[DEFEATED] Intersystem Space Stations Programme

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I have worked a little on a possible resolution with my WA Delegate (Grand Termina), and Suhl. Regardless of who submits it, can anyone give advice on how it could be improved? It would be fantastic if anyone could point out breaches of the rules, or how to improve the quality of the resolution. Again, thanks in advance!

This proposal was defeated, the second draft being the one that was at vote! I am redrafting now!

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the great changes that are arriving with the creation of IASA (GA #451);

Believing that the many species of member nations in the WA must have more than a single a unified base in this vast ‘final frontier’,

Seeking to create many such bases for their space programmes, and the united IASA programmes,

Hence forth,

1. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Station Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose:
   
   
   1. Decides this project will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the International Aero Space Administration,
      
      
   2. Establishes, that member nations must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,
      
      
   3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a fathomable and reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such,
      
      
   4. Encourages member nations to send scientists and engineers to work on the establishment of the stations,
      
      
   5. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating a station for research and cooperation between nations in space,
2. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,
   
   
3. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the station for their various endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft),
   
   
4. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community,

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations.

The General Assembly,

Recognizes the great changes that are arriving with the creation of IASA (GA #451);

Believes that humanity must have a unified base in this vast ‘final frontier’,

Seeks to create such a base for humanities space programmes, and the united IASA programmes,

So forth,

1. The World Assembly initiates the Interregional Space Station Project, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose:
   
   
   1. Deciding this project will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the International Aero Space Administration,
      
      
   2. Establishes, that member nations must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,
      
      
   3. Encourages member nations to send scientists and engineers to work on the establishment of the station,
      
      
   4. Declares the function of the station to be helping humanity in its endeavors in space, by creating a station for research and cooperation between nations in space,
2. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,
   
   
3. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the station for their various endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft),
   
   
4. Knows the value this could have for the international community,

Establishes the above and construction of the Interregional Space Station.

[The New Nordic Union]

Illegal for metagaming, as you mention Regions, and Game mechanics, as you cannot mandate how much money is spent on a certain project.

[Araraukar]

Illegal for ... Game mechanics, as you cannot mandate how much money is spent on a certain project.

OOC: To be specific, you can't mandate how much of annual government spending, the way the gameside pie chart shows it, is spent on any given thing on it. I don't think the Game Mechanics rule concerns GDP spending on a specific project (since such wouldn't show up on the pie chart anyway).

However, 3% of GDP is a ridiculously huge number to spend on any single project.

For comparison, in 2017 USA spent about 3.6% of its GDP on its military, and that was just under 686 billion dollars. (Source.) Of government spending (not GDP) that was about 17.2% (calculated from actual expenditures of this). The entire federal budget that year was 20.8% of GDP.

On the same year NASA in its entirety received 0.47% of the federal budget (Source.), or 0.098% of GDP. If it was blood alcohol concentration, it would be just a little past the limit for drunk driving for drivers 21 years old or older (in USA). Calculcated from the annual expenditures mentioned in this, about 18% of NASA's annual budget is spent on maintaining USA presence/participation on the International Space Station.

So of the USA GDP that is 0.018% (all numbers have been rounded up) spent on the ISS and you want WA nations to spend 167 times more on your project???

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Illegal for metagaming, as you mention Regions, and Game mechanics, as you cannot mandate how much money is spent on a certain project.

Now that I know what makes it illegal, could you give me advice on how to fix it? I would obviously give you coauthor credit.

Thanks in advance

Illegal for ... Game mechanics, as you cannot mandate how much money is spent on a certain project.

OOC: To be specific, you can't mandate how much of annual government spending, the way the gameside pie chart shows it, is spent on any given thing on it. I don't think the Game Mechanics rule concerns GDP spending on a specific project (since such wouldn't show up on the pie chart anyway).

However, 3% of GDP is a ridiculously huge number to spend on any single project.

Wow . Kudos to you for the time put into that.

How can I change it so that it is legal? You said "you can't mandate how much of annual [i]government spending", so could I just say something like "Establishing that member nations must spend money in accordance with the monetary necessities of the project,"?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

So of the USA GDP that is 0.018% (all numbers have been rounded up) spent on the ISS and you want WA nations to spend 167 times more on your project???

OOC: FUCK YEAH!. If it's not going towards space exploration, we'll just blow that shit on killing and imprisoning people. This is a much better use of funds, both OOC and as far as the WA's orc population is concerned.

IC: "Ambassador, your feel-good boondoggle might have some beneficial effects, but if you think the world is gonna spend that much of its entire economic output on a single research space station, you're nuts."

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

So of the USA GDP that is 0.018% (all numbers have been rounded up) spent on the ISS and you want WA nations to spend 167 times more on your project???

OOC: FUCK YEAH!. If it's not going towards space exploration, we'll just blow that shit on killing and imprisoning people. This is a much better use of funds, both OOC and as far as the WA's orc population is concerned.

IC: "Ambassador, your feel-good boondoggle might have some beneficial effects, but if you think the world is gonna spend that much of its entire economic output on a single research space station, you're nuts."

I changed it so the amount isn't specified, is it okay now?

Mostly, is it legal?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: FUCK YEAH!. If it's not going towards space exploration, we'll just blow that shit on killing and imprisoning people. This is a much better use of funds, both OOC and as far as the WA's orc population is concerned.

IC: "Ambassador, your feel-good boondoggle might have some beneficial effects, but if you think the world is gonna spend that much of its entire economic output on a single research space station, you're nuts."

I changed it so the amount isn't specified, is it okay now?

Mostly, is it legal?

OOC: No, it contradicts IASA, which bars the WA from direct authority over domestic space programs.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I changed it so the amount isn't specified, is it okay now?

Mostly, is it legal?

OOC: No, it contradicts IASA, which bars the WA from direct authority over domestic space programs.

How can I fix it so that it doesn't infringe on domestic space programs?

I mean as of now, what it does is merely encourage WA Nations to send professionals, draws a little money from member states, and permits memberstates to use its facilities!

I thought it would be cool to build off the idea you set up with IASA, so I really want to see how I can make this legal!

[Imperium Anglorum]

How can I fix it so that it doesn't infringe on domestic space programs?

What the "spirit" or "essence" of that resolution is... is stopping all future possibilities of the World Assembly creating some sort of space programme. It was envisioned to prohibit into the future, any possibility of something similar to World Space Administration from being repeated.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

How can I fix it so that it doesn't infringe on domestic space programs?

What the "spirit" or "essence" of that resolution is... is stopping all future possibilities of the World Assembly creating some sort of space programme. It was envisioned to prohibit into the future, any possibility of something similar to World Space Administration from being repeated.

Oh, not at all! The purpose of it is to make space programmes more viable for member nations, allowing them to use it as a jump-off point, and research station. It doesn't restrict anything.

I am not abandoning it here, so if you could, please try to tell me how it could be made legal!

[Separatist Peoples]

What the "spirit" or "essence" of that resolution is... is stopping all future possibilities of the World Assembly creating some sort of space programme. It was envisioned to prohibit into the future, any possibility of something similar to World Space Administration from being repeated.

Oh, not at all! The purpose of it is to make space programmes more viable for member nations, allowing them to use it as a jump-off point, and research station. It doesn't restrict anything.

I am not abandoning it here, so if you could, please try to tell me how it could be made legal!

OOC: Hi. Author of IASA here. The point of IASA was absolutely to limit the World Assembly from stepping in and interfering with domestic programs. There was even a clause that explicitly said as much.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Oh, not at all! The purpose of it is to make space programmes more viable for member nations, allowing them to use it as a jump-off point, and research station. It doesn't restrict anything.

I am not abandoning it here, so if you could, please try to tell me how it could be made legal!

OOC: Hi. Author of IASA here. The point of IASA was absolutely to limit the World Assembly from stepping in and interfering with domestic programs. There was even a clause that explicitly said as much.

Again, I am aware of what IASA encompassed, just not aware of where my proposal violates domestic programme's autonomy. Could you point out a specific clause or something, because this is my first time, and I am terribly confused.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Hi. Author of IASA here. The point of IASA was absolutely to limit the World Assembly from stepping in and interfering with domestic programs. There was even a clause that explicitly said as much.

Again, I am aware of what IASA encompassed, just not aware of where my proposal violates domestic programme's autonomy. Could you point out a specific clause or something, because this is my first time, and I am terribly confused.

OOC
I don't see any contradiction. Nothing in this proposal says that the project would either be a part of or replace member nations' domestic space programmes, so the nations could continue those [unchanged] as well if they want to do so.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Hi. Author of IASA here. The point of IASA was absolutely to limit the World Assembly from stepping in and interfering with domestic programs. There was even a clause that explicitly said as much.

Again, I am aware of what IASA encompassed, just not aware of where my proposal violates domestic programme's autonomy. Could you point out a specific clause or something, because this is my first time, and I am terribly confused.

OOC: I don't think it does, but your prior comment sounded as though you believed IASA was a jumping off point for other space resolutions, and I was correcting that. As written, this does not conflict with IASA as I read it. I suppose I could have been more clear about what it was I was criticizing.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Again, I am aware of what IASA encompassed, just not aware of where my proposal violates domestic programme's autonomy. Could you point out a specific clause or something, because this is my first time, and I am terribly confused.

OOC: I don't think it does, but your prior comment sounded as though you believed IASA was a jumping off point for other space resolutions, and I was correcting that. As written, this does not conflict with IASA as I read it. I suppose I could have been more clear about what it was I was criticizing.

Again, I am aware of what IASA encompassed, just not aware of where my proposal violates domestic programme's autonomy. Could you point out a specific clause or something, because this is my first time, and I am terribly confused.

OOC
I don't see any contradiction. Nothing in this proposal says that the project would either be a part of or replace member nations' domestic space programmes, so the nations could continue those [unchanged] as well if they want to do so.

So does that mean it is currently in a legal state?

Yay! I will reword some parts, and then pass it on for submission!

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I don't think it does, but your prior comment sounded as though you believed IASA was a jumping off point for other space resolutions, and I was correcting that. As written, this does not conflict with IASA as I read it. I suppose I could have been more clear about what it was I was criticizing.

OOC
I don't see any contradiction. Nothing in this proposal says that the project would either be a part of or replace member nations' domestic space programmes, so the nations could continue those [unchanged] as well if they want to do so.

So does that mean it is currently in a legal state?

Yay! I will reword some parts, and then pass it on for submission!

(OOC: I wouldn’t do that if I were you. Your draft has been up for barely two days and submitting it now would be a very short time window compared to what is expected. Although your draft is legal, that does not necessarily mean that it is good. As we always say, proposal drafting is a marathon, and not a sprint.)

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

So does that mean it is currently in a legal state?

Yay! I will reword some parts, and then pass it on for submission!

(OOC: I wouldn’t do that if I were you. Your draft has been up for barely two days and submitting it now would be a very short time window compared to what is expected. Although your draft is legal, that does not necessarily mean that it is good. As we always say, proposal drafting is a marathon, and not a sprint.)

Okie dokie. What I have found is that in most drafting procedures (especially 'Got Issues') drafting takes a really long time !

Do you have any suggestions for how the quality of the resolution may be improved?

[Araraukar]

Do you have any suggestions for how the quality of the resolution may be improved?

OOC: What's the category and strength/area of effect? Do note that whether it has a strength or an area of effect, depends on the category.

Also, if you absolutely must mention a previous resolution by name - rather than a generic reference to existing/recently passed legislation - use the resolution's full name instead of the shorthand.

EDIT: Also, in the mandates, don't use -ing ending verbs (those generally shouldn't be used beyond the preamble). Instead of "establishing", write "establishes".

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Do you have any suggestions for how the quality of the resolution may be improved?

OOC: What's the category and strength/area of effect? Do note that whether it has a strength or an area of effect, depends on the category.

Also, if you absolutely must mention a previous resolution by name - rather than a generic reference to existing/recently passed legislation - use the resolution's full name instead of the shorthand.

EDIT: Also, in the mandates, don't use -ing ending verbs (those generally shouldn't be used beyond the preamble). Instead of "establishing", write "establishes".

Fixed, and I think Education & Arts.

[Merni]

Fixed, and I think Education & Arts.

I think you meant Education & Creativity (category)/Artistic (AoE). In my opinion (I'm not a regular so it may be wrong), Educational would be the better AoE. You can find a list and descriptions of Categories and Strengths/AoEs here.

Keep in mind that IASA was under Educational.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Fixed, and I think Education & Arts.

I think you meant Education & Creativity (category)/Artistic (AoE). In my opinion (I'm not a regular so it may be wrong), Educational would be the better AoE. You can find a list and descriptions of Categories and Strengths/AoEs here.

Keep in mind that IASA was under Educational.

Worked on, and fixed! Any other advice wording related from anyone, or to add to the content of the proposal?

[Araraukar]

EDIT: Also, in the mandates, don't use -ing ending verbs (those generally shouldn't be used beyond the preamble). Instead of "establishing", write "establishes".

Fixed, and I think Education & Arts.

OOC: ^That bit is not fixed.

Fixed.

You didn't fix it. There's no "Education & Arts" category. Merni gave you the name of the actual category. That category has Areas of Effect, not strengths, and you need to pick the right one.

Any other advice wording related from anyone, or to add to the content of the proposal?

Yes. If you're going for Educational, you have to actually write some education expenses into it.

All in all it currently reads like a bunch of bumperstickers, not a serious proposal. Also, "used by all WA nations" doesn't work that well when there are 25,106 WA nations (right now)...

[Kenmoria]

“You have used ‘humanity’ in some of the preambulatory clauses, which is somewhat of a blunder seeing as a large percentage of the WA populace is not, in fact, human. I recommend using something like ‘the species of the WA’, ‘WA populations’ or something similar.”

[Grays Harbor]

Why should th WA fund one space station, to benefit one planet, when there are thousands of inhabited planets in the WA?

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Why should th WA fund one space station, to benefit one planet, when there are thousands of inhabited planets in the WA?

Well, I have two explanations:

1) It doesn't necessarily only benefit one planet, it benefits all WA members by offering a place to conduct experiments and refuel spacecraft.
2) Why is space "the final frontier" in GAR #451? if it has already thousands of planets in WA?

“You have used ‘humanity’ in some of the preambulatory clauses, which is somewhat of a blunder seeing as a large percentage of the WA populace is not, in fact, human. I recommend using something like ‘the species of the WA’, ‘WA populations’ or something similar.”

Fixed, and fixed.