[DISCARDED] Repeal 'Pesticide Regulations'

[Araraukar]

The various above responses are unresponsive to argumentation brought up in the text itself and in the telegrams sent. Copies of that telegram can be found on various public forums.

Re-posting, in case you missed:

What IA claims the issue is:

Concerned that the requirement in clause four to prevent pesticide runoff with such things as buffer zones, selective application, and avoidance of irrigation is fundamentally flawed, as:

1. sapient lives are better saved and protected through the eradication of disease-bearing pests which serve as a vector for person-to-person transmission,
2. eradication campaigns of insects will necessarily require large-scale and large-area administration of pesticides or run the risk of leaving a reservoir population,
3. making it harder for poor nations to cheaply pursue eradication campaigns is principally unjust, since the people affected on the cost margins are the most disadvantaged and those which the world community has the foremost obligation to protect, and
4. these restrictions greatly increases the difficulty of pest eradication, thereby preventing nations from reducing the incidence of pest-borne diseases like malaria, costing lives, implicitly killing people, and violating the principles upon which this Assembly was founded, while
5. it massively increases the chance of disease-bearing pests developing resistance to common pesticides, allowing surviving generations to adapt to exposure, making future eradication campaigns ever more difficult and costly, costing yet more lives; and

Let's see what GA #376 actually says.

2. Defines "chemical pesticide" as a chemical designed to prevent or kill pathogens and non-sapient pests, and which is used to protect crops or other organisms,

*snip*

4. Requires that the users of chemical pesticides must act to prevent pesticide runoff with preventative measures, including but not limited to buffer zones, selective application and avoiding irrigation right after applying pesticides,

I don't see anything in there that would prevent systematic eradication campaigns.

If you're doing large-scale enough pesticide spreading that you could realistically hope to destroy a pest species, you should have a detailed plan about where and when they're going to spread the pesticide to avoid killing everything and everyone else on the side. To comply, you simply need to take what precautions are available to prevent the pesticide from spreading outside the intended areas. It's good for your economy too, to do that, as pesticide runoff equals losing money on pesticides that aren't doing what you wanted them to do. A poor nation especially should take care to avoid such money loss.

It is these inevitability arguments here, which are cross-applied to the repeal. I simply reused prior argumentation by the co-author on how unsustainable agricultural practices would be regulated against simply because they are unsustainable and how good actions would be undertaken because reasonable nations would have already done so.

OOC: Yet you lie in the repeal about me agreeing with you on it. And if you really believe that's the correct approach, then you won't object me taking you doing that agreeing in the resolution text and applying it to any other proposal's debate you're on as evidence that you also feel it's unnecessary? I mean, since we're now obviously in your opinion agreeing on it?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Like I said, it is unresponsive to the repeal and telegram text.
EDIT: It is unresponsive to the arguments in the repeal and the campaign telegram.

[Araraukar]

Like I said, it is unresponsive to the repeal and telegram text.

OOC: How exactly is it unresponsive when it directly addresses the bits that you claim are the main problem? The only bits that aren't pure NatSov, I should say.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There are two outcomes. Either this repeal is discarded, in which case, it is extremely likely that inevitability arguments are rejected on Sierra Lyricalia's basis, leading to the conclusion that rational nations will not always pursue 'good' policies. This is a win. Or, the repeal is not discarded. Then, that is a win too.

The other questions are fabrications, and can probably best be dealt with in the legality challenge thread. Or perhaps I should just start yelling about threadjacks and illegalities all over the place. Doing so would certainly be playing to a certain form.

---

you won't object me taking you doing that agreeing in the resolution text and applying it to any other proposal's debate you're on as evidence that you also feel it's unnecessary?

That's certainly a reasonable interpretation of the repeal text.

[Wallenburg]

Like I said, it is unresponsive to the repeal and telegram text.

If discussing the text of a repeal is "unresponsive to the repeal text", I don't know what counts as "responsive".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Like I said, it is unresponsive to the repeal and telegram text.

If discussing the text of a repeal is "unresponsive to the repeal text", I don't know what counts as "responsive".

Well, that certainly is a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote. I should clarify that.

[Wallenburg]

No draft, no support.

A week of drafting was had. Many players were consulted on various different forums.

I have been to nine different regional forums now, trying to find evidence of this "week of drafting on various different forums". I have even gone to some forums that I have never seen before. I have found nothing. If I can't even find your drafting thread when I go to great effort to look for it, then I'm inclined to believe that it does not exist.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Read your "clarifications". How is addressing your issues with the target resolution being "unresponsive to the arguments in the repeal"? Campaign TG I didn't get, so that one I couldn't address even if I wanted to (which I probably don't).

[Unibot III]

Is "co-author" legal for use in text in this manner? I can't keep up with the rules changes.

In ye old days, it would be a clear 'metagaming' violation to say 'co-author' or even 'author' really. The resolution is a directive of the World Assembly, the focus ought to be on the WA, not the 'authors.' Moreover, the repeal rather than addressing the text is addressing uncited background conversations from the co-author - seems to be a protocol error of some sort.

This should have been drafted here on the site to catch illegalities.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In ye old days, it would be a clear 'metagaming' violation to say 'co-author' or even 'author' really. The resolution is a directive of the World Assembly, the focus ought to be on the WA, not the 'authors.' Moreover, the repeal rather than addressing the text is addressing uncited background conversations from the co-author - seems to be a protocol error of some sort.

CD included the word author in one of this proposals a few months ago, referencing me.

[Araraukar]

In ye old days, it would be a clear 'metagaming' violation to say 'co-author' or even 'author' really. The resolution is a directive of the World Assembly, the focus ought to be on the WA, not the 'authors.' Moreover, the repeal rather than addressing the text is addressing uncited background conversations from the co-author - seems to be a protocol error of some sort.

CD included the word author in one of this proposals a few months ago, referencing me.

OOC: Not just once. I went through all the passed repeals, "author" has been mentioned a few times (oldest mention was in early 200's in resolution numbers, I think). Like 5 or 6, one of them was a self-reference, which somehow got past (these days would probably be labeled branding or something). Co-author wasn't mentioned even once, but I didn't include it in the challenge because I felt the precedence from using "author" would cover it.

[The United Federation of Thetos]

Only 3 Days left

For: 75.7% (4,865)
Against: 24.3% (1,559)



Go Vote >

[Indifferand]

I vote yes, but it ought to be noted by WA nations that the repeal of the original 'Pesticide Regulations' should be followed by a revised 'Pesticide Regulations' bill which has proper structural flexibility to account for the exceptional cases noted in the argument of the Repeal.

[Zeklandia]

This is absolutely an international issue. Pesticides find their way into the watershed, and they are distributed through creeks and rivers to places where they do not belong. How about countries downstream on a major river? Would Egypt not suffer if Sudan or South Sudan were to contaminate the Nile with pesticides? What about the ocean? Does the contamination and acidification of oceans not warrant international concern?

[Zeklandia]

Let's see what GA #376 actually says.

2. Defines "chemical pesticide" as a chemical designed to prevent or kill pathogens and non-sapient pests, and which is used to protect crops or other organisms,

*snip*

4. Requires that the users of chemical pesticides must act to prevent pesticide runoff with preventative measures, including but not limited to buffer zones, selective application and avoiding irrigation right after applying pesticides,

I don't see anything in there that would prevent systematic eradication campaigns.

If you're doing large-scale enough pesticide spreading that you could realistically hope to destroy a pest species, you should have a detailed plan about where and when they're going to spread the pesticide to avoid killing everything and everyone else on the side. To comply, you simply need to take what precautions are available to prevent the pesticide from spreading outside the intended areas. It's good for your economy too, to do that, as pesticide runoff equals losing money on pesticides that aren't doing what you wanted them to do. A poor nation especially should take care to avoid such money loss.

So, are you recommending that the WA should regulate systematic eradication campaigns? It seems like an oversight that the WA does not have any legislation which prevents such a travesty. Even without pesticides (sparrows during the Cultural Revolution in China), it seems like it is a global interest to prevent a lone actor from damaging the ecosystem in such a way.

Since you seem to be more familiar with the WA and its legislation, do you know of any resolution which covers systematic eradication of a species of organisms?

I ask, because you suggest that poor nations would be responsible with their use of pesticides, which are potentially hazardous chemicals, because there is money at stake. I beg to differ. Poor nations would lack the infrastructure, both mechanically and logistically, to carefully orchestrate such an operation. Not to mention that many pesticides are very cheap, and using less to prevent run-off results in negligible savings. On top of that, these pesticides are often applied with little precision in poorer nations, again due to lacking infrastructure and logistics.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: I suppose, then, you believe that the best option for GA regulars is to simply stop talking to each other and just come here for occasional Stranger's Bar fun and posting OPs for at-vote resolutions. After all, there's no point in debating a proposal that has reached quorum or gone to vote, and apparently there is no point in the drafting process for "veterans".

Given the current forum culture, that is probably best. I wish that weren't the case.

When GenSec members are telling you ignore drafting and simply stop posting in the GA because it is "probably best", you know this forum is f***ed.

OOC: I find this line of reasoning sort of strange. I've been posting on this forum for about 6 years and can definitively say, drafting on the forum nowadays for veterans is not only useless but probably detrimental.

Alright. I guess I won't be drafting any more WA Not Really Peacekeeping Anymore resolutions. I'll just address whatever was brought up the last time GenSec said it was illegal, and resubmit with a full campaign.

Why would IA post a draft knowing that Ara is going to file a legality challenge, EP is going to filibuster it, and Tinfect is going to personally and OOC accuse him of unfairly using evidence to substantiate his claim?

1) Well, now we all know who Sciongrad holds grudges against.
2) Filibusters are delaying actions. I lack the ability to delay proposals with my arguments.

It's a waste of time and frankly, a source of stress. SP doesn't post IC anymore. Wonder why?

Because the GA is currently divided into two broad camps of players:
1) Players who think RP is dead/useless and/or don't do it.
2) Players who bring up totally non-typical, non-MT RP that doesn't relate to the majority of nations.

On a side note, I think right about now we should have another discussion about improving the GA. Oh, if only there was a nation dedicated to the improvement of the World Assembly...

[Thyerata]

Opposed on principle. Speaking both ICly and OOCly, it seems to me that it is an abuse of the highest order of the privileges, rights and responsibilities attaching to membership when a Nation either (a) submits a resolution, and refuses point-blank to debate it in the forums, or (b) submits a resolution, but then opens a thread as a figment of debate, while in reality presenting their proposal as a fait accompli (as you're doing).

[Araraukar]

So, are you recommending that the WA should regulate systematic eradication campaigns?

OOC: No, but there's nothing in either the target or the GA #66, Endangered Species Protection that would stop a WA member nation from doing so, if the species "is determined to be a threat to public health due to its parasitism or infectiousness (such as a bacteria, virus, or other parasite)" (from GA#66). Thus using it as an argument for the repeal is just an outright lie.

It seems like an oversight that the WA does not have any legislation which prevents such a travesty.

I'm sure the RL world would be much happier without things like ebola, malaria and anthrax. No, doing it with pesticides would not be the right choice in my opinion, but just saying that I could understand killing off a species (even fluffy, cute species, which humans tend to care more about) or two to get rid of the biggest killers in all history.

Since you seem to be more familiar with the WA and its legislation, do you know of any resolution which covers systematic eradication of a species of organisms?

Linked to GA #66 above. There is also GA #267, Sensible Limits on Hunting, though that's more for animals that are hunted rather than the target of eradication. You may want to ask the author of that resolution, the GenSec member Bears Armed if GA #267 would have any effect for it.

I ask, because you suggest that poor nations would be responsible with their use of pesticides, which are potentially hazardous chemicals, because there is money at stake.

Money is the argument the repeal author makes. Talk to him about costs. I was merely responding to his claims. Also, NS =/= RL. What's impossible in real life (like having 27k+ nations in WA alone), is very doable in NS.

Poor nations would lack the infrastructure, both mechanically and logistically, to carefully orchestrate such an operation.

In real life, yes. In NationStates poor WA nations would be able to ask the WA for actual help.

Not to mention that many pesticides are very cheap, and using less to prevent run-off results in negligible savings.

Yet the repeal author uses money as an excuse.

On top of that, these pesticides are often applied with little precision in poorer nations, again due to lacking infrastructure and logistics.

In real life that is true. In WA, as long as GA #7, Workplace Safety Standards Act stands, anyone working with chemical pesticides is required by WA law to be fully trained in the use of, and wear proper protective gear from the chemicals. And Pesticide Regulations requires them to spread them responsibly.

That's the difference between NSWA and RLUN; the real life world organization can only hope things happen. The WA sets in place actual laws that are higher than national laws. A conflicting national law is considered to be invalid.

---

It's a waste of time and frankly, a source of stress. SP doesn't post IC anymore. Wonder why?

Because the GA is currently divided into two broad camps of players:
1) Players who think RP is dead/useless and/or don't do it.
2) Players who bring up totally non-typical, non-MT RP that doesn't relate to the majority of nations.

OOC: You forgot to mention that camp 1 players don't consider the RP of camp 2 players to be valid (usually by calling it "RP wank"). Also, if you want to put up another discussion thread, don't use WAIF for it, please. That'll get scoffed at for being account wank.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Doesn't that reasoning defeat the purpose of GenSec and this forum section in general in the first place? Isn't the point of drafting a resolution is to make sure it's legal and satisfactory? Isn't the point of legality challenges is to ensure that a ruling is made on a proposal with a debatable legal status?

OOC: Yes, that's the purpose, and I have been a vocal proponent of GenSec answering as many questions as possible. However, this forum is paralyzed by legalism. Like, this isn't a game about policy anymore, it's a game about rules. And they're often wacky, esoteric, and abstract. Can a resolution be too mild? Which languages qualify as "English"? That type of thing. The result doesn't help future authors and are often so narrow that no precedent can be set. I have no problems dealing with legality challenges. I do have a problem with how they're being used to filibuster policies one disagrees with.

OOC: Sounds to me like politics as usual. I don't know of a single congressional or parliamentary body IRL that doesn't have this problem. Which is why I wholehearted agree that we need to steer clear of that.

Still, public drafting is important. A couple months ago there was a proposal that would have basically forced most FT-FTL nations out of the World Assembly (I can't remember which proposal, though) on a technicality. I personally spearheaded the debate that eventually shot that proposal down. Now, imagine if that proposal wasn't publicly drafted and said issue was never brought up by the private drafting group. It was an otherwise really good proposal, so chances are it would have passed, but if it did then FT-FTL nations that occupy, control or are otherwise made up of more than one planet would have been non-compliant by nature.

[Re-Unified Russia]

Vote no, save our planet
The world is in danger from things like pesticides ruining our crops. Vote against viewtopic.php?f=9&t=410604

[Sciongrad]

Still, public drafting is important. A couple months ago there was a proposal that would have basically forced most FT-FTL nations out of the World Assembly (I can't remember which proposal, though) on a technicality. I personally spearheaded the debate that eventually shot that proposal down. Now, imagine if that proposal wasn't publicly drafted and said issue was never brought up by the private drafting group. It was an otherwise really good proposal, so chances are it would have passed, but if it did then FT-FTL nations that occupy, control or are otherwise made up of more than one planet would have been non-compliant by nature.

OOC: Public drafting should be important. Ideally, this forum would be a place where old players and new players can get constructive feedback on their drafts. But unfortunately, the culture is so toxic that it doesn't really serve this purpose. And the false outrage from some players is embarassing. This isn't new. Gruen has been noting how useless the forum since like, 2014. It's only gotten worse since. To make this forum healthy again, we need to:

1. Stop bashing new players,
2. Stop resorting to legalism over every single proposal,
3. Stop trying to force authors to account for wacky or downright stupid RP.

Until then, this forum is moribund.

[Bananaistan]

Still, public drafting is important. A couple months ago there was a proposal that would have basically forced most FT-FTL nations out of the World Assembly (I can't remember which proposal, though) on a technicality. I personally spearheaded the debate that eventually shot that proposal down. Now, imagine if that proposal wasn't publicly drafted and said issue was never brought up by the private drafting group. It was an otherwise really good proposal, so chances are it would have passed, but if it did then FT-FTL nations that occupy, control or are otherwise made up of more than one planet would have been non-compliant by nature.

OOC: Public drafting should be important. Ideally, this forum would be a place where old players and new players can get constructive feedback on their drafts. But unfortunately, the culture is so toxic that it doesn't really serve this purpose. And the false outrage from some players is embarassing. This isn't new. Gruen has been noting how useless the forum since like, 2014. It's only gotten worse since. To make this forum healthy again, we need to:

1. Stop bashing new players,
2. Stop resorting to legalism over every single proposal,
3. Stop trying to force authors to account for wacky or downright stupid RP.

Until then, this forum is moribund.

OOC: 100% agree with all three points.

[Excidium Planetis]

To make this forum healthy again, we need to:

1. Stop bashing new players,

Is this really an issue? Araraukar has actively helped new players for a while now, I don't even really comment on proposals by new players these days, and Tinfect is barely around the GA currently.

It seems like none of the players you specifically accused of making drafting useless are part of the problem here. I mean, unless you have serious examples of how any of the three of us have recently bashed new players.

2. Stop resorting to legalism over every single proposal,

I didn't resort to any legalism over RAT III. No legality challenge, no accusation of illegality... I only argued from an IC standpoint on the merits of the resolution itself. And when I put forward my repeal... you immediately accused it of being illegal for a reason that doesn't even apply, and failing that, have now filed a legality challenge against it on other grounds. Who's being legalistic now?

Of the last three legality challenges I filed, one was against my own proposal, one was an anti-legality challenge arguing that a proposal GenSec marked as illegal was actually legal, and only one was a proposal I argued was illegal, because it included an enforcement mechanism and I was under the impression that GenSec's rulings pretty much prohibited that.

3. Stop trying to force authors to account for wacky or downright stupid RP.

Stop trying to force players to RP as normal MT nations. You don't have to account for my space nomads or Tinfect's cybernetic socialists or Ara's sapient plants. But don't say such things are toxic and making this forum unhealthy.

[Sciongrad]

Is this really an issue? Araraukar has actively helped new players for a while now, I don't even really comment on proposals by new players these days, and Tinfect is barely around the GA currently.

It seems like none of the players you specifically accused of making drafting useless are part of the problem here. I mean, unless you have serious examples of how any of the three of us have recently bashed new players.

OOC: What are you talking about? I cited you guys as examples of players that probably encouraged IA to draft offsite. I never said you guys were the only sources of every single one of the GA's problems. Ara has gotten better. Others haven't.

I didn't resort to any legalism over RAT III. No legality challenge, no accusation of illegality...

Good for you? Is that evidence that this forum isn't overly legalistic? Why are you taking these criticisms so personally?

Stop trying to force players to RP as normal MT nations. You don't have to account for my space nomads or Tinfect's cybernetic socialists or Ara's sapient plants. But don't say such things are toxic and making this forum unhealthy.

No, I won't, because for as long as this forum has been around, it has assumed the average nation is MT and faces MT problems. Disabuse yourself of the notion that any veteran player will ever take as an acceptable argument that your nation requires a daily dose of biological weapons to survive or that a proposal doesn't take into consideration the environmental needs of sapient sponges. This type of behavior has been discouraged for so long there is a NSUN meme about it. DemonLordEnigma used to do the same thing you and others do back in 2005 and it was looked down upon then. It still is now. RP how you want. It's a waste of time to argue in a thread, though, that your nation has literally solved economics because its tech is so advanced. That isn't an argument.

[Bakhton]

A week of drafting was had. Many players were consulted on various different forums.

OOC: Where?