NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Reducing Bycatch

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:44 am

This has been submitted.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Witchcraft and Sorcery
Envoy
 
Posts: 259
Founded: Feb 01, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Witchcraft and Sorcery » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:46 am

a mysterious hooded figure floats into the chamber...

The one nitpicky thing I am seeing right now is that the resolution still appears to ban or heavily restrict import of fish from non-member states. While our delegation does not have a problem with this due to our strong concern for the environment and general disdain for the nations which believe in profit at any cost, other ambassadors were correct to surmise that some things in here may encounter resistance.

Welcome to the GA, this is a very nice piece of work.

the figure vanishes, leaving behind nothing but a note that reads "full support."


In war, victory. In peace, vigilance. In death, sacrifice. Commended by SC #429.
Represented in the WA by the mysterious hooded figures lurking in the dog park, speaking through voice changers.

[8:17 PM] Dakota: You're a lame moralist
[8:17 PM] Dakota: But it's okay because the rest of your personality makes up for it

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21487
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:58 am

Witchcraft and Sorcery wrote:a mysterious hooded figure floats into the chamber...

The one nitpicky thing I am seeing right now is that the resolution still appears to ban or heavily restrict import of fish from non-member states. While our delegation does not have a problem with this due to our strong concern for the environment and general disdain for the nations which believe in profit at any cost, other ambassadors were correct to surmise that some things in here may encounter resistance.

Welcome to the GA, this is a very nice piece of work.

the figure vanishes, leaving behind nothing but a note that reads "full support."

Bears Armed wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:This resolution would ban the import of seafood from non-member states.
No, it wouldn't: Non-members who want to export seafood to member states are perfectly free to introduce equivalent laws governing their own fishing industries so that their products meet these standards.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:58 am

So this isn't being campaigned for?

User avatar
Witchcraft and Sorcery
Envoy
 
Posts: 259
Founded: Feb 01, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Witchcraft and Sorcery » Sun Mar 24, 2024 12:02 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Witchcraft and Sorcery wrote:a mysterious hooded figure floats into the chamber...

The one nitpicky thing I am seeing right now is that the resolution still appears to ban or heavily restrict import of fish from non-member states. While our delegation does not have a problem with this due to our strong concern for the environment and general disdain for the nations which believe in profit at any cost, other ambassadors were correct to surmise that some things in here may encounter resistance.

Welcome to the GA, this is a very nice piece of work.

the figure vanishes, leaving behind nothing but a note that reads "full support."

Bears Armed wrote:No, it wouldn't: Non-members who want to export seafood to member states are perfectly free to introduce equivalent laws governing their own fishing industries so that their products meet these standards.

maybe i misread, but the impact appears the same regardless. we don't particularly care about the economic impact of restricting fish supply in member nations, especially landlocked ones, but it does still have that effect.


In war, victory. In peace, vigilance. In death, sacrifice. Commended by SC #429.
Represented in the WA by the mysterious hooded figures lurking in the dog park, speaking through voice changers.

[8:17 PM] Dakota: You're a lame moralist
[8:17 PM] Dakota: But it's okay because the rest of your personality makes up for it

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 496
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:09 pm

"We appreciate the support this has received thus far; I should note that any trade restrictions on non-members are only necessary if those non-members create conditions which negatively impact members of this esteemed Assembly."

OOC: Ran into some issues with sending out a campaign via API, I ended up just paying a few bucks for stamps and shooting it out now.

User avatar
Waaaar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Feb 26, 2024
Ex-Nation

Postby Waaaar » Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:41 pm

I am very sorry but I simply can not support this. It has great intentions but will affect many economies that run on the fishing industry and cause a mass decline in the trade of fish. I'm sorry but I am going to appose this proposal.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 496
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:10 pm

Waaaar wrote:I am very sorry but I simply can not support this. It has great intentions but will affect many economies that run on the fishing industry and cause a mass decline in the trade of fish. I'm sorry but I am going to appose this proposal.

"Your apposition is duly noted, though I am unsure how you bringing yourself in parallel with this proposal is particularly related to your lack of support. I should note that any fishing-oriented economy which has proper environmental safety precautions in place would likely have to do minimal pivoting to tailor itself toward the provisions laid out in this proposal."

User avatar
Waaaar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Feb 26, 2024
Ex-Nation

Postby Waaaar » Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:18 pm

Yes that is true, and I respect my opponents, so I will think about it.

User avatar
Waaaar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Feb 26, 2024
Ex-Nation

Postby Waaaar » Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:20 pm

Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:50 pm

Waaaar wrote:Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

In the future I think it would be preferable if you put these two posts into one :)
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 496
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:52 pm

Waaaar wrote:Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

"The support from the esteemed nation of Waaaar is duly noted and appreciated."

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:56 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:
Waaaar wrote:Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

"The support from the esteemed nation of Waaaar is duly noted and appreciated."

Ambassador The People: "We chuckle at the above statement."
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22894
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Mar 27, 2024 9:44 am

Bisofeyr wrote:Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch included in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

"We're...required to mix bycatch in with different products? What?"
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12727
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:01 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Bisofeyr wrote:Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch included in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

"We're...required to mix bycatch in with different products? What?"

I think it's supposed to say that those things are to be disclosed.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22894
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:13 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"We're...required to mix bycatch in with different products? What?"

I think it's supposed to say that those things are to be disclosed.

"Ah, thank you Ms. Wellesley, that's an interesting hypothesis, and were that written into the proposal it would make for a reasonable mandate. Regrettably, this section says nothing of the sort. 'Included in' does not mean 'reported in conjunction with the distribution of'."
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 496
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:58 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think it's supposed to say that those things are to be disclosed.

"Ah, thank you Ms. Wellesley, that's an interesting hypothesis, and were that written into the proposal it would make for a reasonable mandate. Regrettably, this section says nothing of the sort. 'Included in' does not mean 'reported in conjunction with the distribution of'."

"'included in' is not saying '[x] is included in the packaging' but rather saying 'the amount of bycatch that is in the product'; this may be grammatically ambiguous, admittedly, but I would make the assertion that good-faith compliance would dictate the interpretation of this clause would be consistent with the intention."

OOC: If we are to interpret it your way (and I'll admit freely that I worded it poorly), the clause would effectively do nothing as including the amount of byproduct present in the product would mean proudly adding the amount that is already there.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22894
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:13 am

Bisofeyr wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"Ah, thank you Ms. Wellesley, that's an interesting hypothesis, and were that written into the proposal it would make for a reasonable mandate. Regrettably, this section says nothing of the sort. 'Included in' does not mean 'reported in conjunction with the distribution of'."

"'included in' is not saying '[x] is included in the packaging'

"It is, though. Removing descriptive qualifiers, it reads, 'Mandates that packages have bycatch included in the product.'"
but rather saying 'the amount of bycatch that is in the product'

"Such a substitution reduces the section's coherence even further:
Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch that is in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

What does it mean for packages to have bycatch except that the bycatch is in the package? Especially when this now presupposes that the bycatch is to be packaged with the rest of the product?"
this may be grammatically ambiguous, admittedly, but I would make the assertion that good-faith compliance would dictate the interpretation of this clause would be consistent with the intention."

"The 'ambiguity' extends far enough that the intended meaning is not a good-faith reading."
OOC: If we are to interpret it your way (and I'll admit freely that I worded it poorly), the clause would effectively do nothing as including the amount of byproduct present in the product would mean proudly adding the amount that is already there.

OOC: This is inaccurate. Bycatch is not inherently mixed in with final packaged product. There are many circumstances under which bycatch cannot be returned to its environment alive but can still be sorted out from the intended haul and then processed separately.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 496
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:20 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Bisofeyr wrote:"'included in' is not saying '[x] is included in the packaging'

"It is, though. Removing descriptive qualifiers, it reads, 'Mandates that packages have bycatch included in the product.'"
but rather saying 'the amount of bycatch that is in the product'

"Such a substitution reduces the section's coherence even further:
Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch that is in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

What does it mean for packages to have bycatch except that the bycatch is in the package? Especially when this now presupposes that the bycatch is to be packaged with the rest of the product?"
this may be grammatically ambiguous, admittedly, but I would make the assertion that good-faith compliance would dictate the interpretation of this clause would be consistent with the intention."

"The 'ambiguity' extends far enough that the intended meaning is not a good-faith reading."
OOC: If we are to interpret it your way (and I'll admit freely that I worded it poorly), the clause would effectively do nothing as including the amount of byproduct present in the product would mean proudly adding the amount that is already there.

OOC: This is inaccurate. Bycatch is not inherently mixed in with final packaged product. There are many circumstances under which bycatch cannot be returned to its environment alive but can still be sorted out from the intended haul and then processed separately.

OOC:
'Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the [projected amount of bycatch included in the product] as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;'

vs.

'Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the [projected amount of bycatch] included in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;'

The former is intended: the stuff in parentheses is the data that the packages must have. You're interpreting it as the latter, which would say that the projected amount of bycatch must be included in the product; except 'packages of processed seafood' is the thing being changed, not the product itself. Even under your interpretation, it would be the projected amount of bycatch included in the product as it is packaged, not the raw product.

I'm not denying the fact that replacing the word "have" with "must list" or "must include a label detailing" would have been preferable had this been pointed out sooner, but I do not believe that such a replacement is necessary for the clause to be coherent.

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 1981
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Sat Apr 27, 2024 12:06 am

Now at vote

User avatar
WhaleCo Global LLC
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Sep 17, 2006
Capitalist Paradise

Postby WhaleCo Global LLC » Sat Apr 27, 2024 6:59 am

There's a reason our tuna tastes so good. It's the dolphin in it!

We are absolutely opposed to this communistic assault on the fishing industry. Furthermore, we are preparing litigation against the authors, their staffs, immediate families, childhood friends, and anyone else remotely involved in the writing and submitting of this odious legislation.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

User avatar
Anonymegg
Attaché
 
Posts: 73
Founded: Feb 03, 2024
Authoritarian Democracy

No fish from my brother

Postby Anonymegg » Sat Apr 27, 2024 10:28 am

Tinhampton wrote:If quality control is sufficient, a can of tuna will contain 100% tuna and 0% dolphin. It is unnecessary to say what percentage of your catch was tuna and what percentage was dolphin because you will not be selling dolphin meat.

This resolution would ban the import of seafood from non-member states.

Slops is my brother and he uses my email, so only one of us can be a WA member
LONG
LIVE
EGYPT
This nation is a weird mix of Celts, Semites and Karts (Georgians/Armenians)

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1042
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Sat Apr 27, 2024 1:40 pm

WhaleCo Global LLC wrote:Furthermore, we are preparing litigation against the authors, their staffs, immediate families, childhood friends, and anyone else remotely involved in the writing and submitting of this odious legislation.


Well, you better hurry.
Last edited by The Overmind on Sat Apr 27, 2024 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free Palestine

Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights


Neuroscientist | Formerly Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Anonymegg
Attaché
 
Posts: 73
Founded: Feb 03, 2024
Authoritarian Democracy

No

Postby Anonymegg » Sat Apr 27, 2024 2:07 pm

WhaleCo Global LLC wrote:There's a reason our tuna tastes so good. It's the dolphin in it!

We are absolutely opposed to this communistic assault on the fishing industry. Furthermore, we are preparing litigation against the authors, their staffs, immediate families, childhood friends, and anyone else remotely involved in the writing and submitting of this odious legislation.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Don't put innocent dolphins in cans of tuna. Save that for the actual tuna fish.
LONG
LIVE
EGYPT
This nation is a weird mix of Celts, Semites and Karts (Georgians/Armenians)

User avatar
Chineva
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Mar 06, 2024
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Chineva » Sun Apr 28, 2024 12:15 am

"Chineva shall not back this position as it might harm our fishing industry. If nations want regulations for fishing, better they do it nationally than through the WA."

-Brenlauden von Mollweiss-Hemsburg-Merinthia, Representative of Chineva-Meierburg in the WA
Last edited by Chineva on Sun Apr 28, 2024 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads