NationStates

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.

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

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To figure this out, ask yourself this question: What happens if GAR#267 and GAR#66 are repealed?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If those resolutions are repealed, your clause would be recognizing the legality of two resolutions that no longer exist. It makes no sense to "recognize the legality" of laws that have been repealed, because they are no longer legally in force.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To fix this, you can take out the entire clause, since it does nothing unless the two resolutions are both repealed, or you can try rewording it so that you aren't "recognizing the legality" of laws that might be repealed.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 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.

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' ?

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

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.)

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.

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 (so by all means use that wording)

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.

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."

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 (so by all means use that wording)

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.”

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)

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

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

Thank You

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".

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.