[Draft] Commend Vancouvia

[South St Maarten]

I'll support. Have been ambassador to TWI and seen the work he's done.

[WayNeacTia]

I'll support. Have been ambassador to TWI and seen the work he's done.

Yes... Dictators do deserve to commended don't they?

[Titanne]

I'll support. Have been ambassador to TWI and seen the work he's done.

Yay, I’m really glad to hear it! So you think it’s an alright draft?

[Titanne]

Going to do some more edits later today, if there’s any more feedback I’d love to incorporate it in the new draft!

[Refuge Isle]

I've been hellishly busy lately, sorry for not replying in a more timely manner. This draft is looking better than it was when it started, you should know that I still think that you've picked a contentious target to nominate, but that's no concern of mine one way or the other.

especially given that this peak was early in the history of The Western Isles.

Out of curiosity, why it is substantial or positive that the "good days" of TWI were in the beginning? It seems like this leaves an unspoken question of "why has the region declined since then?"

Additionally recognizing the unique governing system created by the nominee in The Western Isles, featuring a democratically elected government, and a large and prolific Constitution maintained by Vancouvia

How is the system of government created here unique? There's a lot of regions that have constitutional democracies.

Making note of the upwards of one thousand nations who have made their home in The Western Isles at some point in time

As you've already talked about the region's peak population, this sentence reads to me like it's reflecting on all the nations that have come and gone since the region was made. If this is your intention, you should find a different way of collecting that data. My region has about 125 nations in it, but I'm sure over the last two years we've seen over a thousand pass through. A region like TWI has surely seen upwards of ten times that number come and go, but I don't have any idea how you'd get an accurate count of unique nations that goes back five years.

Applauding the contributions of Vancouvia to this World Assembly, having authored five resolutions, including three repeals of flawed previous legislation, notably:
With each of these contributions noted, the nominee has clearly shown a commitment to the General Assembly that cannot go unnoticed.

I think this is a bit weird. The phrase "this World Assembly", similar to "this General Assembly" and "this Security Council" make sense in resolution starters because whoever is there to read it, vote on it, pass it at the time is that member's body. It's that iteration of the chamber/organisation. In this context of being a reflective assessment, I have to wonder which "this" we're talking about. Because the World Assembly we have right now is certainly different than the one in 2016.

If it were me, I would find a way to combine the opener and closer you have here into a single thought. Maybe something along the lines of:

Applauding Vancouvia's contributions to the World Assembly, having authored five resolutions, which demonstrates a commitment to the General Assembly that cannot go unnoticed. Such resolutions include:

In either case, the way you have it presented now separates the resolutions into repeals and new legislation. So, in the repeal section, you say that the target has authored three repeals, but you'll list the notable ones. You list three repeals, so either they're all notable or (and more likely), there's no "notable" filter at all So I would recommend finding a different way to express that thought.

[Titanne]

I believe I have addressed each of the concerns and points noted, sorry for the lack of progress on this resolution, some stuff kept me busy. It is also worth noting that I have switched my WA nation over to Penguin Palace, so while for the purposes of cleanliness in this thread I'll be responding via this nation, when it is eventually introduced it will be on that nation.

[Outer Sparta]

While I don't necessary think Vancouvia merits a commendation, the proposal is well-written. Good luck on eventually getting it to submission and quorum!

[Goobergunchia]

Recognizing that Vancouvia's founding and subsequent leadership (which continues to this day) of The Western Isles over 5 years ago similarly cannot go ignored. Over The Western Isles time in existence, the region peaked at over 830 nations occupying it due to the recruitment and appeals that Vancouvia made for it, a notable feat even for the time.

Similar to what?

Also, we believe that the region name takes the possessive in the second sentence.

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly
Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[Titanne]

Edited.

[Titanne]

I plan to introduce this as soon as my new region is set up, so semi-last call for feedback.

[Tinhampton]

I plan to introduce this as soon as my new region is set up, so semi-last call for feedback.

Any reason why you've pegged the submission date to that particular milestone?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Speaking as a GA player, the repeal spoken of so highly below? It's rubbish.

-the repeal of [resolution=GA#303]the Debris Prevention Resolution[/resolution], a resolution which attempted to reduce debris in orbit, but ultimately failed in it's goal due to vague terminology and execution,

It should not be commended. I've not read the other stuff yet. I'm not entirely qualified to judge the stuff outside the GA. That said, the descriptions given in the proposal as to Vancouvia's authorship are almost laughably thin. Most of the descriptions add nothing beyond what is already imputable from the title of the cited resolutions. There really should be higher standards for describing what someone did in the GA. To borrow a framework from one of my GA guides: What was the problem the resolution solved? Why was that problem important? What policy did the resolution impose? Why was that policy preferable to the status quo and other policy options?

The GA rewards inventive thinking and detailed knowledge about the world. It is inherently a policy game. Writing a commendation signalling excellence in writing resolutions requires highlighting how the nominee thinks inventively and creates good policy. A threadbare recital of resolutions, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.

[Titanne]

I plan to introduce this as soon as my new region is set up, so semi-last call for feedback.

Any reason why you've pegged the submission date to that particular milestone?

I need endorsements to introduce the proposal, of course!

[Titanne]

Speaking as a GA player, the repeal spoken of so highly below? It's rubbish.

-the repeal of [resolution=GA#303]the Debris Prevention Resolution[/resolution], a resolution which attempted to reduce debris in orbit, but ultimately failed in it's goal due to vague terminology and execution,

It should not be commended. I've not read the other stuff yet.

I mean, it passed the Assembly and repealed what I read over and agreed to be a poor piece of legislation. What specifically is the issue with this repeal from your point of view?

[Titanne]

Ah, noted the further points. I will work to expand the description of the WA points. They were very thin before because previous advice I had recieved was to minimize the WA accomplishments and focus on the Western Isles, so I shortened up the WA part, but I suppose if I'm going to mention it at all I should thoroughly detail it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I mean, it passed the Assembly and repealed what I read over and agreed to be a poor piece of legislation. What specifically is the issue with this repeal from your point of view?

Many things pass the Assembly. Your sole warrant, that it passed, applies also to GA 336 'World Space Adminstration' and HR 223 'Max Barry Day'. Are we to believe these resolutions are commendable treasures?

That said, the repeal of Debris Prevention was pretty rubbish. For the debate thread, see Imperium Anglorum (for Vancouvia) (23 Aug 2015) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=351817. The repeal contended four things:

I. The lack of a definition for 'debris' despite debris being the chief subject, a fundamental flaw which delinquent nations could and very likely have been exploiting in order to circumvent this resolution.

II. The clause "CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space..." is problematic in that space battles naturally result in a massive amount of debris being released into orbit, yet this resolution is silent on how to prevent, reduce, or even minimize this cause of debris.

III. This resolution has done nothing to provide for the cleaning up or reduction of debris existing in orbit either both before or after its implementation.

IV. A small minority of this assembly are space-faring nations, and therefore legislation on this matter would be better instituted by nations that share the same technological capabilities.

The lack of a definition for debris is not a flaw. The word is in the dictionary and is widely understood. Nations are required by GA 2 'Rights and duties...' to interpret resolutions in good faith. Even in the absence of GA 2, reasonable nation theory still applies. The absence of debris prevention with space warfare is an obvious one: military necessity overrides most policy questions. Space-faring nations should not be forced to choose between a core interest, ie their ability to defend against armed invasion, and membership in the Assembly.

The third point misunderstands the scope of the target resolution. The target resolution is 'a resolution on debris prevention, not cleanup'. Wrapper (24 Aug 2015) viewtopic.php?p=25768384#p25768384. The fourth point also contradicts the contentions of the rest of the proposal. A problem cannot be so small to not require fixing when the problem also is so large that the patch is bad for being misapplied. There is an inherent internal contradiction in these arguments, not to mention that the resolution necessarily applies only to nations sending things to space.

All in all, a bad and inherently self-contradictory repeal. I'll also note that no replacement was advanced by Vancouvia. If the flaws in the resolutions actually needed fixing, we would have seen one. The repeal itself, however, was basically repealed. Defwa's GA 349 'To Prevent Dangerous Debris' (5 Dec 2015) viewtopic.php?p=26912108#p26912108 is identical to the original resolution, with the addition of one clause: 'DEFINES debris as debris to quiet some illogical complaints'. If we really are to consider legislative history as the end-all of quality, how should we view this veiled rebuke of the repeal?

[Titanne]

I mean, it passed the Assembly and repealed what I read over and agreed to be a poor piece of legislation. What specifically is the issue with this repeal from your point of view?

Many things pass the Assembly. Your sole warrant, that it passed, applies also to GA 336 'World Space Adminstration' and HR 223 'Max Barry Day'. Are we to believe these resolutions are commendable treasures?

That said, the repeal of Debris Prevention was pretty rubbish. For the debate thread, see Imperium Anglorum (for Vancouvia) (23 Aug 2015) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=351817. The repeal contended four things:

I. The lack of a definition for 'debris' despite debris being the chief subject, a fundamental flaw which delinquent nations could and very likely have been exploiting in order to circumvent this resolution.

II. The clause "CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space..." is problematic in that space battles naturally result in a massive amount of debris being released into orbit, yet this resolution is silent on how to prevent, reduce, or even minimize this cause of debris.

III. This resolution has done nothing to provide for the cleaning up or reduction of debris existing in orbit either both before or after its implementation.

IV. A small minority of this assembly are space-faring nations, and therefore legislation on this matter would be better instituted by nations that share the same technological capabilities.

The lack of a definition for debris is not a flaw. The word is in the dictionary and is widely understood. Nations are required by GA 2 'Rights and duties...' to interpret resolutions in good faith. Even in the absence of GA 2, reasonable nation theory still applies. The absence of debris prevention with space warfare is an obvious one: military necessity overrides most policy questions. Space-faring nations should not be forced to choose between a core interest, ie their ability to defend against armed invasion, and membership in the Assembly.

The third point misunderstands the scope of the target resolution. The target resolution is 'a resolution on debris prevention, not cleanup'. Wrapper (24 Aug 2015) viewtopic.php?p=25768384#p25768384. The fourth point also contradicts the contentions of the rest of the proposal. A problem cannot be so small to not require fixing when the problem also is so large that the patch is bad for being misapplied. There is an inherent internal contradiction in these arguments, not to mention that the resolution necessarily applies only to nations sending things to space.

All in all, a bad and inherently self-contradictory repeal. I'll also note that no replacement was advanced by Vancouvia. If the flaws in the resolutions actually needed fixing, we would have seen one. The repeal itself, however, was basically repealed. Defwa's GA 349 'To Prevent Dangerous Debris' (5 Dec 2015) viewtopic.php?p=26912108#p26912108 is identical to the original resolution, with the addition of one clause: 'DEFINES debris as debris to quiet some illogical complaints'. If we really are to consider legislative history as the end-all of quality, how should we view this veiled rebuke of the repeal?

I see all of your points, this piece of legislation isn't great. However the focal point of this resolution was never intended to be the WA accomplishments, and I believe the Western Isles clauses carry a good deal more weight than those of the World Assembly. I will tweak the article releated to this specific repeal, however, to address your points.

[Honeydewistania]

Can you put line breaks after your subclauses? It's incredibly hard to read atm

[Free Las Pinas]

Relative support for this, though I do have some comments.

---

The World Assembly,

[…] the region peaked at over 830 nations occupying it due to the recruitment and appeals that Vancouvia made for it, a notable feat even for the time.

I think there could be better wording for this. At the moment, it kinda reads like TWI was invaded for Vancouvia’s recruitment methods. I’d suggest something along the lines of “citizens from 830 nations reside in TWI”.

---

Highlighting that the nominee has served diligently as the World Assembly Delegate for this region since it's inception,

its

And how did they serve diligently?

---

[…] with nearly 180 endorsements at the nation's peak, an oversized and notable number for a region not focused on international affairs, shaping the vote counts in both the Security Council and The General Assembly, showing the great commitment of Vancouvia to this legislative body, and to their region as well,

Seeing as it’s an RP region, I don’t see how “international affairs” isn’t relevant to the region? I’d suggest “WA affairs”, but their role is literally to be the WA delegate, and you cite their WA contributions later into the draft. If their job as WAD isn’t WA affairs, it might be nice to state what else is. Perhaps you can cut out the whole “shaping the vote counts” thing, and merge 830 nations and 180 endorsements into one clause.

---

More recently, under Vancouvia's leadership, The Western Isles continue to punch above their weight in terms of diplomacy, having secured relationships with significantly larger regions such as The Pacific, 10000 Islands, and Europe.

I don’t find this to be particularly exceptional by itself. How were these relations beneficial?

---

Applauding the contributions of Vancouvia to the World Assembly, having authored five resolutions, including three repeals of flawed previous legislation, all of which indicate their commitment to the body, namely:

Perhaps you can use the list bbcode, makes it nicer on the eyes.

---

Add these to Vancouvia’s still-standing unique resolution (which served as a form of replacement for the Renewable Research Commitment Resolution.)

I can’t tell if this is a mistake in copy-paste from a draft that had comments, or if it was just phrased wrong. If you are keeping it, I suggest changing the structure a bit to explain that the resolutions you’re referring to are the target ones, and not Vancouvia’s repeals.

---

Therefore, noting each of the aforementioned accomplishments, the World Assembly

...hereby commends Vancouvia.

I’d either merge the two lines, or remove the first.

[Titanne]

Got both of your points.

[Titanne]

And submitted, on this nation. Because why not.

[Honeydewistania]

You still included the debris repeal. Why?

[Titanne]

You still included the debris repeal. Why?

I don't believe I ever said I'd take it out, I know the resolution is probably not gonna do well but I may as well submit and get it over with.

[Honeydewistania]

You still included the debris repeal. Why?

I don't believe I ever said I'd take it out, I know the resolution is probably not gonna do well but I may as well submit and get it over with.

You didn't, but why was it included? IA already gave a long explanation on why it was bad.

[Titanne]

I don't believe I ever said I'd take it out, I know the resolution is probably not gonna do well but I may as well submit and get it over with.

You didn't, but why was it included? IA already gave a long explanation on why it was bad.

I feel that for consistency's sake it makes more sense to include it rather than exclude it.