[DRAFT] Improving rehabilitation of prisoners

[Araraukar]

OOC: Someone wanted that change and let that someone suggest the change. I saw no problem with initial form

OOC: That's not how this works. YOU are the author, so it's up to YOU to fix the errors. Our "job" is just to point out the issues to you. This unwillingness/laziness to make necessary changes is what I meant with "pigheadedness", and it's not a good quality if your intent is to write up a good resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Someone wanted that change and let that someone suggest the change. I saw no problem with initial form

OOC: That's not how this works. YOU are the author, so it's up to YOU to fix the errors. Our "job" is just to point out the issues to you. This unwillingness/laziness to make necessary changes is what I meant with "pigheadedness", and it's not a good quality if your intent is to write up a good resolution.

Ooc: soliciting better wording for a difficult section is reasonable. Refusing to make the change when you dont think it's necessary is also fair. If you disagree with the proposed edit, why put in the work yourself?

[Widowed Land]

OOC: This is the most unnecessary thing to fight over. Someone said that clause needs new wording, I think it is okay as it is. I just asked how would that person like to put the clause for me to consider about it. So far I did the most job about the proposal, although I acknowledge others part in it(and am thankful). Holding onto my thoughts isn't pigheadedness. So far from my perspective who is the pigheaded?

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: ok, I honestly don’t see an issue with asking for suggestions on how to word something. If somebody takes issue with a clause, I don’t find it unreasonable for the author to ask how they would put it. The whole idea of posting drafts here is so all interested parties can hammer the draft into something good and/or acceptable.

Don’t make me put all y’all in time out. I’m a grandpa, I can do that.

[East Meranopirus]

OOC: This is the most unnecessary thing to fight over. Someone said that clause needs new wording, I think it is okay as it is. I just asked how would that person like to put the clause for me to consider about it. So far I did the most job about the proposal, although I acknowledge others part in it(and am thankful). Holding onto my thoughts isn't pigheadedness. So far from my perspective who is the pigheaded?

Jesus, Maowi said it was a joke and he even told you how to do it - use "prisoners" if it affects everyone and "convicted prisoners" if it only affects them.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: That currently isn’t reflected in the proposal. Although what you say does make sense, the legislative text only says that all prisoners must be offered practical subjects, regardless of whether they are convicted.)

OOC: Suggest how should I put that

(OOC: Use ‘convicted prisoners’, or similar wording, where you only want it to apply after the trial, and use ‘prisoners’, or similar wording, where you want it to apply to all incarcerated persons.)

[The Nox]

“We are working with the author to further limit the scope of this proposal, so please be patient before addressing the minutia of this draft.”

[The First German Order]

OOC: Just here to remind the author that it is not at all a good idea to insult other members of the WA. That’s just asking for disaster and a loss of support.

[Widowed Land]

OOC: The Nox is the official co-author of the draft and presented me new form.

[Marxist Germany]

"We announce our support for the new draft."

[Kenmoria]

“I announce my support for this new draft. It has been far improved, and doesn’t cross into micromanagement. Hopefully, this will re-reach the delegate quorum, and this piece of legislation does have a chance of passing.”

[Maowi]

OOC:

1. Mandates that prison infrastructure and safety system in penitentiary establishments must be improved by implementing the following requirements:

I still don't like the use of the word 'improved'. Nations with excellent prison systems may have other, more pressing concerns to attend to. If you could just replace 'be improved...' with something like 'meet the following requirements' I'd be happier with it. However ...

(a) Ensure that prisoners are living free of unsafe conditions and are afforded the basic needs to live; for example, clean water, adequate food and shelter, and necessary physical and mental health care;
(b) Ensure that prisons do not exceed 100% capacity.

... I feel like these are just duplicating 'Treatment of Inmates'. Even part (b), which could easily be evaded by just arbitrarily setting a high capacity for each prison regardless of the space afforded to each prisoner, seems redundant to me. Treatment of Inmates guarantees prisoners 'sufficient and appropriate living space' already.

However, this is a really good improvement from before. Depending on how the above is fixed, or whether you somehow manage to persuade me the changes aren't needed, I'll give my support.

[The Nox]

I still don't like the use of the word 'improved'. Nations with excellent prison systems may have other, more pressing concerns to attend to. If you could just replace 'be improved...' with something like 'meet the following requirements' I'd be happier with it.

OOC: Aw, come on, make these comments IC!

IC: “I know that some may have an issue with the use of the word ‘improved’ but we must disagree with the basic premise of such beliefs. The moment we accept that something can no longer be improved, we are doomed to mediocrity. It is imperative to strive for continuous improvement, to maintain an ongoing effort to make things better.”

I feel like these are just duplicating 'Treatment of Inmates'. Even part (b), which could easily be evaded by just arbitrarily setting a high capacity for each prison regardless of the space afforded to each prisoner, seems redundant to me. Treatment of Inmates guarantees prisoners 'sufficient and appropriate living space' already.

OOC: There may be some minor overlap here, yes. GAR#194, however, makes no mention of providing physical and mental care. I don’t know if the remainder of the clause rises to the level of illegal duplication. We can ask for a ruling... or maybe the author would be willing to trim the clause to include only the “physical and mental health care” mandate. As for (b), it’s debatable whether this is adequately addressed in GAR#194. I’d be interested to hear what others think. ICly, of course.

[Maowi]

OOC: By the way, I'm confused ... is this a Wrapper puppet??

I still don't like the use of the word 'improved'. Nations with excellent prison systems may have other, more pressing concerns to attend to. If you could just replace 'be improved...' with something like 'meet the following requirements' I'd be happier with it.

OOC: Aw, come on, make these comments IC!

OK Here goes:

IC: “I know that some may have an issue with the use of the word ‘improved’ but we must disagree with the basic premise of such beliefs. The moment we accept that something can no longer be improved, we are doomed to mediocrity. It is imperative to strive for continuous improvement, to maintain an ongoing effort to make things better.”

'Ambassador, I agree with your point to a certain extent, but that's beside the point. By asking member nations to improve their prison systems by ensuring that certain requirements are met, you assume that those requirements are not already in place in that nation - which in many cases, such as Maowi's, is untrue. I concede that it is a minor detail, but I must admit it makes me ... dissatisfied.'

I feel like these are just duplicating 'Treatment of Inmates'. Even part (b), which could easily be evaded by just arbitrarily setting a high capacity for each prison regardless of the space afforded to each prisoner, seems redundant to me. Treatment of Inmates guarantees prisoners 'sufficient and appropriate living space' already.

OOC: There may be some minor overlap here, yes. GAR#194, however, makes no mention of providing physical and mental care. I don’t know if the remainder of the clause rises to the level of illegal duplication. We can ask for a ruling... or maybe the author would be willing to trim the clause to include only the “physical and mental health care” mandate. As for (b), it’s debatable whether this is adequately addressed in GAR#194. I’d be interested to hear what others think. ICly, of course.

'Regarding part (a) of clause 1, I'd be happier if the clause were trimmed down of duplicative content. With part (b) - well, maybe you could make a case for it not being sufficiently covered in GAR#194, but if that's something you intend to fix I would say it needs to be less open to so-called 'creative compliance' loopholes.'

[Kenmoria]

“I notice that you have a misspelling in your first preambulatory clause concerning the first word, which should be two instead.”

OOC: By the way, I'm confused ... is this a Wrapper puppet??

(OOC: Yes.)

[Maowi]

OOC: By the way, I'm confused ... is this a Wrapper puppet??

(OOC: Yes.)

OOC: Thanks, I'm a little slow on the uptake

[The Nox]

OOC: By the way, I'm confused ... is this a Wrapper puppet??

(OOC: Yes.)

OOC: Confirmed. I mean, it’s not like I’ve had that many WA puppets, only... seven?

'Ambassador, I agree with your point to a certain extent, but that's beside the point. By asking member nations to improve their prison systems by ensuring that certain requirements are met, you assume that those requirements are not already in place in that nation - which in many cases, such as Maowi's, is untrue. I concede that it is a minor detail, but I must admit it makes me ... dissatisfied.'

“I understand your concern. Perhaps the primary author would be willing to reword this clause, as well as other potentially problematic ones like 1(a) and (b).”

[Widowed Land]

"Chief Delegate of Widowed Land to WA agrees to leave only "physical and health care" in the subclause to avoid duplicating already implemented resolution, but also disagrees that wording of the first clause should be changed. "Improved by implementing following requirements", word improved is directly linked to the requirements, which if is satisfied, has no effect on the nation."