NationStates

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Old Hope wrote:I am planning to submit this soon. Any constructive criticism is welcome(constructive= giving reasons; not constructive= "This is bad" without backing it up).

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Ambassador, this would read a lot less nastily if you changed 'phobia' to something like 'post-traumatic response.' As is it sounds like you're trying to legitimize bigotry."

Thanks for the help.
Is this better?

I expanded the clause below, too, with a clarification and an addition...
What do you all have to say about that?

Old Hope wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:Ok. Constructive criticism:

A) This proposal is very short.
B) Clause 2 and Clause 4 say pretty much the exact same thing, making a very short proposal even shorter.
C) Clause 3a and 3b's first letter is not capitalized.
D) The first word is usually all caps("DECLARING", "DISGUSTED", "REPEALS")
E) "The World Assembly" should be put right before the "REPEALS" clause
F) The proposal makes no clear compelling argument for a repeal, so much so that is legally dubious(it will probably be upheld as legal, but as a regional delegate, I would probably not support it for this reason especially.)

Happy now?

A) Yes, but why is that a problem?
B) Not really, without 2 clause 4 looks very weak.
C) I wouldn't capitalize that usually but I'll think about it.
D) No. Some passed resolutions have them in all caps, but other's don't. Including the majority of recent resolutions.
E) Yes, this is correct. Moved.
F)

Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,

Yes, I know that there was an argument about that not being true. But if you follow all passed resolutions in good faith that argument should not hold - while you could theoretically follow the principle "harms the patient" you cannot do it practically because you have to back that up with something else than gender and sexuality which is... not possible without first exposing the person to the patient and getting a negative reaction. After all, a qualifying condition is anything that is used to determine the primary qualifying condition. But... you gave me another possible reason for repealing this, this time about sexuality.

Response:

A) There are many reasons to repeal GAR #457, enough to multiply the size of your proposal.
B) You can just remove Clause 4. As I said above, there are a ton of issues with GAR #457, so being redundant isn't necessary.
C) It's just basic grammatical rules
D) That's personal preference, but I encourage you to reconsider.
E) It's still wrong. It should be "The World Assembly", enter, then the repeals clause.
F) That is something that can be easily covered in a new proposal, therefore weakening your argument. The last repeal effort failed by big margins because crucial opponents of the original attacked it because of its reasoning. As it stands, I will not approve this repeal, and I highly doubt it will reach quorum.

Hatzisland wrote:

Old Hope wrote:
Happy now?

A) Yes, but why is that a problem?
B) Not really, without 2 clause 4 looks very weak.
C) I wouldn't capitalize that usually but I'll think about it.
D) No. Some passed resolutions have them in all caps, but other's don't. Including the majority of recent resolutions.
E) Yes, this is correct. Moved.
F)

Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,

Yes, I know that there was an argument about that not being true. But if you follow all passed resolutions in good faith that argument should not hold - while you could theoretically follow the principle "harms the patient" you cannot do it practically because you have to back that up with something else than gender and sexuality which is... not possible without first exposing the person to the patient and getting a negative reaction. After all, a qualifying condition is anything that is used to determine the primary qualifying condition. But... you gave me another possible reason for repealing this, this time about sexuality.

Response:

A) There are many reasons to repeal GAR #457, enough to multiply the size of your proposal.
B) You can just remove Clause 4. As I said above, there are a ton of issues with GAR #457, so being redundant isn't necessary.
C) It's just basic grammatical rules
D) That's personal preference, but I encourage you to reconsider.
E) It's still wrong. It should be "The World Assembly", enter, then the repeals clause.
F) That is something that can be easily covered in a new proposal, therefore weakening your argument. The last repeal effort failed by big margins because crucial opponents of the original attacked it because of its reasoning. As it stands, I will not approve this repeal, and I highly doubt it will reach quorum.[/quote]
A)There are? Yes, but are they valid reasons? Not every reason will help the proposal. It would be very helpful if you provide some examples.
B) I will reserve judgement on that until I see the "ton of issues" you are talking about - because I am not seeing them.
C) It has already been changed.
E)I don't think that's necessary. It's just one clause; they can be merged.
F) Can you elaborate this a bit further? I can't see how it would be easily covered in a new proposal!

“I recognise that there are issues with this that go beyond the formatting, namely your lack of good reasons for a repeal; if you only have one reason, which is not a bad thing by itself, it should be an extremely strong one. However, the formatting of this doesn’t look very nice. I suggest putting line breaks between each clause and making your list a proper one.”

OOC:I plan to submit this soon.

Old Hope wrote:OOC:I plan to submit this soon.

OOC: By the way, I've realised now that what I was saying about this proposal before does not constitute an Honest Mistake, although it still does make your argument entirely redundant.

Old Hope wrote:OOC:I plan to submit this soon.

(OOC: Are you planning to change the proposal before you do that? There are some issues that are yet to be addressed.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Old Hope wrote:OOC:I plan to submit this soon.

(OOC: Are you planning to change the proposal before you do that? There are some issues that are yet to be addressed.)

People have been talking about other reasons for repeal, but they did not say which, or the reasons were bad.
The formatting has been fixed, I hope, and I remain unconvinced that the arguments aren't strong enough. We have CoCR as fallback position, and the resolution cannot be fixed without repeal(that was the main argument against the last repeal attempt). The arguments would convince us. The counterarguments are very weak.