Page 3 of 4
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:07 amby Trellania
OOC: No confusion. I'm hoping the other doesn't reach quorum. I've already decided to vote against it. Rather not waste the time on that one.
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:09 amby Jedinsto
Trellania wrote:OOC: No confusion. I'm hoping the other doesn't reach quorum. I've already decided to vote against it. Rather not waste the time on that one.
OOC: Exactly the same over here.
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:14 amby American Pere Housh
Vanny wearing her rabbit facemask teleports into the room and sees the latest proposal to come before the WA General Assembly. She reads it seeing that it is pretty well made so she decided to speak,
"Mr. Ambassador, this proposed repeal has intrigued my staff and I so will fully support it though I would make sure that there is a replacement."
Eliza "Vanny" Cortez, WA Ambassador for APH
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:15 amby Jedinsto
"I hear that the delegation from Herby is planning a replacement. Also, thank you for your support."
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:14 pmby WayNeacTia
It's nice to see, reasonable nation theory is dead and a thing of the past.
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:27 pmby Wallenburg
Wayneactia wrote:It's nice to see, reasonable nation theory is dead and a thing of the past.
It's nice to see you've spent the last week doing nothing but posting in bad faith.
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:36 pmby WayNeacTia
Wallenburg wrote:Wayneactia wrote:It's nice to see, reasonable nation theory is dead and a thing of the past.
It's nice to see you've spent the last week doing nothing but posting in bad faith.
Then report it.
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:48 pmby American Pere Housh
Wallenburg wrote:Wayneactia wrote:It's nice to see, reasonable nation theory is dead and a thing of the past.
It's nice to see you've spent the last week doing nothing but posting in bad faith.
Burn
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:55 pmby Jedinsto
Wayneactia wrote:It's nice to see, reasonable nation theory is dead and a thing of the past.
Go look over at the legality challenge and we'll see how dead or not dead reasonable nation theory is. Also, boo hoo, Wayne doesn't like a proposal, such a rare occurence.
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:07 pmby Goobergunchia
Wayneactia wrote:Wallenburg wrote:It's nice to see you've spent the last week doing nothing but posting in bad faith.
Then report it.
Both of you, knock off the OOC sniping at each other.
Posted:
Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:49 pmby Jedinsto
I'm withdrawing this as it's been marked illegal. A salvageable redraft will be posted within the next few days.
Posted:
Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:38 amby Jedinsto
I'll submit this today if I can confirm I've legalized it.
Posted:
Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:39 amby Tinhampton
What's the difference between this one and the one you got to quorum? (Sorry for my ignorance; you don't appear to have archived your previous draft/s on this thread.)
Posted:
Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:43 amby Jedinsto
I removed the stuff mentioning that the committee must note all reasonably dense metals as toxic heavy metals because of the "they're all potentially toxic" thing, as well as the part about development because SL said that didn't count as discharging.
Posted:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:18 pmby Wallenburg
This is now at Vote, and seems to be doing rather well. It has my support, for damned sure.
Posted:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:13 amby Greater Cesnica
Gotta love that ratio
Posted:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:05 amby Herby
Bout time we got this to vote. You got any idea how hard it is to find replacement parts in my nation nowadays?
Posted:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:10 amby Neo-Western East Korea
I believe we need more toxic metals nowadays, the people need to get used to being poisoned
Posted:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:00 pmby Dogologo
Jedinsto wrote:Outer Sparta wrote:Ambassador Tav: We would also like to see a replacement resolution that effectively addresses the problems posed by heavy metals and agree to a repeal of the current resolution.
"Such a replacement is in the works."
OOC: I am hoping someone else will take care of that, but I will do it if no one else will I suppose.
Willing to help draft this. Voting against until an improved resolution passes. Just seems irresponsible to remove the existing protections.
Jedinsto wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I could write a whole essay on why the target is bad and needs to be repealed. This repeal seems adequate. I may make some suggestions to improve it but as it is now I'd probably support it.
OOC: If you have suggestions, I am glad to hear them!
I also have some issues with the resolution as it is just because it replaces one vague target (toxic heavy metals) with another (heavy metals thought to be toxic before but are probably safe). See:
Uan aa Boa wrote:Undoubtedly there are flaws in the target, but I think more is needed here in the way of exposing them. I would support strengthening the "phasing out" part and removing the military exemption. I feel your lead clause on the broad definition of toxic heavy metals is a little inaccurate because the target resolution concerns substances identified by WASP. I think we can assume that WASP isn't going to order the phasing out of all metals on the basis that they can in certain circumstances be toxic.
Despite its flaws the target does include effective protections against contamination during disposal, and for this reason I would only support repeal once I'd seen a superior replacement.
A little concerned that creating vague exemptions could impede research and further ecological damage. Think there could be guidelines set for phasing out usage based on member states' past emissions and current economic strength, probably some based around which waterways are deemed significant for one reason or another. Again, it's simply saying that THMA is too vague but not putting forth more specific standards. The resolution at vote does address point 9 in THMA well though.
Posted:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:33 pmby Greater Cesnica
Dogologo wrote:Willing to help draft this. Voting against until an improved resolution passes. Just seems irresponsible to remove the existing protections.
You can't pass a replacement to this without repealing the existing resolution (contradiction).
Posted:
Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:22 pmby Jedinsto
And Herby is writing the replacement.
Posted:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:17 pmby Waldenes
“Since it has now been confirmed that a replacement is in the works, we will change our vote to support.”
Posted:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:55 pmby Kenmoria
“This does show that people should be much more careful with their definitions. All of this repeal was necessitated solely by what was ultimately just a single word: ‘potentially’. On that fact, I do support this repeal. It has found a major, albeit small in terms of text, issue in the legislation, and argues convincingly for a repeal as a result thereof.”
Posted:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:13 pmby Wallenburg
Kenmoria wrote:“This does show that people should be much more careful with their definitions. All of this repeal was necessitated solely by what was ultimately just a single word: ‘potentially’. On that fact, I do support this repeal. It has found a major, albeit small in terms of text, issue in the legislation, and argues convincingly for a repeal as a result thereof.”
"Even with 'potentially' omitted, such metals as iron, copper, and gold, as well as a whole host of oxides and salts, would be treated as highly dangerous materials. The problem with the target is a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding chemistry by the target's author."
Posted:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:16 pmby Greater Cesnica
Wallenburg wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“This does show that people should be much more careful with their definitions. All of this repeal was necessitated solely by what was ultimately just a single word: ‘potentially’. On that fact, I do support this repeal. It has found a major, albeit small in terms of text, issue in the legislation, and argues convincingly for a repeal as a result thereof.”
"Even with 'potentially' omitted, such metals as iron, copper, and gold, as well as a whole host of oxides and salts, would be treated as highly dangerous materials. The problem with the target is a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding chemistry by the target's author."
"What is perhaps more disturbing is that it passed in the first place. Thankfully, it appears that standards have risen since the passage of the target resolution."