NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Treatment of the Deceased

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Zone 71
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Zone 71 » Sun May 13, 2018 4:57 am

New Keam wrote:"Treatment of the Deceased has gone for a vote and failed to pass. I believe that it is time for the WA to move on from this issue, and come back to it once some time passes. That will give time for both the makeup of the WA, which is always shifting, to change and time for people to forget that this legislation failed once. It will also give time for new proposal, that is different from the old".


To my knowledge, the proposal failed to reach quorum, which does not necessarily suggest that it is disagreeable or would fail on the voting floor.

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Sun May 13, 2018 6:14 am

Zone 71 wrote:
New Keam wrote:"Treatment of the Deceased has gone for a vote and failed to pass. I believe that it is time for the WA to move on from this issue, and come back to it once some time passes. That will give time for both the makeup of the WA, which is always shifting, to change and time for people to forget that this legislation failed once. It will also give time for new proposal, that is different from the old".


To my knowledge, the proposal failed to reach quorum, which does not necessarily suggest that it is disagreeable or would fail on the voting floor.

Proposals can fail to reach quorum for a variety of reasons. One of these is unpopularity. The others are a lack of campaigning or inactive delegates. The legislation didn't really fail. I don't understand how I am disturbing the WA or suppressing other proposals.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun May 13, 2018 7:26 am

New Keam wrote:"Treatment of the Deceased has gone for a vote and failed to pass. I believe that it is time for the WA to move on from this issue, and come back to it once some time passes. That will give time for both the makeup of the WA, which is always shifting, to change and time for people to forget that this legislation failed once. It will also give time for new proposal, that is different from the old".

"I believe your delegation is mistaken, this proposal has not gone to vote; it has been submitted yet failed to hit quorum. However, I do agree with you, this is either the third or fourth time this has gone to vote, and it looks to fail again. Submitting this a next time could give us an example of voter fatigue, so I would recommend the Erithacan delegation to hold off submission for a while."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right 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 all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our 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
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Sun May 13, 2018 7:27 am

Kenmoria wrote:
New Keam wrote:"Treatment of the Deceased has gone for a vote and failed to pass. I believe that it is time for the WA to move on from this issue, and come back to it once some time passes. That will give time for both the makeup of the WA, which is always shifting, to change and time for people to forget that this legislation failed once. It will also give time for new proposal, that is different from the old".

"I believe your delegation is mistaken, this proposal has not gone to vote; it has been submitted yet failed to hit quorum. However, I do agree with you, this is either the third or fourth time this has gone to vote, and it looks to fail again. Submitting this a next time could give us an example of voter fatigue, so I would recommend the Erithacan delegation to hold off submission for a while."

I will put it on hold for about a month or two. What is your honest opinion on why it fails to reach quorum?
Last edited by Erithaca on Sun May 13, 2018 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun May 13, 2018 8:22 am

Erithaca wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"I believe your delegation is mistaken, this proposal has not gone to vote; it has been submitted yet failed to hit quorum. However, I do agree with you, this is either the third or fourth time this has gone to vote, and it looks to fail again. Submitting this a next time could give us an example of voter fatigue, so I would recommend the Erithacan delegation to hold off submission for a while."

I will put it on hold for about a month or two. What is your honest opinion on why it fails to reach quorum?

(OOC: Honestly, I'm not sure. I would have expected it to have reached quorum as I'm told you have campaigned. It could be because your proposal was submitted at a time when it was on the second page, that not all delegates check. However, the fact that it has failed three times suggests that maybe the resolution itself contains some disagreeable mandates. I'm not the expert on this though, I've never actually submitted a proposal.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right 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 all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our 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
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Sun May 13, 2018 8:59 am

(OOC: Honestly, I'm not sure. I would have expected it to have reached quorum as I'm told you have campaigned. It could be because your proposal was submitted at a time when it was on the second page, that not all delegates check.
I campaigned quite fiercely. Please note that, in the three submissions, it has always got more than 80 approvals. One time, it got 101.
However, the fact that it has failed three times suggests that maybe the resolution itself contains some disagreeable mandates. I'm not the expert on this though, I've never actually submitted a proposal

I respectfully disagree. Nearly every active delegate who I telegrammed approved. I only got one telegram back saying that they would disapprove. If you do think that there are disagreeable mandates, please tell me.

User avatar
Zone 71
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Zone 71 » Sun May 13, 2018 9:21 am

While I support the premise of the proposal, there are a few things that could be modified or removed. For example, I don't believe "family" needs to be defined. The definition of "mutiliation" too inspecific and vague. Clause 3 is exceptionally ambiguous and unclear. Clause 6, too, seems unclear, and I don't understand what you mean by it. I don't see the importance of clause 7, and "site" is misspelled. I believe you should explicitly allow governments to handle the remains of the deceased for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

User avatar
New Keam
Attaché
 
Posts: 71
Founded: Jul 01, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby New Keam » Mon May 14, 2018 5:11 pm

Erithaca wrote:.
However, the fact that it has failed three times suggests that maybe the resolution itself contains some disagreeable mandates. I'm not the expert on this though, I've never actually submitted a proposal

I respectfully disagree. Nearly every active delegate who I telegrammed approved. I only got one telegram back saying that they would disapprove. If you do think that there are disagreeable mandates, please tell me.


Are they agreeing to your face, and doing the other thing behind your back? That is very common, and it's happened to me a few times.
Last edited by New Keam on Mon May 14, 2018 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue May 15, 2018 12:08 pm

"I would move clause 9 to after clause 2, as the two clauses are very closely related."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right 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 all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our 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
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Tue May 15, 2018 1:24 pm

Zone 71 wrote:While I support the premise of the proposal, there are a few things that could be modified or removed. For example, I don't believe "family" needs to be defined. The definition of "mutiliation" too inspecific and vague. Clause 3 is exceptionally ambiguous and unclear. Clause 6, too, seems unclear, and I don't understand what you mean by it. I don't see the importance of clause 7, and "site" is misspelled. I believe you should explicitly allow governments to handle the remains of the deceased for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

Close family does need to be defined. It prevents obscure relatives from taking control of proceedings that they have no part in.

How could I expand on the definition of mutilation?

Clause 6 means that governments have to be alerted when a death occurs. This is the case in many IRL governments. Clause 3 is a common feature of WA proposals that allows governments to act further.

Site is not spelled wrong. "In situ" is a Latin term commonly used in English to show that something is in its original place. Clause 7 is important: remains can be stuck in extreme locations (12,500 feet under the Atlantic in the case of the Titanic). Mandating that rescue workers risk their lives to recover dead bodies is pointless.

2.c and d allow governments to deal with remains in criminal investigations and autopsies. Please read the draft before criticising it.

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Tue May 15, 2018 1:25 pm

Kenmoria wrote:"I would move clause 9 to after clause 2, as the two clauses are very closely related."

Done it. Thanks Kenmoria, King of Grammar!

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Tue May 15, 2018 1:27 pm

New Keam wrote:
Erithaca wrote:.

I respectfully disagree. Nearly every active delegate who I telegrammed approved. I only got one telegram back saying that they would disapprove. If you do think that there are disagreeable mandates, please tell me.


Are they agreeing to your face, and doing the other thing behind your back? That is very common, and it's happened to me a few times.

I don't think many of them were. On the activity tab, I can see who approves resolutions. Most of those who agree go on to approve.

User avatar
Zone 71
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Zone 71 » Tue May 15, 2018 1:35 pm

Erithaca wrote:
Zone 71 wrote:While I support the premise of the proposal, there are a few things that could be modified or removed. For example, I don't believe "family" needs to be defined. The definition of "mutiliation" too inspecific and vague. Clause 3 is exceptionally ambiguous and unclear. Clause 6, too, seems unclear, and I don't understand what you mean by it. I don't see the importance of clause 7, and "site" is misspelled. I believe you should explicitly allow governments to handle the remains of the deceased for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

Close family does need to be defined. It prevents obscure relatives from taking control of proceedings that they have no part in.

How could I expand on the definition of mutilation?

Clause 6 means that governments have to be alerted when a death occurs. This is the case in many IRL governments. Clause 3 is a common feature of WA proposals that allows governments to act further.

Site is not spelled wrong. "In situ" is a Latin term commonly used in English to show that something is in its original place. Clause 7 is important: remains can be stuck in extreme locations (12,500 feet under the Atlantic in the case of the Titanic). Mandating that rescue workers risk their lives to recover dead bodies is pointless.

2.c and d allow governments to deal with remains in criminal investigations and autopsies. Please read the draft before criticising it.

I have read the draft, and while, again, I support its premise, the current draft fails to properly communicate the issue it aims to address, and its mandates are extremely vague and ineffective because of their ambiguity and broad scope.

While I respect your decision to not take any of my suggestions, I would prefer if you at the very least considered my constructive criticism rather than respond with "for-your-information," defensive commentary, and backhanded remarks.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed May 16, 2018 8:32 am

"As clause 6 and clause 2 say that a nation's government can deny a burial requirest if the deceased's family cannot finance it, someone with no family could have any burial request denied, since presumably non-existent relatives cannot pay people."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right 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 all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our 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
Evil Dictators Happyland
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1186
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Wed May 16, 2018 8:37 am

"Nothing in this bill says anything about what laws nations should enact to protect the deceased, merely that they enforce existing ones and do their best to know who is dead. I would suggest that you fix this before some nations decide to dodge the bill by repealing all of their existing protections, so that they can say that they are enforcing all their protections of the deceased while not actually protecting anything, which would actually worsen the treatment of the dead."
This nation does NOT represent my actual political views.
"Aᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘᴏɪɴᴛ ɪɴ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʙᴜʟʟᴇᴛs ᴄᴀɴ ᴘᴀss ᴛʜʀᴏᴜɢʜ ᴛʜᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀᴅɪᴍᴇɴsɪᴏɴᴀʟ ᴡᴀʟʟs, ᴡʜᴇɴ ꜰɪʀᴇᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ ᴛᴀᴋᴇs ᴜᴘ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴛɪʀᴇᴛʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴇᴛᴇʀɴɪᴛʏ ᴏꜰ sᴘᴀᴄᴇ ᴀɴᴅ ᴛɪᴍᴇ, ᴀʟʟ ʙᴇɪɴɢ sᴛᴜᴄᴋ ɪɴ ᴀ ɴᴇᴠᴇʀᴇɴᴅɪɴɢ ʟɪꜰᴇ ᴀɴᴅ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴄʏᴄʟᴇ ᴀs ʙᴜʟʟᴇᴛs ʀᴇᴄᴏᴠᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴅᴇsᴛʀᴏʏ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ʙᴏᴅɪᴇs ɪɴ ǫᴜɪᴄᴋ sᴜᴄᴄᴇssɪᴏɴ, ɴᴏ ᴏɴᴇ ᴀʙʟᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴛʜɪɴᴋ ᴀʙᴏᴜᴛ ᴀɴʏᴛʜɪɴɢ ʙᴜᴛ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴇᴇʀ ꜰᴏʀᴄᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴜʟʟᴇᴛs ʀᴀᴘɪᴅʟʏ ꜰʟʏɪɴɢ ᴇᴠᴇʀʏᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ Mᴀᴛᴇʀɪᴜᴍ, ᴛᴜʀɴɪɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ Wᴀʀᴘ ɪᴛsᴇʟꜰ ɪɴᴛᴏ ɴᴏᴛʜɪɴɢ ʙᴜᴛ ᴀ sᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ sᴇᴍɪ-ᴀᴜᴛᴏᴍᴀᴛɪᴄ ᴡᴇᴀᴘᴏɴʀʏ, ᴛʜᴇɴ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ᴡɪʟʟ ʙᴇ ᴇɴᴏᴜɢʜ ᴅᴀᴋᴋᴀ. Oʀ ᴀᴛ ʟᴇᴀsᴛ... ᴀʟᴍᴏsᴛ."
-The Man-Emperor of Mankind

Most recent political compass results: -4.9, -6.09

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Wed May 16, 2018 10:21 am

Zone 71 wrote:
Erithaca wrote:Close family does need to be defined. It prevents obscure relatives from taking control of proceedings that they have no part in.

How could I expand on the definition of mutilation?

Clause 6 means that governments have to be alerted when a death occurs. This is the case in many IRL governments. Clause 3 is a common feature of WA proposals that allows governments to act further.

Site is not spelled wrong. "In situ" is a Latin term commonly used in English to show that something is in its original place. Clause 7 is important: remains can be stuck in extreme locations (12,500 feet under the Atlantic in the case of the Titanic). Mandating that rescue workers risk their lives to recover dead bodies is pointless.

2.c and d allow governments to deal with remains in criminal investigations and autopsies. Please read the draft before criticising it.

I have read the draft, and while, again, I support its premise, the current draft fails to properly communicate the issue it aims to address, and its mandates are extremely vague and ineffective because of their ambiguity and broad scope.

While I respect your decision to not take any of my suggestions, I would prefer if you at the very least considered my constructive criticism rather than respond with "for-your-information," defensive commentary, and backhanded remarks.


I apologise if I was too brusque.

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Wed May 16, 2018 10:23 am

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:"Nothing in this bill says anything about what laws nations should enact to protect the deceased, merely that they enforce existing ones and do their best to know who is dead. I would suggest that you fix this before some nations decide to dodge the bill by repealing all of their existing protections, so that they can say that they are enforcing all their protections of the deceased while not actually protecting anything, which would actually worsen the treatment of the dead."

I don't understand. If they repeal all their laws, won't this bill just replace them?

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Wed May 16, 2018 10:24 am

Kenmoria wrote:"As clause 6 and clause 2 say that a nation's government can deny a burial requirest if the deceased's family cannot finance it, someone with no family could have any burial request denied, since presumably non-existent relatives cannot pay people."

I have now added a phrase that deals with this.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed May 16, 2018 12:05 pm

"In clause 4, I would add, “than the allotted 65 year time frame” to the end of the sentence."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right 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 all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our 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
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Wed May 16, 2018 1:07 pm

Kenmoria wrote:"In clause 4, I would add, “than the allotted 65 year time frame” to the end of the sentence."

Added!

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu May 17, 2018 11:25 pm

"In clause 2.1, “spouse” should be “spouses” to cover for polygamy."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right 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 all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our 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
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17491
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat May 19, 2018 9:15 am

2.3. Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:

(b.) be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased, if they exist

OOC
1. What if the deceased themselves had set aside funds (or taken out insurance) for this purpose, maybe even made all of the necessary arrangements -- apart from, presumably, the date -- in advance?
2. Does this mean that it isn't considered "unreasonable for somebody without relevant relatives to request an expensive funeral and expect the relevant authorities to pay for it instead?
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.

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Sat May 19, 2018 9:17 am

Bears Armed wrote:
2.3. Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:

(b.) be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased, if they exist

OOC
1. What if the deceased themselves had set aside funds (or taken out insurance) for this purpose, maybe even made all of the necessary arrangements -- apart from, presumably, the date -- in advance?
2. Does this mean that it isn't considered "unreasonable for somebody without relevant relatives to request an expensive funeral and expect the relevant authorities to pay for it instead?


1. I will make this possible.

2. The government are not expected to pay for it. There is an error in the wording. Thanks for the help!

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Erithaca » Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:00 am

This draft has been left for me for quite a while. I plan on submitting soon, so please leave any comments that you have here soon.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:34 pm

“Although I don’t see the need for tombs aged 70, 75 or even 80 years old not to be protected from mutilation, that is a concern that can be addressed through national legislation. Full support in the event of submission.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right 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 all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our 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: Separatist Peoples

Advertisement

Remove ads