[DEFEATED] Land Reclamation Regulation

[Imperium Anglorum]

Shifting responsibility for Against votes onto the community for not responding to that spontaneous addition in a three day window will do you or your co-author no favours.

This response is jejune and puerile, lacks empathy, and fails to reflect the realities of authoring resolutions. The community should get out of the woodworks before votes more; GA regulars writ large ought to consider their impacts on the community's health. Substantial improvements, perhaps more of a secular trend towards maturity and the elimination of Ufoc, have taken place since 2015. There is still work to be done.

[Cretox State]

Should the proposal fail we will try and fix the mistakes, hopefully to the people's satisfaction, before resubmitting.

OOC: Full support for this alone. Don't get discouraged!

[Heavens Reach]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

OOC: It's just the nature of the beast.

[Heavens Reach]

Shifting responsibility for Against votes onto the community for not responding to that spontaneous addition in a three day window will do you or your co-author no favours.

This response is jejune and puerile, lacks empathy, and fails to reflect the realities of authoring resolutions. The community should get out of the woodworks before votes more; GA regulars writ large ought to consider their impacts on the community's health. Substantial improvements, perhaps more of a secular trend towards maturity and the elimination of Ufoc, have taken place since 2015. There is still work to be done.

OOC: I think this is pretty hyperbolic. Jejune? Peurile? It's blunt, but it's reasonable. Three days is not enough time for a forum of this speed to adequately respond to a change. The nature of authorship in the GA is that it takes a long time to get a resolution adequately looked at. And, as the person you're responding to said, ultimately it's on the author to produce a good resolution. It is nice when others help out, but it's by no means an obligation. You may feel like the message could have been delivered with more tact, but, honestly, I don't see how it's that bad. It doesn't attack the author, it offers constructive advice, and it was, itself, a response to a perceived redirection of blame (which I'm not saying Honeydewstania intended), but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, or assume that our (i.e. your) views about how the community should work are prima facie correct.

[Kenmoria]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

(OOC: Yes, sorry about that. Since more people come over here during the vote, you get more opinions and therefore more criticisms. I think with a redraft this could be very supportable.)

[Heavens Reach]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

(OOC: Yes, sorry about that. Since more people come over here during the vote, you get more opinions and therefore more criticisms. I think with a redraft this could be very supportable.)

OOC: Agreed. Considering this is borderline going to pass or fail as it is, even if it doesn't go through, a slight rewrite with these concerns in mind will almost certainly result in a repeal-proof pass.

[The New California Republic]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

Happens. Not everyone does regular trawls of the GA thread to find the latest draft to critique.

[Superbunny]

Shifting responsibility for Against votes onto the community for not responding to that spontaneous addition in a three day window will do you or your co-author no favours.

This response is jejune and puerile, lacks empathy, and fails to reflect the realities of authoring resolutions. The community should get out of the woodworks before votes more; GA regulars writ large ought to consider their impacts on the community's health. Substantial improvements, perhaps more of a secular trend towards maturity and the elimination of Ufoc, have taken place since 2015. There is still work to be done.

What is this even supposed to mean? Their point was completely valid. People do not stalk the forums looking specifically for GA resolutions nor do they owe you their time to write long-winded criticisms of your GA proposal. Are you seriously implying that not posting on a resolution's forum topic is negative on people's health?

[Middle Barael]

Could someone explain what we are doing with regard to Clause 5? Someone told me that the author was rewriting a new version with some edits, and I want to make sure that Clause 5 is going to be altered so as to make sure that Clause 1 also applies to freshwater areas

[Newenken]

“While the Federal Republic of Newenken understands that the purpose of this proposal is of vital importance and that environmental issues related to land reclamation must be addressed by the General Assembly, we refer to the observations made by other Nations and in particular those made by the representative of Araraukar.

That is why we will vote against this proposal, hoping that it is an opportunity for the proposal to be improved and sent again. From now on -and as long as this proposal does not prosper- we will be attentive to the draft of the new proposal and we promise to collaborate and make contributions in the new version".

[Orca and Narwhal]

Could someone explain what we are doing with regard to Clause 5? Someone told me that the author was rewriting a new version with some edits, and I want to make sure that Clause 5 is going to be altered so as to make sure that Clause 1 also applies to freshwater areas

We will try and fix the mistakes and other issues with the proposal and then submit a new, hopefully better, version. Clause 5 is one of the the things we will be one of the things we will fix.

[Honeydewistania]

It's a bit annoying when everyone points out mistakes after bumping this thread multiple times, but I guess that's unavoidable.

Shifting responsibility for Against votes onto the community for not responding to that spontaneous addition in a three day window will do you or your co-author no favours.

Good thing I didn't do that then

[Angmari]

To the Honorable ambassador from Honeydewistania,

While I can whole-heartily say my nation is proud to have a strong environmental and Eco-friendly position on all day-to-day decisions as well as the policies we enact to ensure this keeps happening, I fear I have to abstain for this proposition. While I am progressive and sympathetic to your resolution, I fear there are too few specific definitions and many vague terms and words to describe meaning or lack of context.

In addition, my concern is not the economic impact of this resolution, but the absence of alternative methods of land reclamation i.e. species relocation.

I look forward to hearing other voices of opinion in regards to this topic.

I yield my time on the forum.

- The Dominion.

[Anistria]

From: Oscar Lancasrer, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

Though the Government of Anistria has strong views towards environment conservation, it shall cast its vote to the Nay.

[Servilis]

It has been so long since our current WAD voted on a GA proposal.

And only because someone hadn't occupied the WAA position.

It actually took me quite a while to get our WAD to finally vote.

And even then, it didn't really make a difference.

And yet "Tyranny of the Majority" apparently is something people complain about.

[Heavens Reach]

It has been so long since our current WAD voted on a GA proposal.

And only because someone hadn't occupied the WAA position.

It actually took me quite a while to get our WAD to finally vote.

And even then, it didn't really make a difference.

And yet "Tyranny of the Majority" apparently is something people complain about.

We're a little confused about what this means in context, because there really is no solid majority in the case of this particular resolution.

(OOC: This resolution could literally come down to who happens to log into their NS account this week)

[Fre Cruth]

I agree that our environment needs to be taken care of and everyone should have a part in protecting it. I am for this bIll, although, I do wonder if there could be any specification or limitations placed upon it. What is stopping this bill from denying pretty much any land being used due to protecting species? Animals and plants are on every piece of land anywhere and if there aren't regulation also placed upon the bill then couldn't this bill just deny any land usage for practically any reason?

[Kenmoria]

I agree that our environment needs to be taken care of and everyone should have a part in protecting it. I am for this bIll, although, I do wonder if there could be any specification or limitations placed upon it. What is stopping this bill from denying pretty much any land being used due to protecting species? Animals and plants are on every piece of land anywhere and if there aren't regulation also placed upon the bill then couldn't this bill just deny any land usage for practically any reason?

“It comes down, ambassador, to what the ESWA decides. This means that, in order to be prohibited, an area that could be used for land reclamation must not cause the extinction of any animal species residing in the land being reclaimed, significant disruption to a food chain involving endangered or rare animals, or loss of plant or fungal species with a particular, known, unique importance to medicine.”

[Arawi]

Arawian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) forecast for the WA vote: Land Reclamation Regulation.

Forecast: Too close to call

Vote currently in favour of against.

[Picairn]

One delegate with 700 votes can flip this whole vote... Just one.

[Arawi]

Latest ABC Forecast: Against

[Tinhampton]

"Land Reclamation Regulation" was defeated 8,038 votes to 7,714.

Put in context, that's 48.97% FOR.

[JC Cavs]

I think protecting our environment is incredibly important and relevant to human life. There should be a greater focus on preserving the planet. It should start within governments and continue through communities and individuals. Simply planting a tree and recycling used materials is highly beneficial to maintaining the planet’s health and does not require a lot of work.