[PASSED] Repeal Convention on International Oil Spills

[Lord Dominator]

"Fear not my fellow ambassadors, I'm still working on my other nuclear stuff, but this needed some repealing and fixing, and I've been held up on some writing details. Enjoy!"

Repeal "Convention on International Oil Spills"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: 444
Proposed By: Lord Dominator

The World Assembly,

Applauding the resolution at hand for its work at improving the environment,

But Concerned that clause 3 of the resolutions micro-manages member nations to a degree that may be harmful to the resolution's mission by:

• Mandating technologies that may be or are obsolete in some member nations,
• Using vague language regarding maintenance and inspections such as "every couple of years" and "regularly,"

Saddened that clause 4 also lists a number of technologies that may become or already are obsolete in member nations,

Believing that the micromanagement and excruciating specificity inherent in this resolution:

• Will leave nations unable to adapt to better technologies,
• Potentially wastes resources following mandates that aren't necessary in all nations,
• Includes strong suggestions that overstep reasonable bounds of the WA with instructions for spill clean-up that are better left to individual nations to determine properly,

Incensed at the needless re-treading of ground already covered in part by Responsible Offshore Drilling and Reducing Spills and Leaks and yet leaving regulation of reduction and clean-up of wildlife impact uselessly vague,

Bemoaning the listed flaws and occasional poor grammar usage,

Repeals GA 444 "Convention on International Oil Spills."

OOC: What's the proper way to link resolutions in the text? This also probably sucks because it's late here, but I wanted to do this sooner rather than later.

[Lord Dominator]

Repeal "Convention on International Oil Spills"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: 444
Proposed By: Lord Dominator

The World Assembly,

Applauding the resolution at hand for it's work at improving the environment,

Concerned that the resolution attempts to micro-manage member with the various requirements in clause 3,

Further concerned that clause 3c uses "every couple of years" as a requirement when that is vague language at best,

Saddened that clause 4,

• Lists a number of technologies that may become or already are obsolete in member nations,
• Is optional,

Incensed at the needless re-treading of ground already covered in part by Responsible Offshore Drilling and Reducing Spills and Leaks when such things as reducing and cleaning up wildlife impact is left vague at best,

Perturbed at the resolution's misuse of the word maritime when marine is obviously meant,

Bemoaning the flaws and micro-managing of the resolution,

Repeals GA 444 "Convention on International Oil Spills"

Repeal "Convention on International Oil Spills"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: 444
Proposed By: Lord Dominator

The World Assembly,

Applauding the resolution at hand for its work at improving the environment,

Concerned that clause 3 of the resolutions micro-manages member nations to a degree that may be harmful to the resolution's mission by,

• Mandating technologies that may be or are obsolete in some member nations
• Usage of vague language regarding maintenance and inspections such as "every couple of years" and "regularly,"

Saddened that clause 4,

• Lists a number of technologies that may become or already are obsolete in member nations,
• Is optional,

Incensed at the needless re-treading of ground already covered in part by Responsible Offshore Drilling and Reducing Spills and Leaks when such things as reducing and cleaning up wildlife impact is left vague at best,

Perturbed at the resolution's misuse of the word maritime when marine is obviously meant,

Bemoaning the flaws and micro-managing of the resolution,

Repeals GA 444 "Convention on International Oil Spills"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Giving reasons why micromanaging in this case would be bad for the environnement would be helpful for buttressing your argument.

[Crazybloxian Empire]

Hey, guys, this resolution seems well and good, but I’ve beaten you to the finish line. Sorry about that!

[Kenmoria]

Hey, guys, this resolution seems well and good, but I’ve beaten you to the finish line. Sorry about that!

(OOC: Seeing as that proposal wasn’t drafted for any length of time, this one stands a much better chance of passing. There are often many repeal attempts after a resolution passes, but only one can pass.)

“Seeing as even the authoring delegation wants to repeal its own resolution, I may as well support.”

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I strongly support this proposal. I would recommend mentioning the question of legality and the resolution's ambiguities and explain that this bill fails to cover key issues of oil spills like the rehabilitation of wildlife affected by the spill, but regardless, you put out a strong argument. Hopefully, this passes.

Hey, guys, this resolution seems well and good, but I’ve beaten you to the finish line. Sorry about that!

Please do not use other people's drafting threads to pimp out your proposal. It's rude and completely unconstructive towards LD's work.

Edit: And now Crazy's proposal is deemed illegal by Bears Armed.

[Lord Dominator]

Giving reasons why micromanaging in this case would be bad for the environnement would be helpful for buttressing your argument.

I've generally done the best I can, but can't think of any other good arguments to make there. Also merged the clause about 3c into the clause about 3 in general

Hey, guys, this resolution seems well and good, but I’ve beaten you to the finish line. Sorry about that!

Don't care

OOC: I strongly support this proposal. I would recommend mentioning the question of legality and the resolution's ambiguities and explain that this bill fails to cover key issues of oil spills like the rehabilitation of wildlife affected by the spill, but regardless, you put out a strong argument. Hopefully, this passes.

OOC: I don't particularly want to allude to major legality concerns, but I did mention my general concerns about areas already being covered. Wildlife rehabilitation was mentioned at the end of the "Incensed" clause.

[Ransium]

Hey, guys, this resolution seems well and good, but I’ve beaten you to the finish line. Sorry about that!

*** Given your endless history of spam, 3-day ban for spamming an advertisement for your proposal in someone else’s thread. ***

[Isansland]

The real concern in this resolution is that nations are being forced to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

2. Urges member nations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and switch to alternate, eco-friendly energy sources including solar, wind, or geothermal energy;

[Of the Quendi]

The real concern in this resolution is that nations are being forced to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

2. Urges member nations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and switch to alternate, eco-friendly energy sources including solar, wind, or geothermal energy;

The Ardanian SMFAWA fervently looks through her worn out copy of the Oxford Dictionary of English. "Ambassador." She proclaims. "I do believe there is quite a distinction between "urging" and "forcing"."

[Kenmoria]

The real concern in this resolution is that nations are being forced to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

2. Urges member nations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and switch to alternate, eco-friendly energy sources including solar, wind, or geothermal energy;

(OOC: As hasn’t been said, that was optional. There is no forceful requirement to comply. It also doesn’t say by how much, so reducing just one joule per decade would count. It’s one of the many ambiguities that led to Zone 71/Rovikstead wanting to repeal the resolution.)

[Isansland]

The real concern in this resolution is that nations are being forced to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

The Ardanian SMFAWA fervently looks through her worn out copy of the Oxford Dictionary of English. "Ambassador." She proclaims. "I do believe there is quite a distinction between "urging" and "forcing"."

Please take a look at your graphs, what happened to your mining numbers.

[Isansland]

The real concern in this resolution is that nations are being forced to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

(OOC: As hasn’t been said, that was optional. There is no forceful requirement to comply. It also doesn’t say by how much, so reducing just one joule per decade would count. It’s one of the many ambiguities that led to Zone 71/Rovikstead wanting to repeal the resolution.)

I'm afraid it's not optional. After resolution took place, mining numbers lowered drastically.

[Ransium]

(OOC: As hasn’t been said, that was optional. There is no forceful requirement to comply. It also doesn’t say by how much, so reducing just one joule per decade would count. It’s one of the many ambiguities that led to Zone 71/Rovikstead wanting to repeal the resolution.)

I'm afraid it's not optional. After resolution took place, mining numbers lowered drastically.

OOC:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the stat effects of a resolution have jack to do with the actual text of the resolution. The stat change is wholly tied to the category of the resolution and nothing else.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: As hasn’t been said, that was optional. There is no forceful requirement to comply. It also doesn’t say by how much, so reducing just one joule per decade would count. It’s one of the many ambiguities that led to Zone 71/Rovikstead wanting to repeal the resolution.)

I'm afraid it's not optional. After resolution took place, mining numbers lowered drastically.

(OOC: It isn’t optional, that’s not what the language means. Your mining stat hasn’t lowered, and, besides, most nations ignore NS stats anyway.)

[Lord Dominator]

While this hasn't fallen off the first page, I would appreciate any further input, as I will otherwise be submitting soonish.

[Kenmoria]

“In the applauding clause, ‘it’s’ should be ‘its’. You are also missing a ‘be’ after ‘may’ in the first subclause of the concerned clause. Finally, there seems to be some strange indentation between your concerned and saddened clauses.”

[Lord Dominator]

“In the applauding clause, ‘it’s’ should be ‘its’. You are also missing a ‘be’ after ‘may’ in the first subclause of the concerned clause. Finally, there seems to be some strange indentation between your concerned and saddened clauses.”

"Ah, thank you. I believe I've fixed those flaws."

[Ransium]

Again, I feel this lacks some overarching logic making it seem like several nitpicking flaws rather than having some overarching logic. I would go into much more depth about the logic of why micromanaging might not be the greatest and the possible perverse consequences of it.

[Lord Dominator]

Edits were made, no idea if they are decent edits.

[Kenmoria]

“More nitpicking: ‘is’ should be ‘are’ in the incensed clause, and there should be a full stop at the end of the repeals clause.”

[Lord Dominator]

“More nitpicking: ‘is’ should be ‘are’ in the incensed clause, and there should be a full stop at the end of the repeals clause.”

Hey! Nitpicking is an important part of this

[Kenmoria]

“Once more for luck: there should be a comma at the end of the first subclause of the concerned clause, ‘waste’ should be ‘wastes’ in the believing clause, and ‘include’ should be ‘includes’ in the third subclause of that clause.”

[Lord Dominator]

"Aha, fixed. Thank you."

[Visionary Union]

In the clause where you mentioned micro-managing, you also wrote that the resolution in question was vague. So which one it is- Vague or micro managing? (OOC: Please pardon me if it makes no sense- combat soldiers don't get much sleep)