Final Draft

[Solomons Land]

This resolution believes that nuclear weapons are highly dangerous and should be disposed of. This resolution additionally believes that such an effort is impossible on many grounds and therefore should not be attempted. This resolution then believes that nuclear weapons should be minimized and carefully watched. This resolution also believes that N-Day(2) was a perfect example of how nuclear weapons can get out of hand. This resolution retains to believe that their should be a resolution that solves the above problems. This resolution finally believes that this resolution is of the previous belief.

This resolution defines nuclear weapons as a bomb that uses radioactive energy. This resolution defines coalition as a group of organized people with a cause. This resolution defines contenting as knowledgeable of their respective obligations. This resolution defines criminal action as an action that has been deemed illegal. This resolution defines substantial as an amount of resources that compares with the nations respective GPD (this is not to say a fraction, but that it shall be tailored to.) This resolution defines fine as an installment that the government must pay directly or form a tax to do such.

This resolution mandates:
a: The creation of the Nuclear Prevention and Documentation Coalition of Consenting WA Nations (NPDCCWAN)
b: All WA nuclear weapons must be registered with the NPDCCWAN
c: The installation of a substantial fine, payible to the NPDCCWAN
d: limits nuclear production to 10 (it would take 180 to end the world, such is abundant)
e: encourages nations to use nuclear weapons as a last resort

[Serrus]

This resolution believes that nuclear weapons are highly dangerous and should be disposed of. This resolution additionally believes that such an effort is impossible on many grounds and therefore should not be attempted. This resolution then believes that nuclear weapons should be minimized and carefully watched. This resolution also believes that N-Day(2) was a perfect example of how nuclear weapons can get out of hand. This resolution retains to believe that their should be a resolution that solves the above problems. This resolution finally believes that this resolution is of the previous belief.

This resolution defines nuclear weapons as a bomb that uses radioactive energy. This resolution defines coalition as a group of organized people with a cause. This resolution defines contenting as knowledgeable of their respective obligations. This resolution defines criminal action as an action that has been deemed illegal. This resolution defines substantial as an amount of resources that compares with the nations respective GPD (this is not to say a fraction, but that it shall be tailored to.) This resolution defines fine as an installment that the government must pay directly or form a tax to do such.

This resolution mandates:
a: The creation of the Nuclear Prevention and Documentation Coalition of Consenting WA Nations (NPDCCWAN)
b: All WA nuclear weapons must be registered with the NPDCCWAN
c: The installation of a substantial fine, payible to the NPDCCWAN
d: limits nuclear production to 10 (it would take 180 to end the world, such is abundant)
e: encourages nations to use nuclear weapons as a last resort

OOC:
Stuff that is actually illegal:
-Metagaming (N-Day^2)
-NS=/=Earth
-Contradicts GA #10
-Category? Strength?
-Has no name.
Stuff that is not illegal but still a problem:
-Your preamble? sorta?
-"This resolution" spamming
-Very very poorly written.
-Where are the rest of your drafts?

[Solomons Land]

This resolution believes that nuclear weapons are highly dangerous and should be disposed of. This resolution additionally believes that such an effort is impossible on many grounds and therefore should not be attempted. This resolution then believes that nuclear weapons should be minimized and carefully watched. This resolution retains to believe that their should be a resolution that solves the above problems. This resolution finally believes that this resolution is of the previous belief.

This resolution defines nuclear weapons as a bomb that uses radioactive energy. This resolution defines coalition as a group of organized people with a cause. This resolution defines contenting as knowledgeable of their respective obligations. This resolution defines criminal action as an action that has been deemed illegal. This resolution defines substantial as an amount of resources that compares with the nations respective GPD (this is not to say a fraction, but that it shall be tailored to.) This resolution defines fine as an installment that the government must pay directly or form a tax to do such.

This resolution mandates:
a: The creation of the Nuclear Prevention and Documentation Coalition of Consenting WA Nations (NPDCCWAN)
b: All WA nuclear weapons must be registered with the NPDCCWAN
c: The installation of a substantial fine, payible to the NPDCCWAN
d: limits nuclear production to 10 (it would take 180 to end a world, such is abundant)
e: encourages nations to use nuclear weapons as a last resort

[Solomons Land]

I fixed meta-gaming, I checked GA 10, while I may break the spirit, I did not break any clauses, what do you mean "NS=/=Earth."

[Serrus]

I fixed meta-gaming, I checked GA 10, while I may break the spirit, I did not break any clauses, what do you mean "NS=/=Earth."

"limits nuclear production to 10 (it would take 180 to end the world, such is abundant)"
"end the world"
"end the world"
NS takes place on a bajillion worlds, not just earth.
And it still needs a title.

[Essu Beti]

((OOC: Why on Earth are you starting every sentence with "This resolution" over and over again?))

[Solomons Land]

Would it work to replace the with a.

[Willania Imperium]

I fixed meta-gaming, I checked GA 10, while I may break the spirit, I did not break any clauses, what do you mean "NS=/=Earth."

It means there are RL references in this proposal that makes it illegal. Cut them out.

[Solomons Land]

By the way, I am doing the name last.

[Essu Beti]

Would it work to replace the with a.

How on Earth would that possibly alleviate the sheer repetitiveness?

[Thermodolia]

"Ambassador we will make as many nuclear weapons as we damn well please. If this attempt passes, it won't, we will leave the WA." Eve says sharply.

[Serrus]

Would it work to replace the with a.

How on Earth would that possibly alleviate the sheer repetitiveness?

You could fix it by doing bulleted lists
-like
-this
-you see?

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Yet another draft that wishes to limit the production of nuclear weapons? In that case, this is yet another reason why I chose to not join the WA...

-The Great Uniter and Beast of the DGES

[The New California Republic]

All replies are OOC. By the way, how is this a "final draft"?? What happened to all the previous drafts, are they in the bin (trash can)?

This resolution finally believes that this resolution is of the previous belief.

How can a Resolution believe in any capacity? It is not a person, legally speaking or otherwise. Also, your statement is entirely superfluous. It is close to the equivalent of saying: "this book has said what it says". Well obviously!

This resolution defines nuclear weapons as a bomb that uses radioactive energy. This resolution defines coalition as a group of organized people with a cause. This resolution defines contenting as knowledgeable of their respective obligations. This resolution defines criminal action as an action that has been deemed illegal. This resolution defines substantial as an amount of resources that compares with the nations respective GPD (this is not to say a fraction, but that it shall be tailored to.) This resolution defines fine as an installment that the government must pay directly or form a tax to do such.

Format these definitions a bit better, rather than just having a big block of text. For example, here is a format that you could use:

For the purposes of this Food Standards Resolution, defines:

1. Meat as ...
   
2. Milk as ...
   
3. Cheese as ...

etc etc.

This resolution mandates:
a: The creation of the Nuclear Prevention and Documentation Coalition of Consenting WA Nations (NPDCCWAN)

Oh joy, yet another Committee to add to the World Assembly pile...

c: The installation of a substantial fine, payible to the NPDCCWAN

Avoid punitive measures. Punitive measures in Proposals tend to turn off the nations that are voting on them. Also, I notice the level of fine is left vague. I am always suspicious when there are no specifics and/or numbers used when referring to punishments.

d: limits nuclear production to 10 (it would take 180 to end a world, such is abundant)

Ten? Ten what? Ten per year? Ten per month? Ten per factory? Ten per person? Ten per bear? Also, where are you getting that "180 to end a world" number from?

Focusing solely on number of weapons is meaningless. You do realize that by arbitrarily limiting nations to 10 nuclear weapons (if that is what this means), then nations would just make 10 massive nuclear weapons, probably in the 100+ Megaton range each, so that each weapon can do the same damage that a higher number of weapons could do. Nuclear arms controls need to take into account yield of each weapon as well, otherwise it is meaningless.

But regardless, all my criticisms may be entirely moot, as I highly suspect that this may contradict GAR #10, as limiting production of nuclear weapons may impede the ability of a nation to defend itself from hostile nations (stated in Clause 1 of GAR #10). GAR #10 is here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

[Serrus]

-He fixed it, nvm-

[Solomons Land]

How would you fix clause c, 10 in total.

[The New California Republic]

How would you fix clause c, 10 in total.

OOC: By getting rid of it completely. It is unfixable.