NATION

PASSWORD

(Abondoned) Predator Managment

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 278
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:28 am

A statement from the Burninite WA mission:

Burnination stands with any nation wishing to improve the lives of sentient beings. However, any resolution seeking to regulate the way that nations interact with their environments must be, at a minimum, sensitive to the same issues that the original GA Resolution she authored -- GA#66 -- was sensitive to. Specifically, any restriction on hunting must be sensitive to potential needs of first nations and indigenous peoples who may be impacted by such regulation.

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:36 am

Burninati0n wrote:A statement from the Burninite WA mission:

Burnination stands with any nation wishing to improve the lives of sentient beings. However, any resolution seeking to regulate the way that nations interact with their environments must be, at a minimum, sensitive to the same issues that the original GA Resolution she authored -- GA#66 -- was sensitive to. Specifically, any restriction on hunting must be sensitive to potential needs of first nations and indigenous peoples who may be impacted by such regulation.

Thank you for commenting, I will be reading up on GA 66

User avatar
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper
Diplomat
 
Posts: 607
Founded: Mar 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:50 am

OOC: Using my non-mod puppet to emphasize this is player opinion only and totally non-binding.

The Inland Emprie wrote:Sooo, I am not violating house of cards?

To figure this out, ask yourself this question: What happens if GAR#267 and GAR#66 are repealed?

Your clause as written states:
The World Assembly recognizes the legality of GA Resolution #267 Sensible Limits on Hunting, and also GA Resolution #66 Endangered Species Protection. As to not violate these bills, no predator management may eradicate an endangered or, non-endangered species and follow all other regulations listed in the aforementioned bills.

If those resolutions are repealed, your clause would be recognizing the legality of two resolutions that no longer exist. It makes no sense to "recognize the legality" of laws that have been repealed, because they are no longer legally in force. Thus, that clause is rendered inoperative, which according to GenSec's recent interpretation of the HoC rule would make this a House of Cards violation.

To fix this, you can take out the entire clause, since it does nothing unless the two resolutions are both repealed, or you can try rewording it so that you aren't "recognizing the legality" of laws that might be repealed. You might be able to get away with phrasing like "in accordance with GAR#xxx" or something like that, if you really want to keep the prohibition. I think that what would work best would be to work in some reference the existing regulations in the preamble, and replace this problematic clause with:

Predator management practices must not eradicate any endangered or non-endangered species and must follow all extant international law.

Of course, GenSec may have a whole different interpretation of this, and their opinion is binding while mine is not, but that's my two cents.
The General Assembly Delegation of the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper:
-- Wad Ari Alaz, Wrapperian Ambassador to the WA; Author, SCR#200, GAR #300, GAR#361.
-- Wad Ahume Orliss-Dorcke, Deputy Ambassador; two-time Intergalactic Karaoke League champion.
-- Wad Dawei DeGoah, Ambassador Emeritus; deceased.
THE GA POSTS FROM THIS NATION ARE IN-CHARACTER AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN AS MODERATOR RULINGS.

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:57 am

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:OOC: Using my non-mod puppet to emphasize this is player opinion only and totally non-binding.

The Inland Emprie wrote:Sooo, I am not violating house of cards?

To figure this out, ask yourself this question: What happens if GAR#267 and GAR#66 are repealed?

Your clause as written states:
The World Assembly recognizes the legality of GA Resolution #267 Sensible Limits on Hunting, and also GA Resolution #66 Endangered Species Protection. As to not violate these bills, no predator management may eradicate an endangered or, non-endangered species and follow all other regulations listed in the aforementioned bills.

If those resolutions are repealed, your clause would be recognizing the legality of two resolutions that no longer exist. It makes no sense to "recognize the legality" of laws that have been repealed, because they are no longer legally in force. Thus, that clause is rendered inoperative, which according to GenSec's recent interpretation of the HoC rule would make this a House of Cards violation.

To fix this, you can take out the entire clause, since it does nothing unless the two resolutions are both repealed, or you can try rewording it so that you aren't "recognizing the legality" of laws that might be repealed. You might be able to get away with phrasing like "in accordance with GAR#xxx" or something like that, if you really want to keep the prohibition. I think that what would work best would be to work in some reference the existing regulations in the preamble, and replace this problematic clause with:

Predator management practices must not eradicate any endangered or non-endangered species and must follow all extant international law.

Of course, GenSec may have a whole different interpretation of this, and their opinion is binding while mine is not, but that's my two cents.

Many thanks.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18627
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:04 am

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:OOC: Using my non-mod puppet to emphasize this is player opinion only and totally non-binding.

The Inland Emprie wrote:Sooo, I am not violating house of cards?

To figure this out, ask yourself this question: What happens if GAR#267 and GAR#66 are repealed?

Your clause as written states:
The World Assembly recognizes the legality of GA Resolution #267 Sensible Limits on Hunting, and also GA Resolution #66 Endangered Species Protection. As to not violate these bills, no predator management may eradicate an endangered or, non-endangered species and follow all other regulations listed in the aforementioned bills.

If those resolutions are repealed, your clause would be recognizing the legality of two resolutions that no longer exist. It makes no sense to "recognize the legality" of laws that have been repealed, because they are no longer legally in force. Thus, that clause is rendered inoperative, which according to GenSec's recent interpretation of the HoC rule would make this a House of Cards violation.

To fix this, you can take out the entire clause, since it does nothing unless the two resolutions are both repealed, or you can try rewording it so that you aren't "recognizing the legality" of laws that might be repealed. You might be able to get away with phrasing like "in accordance with GAR#xxx" or something like that, if you really want to keep the prohibition. I think that what would work best would be to work in some reference the existing regulations in the preamble, and replace this problematic clause with:

Predator management practices must not eradicate any endangered or non-endangered species and must follow all extant international law.

Of course, GenSec may have a whole different interpretation of this, and their opinion is binding while mine is not, but that's my two cents.

The usual process is to precede the first operative clause with a clause along the lines of
"Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force"
or something along those lines. In your current draft, that would mean placing this after the first "Therefore" clause...

That's the exact wording we used in GAR #403: You have my permission to re-use it, but need Ransium's as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Area of Effect' ?
Last edited by Bears Armed on Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not 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.

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:26 am

Bears Armed wrote:
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:OOC: Using my non-mod puppet to emphasize this is player opinion only and totally non-binding.


To figure this out, ask yourself this question: What happens if GAR#267 and GAR#66 are repealed?

Your clause as written states:
The World Assembly recognizes the legality of GA Resolution #267 Sensible Limits on Hunting, and also GA Resolution #66 Endangered Species Protection. As to not violate these bills, no predator management may eradicate an endangered or, non-endangered species and follow all other regulations listed in the aforementioned bills.

If those resolutions are repealed, your clause would be recognizing the legality of two resolutions that no longer exist. It makes no sense to "recognize the legality" of laws that have been repealed, because they are no longer legally in force. Thus, that clause is rendered inoperative, which according to GenSec's recent interpretation of the HoC rule would make this a House of Cards violation.

To fix this, you can take out the entire clause, since it does nothing unless the two resolutions are both repealed, or you can try rewording it so that you aren't "recognizing the legality" of laws that might be repealed. You might be able to get away with phrasing like "in accordance with GAR#xxx" or something like that, if you really want to keep the prohibition. I think that what would work best would be to work in some reference the existing regulations in the preamble, and replace this problematic clause with:

Predator management practices must not eradicate any endangered or non-endangered species and must follow all extant international law.

Of course, GenSec may have a whole different interpretation of this, and their opinion is binding while mine is not, but that's my two cents.

The usual process is to precede the first operative clause with a clause along the lines of
"Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force"
or something along those lines. In your current draft, that would mean placing this after the first "Therefore" clause...

That's the exact wording we used in GAR #403: You have my permission to re-use it, but need Ransium's as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Area of Effect' ?

I just telegraphed Ransium. Area of affect is management
Last edited by The Inland Emprie on Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5212
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:29 am

The Inland Emprie wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:The usual process is to precede the first operative clause with a clause along the lines of
"Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force"
or something along those lines. In your current draft, that would mean placing this after the first "Therefore" clause...

That's the exact wording we used in GAR #403: You have my permission to re-use it, but need Ransium's as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Area of Effect' ?

I just telegraphed Ransium. Area of affect is Enviromental.
(OOC: The AoE is like a sub-category that goes inside the category. Environmental is not an AoE, it is a category.)
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
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:48 am

The Inland Emprie wrote:Predator Management Act
Category: Environmental

Whereas,
The World Assembly Recognizes the ability of all nations to manage what they may deem as Predators,

Whereas
The World Assembly also recognizes that the safety of the citizens and their property is important to the World Assembly,

Whereas,
Many nations have unique climates and unique creatures,

Therefore,
The World Assembley recognizes carnivorous animals that may harm human property or safety, excluding pets, as predators

Whereas,
Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force,

Whereas,
For the purposes of this resolution, the World Assembly allows all predator management techniques deemed universally humane,

Whereas,
Humane in this document is to mean: Not creating additional or unneeded pain to the predators to be deterred or removed,

Whereas,
No hunting of predators may eradicate a endangered or non-endangered predator,

Therefore,
The World Assembly makes it mandatory that all nations must manage all predatory animals as listed by the World Assembly if they pose a significant threat to citizen safety or property with the management techniques listed above,

So, I did get permission for my one clause that was edited, and this document will be up until early tomorrow morning, when I submit it. thank you to all who fine-tuned this bill and made it what it was. It was a pleasure working with all of you.

User avatar
New-Brussels
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby New-Brussels » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:08 am

OOC : If this passes, and I hope it will, I will claim the 13% of your resolution that I wrote as a tiny little pixel art icon depicting a shield and a paw that I will also gracefully offer to you. Sounds fair right :p (so by all means use that wording)
From the Rafterian Partenariat Department of Legislation,
His Holiness Todd Rafter, President of Honor

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6159
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ransium » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:15 am

I have given the author permission to use those specific words from “Trade of Endangered Species” in this specific resolution.

However, I would also like to emphasize to the author that WA authorship is a marathon not a sprint, and I do not think it should be submitted tomorrow or anytime soon. I will not be voting for it if it makes it to vote and I am the delegate of the largest environmentally based region in the game. “Trade of Endagered Species” was drafted for months. Finally, as Bears tried to tell you, you need an area of impact from the few categories available, of which “management” is not one.
Last edited by Ransium on Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Imperial Polk County
Envoy
 
Posts: 317
Founded: Aug 22, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Imperial Polk County » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:19 am

The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas

Drane sighs. "Whereas there are seven 'whereases', therefore I am opposed. There's no need for such legislation to sound so pretentious."
-- Herbert Jackson Drane IV, WA Ambassador of the newly independent Imperial Polk County, Population 665,000. That "xxx million" population stat? It's most certainly a typo.

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:19 pm

New-Brussels wrote:OOC : If this passes, and I hope it will, I will claim the 13% of your resolution that I wrote as a tiny little pixel art icon depicting a shield and a paw that I will also gracefully offer to you. Sounds fair right :p (so by all means use that wording)

That is fine, please send me the cool claw thing!

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:20 pm

Ransium wrote:I have given the author permission to use those specific words from “Trade of Endangered Species” in this specific resolution.

However, I would also like to emphasize to the author that WA authorship is a marathon not a sprint, and I do not think it should be submitted tomorrow or anytime soon. I will not be voting for it if it makes it to vote and I am the delegate of the largest environmentally based region in the game. “Trade of Endagered Species” was drafted for months. Finally, as Bears tried to tell you, you need an area of impact from the few categories available, of which “management” is not one.

Ok, I will probably still take a stab at it. I will replace the AOE. Do you have any specific concerns?

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:23 pm

DOES ANYONEONE HAVE AN IDEA FOR AN AOE? PLEASE TELL ME!

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:24 pm

Imperial Polk County wrote:
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas
The Inland Emprie wrote:Whereas

Drane sighs. "Whereas there are seven 'whereases', therefore I am opposed. There's no need for such legislation to sound so pretentious."

lol. Gonna keep It cause it sound all nice and official-like

User avatar
Burninati0n
Envoy
 
Posts: 278
Founded: Oct 15, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Burninati0n » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:25 pm

The Inland Emprie wrote:Ok, I will probably still take a stab at it. I will replace the AOE. Do you have any specific concerns?

As I noted, resolutions limiting hunting should have a clause protecting first nations / indigenous peoples who might rely on hunting to survive.

It should also be noted that the thrust of the resolution is "not creating additional or unneeded pain," which is quite a vague operative clause.

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:30 pm

Burninati0n wrote:
The Inland Emprie wrote:Ok, I will probably still take a stab at it. I will replace the AOE. Do you have any specific concerns?

As I noted, resolutions limiting hunting should have a clause protecting first nations / indigenous peoples who might rely on hunting to survive.

It should also be noted that the thrust of the resolution is "not creating additional or unneeded pain," which is quite a vague operative clause.

Will address. Thank you for participating in the crating of this bill.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 352
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:59 pm

The Inland Emprie wrote:DOES ANYONEONE HAVE AN IDEA FOR AN AOE? PLEASE TELL ME!


If you are staying with Environmental as the Category, an argument could be made for 'Agriculture', as it has to do with the handling of animals (albeit wild ones) and the property most often affected by predators is lifestock.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:05 pm

The New Nordic Union wrote:
The Inland Emprie wrote:DOES ANYONEONE HAVE AN IDEA FOR AN AOE? PLEASE TELL ME!


If you are staying with Environmental as the Category, an argument could be made for 'Agriculture', as it has to do with the handling of animals (albeit wild ones) and the property most often affected by predators is lifestock.

I'll run with that
thanks
(I like your bee bill, but to grow crops nowadays insecticides are needed

User avatar
The First German Order
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Dec 08, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The First German Order » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:49 pm

“I believe that it should say ‘the property and safety of sapient creatures’ instead of ‘human property or safety’ as not all nations in the WA are human nations.”
”Nuclear strikes do not damage the phone network. The atom respects your right to a final call.” - Dumb Ideologies

User avatar
New Mushroom Kingdom
Minister
 
Posts: 3451
Founded: Jul 16, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby New Mushroom Kingdom » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:23 pm

The First German Order wrote:“I believe that it should say ‘the property and safety of sapient creatures’ instead of ‘human property or safety’ as not all nations in the WA are human nations.”

(OOC: this, and somehow have a definition that doesn't make sapients threatening other sapients into predators)
NationStates Belongs to All, Gameplay, Roleplay, and Nonplay Alike
Every NationStates Community Member, from Raider Kings to Brony Queens Make Us Awesome.

Embassy Request Thread NS section of my wiki-thing Questions?
DEFCON 5. Never forget Z-Day. 1/4/13. 'Corporate Police State' fits just as well as the actual WA category.
There are no magic mushrooms in this nation. Seriously.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5212
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:32 pm

"I would put a line break in between the AoE and the start of the proposal for clarity."
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
The Inland Emprie
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Apr 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby The Inland Emprie » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:22 am

Kenmoria wrote:"I would put a line break in between the AoE and the start of the proposal for clarity."

Thank You

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5094
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:51 am

Ransium, yesterday wrote:I do not think it should be submitted tomorrow

And guess what's just happened?

21 minutes ago: The Federal Republic of The Inland Emprie submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Environmental Board entitled "Predator Management Act".

* Mayor: Saffron Howard (UCP; libertarian)
* Foreign Minister: Ryan Terrence (TLP)
* WA Delegate-Ambassador: Alexander Smith (NatSov)
* WA Assistant: Bianca Venkman (IntFed)
* Nat'l Football Team Manager: Harta-Yunal Den (QUS)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (trigram TIN, pop. 319,372) — OOC: Who is she, really?
Author: SC#250, SC#251, SC#267
Football: Cup of Harmony 73 Champions - KPB rank 37th (18.05pts), UICA rank 59th (6pts)

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5212
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:47 am

Tinhampton wrote:
Ransium, yesterday wrote:I do not think it should be submitted tomorrow

And guess what's just happened?

21 minutes ago: The Federal Republic of The Inland Emprie submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Environmental Board entitled "Predator Management Act".

In that case, The Inland Empire, that is a much too short drafting period. Any proposal should be treated as a marathon and not a sprint.
Last edited by Kenmoria on Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kaschovia

Advertisement

Remove ads