[PASSED] On Expiration Dates

[Krioval]

Slightly more on topic, what category was this submitted under before it was axed?

Human Rights.

[Mousebumples]

Slightly more on topic, what category was this submitted under before it was axed?

Human Rights.

I could have sworn it was Free Trade.

EDIT: Never mind, Krioval's right. Free Trade was mentioned along the line in the debate thread, but I believe it was Human Rights.

[Destructor Bunnies]

Human Rights.

I could have sworn it was Free Trade.

No it was submitted as Human Rights.

[Unibot II]

Right, well, now that there is an opportunity for revisions, I'd recommend the word, 'person', to replace references to human beings and humans.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"person consumption"?

"personal consumption" might work, but I never thought "human consumption" was a "speciesist" term myself. No more than "human rights".

[Mousebumples]

Right, well, now that there is an opportunity for revisions, I'd recommend the word, 'person', to replace references to human beings and humans.

And, as I stated above in my more detailed revision, a lot of those specific references to "human" or "person" or "individual" or "sapient being" or whatever we want to plug in are completely unnecessary for the overall understanding of clauses.

[Intellect and the Arts]

And as I stated in my revision and argument, general and brief works perfectly well to accomplish what AMOM wants to do in addition to opening up to crop maintainance and livestock products, which, with medical devices, serums, and foods, covers everything that even remotely NEEDS to be covered. At least, I'm fairly certain of that. Yes, Mousebumples's suggestion to make responsible manufacturing rather than distribution is fantastic, but my extremely creative synapses are having a hard time coming up with any possible scenarios left unaccounted. Ok, it'd be good to know when spermicide expires, but if you're keeping it around that long, you probably don't need to worry about pregnancy anyway.

Will someone please explain to me how AMOM's proposal, with my rephrasing and Mousebumples's bit about manufacturing, could fail to accomplish what it sets out? I don't personally care about clunkiness in the preamble because this isn't a gorram essay headed for the schoolmarm's desk. I want to see if anyone can find examples of how it would FAIL. Show me loopholes, please. If there are any left... This proposal is pretty solid from what I can discern, but you all have been at this longer and more frequently than I have.

[A mean old man]

On Expiration Dates

Other suggestion: For Safe and Effective Products / Safety and Efficacy / something along those lines?

People see "expiration dates" and it rings a bell. I'm leaving the title as it is.

ASSERTING its belief that the people of all nations have a right to live without unnecessary and daily fears of damage to their physical well-being,

This reads clunkily to my ears. Might I suggest something like: ASSERTING its belief that members of all nations have a right to live free from daily fear of unnecessary and avoidable harm to their physical well-being. ? I did a few wording changes and rearranging. If that's not even close to what you'd meant to say, my apologies. Still, the current version isn't as clear I think it could or should be.

ASSERTING its belief that the people of all nations have a right to live without unnecessary fears of damage to their physical well-being,

RECOGNIZING that many companies produce goods which significantly degrade or cease to function after a period of time,

Suggestion: RECOGNIZING that many companies produce goods which significantly degrade after a period of time, which can result in the product having toxic or inter properties.

Some medications (which isn't necessarily what is being targeted here) can actually become harmful after they "expire" and degrade. I think including that sort of detail in the proposal text is helpful and may win you a few more votes for those who can be bothered to read the proposal text.

I'll consider editing that.

BELIEVING that the average length of time that certain goods last must be known in order to promote the safety of the consumer,

Perhaps consider changing "last" (with regards to time) to "can be expected to be safe and effective" or something along those lines?

I'm avoiding wordiness, and the preamble doesn't matter so long as people get the point.

NOTING that this holds true for items such as medical supplies/equipment and food,

Perhaps: SPECIFYING that such details are important for a wide variety of items, including medical supplies, medical equipment, and food. (And medications? Food and Drug Standards may cover some of that - but it would also cover food, which you're specifically mentioning here.)

Medications would be "intended for organic consumption," I assume. The legislation is quite broad in its wonderful simplicity. "Food and Drug Standards" does not cover expiration dates.

DEFINES, solely for the purposes of this resolution, a "necessity" as any item which is intended for human consumption and/or an item that, if it was not in proper condition or if it was not functioning, would lead to the deprivation of a human of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of the lifetime of said human,

I think you could completely excise the first mention of HUMAN, if not both from this clause.

DEFINES, solely for the purposes of this resolution, a "necessity" as any item which is intended for human consumption and/or an item that, if it was not in proper condition or if it was not functioning, would lead to the deprivation of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of one's lifetime,

I remain unconvinced that including dog food or catnip or ... whatever under the scope of this proposal would be damaging and/or harmful. Certainly, I'm open to argument if I'm missing some important point.

DEFINES, solely for the purposes of this resolution, a "necessity" as any item which is intended for organic consumption and/or an item that, if it was not in proper condition or if it was not functioning, would lead to the deprivation of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of one's lifetime,

CHARGES any distributor of any necessity to attain an accurate and average prediction of how long each and every necessity that they distribute will last until it degrades to a level of quality at which it will directly "lead to the deprivation of a human of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of the lifetime of said human,"

Like above, I believe that any/all mention of HUMAN can be excised from this clause.

CHARGES any distributor of any necessity to attain an accurate and average prediction of how long each and every necessity that they distribute will last until it degrades to a level of quality at which it will directly "lead to the deprivation of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of one's lifetime,"

MANDATES that the distributors of a necessity provide, in a readily comprehensible fashion, all of the information that they have been charged to acquire by the previous clause to any who wish to view it,

FURTHER MANDATES that any recipient(s) of a necessity be provided with the information on how long the exact necessity that they are receiving lasts by the distributer of said necessity.

Spelling error!

Saw that after it was submitted.

Also, I'd appreciate a clause along the lines of the following:
ALLOWS individual member nations to require the manufacturer of a necessity to detail all required information and to supply that information to the distributor, in accordance with all relevant international law.

Obviously, there's a number of ways to "write" that, but I would personally prefer to task the CREATOR of necessities (i.e. the manufacturer) with determining how long their product is good for rather than requiring such information to be determined by the distributor.

Catch: The creator turns into the distributor when they sell their product (whether it is in a raw or completed state, it's still intended for organic consumption) and therefore must acquire and provide the information to whoever they are distributing their products to. Whether or not they are selling to someone who plans to distribute the product again is irrelevant; the producer must still provide the required information to this distributor, as the producer has assumed the role of distributor and the distributor has assumed the role of consumer. The merchant will not need to determine expiration dates for their goods as the dates have already been provided to them by the producer; all that the merchant must do is pass this information along to the next person who buys the product.

Additionally, it appears as if this proposal would apply to fresh fruit and vegetables, which almost seems like overkill. Maybe I'm just too much of a cook, but I can usually tell when "fresh" foods are going bad or have gone bad, so I don't know that such information is necessary. Again, I just wanted to clarify that this was something you meant to include and/or see if you have any brainstorms on the subject that I've missed.

Overkill is sometimes unavoidable. Some lucky idiot who can't tell a rotten apple from a fresh apple will be saved from a stomachache. Hallelujah.

[Unibot II]

"person consumption"?

"personal consumption" might work, but I never thought "human consumption" was a "speciesist" term myself. No more than "human rights".

I always thought ''human consumption' sounded kind of cannibalistic in a way. *shrugs*

[Kentucky Fried Human]

"person consumption"?

"personal consumption" might work, but I never thought "human consumption" was a "speciesist" term myself. No more than "human rights".

I always thought ''human consumption' sounded kind of cannibalistic in a way. *shrugs*

You know, it does. I'll see if I can work that into our marketing campaign.

Ezra Cobb
Chef

[Mousebumples]

People see "expiration dates" and it rings a bell. I'm leaving the title as it is.

Works for me. I just saw the "red" (and your comment regarding being uncertain/wanting alternatives for items in red) and made the suggestions. Clearly and out of date comment, so irrelevant.

Everything else:
Sounds good. I think I'll be able to approve this proposal when you resubmit - not that I didn't approve it before, either, but I think this is a stronger piece of legislation now.

[A mean old man]

People see "expiration dates" and it rings a bell. I'm leaving the title as it is.

Works for me. I just saw the "red" (and your comment regarding being uncertain/wanting alternatives for items in red) and made the suggestions. Clearly and out of date comment, so irrelevant.

Everything else:
Sounds good. I think I'll be able to approve this proposal when you resubmit - not that I didn't approve it before, either, but I think this is a stronger piece of legislation now.

Alrighty. Thanks.

Oh, and I'll remove that red ... sorry for the confusion.

[Mousebumples]

Oh, and I'll remove that red ... sorry for the confusion.

No worries. The rest of the red was gone, so I figured that you might still be looking for an alternate proposal name. OED works as well as anything else, in my mind.

[Ardchoille]

Category?

[A mean old man]

Category?

Why, "Global Disarmament," of course.

Social Justice.

[Grays Harbor]

People who bitch about national sovereignty shouldn't join an organization the purpose of which is to strip it from them. Granted, there is a limit beyond which lies unnecessary micromanagement, but still.

Perhaps because those of us who are more conservative and do join do so because of a belief that the purpose of the WA isn't to "strip national sovereignty away", but to enact essential legislation of an international nature, not for it to become a nanny-state world government, and try to put forth those ideals.

[Intellect and the Arts]

People who bitch about national sovereignty shouldn't join an organization the purpose of which is to strip it from them. Granted, there is a limit beyond which lies unnecessary micromanagement, but still.

Perhaps because those of us who are more conservative and do join do so because of a belief that the purpose of the WA isn't to "strip national sovereignty away", but to enact essential legislation of an international nature, not for it to become a nanny-state world government, and try to put forth those ideals.

You're joining a society the purpose of which is to impose the will of a few on the many whether they like it or not so long as most of them are moderately ok with it or at least don't know what they're doing. That's handing over national power. It's a simple fact.

[Krioval]

You're joining a society the purpose of which is to impose the will of a few on the many whether they like it or not so long as most of them are moderately ok with it or at least don't know what they're doing. That's handing over national power. It's a simple fact.

I don't represent Grays Harbor, so I can't really speak for them, but the Imperial Chiefdom joined the World Assembly primarily to expand its focus on issues of international, rather than national, impact. While we have supported basic civil rights proposals as a matter of principle, we tend to prefer that legislation have a strong international component. Many proposals submitted lately seem to have little or no international focus, instead choosing to cover solely national issues. The primary objective of this institution, in our eyes, should not be on supplanting national governments any more than is necessary to ensure basic rights or to standardize international procedures.

As this relates to this particular bill, the Imperial Chiefdom is neutral - the legislation has a decent international component if one assumes international trade, but the focus is extremely narrow.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Grays Harbor]

Perhaps because those of us who are more conservative and do join do so because of a belief that the purpose of the WA isn't to "strip national sovereignty away", but to enact essential legislation of an international nature, not for it to become a nanny-state world government, and try to put forth those ideals.

You're joining a society the purpose of which is to impose the will of a few on the many whether they like it or not so long as most of them are moderately ok with it or at least don't know what they're doing. That's handing over national power. It's a simple fact.

No, it is not handing over national power. It is agreeing on the enforcement of internationally focused issues which govern the interactions between sovereign nations, not the creation of a world government. There is a difference. Which is why we so vehemently oppose any proposal which oversteps those bounds into the realm of micromanagement, nanny-statism, or lunacy.

[Ardchoille]

Category?

Why, "Global Disarmament," of course.

Social Justice.

*nukes AMOM*

Right, well, fine, then. *sniffs*

[A mean old man]

". . .the extension of one's lifetime,"

This bothers me. It seems vague.

. . .the extension of any organism's lifetime?
. . .the extension of...

I don't know.

[Destructor Bunnies]

". . .the extension of one's lifetime,"

This bothers me. It seems vague.

. . .the extension of any organism's lifetime?
. . .the extension of...

I don't know.

Use "a person's" instead of "one's".

[Mousebumples]

". . .the extension of one's lifetime,"

This bothers me. It seems vague.

. . .the extension of any organism's lifetime?
. . .the extension of...

I don't know.

DEFINES, solely for the purposes of this resolution, a "necessity" as any item which is intended for organic consumption and/or an item that, if it was not in proper condition or if it was not functioning, would lead to the deprivation of any sort of bodily activity that is required ...

• to continue one's life.
• to ensure an individual's continued survival (but. this almost reads as if all products need to turn into the fountain of youth, to me)
• the extension of any individual's lifetime.
• the extension of an individual's life.
• et cetera.

[Knootoss]

Now that this proposal is being (errantly) submitted as "social justice" we will be forced to oppose it in the strongest terms. I also hope that it will be ruled illegal, since the actual effect has nothing to do with the label.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Knootoss]

To elaborate on this point, "social justice" has become a catch-all category even moreso than "human rights". Except the "social justice" resolutions just seem to be used for "any vaguely progressive cause imaginable" instead of limiting this odious and on the whole harmful category for use by resolutions that ACTUALLY hurt economic prosperity and make income distribution more flat, while making the government spend more on social causes.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss