[PASSED] Promotion of Recycling

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thus, creative compliance violates GA#2 both in letter and in spirit, and is therefore noncompliance.

OOC:
So tell me again how your nation is a nation without borders?
Don't actually tell me. I really don't care. Your nation is a nation because it's a nation in the game and that's good enough for me.

[Jarish Inyo]

You might want to reread the Minimum Standard of Living Act. ...

"Minimum Standard of Living Act entitles citizens of your nation to a minimum standard of living. You claimed that your citizens were entitled to nothing more than they could afford, which is evidence of noncompliance with GA#344." Blackbourne replies, mostly for the record, because he no longer had any desire to sway the Jarish Inyo delegation.

And as long as we grant a disabled person with the same things that an abled body working person is entitled to, we are in compliance with Disability Welfare Act.

"Which is a minimum standard of living. You must provide the disabled with welfare sufficient to reach that level. Unlike GA#344, GA#176 specifies welfare specifically as the means to attain the quality of life they are entitled to."

Quality in Health Services doesn't require free healthcare. So again, the Empire is in compliance.

"It requires nations to provide full health services coverage to, at a minimum, those who cannot afford health services." Blackbourne replies. "I cannot imagine that every single person in your nation can afford health services."

Greifenburg, compliance is always optional. The WA has no actual way of forcing compliance. There are ways to be noncompliant while being in compliance if one is creative.

"Creative compliance is not good faith compliance. Good faith compliance is required by GA#2, thus, your nation is in full noncompliance with GA#2, as well as all the other resolutions I have specified." Blackbourne finishes. "Lastly, Compliance is Mandatory, it is simply not enforced. We will change this."

No, I claimed an able body working person is only entitled what they can afford on the pay they receive from their employer. And again, a tent, fishing pole, outhouse, communal water supply and some clothes are all a nation needs to be in compliance with the Minimum Standard of Living Act. Once more, we're in compliance.

Disability Welfare Act only states that a disabled person is entitled to the minimum of what an abled body working person is entitled too. As the minimum of what an abled body working person, or any citizen, is entitled too is a tent, fishing pole, outhouse, communal water supply and some clothes, then that is what a disabled person is entitled too. So, requirements are met.

Quality in Health Services doesn't require full health services coverage to those who cannot afford health services. No where in the resolution does it state that any healthcare is free. It does state that every nation or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt. The Empire sees no compelling practical purposes for such a policy. So, again we're in compliance.

Good faith and creative compliance is not necessarily. After all, in a democratic government, it could take years to write legislation and even more years to get it passed.

[Excidium Planetis]

So tell me again how your nation is a nation without borders?

OOC:
Non sequitur. And/or possibly straw man, since you are attacking an argument that I'm not making here.

GA#2:

Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly

So, is creative compliance with any other resolution compliance with the letter of the law? Is it? Tell me, is creative compliance "carrying out in good faith [nations'] obligations arising from... sources of international law, including this World Assembly"?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Non sequitur. And/or possibly straw man, since you are attacking an argument that I'm not making here.

OOC: So you can do it but others can't do it to you?

So, is creative compliance with any other resolution compliance with the letter of the law? Is it? Tell me, is creative compliance "carrying out in good faith [nations'] obligations arising from... sources of international law, including this World Assembly"?

If you're doing creative compliance, you can be creative with that one too. The creativeness, after all, comes from the side of the human player, not (necessarily) the IC characters, who could indeed be operating in good faith.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: So you can do it but others can't do it to you?

If you ever see me ignore one of your arguments and instead start up a totally unrelated one, go ahead and call me out on it.

If you're doing creative compliance, you can be creative with that one too.

I've yet to see a creative interpretation of that line of GA#2. Remember, Creative Compliance is, in your own words, complying with the letter of the law but not the spirit of it. The letter is pretty straight forward in that clause.

The creativeness, after all, comes from the side of the human player, not (necessarily) the IC characters, who could indeed be operating in good faith.

No one, not even IC characters, can practice that much doublethink as to believe obviously forced interpretations running contrary to all reason were indeed made in good faith.

Funny how creative comoliance always comes into okay when the resolution is not liked. Surely it must be a mistake that such creative interpretations made in good faith only apply to resolutions one would deliberately want to weasel out of.

[Araraukar]

Funny how creative comoliance always comes into okay when the resolution is not liked. Surely it must be a mistake that such creative interpretations made in good faith only apply to resolutions one would deliberately want to weasel out of.

OOC: Oh, I apply creative compliance the other way too. Like I don't call the General Fund tax "donations".

[Wrapper]

Back on topic, please.

[Greifenburg]

"I think this was lying around long enough."

Ambassador Schreiner blows a thick layer of dust from the proposal.

"Time to work on it again."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Doesn't fit the Area of Effect as currently written.

[Greifenburg]

OOC: Doesn't fit the Area of Effect as currently written.

OOC: Which Area would be the propper one, then? All Businesses - Mild? Which is, by the way, cool that it now exists.
OOC Edit: Then again, the mining industry would be the most likely to take a hit since recycling would slightly lower the demand of new resources.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Doesn't fit the Area of Effect as currently written.

OOC: Which Area would be the propper one, then? All Businesses - Mild? Which is, by the way, cool that it now exists.
OOC Edit: Then again, the mining industry would be the most likely to take a hit since recycling would slightly lower the demand of new resources.

(OOC: I would say that All Businesses - Mild is the ideal choice, since all industries use recyclable and salvageable materials to function.)

[Greifenburg]

(OOC: I would say that All Businesses - Mild is the ideal choice, since all industries use recyclable and salvageable materials to function.)

OOC: Good point. I have updated the draft accordingly.

[Araraukar]

(OOC: I would say that All Businesses - Mild is the ideal choice, since all industries use recyclable and salvageable materials to function.)

OOC: Yeah, ^that, and for that reason too.

[Hatzisland]

As of right now(draft 12, I believe), we cannot support this plan. Requiring governments to either pour their money into incentives or pour money into prosecution funds is something we cannot support. Changing Provision 3 from "REQUIRES" to "RECOMMENDS", "ENCOURAGES", or "STRONGLY RECOMMENDS" would work, or you could just abandon the provision.

[Karteria]

"We fully support this proposal."

As of right now(draft 12, I believe), we cannot support this plan. Requiring governments to either pour their money into incentives or pour money into prosecution funds is something we cannot support. Changing Provision 3 from "REQUIRES" to "RECOMMENDS", "ENCOURAGES", or "STRONGLY RECOMMENDS" would work, or you could just abandon the provision.

Ambassador Gray shakes his head.

"While we may ultimately disagree on the goal of the incentives, you seem to misinterpret the possibilities for them. While yes, prosecution is a form of punishment, it is not the only form. Fines could be levied on citizens who do not conform to recycling, and taxes could be instituted as well. Your interpretation, as we see it, likely stems from a marketing campaign. There are many other ways to incentivize the population to recycle.

Furthermore, the prospect of getting rid of requiring clause 3 or the clause altogether is misguided; most of the recycling that would occur as a result of this proposal would likely stem from the people themselves, who need an incentive to do so."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Our support is contingent on not accepting the Hatzislandian recommendations regarding the tax incentives. No matter what they do, the author stands to lose a vote. So, by removing the incentive to cave to unhelpful advice, we believe that the author will default to their preference, which appears to be keeping such incentives mandatory."

Bell looks at the authoring delegation's ambassador. "You're welcome."

[Greifenburg]

"Thank you for your support, Ambassadors Gray and Bell, we plan indeed to keep clause 3 in its current form, as we consider it an important part of the goal of this legislative piece."

Schreiner strokes his beard in thought.

"My office is however currently discussing a change in clauses 1 and 2 to properly include the salvageable objects, as the current writing only mandates their collection, but not the actual salvaging, which the definition of recycling does not include. We may present a rewritten version tomorrow."

[Cosmosplosion]

"We are in support. All Cosmic people will always support a good and simple way to clean up our environment."

[Karteria]

Schreiner strokes his beard in thought.

"My office is however currently discussing a change in clauses 1 and 2 to properly include the salvageable objects, as the current writing only mandates their collection, but not the actual salvaging, which the definition of recycling does not include. We may present a rewritten version tomorrow."

"After further inspection, it seems that is a missing piece to the puzzle. Including salvaging is a critical requirement."

Gray turns around, drinks the last of his soda, and throws the can into the nearest recycling bin.

"My support for this proposal knows no bounds, I'll have you know."

[Araraukar]

OOC: A suggestion...

a) "Recyclable waste material" as a material that can be reprocessed into materials fit for manufacturing;

You don't need to specify manufacturing anymore, and would in fact do much better if you included all recycling, not just manufacturing resources. Glass bottles for beverages can be reused as is, just washing and refilling them, without needing to melt the glass down to make new bottles. Likewise, food scraps can be recycled by composting.

Though I would like to add "reasonably" into the clause, because you can only recycle paper so many times, before the fibres become too short for good quality paper anymore, and would be better off composted or burned, rather than being put through energy-expensive methods that use huge amounts of chemicals (basically being resource-expensive) to get something usable out of them. Just because you can recycle something, it doesn't mean it wasn't better for the environment and resource use to not to.

I know it'll be a hard balance to find, but it's something that in RL at least all recycling efforts have to do.

[Greifenburg]

OOC: A suggestion...

a) "Recyclable waste material" as a material that can be reprocessed into materials fit for manufacturing;

You don't need to specify manufacturing anymore, and would in fact do much better if you included all recycling, not just manufacturing resources. Glass bottles for beverages can be reused as is, just washing and refilling them, without needing to melt the glass down to make new bottles. Likewise, food scraps can be recycled by composting.

Though I would like to add "reasonably" into the clause, because you can only recycle paper so many times, before the fibres become too short for good quality paper anymore, and would be better off composted or burned, rather than being put through energy-expensive methods that use huge amounts of chemicals (basically being resource-expensive) to get something usable out of them. Just because you can recycle something, it doesn't mean it wasn't better for the environment and resource use to not to.

I know it'll be a hard balance to find, but it's something that in RL at least all recycling efforts have to do.

OOC: If I remeber correctly, recycling is IRL quite specifically the convertion of waste materials into usable materials, while Reuse is the second of the three R's. However, I do agree that I should add a clause that clarifies that the resolution doesn't ban the reusage instead of recycling where feasable. I also agree that I should add "reasonably" to cover those limits. Perhaps also in a clarification in which I'll address the energy and chemical concerns directly.

As for now, I've added a definition for salvaging and added the term alongside recycling in clause 2.

[Araraukar]

Perhaps also in a clarification in which I'll address the energy and chemical concerns directly.

OOC: No, don't do that. Because then it goes into the nitpickery area. You want to use as general language as you can, to get the effect you want.

[Greifenburg]

Perhaps also in a clarification in which I'll address the energy and chemical concerns directly.

OOC: No, don't do that. Because then it goes into the nitpickery area. You want to use as general language as you can, to get the effect you want.

OOC: How about this then:

5. Clarifies that this Resolution prevents neither the implementation of, nor future legislation concerning, other waste reduction programms.

6. Clarifies further that this Resolution does not require the implementation or usage of recycling processes if they feature a higher negative ecological impact than available alternative waste management practices.

[Araraukar]

5. Clarifies that this Resolution prevents neither the implementation of, nor future legislation concerning, other waste reduction programms.

OOC: Typo, and also not sure that does anything, as future resolutions can't amend this one even if you said they could.

6. Clarifies further that this Resolution does not require the implementation or usage of recycling processes if they feature a higher negative ecological impact than available alternative waste management practices.

If I didn't know what you were trying to say, I wouldn't get it from this wording.

[Greifenburg]

5. Clarifies that this Resolution prevents neither the implementation of, nor future legislation concerning, other waste reduction programms.

OOC: Typo, and also not sure that does anything, as future resolutions can't amend this one even if you said they could.

OOC: Well, you did point out that reusage of for example glass bottles is a thing. That's not recycling perse, but reuse. With 5) I make sure that such programs (got it this time) can coexist with recycling and that this is not a blocker for resolutions addressing such programs.

6. Clarifies further that this Resolution does not require the implementation or usage of recycling processes if they feature a higher negative ecological impact than available alternative waste management practices.

If I didn't know what you were trying to say, I wouldn't get it from this wording.

Could you point out what exactly is unclear? You see, since I wrote it and know what I mean, it makes perfect sense to me, so a bit more feedback beyond "I know what you're saying, but the sentence makes no sense" would be welcome.