[PASSED] Ban on Forced Blood Sports

[Morover]

"The final clause has no place in this proposal - we will be voting against if it remains in the text up till submission."

Do you support the rest of the draft if it’s removed?

"Upon first glance, I would. I'd need to discuss this with the remainder of my staff before being definitive, however."

[Kenmoria]

"The final clause has no place in this proposal - we will be voting against if it remains in the text up till submission."

“Perhaps the clause should be more along the lines of ‘Clarifies that no clause of this proposal regulates on animal sacrifice within member states.’. This would allow for the possibility of future legislation on the issue, while emphasising the neutral stance of this proposal on the matter.”

[Morover]

"The final clause has no place in this proposal - we will be voting against if it remains in the text up till submission."

“Perhaps the clause should be more along the lines of ‘Clarifies that no clause of this proposal regulates on animal sacrifice within member states.’. This would allow for the possibility of future legislation on the issue, while emphasising the neutral stance of this proposal on the matter.”

"It would appear that the definition would already have that effect."

[Kenmoria]

“Perhaps the clause should be more along the lines of ‘Clarifies that no clause of this proposal regulates on animal sacrifice within member states.’. This would allow for the possibility of future legislation on the issue, while emphasising the neutral stance of this proposal on the matter.”

"It would appear that the definition would already have that effect."

“That is the point I first raised when the clause was added. However, another delegation felt it necessary to specifically emphasise this point, which I don’t particularly have any issue with.”

[Morover]

"It would appear that the definition would already have that effect."

“That is the point I first raised when the clause was added. However, another delegation felt it necessary to specifically emphasise this point, which I don’t particularly have any issue with.”

"It seems redundant to merely emphasize it, which is fine, I suppose - my issue with it is that currently it serves as a blocker on the topic in the future."

[Honeydewistania]

“That is the point I first raised when the clause was added. However, another delegation felt it necessary to specifically emphasise this point, which I don’t particularly have any issue with.”

"It seems redundant to merely emphasize it, which is fine, I suppose - my issue with it is that currently it serves as a blocker on the topic in the future."

"Why would that be a problem? Animal ritual sacrifice is already heavily discouraged from Ban on a Ritual Sacrifice, but I don’t think any legislation to completely ban animal sacrifice would pass. However just in case, this clause can prevent that."

[Morover]

"It seems redundant to merely emphasize it, which is fine, I suppose - my issue with it is that currently it serves as a blocker on the topic in the future."

"Why would that be a problem? Animal ritual sacrifice is already heavily discouraged from Ban on a Ritual Sacrifice, but I don’t think any legislation to completely ban animal sacrifice would pass. However just in case, this clause can prevent that."

"The problem is that it has no place in this proposal. It's almost entirely irrelevant to the rest of the clauses. Feel free to keep it in if you wish to, but it will result in me not supporting it."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Why would that be a problem? Animal ritual sacrifice is already heavily discouraged from Ban on a Ritual Sacrifice, but I don’t think any legislation to completely ban animal sacrifice would pass. However just in case, this clause can prevent that."

"The problem is that it has no place in this proposal. It's almost entirely irrelevant to the rest of the clauses. Feel free to keep it in if you wish to, but it will result in me not supporting it."

It clearly does have a place in the proposal, as it clearly exempts from the definition of blood sport animal sacrifices.

[Kenmoria]

"It seems redundant to merely emphasize it, which is fine, I suppose - my issue with it is that currently it serves as a blocker on the topic in the future."

"Why would that be a problem? Animal ritual sacrifice is already heavily discouraged from Ban on a Ritual Sacrifice, but I don’t think any legislation to completely ban animal sacrifice would pass. However just in case, this clause can prevent that."

“I don’t think that there is a need for a clause in a proposal about blood sport to protect animal sacrifice. A clarificatory clause makes far more sense, or even just letting the exception in the definition stand for itself. Of course animal sacrifice should be exempted from blood sports, but an explicit prohibition of future WA legislation on the issue isn’t required.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

The proposal ought to explicitly block it.

[Morover]

The proposal ought to explicitly block it.

OOC: Honestly, I don't see why. You are, of course, entitled to that belief, but I fail to see why it belongs here - especially when we already have GA 416.

[Comfed]

Because this uses “requires”, it’s not mild.

[Honeydewistania]

Because this uses “requires”, it’s not mild.

No, it’s mild because it’s a narrower topic.

[Kenmoria]

Because this uses “requires”, it’s not mild.

(OOC: Not necessarily, a mild strength proposal might only using urging government clauses, might impose incredibly easy-to-meet requirements, or might legislate on a narrow area. As Honeydewistania has correctly pointed out, this proposal impose restrictions on a very narrow subset of sport, which is itself not a fundamental part of life.)

[Flying Eagles]

"If we may chime in, we feel Clause 5 duplicates the definition. Edit the definition or strike Clause 5 from the resolution"

[Honeydewistania]

"If we may chime in, we feel Clause 5 duplicates the definition. Edit the definition or strike Clause 5 from the resolution"

"Indeed."

[Kenmoria]

“There should be a comma rather than a semicolon after clause 1a, since you have chosen commas in the subclauses of clause 5.”

[Honeydewistania]

“There should be a comma rather than a semicolon after clause 1a, since you have chosen commas in the subclauses of clause 5.”

On it

[Honeydewistania]

Further comments/last call

[Maowi]

1. Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

1. "blood sport" as a form of entertainment for individuals in which a significant part is the maiming or killing at least one of the participants, excluding hunting,

OOC: This phrasing is slightly awkward. I'd replace "in which a significant part is" with "which involves". I also think "for individuals" isn't really doing anything there. I'm not sure if you were trying to achieve something specific with it, in which case I'd replace it with something more targeted, but otherwise I'd remove it.

I personally don't support the blocker on animal sacrifice being in there.

[*] if an animal blood sport participant being relocated to its natural habitat poses a significant danger to itself, any animals, or humans in that habitat as a result of abnormal behaviour in comparison to said participant’s wild counterparts, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released in accordance with the above,

Humans -> sapients

[Honeydewistania]

It’s kind of specific, so it’s entertainment for people or whatever, so nations don’t outlaw battles between animals (like male dominance mating battles for deer, platypus et cetera)

Re: the blocker, would you oppose if it’s included?

Also yes, I’ll change to sapients in a jiffy

[Maowi]

OOC:

It’s kind of specific, so it’s entertainment for people or whatever, so nations don’t outlaw battles between animals (like male dominance mating battles for deer, platypus et cetera)

In that case, consider rewording slightly - something like this might be a bit cleaner:

"blood sport" as an activity involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants for the entertainment of sapient individuals, excluding hunting,

Re: the blocker, would you oppose if it’s included?

Probably.

[Honeydewistania]

Edits made

[Morover]

Edits made

OOC: I fail to see why you include the clause while editing the definition which excluded it out. Excluding it in the definition makes more sense.

[Honeydewistania]

Edits made

OOC: I fail to see why you include the clause while editing the definition which excluded it out. Excluding it in the definition makes more sense.

Would that not be duplication?