How to Improve My Proposal

[Abdilonna]

I don't think that my proposal is "clear" enough to be brought to the WA. Is it posssible that any of you can improve it to make it legal and clear?

Summary
A proposal to ban all alcoholic drinks where a majority (50% or more) of the can contains alcohol. This will only affect drinks where a high amount of alcohol is used to create the product.

Affects
This will affect everyone positively, and will decrease the number of drunk people on the streets, therefore reducing crime. Other affects on healthcare include:

*A reduced chance of heart attacks and other heart problems as a result of the overconsumption of alcohol.
*A greater understanding of drinking responsibility.
*A significantly reduced chance of organ damage, which can become fatal over time, especially to the liver.
*A reduced chance of being diagnosed with cancer.
*Catching illnesses (e.g the common cold) less frequently, overall improving the quality of life.
* A significantly reduced chance of unintentional accidents/injuries occurring.
*Greater focus and better eyesight, improving the quality of work.

If this legislation passes, the law will affect:
*Pubs
*Wineries
*Shops that sell alcoholic drinks
*The variety of drinks served in restaraunts and parties.

[East Meranopirus]

I'm going to tell you first to spare you the waste of time and energy, and I'm sure others will agree with me.

No way this proposal, in any shape or form, will get passed. Managing alcohol content is a national issue, not a world issue.

Read up on WA procedures and rules, and look at passed resolutions to see how they work.

[Wrapper]

One, you should draft it here on the forum before submitting it. Two, GenSec has already ruled it illegal:

29 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Category incorrect ('Health: Healthcare' increases government spending on improving Health: This should be 'Moral Decency', instead); Proposal Basics (Format; Proposals must be written as laws); No Operative Clause ("A proposal to" and "If this legislation passes" don't actually DO anything)... and if you mean that it's to ban drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume then you need to say so more clearly. (Anyway, how many such drinks are actually sold in cans rather than in bottles?) If you want to continue with this project then I suggest STRONGLY that you take it to the GA forum for re-drafting and feedback.

[Bears Armed]

One, you should draft it here on the forum before submitting it. Two, GenSec has already ruled it illegal:

29 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Category incorrect ('Health: Healthcare' increases government spending on improving Health: This should be 'Moral Decency', instead); Proposal Basics (Format; Proposals must be written as laws); No Operative Clause ("A proposal to" and "If this legislation passes" don't actually DO anything)... and if you mean that it's to ban drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume then you need to say so more clearly. (Anyway, how many such drinks are actually sold in cans rather than in bottles?) If you want to continue with this project then I suggest STRONGLY that you take it to the GA forum for re-drafting and feedback.

OOC
Yes, I marked it as illegal.. and, as can be seen in the ruling that you quote here, I told the author that if they wanted to continue then they should bring it here for re-drafting, which is what they have done.
I applaud the author for taking that advice, instead of just making a few changes to the proposal by themselves and then re-submitting it without any feedback: Not all would-be authors to whom such advice has been given have been as wise...

______________________________________________________________________________________

I don't think that my proposal is "clear" enough to be brought to the WA. Is it posssible that any of you can improve it to make it legal and clear?

It helps people to decide whether to look at the thread if you use your proposal's intended title, preceded at this stage by '[DRAFT]' or '[DRAFTING]', as its title.

The category, as I've already said, would be 'Moral Decency: The strength, as it targets only drinks with over 50% alcohol content -- which is likely to be a relatively small sub-set of the alcoholic beverages available, at least in most nations -- should probably be 'Mild'.

Successful proposals normally start with a 'preamble' that contains your arguments for why you think the subject should be covered by international action. The content's of your earlier draft's "Affects" section would be included here, without the actual heading "Affects" (which should have been "Effects", anyway), with its clauses probably starting with verbs with "-ing" endings.

Then, for the 'operative' section which explains what this actually does, start with "The World Assembly hereby," (or something similar) and follow this with clauses that begin with verbs such as "Requires" or [the milder] "Urges". The contents of your earlier "Summary" section would go here, without actual the heading "Summary". You need to ban the drinks (rather than just say that the proposal will ban them if it is passed), presumably by banning their production, distribution, and sale: You should specify that this applies "within all WA member nations" (to clarify that you aren't [illegally] trying to affect non-members as well). My suggested wording would be

Requires that all member nations ban the production, distribution and sale, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

Having said all of which, even if such a proposal does get declared legal it would -- as another poster has already advised you -- be extremely unlikely to pass...

[Araraukar]

Then, for the 'operative' section which explains what this actually does, start with "The World Assembly hereby,"

OOC: No, start the whole proposal with "The World Assembly", so that you have something doing all the verbs ending with -ing, and then you can just separate preamble from the active clauses with "Hereby".

Also, "This will only affect drinks where a high amount of alcohol is used to create the product." would actually make it apply to even fewer things than you might think, since you don't usually take pure alcohol and mix it into things to get a drink.

[Abdilonna]

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions! Using your help, I have made this draft:

(TITLE) Ban all drinks that contain a high volume of alcohol

The World Assembly hereby urges that a law be passed that requires all member nations to prohibit the production, distribution and sale, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume. This will benefit the overall wellbeing of all civilians living in WA member nations by:
• Reducing the chance of heart attacks and other heart problems resulting from the overconsumption of alcohol.
• Greatening the understanding of drinking responsibly.
• Significantly reducing the chance of potentially fatal organ damage, especially to the liver.
• Reducing the frequency of illnesses (e.g. the common cold) being spread.
• Significantly reducing the chance of unintentional accidents/injuries occurring.
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work.

The legislation will only affect bottled and canned drinks that over 50% alcohol by volume.

[Tinhampton]

Probably the best criticism in the world... that joke doesn't work any more now that Carlsberg's becoming a Danish Pilsner

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions! Using your help, I have made this draft:

(TITLE) Ban all drinks that contain a high volume of alcohol Couldn't you think of a shorter, snappier title?

The World Assembly hereby urges that a law be passed Isn't it supposed to actually pass the legislation first? As it stands, your proposal does nothing. that requires all member nations All WA resolutions to prohibit the production, distribution and sale Anything that is being sold is also being distributed. Superfluous., within their jurisdictions, of all drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume Very few drinks are above 50% ABV, but please correct me if I'm wrong. This will benefit the overall wellbeing of all civilians All of them? Even the teetotallers? living in WA member nations by:
• Reducing the chance of heart attacks and other heart problems resulting from the overconsumption of alcohol. Consider using commas... and did I mention that there are other ways of coding lists as well?
• Greatening the understanding of drinking responsibly. And how exactly will banning a minuscule niche of the alcohol market do this?
• Significantly Significantly? reducing the chance of potentially fatal organ damage, especially to the liver.
• Reducing the frequency of illnesses (e.g. the common cold) being spread.
• Significantly reducing the chance of unintentional accidents/injuries occurring.
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work. All of what you write in this bullet-point list are side-effects of generally drinking alcohol, but - as I clarified at its beginning - this resolution is too narrowly targetted to effectively tackle these problems.

The legislation will only affect bottled and canned drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

As it stands, your proposal is exceedingly poor and I can only be grateful that you have not submitted it yet. Keep on drafting it here - and if it proves deeply unpopular, then scrap it.

[Abdilonna]

Probably the best criticism in the world... that joke doesn't work any more now that Carlsberg's becoming a Danish Pilsner

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions! Using your help, I have made this draft:

(TITLE) Ban all drinks that contain a high volume of alcohol Couldn't you think of a shorter, snappier title?

The World Assembly hereby urges that a law be passed Isn't it supposed to actually pass the legislation first? As it stands, your proposal does nothing. that requires all member nations All WA resolutions to prohibit the production, distribution and sale Anything that is being sold is also being distributed. Superfluous., within their jurisdictions, of all drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume Very few drinks are above 50% ABV, but please correct me if I'm wrong. This will benefit the overall wellbeing of all civilians All of them? Even the teetotallers? living in WA member nations by:
• Reducing the chance of heart attacks and other heart problems resulting from the overconsumption of alcohol. Consider using commas... and did I mention that there are other ways of coding lists as well?
• Greatening the understanding of drinking responsibly. And how exactly will banning a minuscule niche of the alcohol market do this?
• Significantly Significantly? reducing the chance of potentially fatal organ damage, especially to the liver.
• Reducing the frequency of illnesses (e.g. the common cold) being spread.
• Significantly reducing the chance of unintentional accidents/injuries occurring.
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work. All of what you write in this bullet-point list are side-effects of generally drinking alcohol, but - as I clarified at its beginning - this resolution is too narrowly targetted to effectively tackle these problems.

The legislation will only affect bottled and canned drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

As it stands, your proposal is exceedingly poor and I can only be grateful that you have not submitted it yet. Keep on drafting it here - and if it proves deeply unpopular, then scrap it.

OK, thanks for the... criticism. Here's my proposal now:

(TITLE) Ban all beverages with high volumes of alcohol

This legislation will benefit and improve the overall wellbeing of all adult civilians living in WA member nations by:
• Significantly reducing the risks of being diagnosed with a disease or illness resulting from drinking beverages with a high volume of alcohol;
• Reducing the number of people becoming drunk; drinks with higher alcohol cause drunkenness quicker;
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work.

The World Assembly hereby urges that a law be passed that requires all WA resolutions to prohibit the production, distribution and sale, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

[Tinhampton]

Probably not the best criticism in the world...

OK, thanks for the... criticism. Here's my proposal now:

(TITLE) Ban all beverages with high volumes of alcohol

This legislation will benefit and improve the overall wellbeing of all adult civilians All of them? living in WA member nations by:
• Significantly reducing the risks of being diagnosed with a disease or illness resulting from drinking beverages with a high volume of alcohol;
• Reducing the number of people becoming drunk; drinks with higher alcohol cause drunkenness quicker;
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work.

The World Assembly hereby urges that a law be passed Your resolution still does nothing. It needs to bring the ban into force, rather than simply urging it to become law. that requires all WA resolutions member nations to prohibit the production, distribution and sale Everything that is sold is still also distributed. Your dictionaries have not changed in the past hour, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

Same advice as before. Also see below.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: To add to Tinhampton’s feedback, your proposal should be written in the present tense, not the future. I also recommend you add a preamble written in a similar style to passed resolutions.)

[Bears Armed]

Then, for the 'operative' section which explains what this actually does, start with "The World Assembly hereby,"

OOC: No, start the whole proposal with "The World Assembly", so that you have something doing all the verbs ending with -ing, and then you can just separate preamble from the active clauses with "Hereby".

OOC
Oops! That is more usual. (I've been running short on sleep lately, which doesn't help...) Still, doing it that way around isn't actually mandated anywhere and [at least in this case] I think that the way I suggested also works reasonably well.

[Maowi]

OOC: No, start the whole proposal with "The World Assembly", so that you have something doing all the verbs ending with -ing, and then you can just separate preamble from the active clauses with "Hereby".

OOC
Oops! That is more usual. (I've been running short on sleep lately, which doesn't help...) Still, doing it that way around isn't actually mandated anywhere and [at least in this case] I think that the way I suggested also works reasonably well.

OOC: If you read the whole proposal as one sentence, both ways make complete grammatical sense. Personally, I like having 'The World Assembly...preamble...hereby...active clauses.

[Grays Harbor]

This ill thought out travesty would declare illegal most every make Tequila, Rum, Vodka, Whiskey, Scotch, Gin, and Absinthe. That is unacceptable. Prohibition has been repeatedly shown to increase crime and criminal activity, primarily due to organized crime. I would liken this to banning any cars which go over 40 MPH because some people speed. I will never support this attempt at prohibition. It is ludicrous.

[Aclion]

This ill thought out travesty would declare illegal most every make Tequila, Rum, Vodka, Whiskey, Scotch, Gin, and Absinthe. That is unacceptable. Prohibition has been repeatedly shown to increase crime and criminal activity, primarily due to organized crime. I would liken this to banning any cars which go over 40 MPH because some people speed. I will never support this attempt at prohibition. It is ludicrous.

Nah it's fine. Just sell it in bottles.

[Grays Harbor]

This ill thought out travesty would declare illegal most every make Tequila, Rum, Vodka, Whiskey, Scotch, Gin, and Absinthe. That is unacceptable. Prohibition has been repeatedly shown to increase crime and criminal activity, primarily due to organized crime. I would liken this to banning any cars which go over 40 MPH because some people speed. I will never support this attempt at prohibition. It is ludicrous.

Nah it's fine. Just sell it in bottles.

That wouldn’t matter. The “updated” version of this mess removed the “sold in cans” part. Besides, what manner of philistine sells drinkable Scotch in cans? That is downright heresy!

[Wrapper]

Besides, what manner of philistine sells drinkable Scotch in cans?

You likely can't. Especially at higher concentrations (such as that in scotch), particularly at room temperature, ethanol slowly reacts with aluminum and steel, spoiling the taste. That's why you should use metal flasks only for temporary storage.

[Abdilonna]

Probably not the best criticism in the world...

OK, thanks for the... criticism. Here's my proposal now:

(TITLE) Ban all beverages with high volumes of alcohol

This legislation will benefit and improve the overall wellbeing of all adult civilians All of them? living in WA member nations by:
• Significantly reducing the risks of being diagnosed with a disease or illness resulting from drinking beverages with a high volume of alcohol;
• Reducing the number of people becoming drunk; drinks with higher alcohol cause drunkenness quicker;
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work.

The World Assembly hereby urges that a law be passed Your resolution still does nothing. It needs to bring the ban into force, rather than simply urging it to become law. that requires all WA resolutions member nations to prohibit the production, distribution and sale Everything that is sold is still also distributed. Your dictionaries have not changed in the past hour, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

Same advice as before. Also see below.

Thanks for the further helpful suggestions. Here's my proposal now:
(TITLE) Ban all beverages with high volumes of alcohol

This legislation benefits and improves the overall wellbeing of all alcoholic adult civilians living in WA member nations by:
• Significantly reducing the risks of being diagnosed with a disease or illness resulting from drinking beverages with a high volume of alcohol;
• Reducing the number of people becoming drunk; drinks with higher alcohol cause drunkenness quicker;
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work.

The World Assembly hereby urges that a ban be put into force that requires all WA member nations to prohibit the sale, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks (cans or bottles) that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

[Marxist Germany]

Probably not the best criticism in the world...

Thanks for the further helpful suggestions. Here's my proposal now:
(TITLE) Ban all beverages with high volumes of alcohol

This legislation benefits and improves the overall wellbeing of all alcoholic adult civilians living in WA member nations by:
• Significantly reducing the risks of being diagnosed with a disease or illness resulting from drinking beverages with a high volume of alcohol;
• Reducing the number of people becoming drunk; drinks with higher alcohol cause drunkenness quicker;
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work.

The World Assembly hereby urges that a ban be put into force that requires all WA member nations to prohibit the sale, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks (cans or bottles) that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

OOC:Please edit your OP instead of posting the new draft each time.

[Araraukar]

OOC:Please edit your OP instead of posting the new draft each time.

OOC: ^This. Nobdoy's going to comb through the thread to find the newest draft.

Also, there is no justification given (the reasoning would go into the preamble which is the bit that comes before the active clauses) on why high percentage alcohol is such a problem that it needs international law to tackle. Or why a few people having an alcohol problem should be enough of a reason to ban it from everyone.

[Maowi]

(TITLE) Ban all beverages with high volumes of alcohol

This legislation benefits and improves the overall wellbeing of all alcoholic adult civilians living in WA member nations by:
• Significantly reducing the risks of being diagnosed with a disease or illness resulting from drinking beverages with a high volume of alcohol;
• Reducing the number of people becoming drunk; drinks with higher alcohol cause drunkenness quicker;
• Improving the quality of one's focus and eyesight, improving the quality of work.

The World Assembly hereby urges that a ban be put into force that requires all WA member nations to prohibit the sale, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks (cans or bottles) that are over 50% alcohol by volume.

OOC: Same as what Ara and MG said, but also:
I don't really know how Tinhampton could've put it more clearly, but urging member nations to do something is non-binding. As it stands, this proposal is illegal for doing nothing. If you want this to be a legal, let alone good, proposal you need to delete 'urges that a ban be put into force that', leaving you with 'The World Assembly hereby requires all WA member nations to prohibit the sale, within their jurisdictions, of all drinks (cans or bottles) that are over 50% alcohol by volume.'

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Same as what Ara and MG said, but also:
I don't really know how Tinhampton could've put it more clearly, but urging member nations to do something is non-binding. As it stands, this proposal is illegal for doing nothing'

OOC
No, by long prcedent just urging or suggesting is perfectly legal as long as the strength is only 'Mild'.

[Maowi]

OOC: Same as what Ara and MG said, but also:
I don't really know how Tinhampton could've put it more clearly, but urging member nations to do something is non-binding. As it stands, this proposal is illegal for doing nothing'

OOC
No, by long prcedent just urging or suggesting is perfectly legal as long as the strength is only 'Mild'.

OOC: Oh yes, my bad. But if you do want this to do anything you should change it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I marked this illegal because it's not urging member nations to ban spirits, it's urging the WA to force member nations to ban spirits. This sentence structure is nonsensical from a juridical point of view and cannot hold legal force. OP, if you're going to make a ban, make a ban; if not, put your urgings on member states directly.

And frankly you should probably give yourself a number of multi-day to multi-week breaks from the draft before submitting again. Not only could other people come up with improvements while you're waiting, but you yourself might well have a good idea in the meantime.