[DEFEATED] Treatment of the Deceased

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 9 is missing a full stop."

[Riewen]

"I would suggest allowing the spouse of the deceased the same level of power as the immediate family, or considering spouses as part of the family."

[Kenmoria]

"I would suggest that there be an exception for when the deceased specifically asked for certain members of their immediate family to not be counted due to a family feud or something similar."

[Erithaca]

"Clause 9 is missing a full stop."

Added. I should proofread better.

[Erithaca]

"I would suggest allowing the spouse of the deceased the same level of power as the immediate family, or considering spouses as part of the family."

I have made spouse part of the family. Good Idea!

[Erithaca]

"I would suggest that there be an exception for when the deceased specifically asked for certain members of their immediate family to not be counted due to a family feud or something similar."

Added another clause for that. Thanks!

[Araraukar]

Co- Authors; Kenmoria, Araraukar, Riewen and Tinfect

OOC: You can't add people as co-authors without their permission. And you haven't asked at least my permission for doing so.

Also, you still haven't fixed the wordings (such as choosing either "corpse" or "remains", not using both) as suggested.

[Tinfect]

OOC: You can't add people as co-authors without their permission. And you haven't asked at least my permission for doing so.

OOC:
Speaking of, I haven't been contacted either, and I don't want my name on this legislation.

[Kenmoria]

OOC:
Speaking of, I haven't been contacted either, and I don't want my name on this legislation.

Nor have I, and I don't think I've done anywhere near the amount of work to be considered a co-author, mostly just a few grammatical changes.

[Erithaca]

Co- Authors; Kenmoria, Araraukar, Riewen and Tinfect

OOC: You can't add people as co-authors without their permission. And you haven't asked at least my permission for doing so.

Also, you still haven't fixed the wordings (such as choosing either "corpse" or "remains", not using both) as suggested.

Ok. I will remove the co-authors. I did not mean to offend anybody.

[Araraukar]

Ok. I will remove the co-authors. I did not mean to offend anybody.

OOC: The reason you need people's permission for it is because of how naming coauthors works, you'd have to put their actual names in the actual proposal text. (Which is the only way you can legally put someone's name into a proposal, otherwise it'll be a Branding violation.)

[Erithaca]

Ok. I will remove the co-authors. I did not mean to offend anybody.

OOC: The reason you need people's permission for it is because of how naming coauthors works, you'd have to put their actual names in the actual proposal text. (Which is the only way you can legally put someone's name into a proposal, otherwise it'll be a Branding violation.)

Ohh. I understand now! Are there any more problems with my proposal. Just let me know when it is ready to submit.

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 9, a “compelling situation” needs to be defined or restricted to avoid member nations bypassing the resolution by claiming space saving a compelling situation or something similar."

[Araraukar]

"In clause 9, a “compelling situation” needs to be defined or restricted to avoid member nations bypassing the resolution by claiming space saving a compelling situation or something similar."

OOC: Actually, requiring cremation to save space, especially space that could be used for, you know, basic needs of the living, should remain a compelling situation. Think of smaller island nations, for example.

Also, a thought just occurred; throughout RL history in many different cultures, the dead have been interred for only long enough for the flesh to decompost, and then their bones have been moved to catacombs or similar "common tombs" - would that practice be forbidden? Also there are some RL cultures where the bones of your deceased family members are dug up annually to honor them in a feast with the living, would that also be banned? Or would 2.a. allow both cases? It only speaks of openings the grave, 2.c. has muddled language, by the way, as it currently seems to clump criminal investigations in with molestation. "Or in exception" doesn't seem to actually create an exception.

And what about people without living relatives (in the case of catacomb practice)? It sounds silly that people who have no-one left to remember them should have more rights than people who have immediate family (why don't grandchildren count?) still alive?

[Erithaca]

"In clause 9, a “compelling situation” needs to be defined or restricted to avoid member nations bypassing the resolution by claiming space saving a compelling situation or something similar."

OOC: Actually, requiring cremation to save space, especially space that could be used for, you know, basic needs of the living, should remain a compelling situation. Think of smaller island nations, for example.

I think that's right. In a place with plenty of space, space saving would not be a compelling issue.

Also, a thought just occurred; throughout RL history in many different cultures, the dead have been interred for only long enough for the flesh to decompost, and then their bones have been moved to catacombs or similar "common tombs" - would that practice be forbidden? Also there are some RL cultures where the bones of your deceased family members are dug up annually to honor them in a feast with the living, would that also be banned?Or would 2.a. allow both cases? It only speaks of openings the grave,

I have changed 2.a. to include removal of the remains. Clause 1 would allow catacomb burials to happen after 65 years.

2.c. has muddled language, by the way, as it currently seems to clump criminal investigations in with molestation. "Or in exception" doesn't seem to actually create an exception.

I don't understand- I created an exception.

And what about people without living relatives (in the case of catacomb practice)? It sounds silly that people who have no-one left to remember them should have more rights than people who have immediate family (why don't grandchildren count?) still alive?

I added grandchildren.

[New-Brussels]

2.c. has muddled language, by the way, as it currently seems to clump criminal investigations in with molestation. "Or in exception" doesn't seem to actually create an exception.

I don't understand- I created an exception.

He is just not clear, he seems to imply that your syntax is wrong :

[The GA hereby defines molestation of a grave as] "mutilation of the interred remains or in exception of a required autopsy or criminal investigation" is just not a valid sentence.

A correct wording would be : "mutilation of the interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation"

[Erithaca]

I don't understand- I created an exception.

He is just not clear, he seems to imply that your syntax is wrong :

[The GA hereby defines molestation of a grave as] "mutilation of the interred remains or in exception of a required autopsy or criminal investigation" is just not a valid sentence.

A correct wording would be : "mutilation of the interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation"

I have added your suggested wording. Do you, or anyone else think that the draft is ready?

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 5.1, you lack a space after each letter before the definition."

[Erithaca]

"In clause 5.1, you lack a space after each letter before the definition."

I have added one.

[Erithaca]

I am going to submit the proposal. Is this a good idea?

[Kenmoria]

"I would put an “or” instead of an “and” in 2.2."

[Erithaca]

"I would put an “or” instead of an “and” in 2.2."

Changed.

[Kenmoria]

"I'm not quite sure what value the noting clause, in the preamble, has on the proposal. It appears to provide a good reason for voting AGAINST and isn't argued against anywhere else. If you have clauses in the preamble about potential counterarguements, they need to be refuted a few clauses later."

[Erithaca]

"I'm not quite sure what value the noting clause, in the preamble, has on the proposal. It appears to provide a good reason for voting AGAINST and isn't argued against anywhere else. If you have clauses in the preamble about potential counterarguements, they need to be refuted a few clauses later."

The noting clause informs how the proposal is written. It is toned down because of this counterargument.

[Masurbia]

Since the draft is submitted, change the title to say [SUBMITTED].