whole need to be considered. Indeed, there is no way to safeguard national sovereignty from foreign interference if nations can funnel money into such business interests and create a product with significant danger to domestic agriculture.

Would not prevention of cross-contamination require the use of more of these suicide seeds lest genetically modified organisms were to out-compete native crops? (OOC: Oh, and that is a really good clause to add...)

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Clause 3 is misguided. If nations were capable of regulating their own transportation in the manner you assume they can, this would never be a risk. The international transportation of dangerous material is absolutely within the purview of the World Assembly, especially if the transportation is managed by the same government that puts profit over the well-being of the rest of the world, and is inclined to cut costs at many corners. The risks involved with genetically modified agricultural products with suicide genes is great enough to warrant additional protection, and the benefits from such oversight pays itself a thousandfold when considering the potential damage."

How about in cases where populations require more effective crops which are able to more effectively and efficiently grow the food necessary to sustain the population without endangering native species? Furthermore, is it not possible for nations to conduct such regulation by themselves?

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:35 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Would not prevention of cross-contamination require the use of more of these suicide seeds lest genetically modified organisms were to out-compete native crops? (OOC: Oh, and that is a really good clause to add...)


"No. Prevention of cross-contamination requires stringent environmental regulation and the most careful of transportation standards. Suicide seeds are designed to terminate after a particular number of germination, not necessarily after a single germination, which leaves the possibility for cross-contamination from bees, butterflies, and other creatures. The use of additional seeds with these genetic modifications is not necessarily required."

OOC: That was a difficult sentence to parse out, IA. Did I translate correctly?

How about in cases where populations require more effective crops which are able to more effectively and efficiently grow the food necessary to sustain the population without endangering native species? Furthermore, is it not possible for nations to conduct such regulation by themselves?

"Those situations require international aid, not the agricultural equivalent of eating your dairy cow. In those cases, alternative options to reducing protections are necessary. Having World Assembly oversight ensures that there are no corners cut, nor precautions overlooked. Which is necessary, since we're talking about the welfare of worldwide agriculture."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:43 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Would not prevention of cross-contamination require the use of more of these suicide seeds lest genetically modified organisms were to out-compete native crops? (OOC: Oh, and that is a really good clause to add...)

"No. Prevention of cross-contamination requires stringent environmental regulation and the most careful of transportation standards. Suicide seeds are designed to terminate after a particular number of germination, not necessarily after a single germination, which leaves the possibility for cross-contamination from bees, butterflies, and other creatures. The use of additional seeds with these genetic modifications is not necessarily required."

'Nor are they required in the current resolution. Repealing it would allow for legislation that would do what you suggested to be proposed whilst also dealing with the issues that are currently in this resolution.'

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: That was a difficult sentence to parse out, IA. Did I translate correctly?

OOC: I believe so. Also, with a background in these affairs (if I remember correctly), you would make a very nice prospective author for a replacement. Economics is my home field, not biology, which is why this is approached from a primarily economic lens.

Separatist Peoples wrote:
How about in cases where populations require more effective crops which are able to more effectively and efficiently grow the food necessary to sustain the population without endangering native species? Furthermore, is it not possible for nations to conduct such regulation by themselves?

"Those situations require international aid, not the agricultural equivalent of eating your dairy cow. In those cases, alternative options to reducing protections are necessary. Having World Assembly oversight ensures that there are no corners cut, nor precautions overlooked. Which is necessary, since we're talking about the welfare of worldwide agriculture."

'Yes, but international aid and possible dependancy thereof is never a solution for indigenous self-sustainability. If you are a farmer receiving food for free, you have no need to farm and may as well shut down. Quite simply, farmers are forced to close by large-scale food aid. A more permanent solution would be to grow strains of crops which are engineered to be more resistant to blights and other issues.'

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
We Couldnt Agree On A Name
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 485
Founded: Nov 18, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby We Couldnt Agree On A Name » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:46 pm

I heard Imperial Anglorim and John Turner were banging in here.
*takes the copy handed to her*
Oh... heavily support.
Last edited by We Couldnt Agree On A Name on Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
World Assembly Representative: Ms. Adriene Beaumont | "We write legislation here, not dictionaries."
I'll use stats when you fix 443.3

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:02 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:'Nor are they required in the current resolution. Repealing it would allow for legislation that would do what you suggested to be proposed whilst also dealing with the issues that are currently in this resolution.'

"No, but repealing this resolution with the reasoning you've chosen places the desire for profit well over the requirements for safety. I'm not claiming the original resolution was perfect, but that your line of reasoning is unacceptable."

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: That was a difficult sentence to parse out, IA. Did I translate correctly?

OOC: I believe so. Also, with a background in these affairs (if I remember correctly), you would make a very nice prospective author for a replacement. Economics is my home field, not biology, which is why this is approached from a primarily economic lens.

OOC: Oh, hey, my background is in stuff bigger than a thumbtack, not smaller...

'Yes, but international aid and possible dependancy thereof is never a solution for indigenous self-sustainability. If you are a farmer receiving food for free, you have no need to farm and may as well shut down. Quite simply, farmers are forced to close by large-scale food aid. A more permanent solution would be to grow strains of crops which are engineered to be more resistant to blights and other issues.'

"Which can absolutely be done while aid keeps the locals from starving to death. This is still not justification for allowing the risk of cross-contamination. I literally cannot stress enough how very dangerous that event would be."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper
Diplomat
 
Posts: 607
Founded: Mar 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:12 pm

ARI: Given that we, The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, have such an unconventional view on such subjects, namely, that assisted suicide is not only humane and--

AHUME: NO! (He whispers intently into Ari's ear.)

ARI: Oh. Oh, that one! Yes, you know, this resolution really steams my drawers. What a terrible misnomer. And... okay, Ahume, what the fuck is this resolution about anyway? (more whispering; Ari reads the proposal as Ahume continues to whisper.) Okay, look, Farmer Bill, why don't you just speak up so everyone can hear you, hmmm?

AHUME: (looks around nervously; reads the repeal, closes his eyes) Okay. Clause 1. No. GAR#158 has been repealed. Nothing wrong with GMOs. And. Cause 5. No. No replacement needed. Er. That's all for now.

ARI: There. Was that so difficult? Anyway. Yes, we would like to see a repeal, but this argument needs work.
The General Assembly Delegation of the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper:
-- Wad Ari Alaz, Wrapperian Ambassador to the WA; Author, SCR#200, GAR #300, GAR#361.
-- Wad Ahume Orliss-Dorcke, Deputy Ambassador; two-time Intergalactic Karaoke League champion.
-- Wad Dawei DeGoah, Ambassador Emeritus; deceased.
THE GA POSTS FROM THIS NATION ARE IN-CHARACTER AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN AS MODERATOR RULINGS.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:13 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
OOC: I believe so. Also, with a background in these affairs (if I remember correctly), you would make a very nice prospective author for a replacement. Economics is my home field, not biology, which is why this is approached from a primarily economic lens.

OOC: Oh, hey, my background is in stuff bigger than a thumbtack, not smaller...

I've added a clause to hope for replacement legislation (which I lack the expertise to write without an exceptionally long review queue).

Separatist Peoples wrote:
'Yes, but international aid and possible dependancy thereof is never a solution for indigenous self-sustainability. If you are a farmer receiving food for free, you have no need to farm and may as well shut down. Quite simply, farmers are forced to close by large-scale food aid. A more permanent solution would be to grow strains of crops which are engineered to be more resistant to blights and other issues.'

"Which can absolutely be done while aid keeps the locals from starving to death. This is still not justification for allowing the risk of cross-contamination. I literally cannot stress enough how very dangerous that event would be."

It is impossible for one to provide free food whilst also having the market incentives to produce more food without mass subsidisation. If a nation has the resources to pursue mass subsidies, it is probably also rich enough to not be eligible for mass food aid anyway, so the only scenario in which one could do both is a scenario that cannot happen.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:16 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
It is impossible for one to provide free food whilst also having the market incentives to produce more food without mass subsidisation. If a nation has the resources to pursue mass subsidies, it is probably also rich enough to not be eligible for mass food aid anyway, so the only scenario in which one could do both is a scenario that cannot happen.


"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is still not reason enough to risk the entire world's agricultural sectors."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:17 pm

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Okay. Clause 1. No. GAR#158 has been repealed. Nothing wrong with GMOs.

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

Parsons: We are sure that those cases exist.

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:And. Cause 5. No. No replacement needed. Er. That's all for now.

Parsons: We believe that a replacement to regulate cross-contamination and safety is probably a good thing. It is in there so that we are on the safe side.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:17 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It is impossible for one to provide free food whilst also having the market incentives to produce more food without mass subsidisation. If a nation has the resources to pursue mass subsidies, it is probably also rich enough to not be eligible for mass food aid anyway, so the only scenario in which one could do both is a scenario that cannot happen.

"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is still not reason enough to risk the entire world's agricultural sectors."

Which it won't, because nations are able to regulate things themselves.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:19 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is still not reason enough to risk the entire world's agricultural sectors."

Which it won't, because nations are able to regulate things themselves.


"You have a lot of faith that nations will not cut corners on those regulations to benefit themselves. After all, you are taking the position that the freedom to pursue economic profit is worth more than the risk of the suicide gene spreading to native agriculture."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Which it won't, because nations are able to regulate things themselves.

"You have a lot of faith that nations will not cut corners on those regulations to benefit themselves. After all, you are taking the position that the freedom to pursue economic profit is worth more than the risk of the suicide gene spreading to native agriculture."

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
John Turner
Diplomat
 
Posts: 961
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby John Turner » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:23 pm

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:ARI: Oh. Oh, that one! Yes, you know, this resolution really steams my drawers. What a terrible misnomer.

Precisely. The title itself is self-righteous at best, and self-deluded at worst.
Sir John H. Turner
Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs, United Federation of Canada
Premier, The North American Union
World Assembly Resolution Author

Socialism is not Communism
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:24 pm

John Turner wrote:
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:ARI: Oh. Oh, that one! Yes, you know, this resolution really steams my drawers. What a terrible misnomer.

Precisely. The title itself is self-righteous at best, and self-deluded at worst.

Could make the subject of prefatory clause. :P

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
John Turner
Diplomat
 
Posts: 961
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby John Turner » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:27 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
John Turner wrote:Precisely. The title itself is self-righteous at best, and self-deluded at worst.

Could make the subject of prefatory clause. :P

I would. I challenged the original resolution on the grounds that the title itself was inflammatory, and was completely misleading to the resolution at hand. The mods didn't agree.... >:(
Sir John H. Turner
Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs, United Federation of Canada
Premier, The North American Union
World Assembly Resolution Author

Socialism is not Communism
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3309
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:08 pm

"We will categorically oppose any codification into World Assembly law of any statement the likes of Clause 2a; and if the menacing threat of the non-member hordes of 2b isn't enough to dictate the way WA members conduct warfare and target our nuclear weapons, then it's sure as hell not enough to dictate our mere economics. We tend to stand opposed to repealing this one on general principles, but not vehemently; a good argument might convince us; except for that vile Clause 2."

OOC: 2a is perilously close to legislating in a repeal anyway, regardless of how my IC id feels about it :)
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:16 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"We will categorically oppose any codification into World Assembly law of any statement the likes of Clause 2a; and if the menacing threat of the non-member hordes of 2b isn't enough to dictate the way WA members conduct warfare and target our nuclear weapons, then it's sure as hell not enough to dictate our mere economics. We tend to stand opposed to repealing this one on general principles, but not vehemently; a good argument might convince us; except for that vile Clause 2."

Changed it to 'should be'. Always happy to hear further recommendations on 2(a). Will consult later on 2(b). For the sake of avoiding gridlock, can we put that aside until 2(a) is completed?

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:27 pm

Proofread and edits done to 2(a). 2(b) eliminated.

Or, in another way of saying it, the changes proposed by Sierra Lyricalia have been accepted.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper
Diplomat
 
Posts: 607
Founded: Mar 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:17 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Okay. Clause 1. No. GAR#158 has been repealed. Nothing wrong with GMOs.

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

Parsons: We are sure that those cases exist.

AHUME: Yes. But. That. That clause implies it's... true for all... ummm... (His voice trails off.)

ARI: Yes, what he's saying is, it needs to be reworded in that case. Try this instead:

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, that are able to out-compete....

ARI: There now. Instead of saying, "we need to protect them from all GMOs because in some cases they can out-compete", you're saying, "we need to protect them from those GMOs that can out-compete". Are we making sense, Ambassador?
The General Assembly Delegation of the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper:
-- Wad Ari Alaz, Wrapperian Ambassador to the WA; Author, SCR#200, GAR #300, GAR#361.
-- Wad Ahume Orliss-Dorcke, Deputy Ambassador; two-time Intergalactic Karaoke League champion.
-- Wad Dawei DeGoah, Ambassador Emeritus; deceased.
THE GA POSTS FROM THIS NATION ARE IN-CHARACTER AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN AS MODERATOR RULINGS.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:28 am

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, are able to out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

Parsons: We are sure that those cases exist.

AHUME: Yes. But. That. That clause implies it's... true for all... ummm... (His voice trails off.)

ARI: Yes, what he's saying is, it needs to be reworded in that case. Try this instead:

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms, which, in some cases, that are able to out-compete....

ARI: There now. Instead of saying, "we need to protect them from all GMOs because in some cases they can out-compete", you're saying, "we need to protect them from those GMOs that can out-compete". Are we making sense, Ambassador?

OOC: Change applied.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:11 pm

We will be submitting this in three days.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads