[DEFEATED] Treatment of the Deceased

[Crazybloxian Empire]

This:

Demands that member states enforce laws that protect corpses and tombs younger than 75 years from molestation.

Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave
(b.) destruction or defacing of headstones or markers

SUPER FLAWED

---

I recommend this:
[box]
Demands that member states enforce laws that protect corpses and tombs younger than 75 years from molestation.

Defines molestation of a grave as:

1. opening a grave
   
   1. to execute disrespectful acts;
   but opening a grave for the purposes of, further noting clause “ii” and any clause after shall require the permission of family.
   
   1. criminal investigation;
   2. archaeology;
   3. ”stacking”, defined as adding coffins and adding the name of the deceased person to the headstone.
2. defame or deface the headstones to
   
   1. damage the reputation of the family, or close relatives including counsins and friends;
   2. or shame the family.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I still have philosophical objections, which were raised on Discord. There is yet an unclear mechanism by which the dead are endowed with rights.

[Araraukar]

1. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect remains and tombs younger than 65 years from molestation unless ashes have been scattered.

OOC: So RL seriously disagreeing with you is now suddenly not applicable because of why?

2. Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave unless unless permitted by the deceased

You're kidding, right?

[Erithaca]

1. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect remains and tombs younger than 65 years from molestation unless ashes have been scattered.

OOC: So RL seriously disagreeing with you is now suddenly not applicable because of why?

2. Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave unless unless permitted by the deceased

:rofl: You're kidding, right? :rofl:

I don't understand either of your comments.

[The New California Republic]

2. Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave unless unless permitted by the deceased

You're kidding, right?

I don't understand either of your comments.

OOC: Do you think that the deceased has the capacity to grant consent?

[Erithaca]

I don't understand either of your comments.

OOC: Do you think that the deceased has the capacity to grant consent?

Ohhhh…
Well, I am stupid. I shall clarify that.

[Erithaca]

I have submitted the draft through my alt-nation: Fecaw

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Just no.

IC: Respect for ones ancestors and the dead is right and proper. However, it is a matter for the cults of Lord Mors, Dis Pater, and Charun, and not this most despicable assembly, regardless of how we might otherwise feel about the treatment of sepulcrum. Theoretically, this resolution makes being clumsy a crime, since lots of people keep the funerary urns in home alters these days. For that matter, we are unsure if we should be dictating the cultural underpinnings of this resolution on peoples who have different conceptions.

[Erithaca]

This reached quorum, but then:

4 hours ago: The General Assembly proposal "Treatment of the Deceased" [Fecaw] failed to achieve quorum.

[Essu Beti]

This reached quorum, but then:

4 hours ago: The General Assembly proposal "Treatment of the Deceased" [Fecaw] failed to achieve quorum.

Someone probably withdrew their approval. Or got raided- that happened a little bit ago, raiders targeting approving delegates specifically to troll the WA.

[Miko Kan]

Author,
"opening of the grave unless unless formerly permitted by the deceased"
Please fix the double "unless" typo.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: I think this still needs time for further drafting, as it still contains some glaring errors.

[Fecaw]

This does indeed contain some errors. I have been trying to push a proposal that was written when I had just started out on NS and have been trying to patch some major issues that were caused by my lack of experience. I am going to create a new draft, based in this one, which I hope will be more professional.

[Fecaw]

---

Treatment of the Deceased
Category: Moral Decency ♢ Strength: Mild ♢ Proposed by: Fecaw

This august General Assembly,

Having already guaranteed provisions for the deceased in wartime in its 136^th resolution,

Wishing to expand its legislation to all the deceased,

Realising that remains can be irretrievable or unidentifiable,

Taking into account that authorities may find it necessary to exhume remains for a criminal investigation,

Noting the various personal, cultural and religious provisions relating to the treatment of the deceased,

Hoping to establish prohibitions on malicious damage to the deceased,

Now in this present session assembled, by the approval of its many delegates and members, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "grave" as a location where the remains of the deceased are interred,
   2. "mutilation" as dismemberment or unnecessary scarring,
   3. "unreasonable burial requests" as requests that could be expected to:
      
      1. cause damage to property,
      2. be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased or the deceased,
      3. contravene national or international legislation.
   4. "molestation of a grave" as:
      
      1. opening of the grave unless formerly previously permitted by the now deceased,
      2. destruction or damage to a grave's markers unless previously permitted by the now deceased,
      3. mutilation of interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation.
2. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect graves at least younger than 65 years from molestation.
3. Authorizes member states to:
   
   1. allow remains to be left in situ if they are considered to be irretrievable without unreasonable efforts,
   2. handle remains in a manner contrary to the wishes of the deceased or their family in the event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Folding the current clause 4 into the exceptions allowed for clause 2 would probably be a good idea.

[Wrapper]

One thread per proposal please. Just because you've made significant changes, doesn't mean you get to post it in a new thread. A lot of the criticisms here might still be valid for the new version.

[Fecaw]

OOC
Folding the current clause 4 into the exceptions allowed for clause 2 would probably be a good idea.

I have combined 4 and 3.

[New Bremerton]

This reached quorum, but then:

4 hours ago: The General Assembly proposal "Treatment of the Deceased" [Fecaw] failed to achieve quorum.

Someone probably withdrew their approval. Or got raided- that happened a little bit ago, raiders targeting approving delegates specifically to troll the WA.

OOC: God damn these raiders. You have my utmost sympathy Erithaca. I'm sorry this had to happen to you.

EDIT: As for the proposal itself, I think this is something my nation can get behind.

[The Palentine]

We have concerns that the passage of this resolution would seriously curtail the ability to process Soylent Green.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Fecaw]

Someone probably withdrew their approval. Or got raided- that happened a little bit ago, raiders targeting approving delegates specifically to troll the WA.

OOC: God damn these raiders. You have my utmost sympathy Erithaca. I'm sorry this had to happen to you.

EDIT: As for the proposal itself, I think this is something my nation can get behind.

Raiders suck. Thanks for your support!

We have concerns that the passage of this resolution would seriously curtail the ability to process Soylent Green.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"What is Soylent Green?"

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 1cii seems open to abuse, as a desparatelt poor family living in poverty would be unable to afford almost any tripe of burial beyond simply being thrown into some dirt. I suggest reworking this so it does not become discriminatory towards those living in poverty.”

OOC: God damn these raiders. You have my utmost sympathy Erithaca. I'm sorry this had to happen to you.

EDIT: As for the proposal itself, I think this is something my nation can get behind.

Raiders suck. Thanks for your support!

(OOC: I hope this doesn’t become a habit, as it demonstrates what I believe to be a total lack of respect of other communities in favour of the raiding one. However, it could just be people withdrawing their support based on flaws they found after reading through again, that can happen rather often.

We have concerns that the passage of this resolution would seriously curtail the ability to process Soylent Green.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"What is Soylent Green?"

Based on The Palentine’s other posts, it appears to be a food. After looking through google, it is the name of a fictional foodstuff in a movie made from human remains. Take from that what you will.)

[The New California Republic]

Based on The Palentine’s other posts, it appears to be a food. After looking through google, it is the name of a fictional foodstuff in a movie made from human remains. Take from that what you will.)

OOC: It always surprises me the amount of people who haven't seen that movie, even though it is frequently referenced in pop culture. Ah well.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Based on The Palentine’s other posts, it appears to be a food. After looking through google, it is the name of a fictional foodstuff in a movie made from human remains. Take from that what you will.)

OOC: It always surprises me the amount of people who haven't seen that movie, even though it is frequently referenced in pop culture. Ah well.

OOC: Once you've heard the climactic tagline, actually seeing the film seems kind of redundant. And I don't know anyone who's a big enough Charlton Heston fan to want to do the "must watch complete filmography" thing.

The bigger surprise for me is that there are so many people who haven't heard said tagline. (Edit: especially in an era in which we now have an actual Soylent manufacturer who - yep! - color codes its products! For all we know the damn thing is actually coming true.)

[Kenmoria]

“For re-drafting, large sections of this proposal are rendered quite useless by a loophole in clause 1ciii. Because of the inclusion of ‘national laws’, a member state can quite easily have legislation mandating burial in central, unmarked dumps in order to maximise efficiency, which of course contradicts the point of this proposal. I suggest removing ‘national laws’ and replacing it with a more detailed list of what may be permitted.”

[Erithaca]

I don't watch many films. Is it more famous in the US?

“For re-drafting, large sections of this proposal are rendered quite useless by a loophole in clause 1ciii. Because of the inclusion of ‘national laws’, a member state can quite easily have legislation mandating burial in central, unmarked dumps in order to maximise efficiency, which of course contradicts the point of this proposal. I suggest removing ‘national laws’ and replacing it with a more detailed list of what may be permitted.”

I will think of some things to add to the list. Suggestions would be welcome.