NATION

PASSWORD

Proposed Fishing Rights Act (draft)

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Proposed Fishing Rights Act (draft)

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:23 pm

NEWEST COPY:
Appalled that the WA does not identify contaminated fish to the greatest of their extent.

Aware that fish with toxic chemicals can be identified easily with tell tale signs.

Acknowledging that fish that have signs of toxic chemicals are not tested.

The World Assembly Hereby:
Requires fish with clear signs of toxic chemicals such as but not limited to bulging eyes, bloated abdomen to be banned from being sold.

Recommends that the WA funds programs to search for abnormalities in fish
Last edited by Holy Roman Empires2 on Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:19 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19980
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:55 pm

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:This establishes the fishing rights act. It specifies the legal terms of the fishing industry.

Cool, but it doesn't. There is no specification of legal terms here.
Acknowledging that harmful chemicals can get into our meals which are fish, and demanding that we do something to prevent further damage.

Good idea, I'd say. You'll want to see how existing legislation handles the disposal of chemicals and regulation of oceangoing practices.
Accepting, than the fishing industry is barely regulated in nation states

Not exactly: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=9653061&hilit=fishing#p9653061
Resolutions must be written in-character, from the perspective of the WA. "NationStates" is a RL reference/metagaming violation that would get this pushed out of the queue were it submitted.
Provides the following terms:
All corporations, governments, ex that are involved in the fighting industry must protect their fishes from Hamid chemicals,

"Fishing industry", and I'm not sure what "Hamid chemicals" are.
Must be given proper regulation per goverment funding.

What does this mean?
Last edited by Wallenburg on Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:17 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:This establishes the fishing rights act. It specifies the legal terms of the fishing industry.

Cool, but it doesn't. There is no specification of legal terms here.
Acknowledging that harmful chemicals can get into our meals which are fish, and demanding that we do something to prevent further damage.

Good idea, I'd say. You'll want to see how existing legislation handles the disposal of chemicals and regulation of oceangoing practices.
Accepting, than the fishing industry is barely regulated in nation states

Not exactly: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=9653061&hilit=fishing#p9653061
Resolutions must be written in-character, from the perspective of the WA. "NationStates" is a RL reference/metagaming violation that would get this pushed out of the queue were it submitted.
Provides the following terms:
All corporations, governments, ex that are involved in the fighting industry must protect their fishes from Hamid chemicals,

"Fishing industry", and I'm not sure what "Hamid chemicals" are.
Must be given proper regulation per goverment funding.

What does this mean?

Thanks for the critics! I'll make a revised version

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:39 pm

New draft:
This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4639
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:30 pm

“First of all, what is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be on the draft text at the beginning. You also should remove your definition of the ‘fishing industry’, as it isn’t used anywhere in the active clauses. Thirdly, it’s ‘WA’ not ‘W.A’ or ‘w.a’; that’s the way it has always been stylised.

Lastly, you ought to give some thought to your definition of ‘chemicals’. Currently, it includes substances such as water. Water is a compound made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, and is often something to which sewage is purified artificially. Seeing as you want to restrict chemicals, it may be useful to define chemicals as only those that are damaging to sapient health.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Envoy
 
Posts: 232
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby East Meranopirus » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:48 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“First of all, what is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be on the draft text at the beginning. You also should remove your definition of the ‘fishing industry’, as it isn’t used anywhere in the active clauses. Thirdly, it’s ‘WA’ not ‘W.A’ or ‘w.a’; that’s the way it has always been stylised.

Lastly, you ought to give some thought to your definition of ‘chemicals’. Currently, it includes substances such as water. Water is a compound made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, and is often something to which sewage is purified artificially. Seeing as you want to restrict chemicals, it may be useful to define chemicals as only those that are damaging to sapient health.”

Where's the OOC telling him to put all new drafts in the OP and spoiler the old ones? I'm disappointed Kenmoria :p
Anyway, author, I've told you now - put any new drafts in the original post, put spoilers to hide the old ones.

Adding to what Kenmoria has already said:
1) You don't need that first sentence, it's redundant.
2) "Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections" - this is very confusing and doesn't make sense. You can't define what the WA is. I think you meant to say something requiring the WA to fund fishing inspections, so say that.
3) You should think about what you define. You've defined "fishing industry", "chemicals" and "inspecting fish properly", but you didn't actually use the first and third in any of the clauses. Are these necessary?
WA should be OOC. Change my mind.


Secretary of State of Union of Allied States
Prime Senator of Union of Allied States


Representing the Social Democratic Party as Albin Lundberg in NS Parliament. Fight for freedom, equality, and prosperity for the people!

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Envoy
 
Posts: 282
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:35 am

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
[...]
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected


OOC: What use is the proper inspection if it is the only requirement before selling? If the yields the result that the fish is highly toxic, it still can be sold under the requirements of this proposal, as long as the inspection had been proper.

Also, does this mean taking blood samples (which I would think should be very hard to do for many fishes to begin with, as many of them are bled out immediately after fishing) from every single specimen that one intends to sell? If so, that should be nigh impossible.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19980
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:36 am

It's way too early to submit this, it needs a lot more time to make it workable.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:39 am

OOC:

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Fishing

Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected


I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:00 am

Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Fishing

Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected


I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.
Last edited by Holy Roman Empires2 on Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:37 am

Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Fishing

Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected


I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.

If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3279
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:58 am

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Fishing

Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected


I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.

If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?


OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.

"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?


OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.

"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©

Is the timing important? For example if there are no other proposals, or their illegal itd be more likely to pass? What would you reccomend for this to become "popular"

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4639
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:27 pm

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.

"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©

Is the timing important? For example if there are no other proposals, or their illegal itd be more likely to pass? What would you reccomend for this to become "popular"

(OOC: The best thing to do is to wait for a few weeks, maybe months, to draft this proposal, otherwise the chance of its passing is almost, if not, zero. There is isn’t really a right time to submit, with regards to the proposal queue, apart from avoiding doing it when there are masses of proposals.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13035
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:55 pm

OOC: Basing the feedback on the submitted version, as I can't quite tell what is supposed to be the most recent draft. You should put the most recent draft in the first post, leaving it visible, then spoilering older drafts.

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

I'm going to guess that English isn't your first language, so you're having some trouble explaining what you actually want done. Or you don't quite know how things work in reality, and that compounded with the language issue leave you taking random stabs at the subject.

A prime example the definition for inspecting fish; you talk of "taking samples" but then talk of "testing their blood samples" instead. Fish blood samples won't tell you much, if the poisonous chemical you're concerned about is, as tends to be the case in Real Life, fat-soluble and thus is in the tissues, the flesh, that's eaten. Also, fish tend to be long dead (sometimes frozen and then thawed later, to keep them from spoiling) by the time they get sampled for toxicity, and getting a blood sample specifically would be difficult. Also, if you want blood samples tested, you need to specify the taking of blood samples, too.

Not to mention the silly requirement of taking samples of every single fish caught. I mean, are you aware of how small most fish species that are eaten, are? And that in most parts of the world the fish is sold directly from the catcher to the consumer - having to institute a sample testing for each single fish would require massive laboratories in every single fishing village all over the world, not to mention some way of keeping the fish fresh enough while waiting for the test results.

I would suggest you look online for information about how food safety testing is done in Real Life, to get a better idea of the sampling methods used.

On top of which this has already been addressed by an existing resolution.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:08 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Basing the feedback on the submitted version, as I can't quite tell what is supposed to be the most recent draft. You should put the most recent draft in the first post, leaving it visible, then spoilering older drafts.

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

I'm going to guess that English isn't your first language, so you're having some trouble explaining what you actually want done. Or you don't quite know how things work in reality, and that compounded with the language issue leave you taking random stabs at the subject.

A prime example the definition for inspecting fish; you talk of "taking samples" but then talk of "testing their blood samples" instead. Fish blood samples won't tell you much, if the poisonous chemical you're concerned about is, as tends to be the case in Real Life, fat-soluble and thus is in the tissues, the flesh, that's eaten. Also, fish tend to be long dead (sometimes frozen and then thawed later, to keep them from spoiling) by the time they get sampled for toxicity, and getting a blood sample specifically would be difficult. Also, if you want blood samples tested, you need to specify the taking of blood samples, too.

Not to mention the silly requirement of taking samples of every single fish caught. I mean, are you aware of how small most fish species that are eaten, are? And that in most parts of the world the fish is sold directly from the catcher to the consumer - having to institute a sample testing for each single fish would require massive laboratories in every single fishing village all over the world, not to mention some way of keeping the fish fresh enough while waiting for the test results.

I would suggest you look online for information about how food safety testing is done in Real Life, to get a better idea of the sampling methods used.

On top of which this has already been addressed by an existing resolution.

Ill implement your advice. Also, im American

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13035
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:16 pm

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Ill implement your advice.

OOC: Did you miss the bit that it's already been addressed by an existing resolution?

Also, im American

Which has what to do with what?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Imbalistan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: May 22, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Imbalistan » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:17 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Ill implement your advice.

OOC: Did you miss the bit that it's already been addressed by an existing resolution?

Also, im American

Which has what to do with what?

ooh: You said that English probably isn't his first language...
Best Quote:
Chan Island wrote:And I'm expecting this thread to devolve into a racist and/or religious and/or politics shitshow within 3 pages.
Muslim And Proud :D
Dont Stop Me Now!
Please Wont You Be My Neighbor?

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13035
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:23 pm

Imbalistan wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Which has what to do with what?

ooh: You said that English probably isn't his first language...

OOC: So what does his nationality have anything to do with it? There are plenty of Americans (even if assuming that to mean a citizen of USA) who don't have English as their first language. EDIT: On top of which, clumsy language is clumsy language, no matter what one's excuse is.
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:33 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Ill implement your advice.

OOC: Did you miss the bit that it's already been addressed by an existing resolution?

Also, im American

Which has what to do with what?

I know its already been adressed, but not to the extent it should be.

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:55 pm

Regulation/Consumer protection

Applaled, that the wa does not regulate the fishing industry as well as it should.

Aware, that fish can be singled out with systems of toxic chemicals.

Acknowledging, that fish that may have toxic chemicals and are showing signs of toxic chemicals are not properly tested.

Accepting that fishing should not be premitted near industrial complexes.

The world assembly hearby:
Requires that fish with clear signs of toxic chemicals, such as- but not limited to bulging eyes, bloated abdomens and abnormal behavior be banned from being sold.

The wa funds programs of identifying fish with clear signs of chemical poisoning.

The wa regulate and set up seclusion zones of where fishing con occur away from industrial production.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13035
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:03 pm

OOC: I have to say that at this point I'm just downright curious as to what the excuse is for the clumsy language and spelling errors.

I would also suggest using the Passed Resolutions thread and searching it with keywords (1 search per word and note that the search treats plurals and singulars as entirely unrelated words) that have anything to do with your topic.

...I'm also curious how you can deduct fish behaviour as normal or abnormal after it's been pulled out of the water...
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Holy Roman Empires2
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:08 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: I have to say that at this point I'm just downright curious as to what the excuse is for the clumsy language and spelling errors.

I would also suggest using the Passed Resolutions thread and searching it with keywords (1 search per word and note that the search treats plurals and singulars as entirely unrelated words) that have anything to do with your topic.

...I'm also curious how you can deduct fish behaviour as normal or abnormal after it's been pulled out of the water...

Sorry I'm not Charleston Dickens. I will. Thats a mistake, gonna fix it

User avatar
Borovan entered the region as he
Diplomat
 
Posts: 669
Founded: Dec 18, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Borovan entered the region as he » Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:36 pm

Against
NPP - Politician Alastar Macdanieus

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4639
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:19 pm

(OOC: I recommend going through this with a spelling and grammar checker, and maybe getting a friend to read through this. Lots of the clauses need thinking time before I can work out what you are trying to achieve, which means that feedback is harder to give on the content. Also, as Ara and East Meranopirus said, put your most recent draft in the first post of the thread.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grays Harbor

Advertisement

Remove ads