NationStates

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.)

(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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

"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."

"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."

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Added!

"In clause 2.1, “spouse” should be “spouses” to cover for polygamy."

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?

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!

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.

“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.”