NationStates

Araraukar wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 now has an inordinately long time period in its clauses, since ‘fully decaying’ would take centuries for humans."

OOC: Unbalmed (embalming is a USA oddity, which, agreed, makes bodies turn into soap mummies rather than decompose naturally), about 10 years max in most drained soils available in Finland. The remains of the wooden casket can last longer, but only "remains", as the casket is crushed during and shortly after the burial. I've got a little cousin who's funeral home owner in USA, and have spoken with Finnish undertakers about our local conditions.

(OOC: The problem is the word ‘fully’, since it implies that every individual element of the body, such as bones and any remains whatsoever, must be destroyed.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The problem is the word ‘fully’, since it implies that every individual element of the body, such as bones and any remains whatsoever, must be destroyed.)

OOC: Like I said, "Unbalmed, about 10 years max in most drained soils available in Finland." I know it sounds weird, given how fossils are a thing that exists, but almost invariably they've been fossilized either in dry places (which a body buried in most places of the world will not be), very cold places (talking about permafrost - freezing and thawing actually makes the decay faster), or places without any oxygen (which non-waterlogged soil is not). Anywhere else you'll struggle to even find teeth or fragments of them after 20 years.

Also, an alternative reading of "fully decayed" is "decayed as far as it's going to decay". So if the bones aren't going to decay, no matter how long you wait, then even if you have a skeleton left, the body has been fully decayed.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: embalming is a USA oddity

OOC: originally due to the American Civil War, I think that I read somewhere. The rail network made shipping many of the the bodies back to their home towns for burial possible, unlike the situation in earlier wars and the wars that other nations fought overseas (or in rival nations whose rail networks [if any] didn't connect effectively to their own ones) , but the distances sometimes involved meant that it was advisable to "preserve" them in some way before loading them onto the trains... and there were enough bodies involved for the practice to become widely accepted.

OOC:Support

Thanks for the help. I am going to add "unembalmed" to the clause and replace "fully" to "to the fullest possible extent".

Is this ready for submission?

(OOC: I caution against using superscript code in your first line. Because of how the letters are placed, it makes the spacing look strange, and having superscript generally is discouraged by most style guides.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I caution against using superscript code in your first line. Because of how the letters are placed, it makes the spacing look strange, and having superscript generally is discouraged by most style guides.)

I will remove it.

OOC: 1.d.ii still makes it impossible to alter the gravestone to add names of familymembers buried later in the same burial plot.

Erithaca wrote:"molestation of a grave" as:

1. opening of the grave unless formerly previously permitted by the now deceased,
2. destruction or damage to a grave's markers unless previously permitted by the now deceased,

'Formerly' is superfluous here.

Designates the will as the supreme authority on how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.

Maybe you could try and use the exact wording that you used in the definitions? For example, 'Mandates that all burial requests, except unreasonable burial requests, contained in the will shall be carried out.'

Maowi wrote:

Erithaca wrote:"molestation of a grave" as:

1. opening of the grave unless formerly previously permitted by the now deceased,
2. destruction or damage to a grave's markers unless previously permitted by the now deceased,

'Formerly' is superfluous here.

Designates the will as the supreme authority on how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.

Maybe you could try and use the exact wording that you used in the definitions? For example, 'Mandates that all burial requests, except unreasonable burial requests, contained in the will shall be carried out.'

I have changed it accordingly.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: 1.d.ii still makes it impossible to alter the gravestone to add names of familymembers buried later in the same burial plot.

Does "damage" refer to this"?

Fecaw wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: 1.d.ii still makes it impossible to alter the gravestone to add names of familymembers buried later in the same burial plot.

Does "damage" refer to this"?

OOC: Well you can't carve letters and numbers into a stone without damaging the stone. Carving is controlled damage but damage nonetheless.

Also, clause 5 currently negates most of the rest of the protections, as long as you do the damages in the name of religion. Becomes problematic especially if the religion is one the deceased could not have known about, like one that only started after their death.

Araraukar wrote:

Fecaw wrote:Does "damage" refer to this"?

OOC: Well you can't carve letters and numbers into a stone without damaging the stone. Carving is controlled damage but damage nonetheless.

Also, clause 5 currently negates most of the rest of the protections, as long as you do the damages in the name of religion. Becomes problematic especially if the religion is one the deceased could not have known about, like one that only started after their death.

I'm going to change clause 5 to an opt-in system instead of an opt-out one. Would it be best to change "damage" to "controlled damage"?

Fecaw wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Well you can't carve letters and numbers into a stone without damaging the stone. Carving is controlled damage but damage nonetheless.

Also, clause 5 currently negates most of the rest of the protections, as long as you do the damages in the name of religion. Becomes problematic especially if the religion is one the deceased could not have known about, like one that only started after their death.

I'm going to change clause 5 to an opt-in system instead of an opt-out one. Would it be best to change "damage" to "controlled damage"?

(OOC: Changing “damage” to ‘controlled damage’ would mean that you are only criminalising activities such as remarking a headstone. I suggest something along the lines of ‘damage not serving a legitimate purpose, that the deceased could not reasonably object to’.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Changing “damage” to ‘controlled damage’ would mean that you are only criminalising activities such as remarking a headstone. I suggest something along the lines of ‘damage not serving a legitimate purpose, that the deceased could not reasonably object to’.)

OOC: Except without comma (or using "which" instead of "that") so that it doesn't refer to the damage instead of the purpose, and "would" instead of "could". Because you could object to a whole lot more stuff - reasonably or otherwise - than you actually would.

Kenmoria wrote:

Fecaw wrote:I'm going to change clause 5 to an opt-in system instead of an opt-out one. Would it be best to change "damage" to "controlled damage"?

(OOC: Changing “damage” to ‘controlled damage’ would mean that you are only criminalising activities such as remarking a headstone. I suggest something along the lines of ‘damage not serving a legitimate purpose, that the deceased could not reasonably object to’.)

I will do this without the comma like ara said.

“For clause 5, I suggest adding ‘at the time of their death’ or something similar. Somebody could have explicitly asked for a given treatment when they were a child, then changed their mind in adulthood, but would still be liable to receive it.”

Kenmoria wrote:“For clause 5, I suggest adding ‘at the time of their death’ or something similar. Somebody could have explicitly asked for a given treatment when they were a child, then changed their mind in adulthood, but would still be liable to receive it.”

I have done something similar. The proposal will be submitted in 1 or 2 days, maybe today, when I can find a good list of delegates to send telegrams to.

OOC: Clause 5 seems to disagree with the rest of the proposal now. If you put in something like "unless a compelling reason [in whatever clause they were listed] prevents that", it'd fix the issue of being able to do and demand any of the things mentioned up to then, simply because it was necessary for some religious or cultural practice.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Clause 5 seems to disagree with the rest of the proposal now. If you put in something like "unless a compelling reason [in whatever clause they were listed] prevents that", it'd fix the issue of being able to do and demand any of the things mentioned up to then, simply because it was necessary for some religious or cultural practice.

Done. Are there any more issues before I submit?

Fecaw wrote:Done. Are there any more issues before I submit?

OOC:

This august The General Assembly,

Having already guaranteed provisions for the deceased in wartime in its one hundred and thirty sixth resolution,

*snip*

Now in this present session assembled, by the approval of its many delegates and members, hereby: Hereby,

These.

Araraukar wrote:

Fecaw wrote:Done. Are there any more issues before I submit?

OOC:

This august The General Assembly,

Having already guaranteed provisions for the deceased in wartime in its one hundred and thirty sixth resolution,

*snip*

Now in this present session assembled, by the approval of its many delegates and members, hereby: Hereby,

These.

I like writing fancy sometimes.

OOC: Well you asked.

Erithaca wrote:[*]Mandates that all burial requests not considered to be unreasonable that are contained in the will shall be executed.

Considered to be unreasonable by whom? Maybe I'm just being stupid, but this didn't seem clear to me.
(I apologise profusely for not registering this comment before you submitted the proposal.)

Johanneslanden wrote:Considered to be unreasonable by whom? Maybe I'm just being stupid, but this didn't seem clear to me.

OOC: I think "by whatever authority might be involved". Like, you don't get to sprinkle someone's ashes in unsuspecting people's foods just because the deceased desperately wanted to be eaten. But sprinkling them in a river or one's own beloved garden would likely not be unreasonable.

Im a w.a delegate and would like to ask what about those who are cremated? Or other forms of burial practice. I understand they cannot be exhumed, but you should explain that in a clause.