NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:23 pm**

NEWEST COPY:
Appalled that the WA does not identify contaminated fish to the greatest of their extent.

Aware that fish with toxic chemicals can be identified easily with tell tale signs.

Acknowledging that fish that have signs of toxic chemicals are not tested.

The World Assembly Hereby:
Requires fish with clear signs of toxic chemicals such as but not limited to bulging eyes, bloated abdomen to be banned from being sold.

Recommends that the WA funds programs to search for abnormalities in fish

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:55 pm**

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:This establishes the fishing rights act. It specifies the legal terms of the fishing industry.

Cool, but it doesn't. There is no specification of legal terms here.

Acknowledging that harmful chemicals can get into our meals which are fish, and demanding that we do something to prevent further damage.

Good idea, I'd say. You'll want to see how existing legislation handles the disposal of chemicals and regulation of oceangoing practices.

Accepting, than the fishing industry is barely regulated in nation states

Not exactly: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=9653061&hilit=fishing#p9653061
Resolutions must be written in-character, from the perspective of the WA. "NationStates" is a RL reference/metagaming violation that would get this pushed out of the queue were it submitted.

Provides the following terms:
All corporations, governments, ex that are involved in the fighting industry must protect their fishes from Hamid chemicals,

"Fishing industry", and I'm not sure what "Hamid chemicals" are.

Must be given proper regulation per goverment funding.

What does this mean?

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:17 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:This establishes the fishing rights act. It specifies the legal terms of the fishing industry.

Cool, but it doesn't. There is no specification of legal terms here.
Acknowledging that harmful chemicals can get into our meals which are fish, and demanding that we do something to prevent further damage.

Good idea, I'd say. You'll want to see how existing legislation handles the disposal of chemicals and regulation of oceangoing practices.
Accepting, than the fishing industry is barely regulated in nation states

Not exactly: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=9653061&hilit=fishing#p9653061
Resolutions must be written in-character, from the perspective of the WA. "NationStates" is a RL reference/metagaming violation that would get this pushed out of the queue were it submitted.
Provides the following terms:
All corporations, governments, ex that are involved in the fighting industry must protect their fishes from Hamid chemicals,

"Fishing industry", and I'm not sure what "Hamid chemicals" are.
Must be given proper regulation per goverment funding.

What does this mean?

Thanks for the critics! I'll make a revised version

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:39 pm**

New draft:
This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:30 pm**

“First of all, what is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be on the draft text at the beginning. You also should remove your definition of the ‘fishing industry’, as it isn’t used anywhere in the active clauses. Thirdly, it’s ‘WA’ not ‘W.A’ or ‘w.a’; that’s the way it has always been stylised.

Lastly, you ought to give some thought to your definition of ‘chemicals’. Currently, it includes substances such as water. Water is a compound made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, and is often something to which sewage is purified artificially. Seeing as you want to restrict chemicals, it may be useful to define chemicals as only those that are damaging to sapient health.”

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:48 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:“First of all, what is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be on the draft text at the beginning. You also should remove your definition of the ‘fishing industry’, as it isn’t used anywhere in the active clauses. Thirdly, it’s ‘WA’ not ‘W.A’ or ‘w.a’; that’s the way it has always been stylised.

Lastly, you ought to give some thought to your definition of ‘chemicals’. Currently, it includes substances such as water. Water is a compound made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, and is often something to which sewage is purified artificially. Seeing as you want to restrict chemicals, it may be useful to define chemicals as only those that are damaging to sapient health.”

Where's the OOC telling him to put all new drafts in the OP and spoiler the old ones? I'm disappointed Kenmoria

Anyway, author, I've told you now - put any new drafts in the original post, put spoilers to hide the old ones.

Adding to what Kenmoria has already said:
1) You don't need that first sentence, it's redundant.
2) "Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections" - this is very confusing and doesn't make sense. You can't define what the WA is. I think you meant to say something requiring the WA to fund fishing inspections, so say that.
3) You should think about what you define. You've defined "fishing industry", "chemicals" and "inspecting fish properly", but you didn't actually use the first and third in any of the clauses. Are these necessary?

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:35 am**

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
[...]
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

OOC: What use is the proper inspection if it is the only requirement before selling? If the yields the result that the fish is highly toxic, it still can be sold under the requirements of this proposal, as long as the inspection had been proper.

Also, does this mean taking blood samples (which I would think should be very hard to do for many fishes to begin with, as many of them are bled out immediately after fishing) from every single specimen that one intends to sell? If so, that should be nigh impossible.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:36 am**

It's way too early to submit this, it needs a lot more time to make it workable.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:39 am**

OOC:

I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:00 am**

Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Fishing

Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:37 am**

Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Fishing

Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.

If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:58 am**

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: Fishing

Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.

If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?

OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.

"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?

OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.

"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©

Is the timing important? For example if there are no other proposals, or their illegal itd be more likely to pass? What would you reccomend for this to become "popular"

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:27 pm**

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.

"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©

Is the timing important? For example if there are no other proposals, or their illegal itd be more likely to pass? What would you reccomend for this to become "popular"

(OOC: The best thing to do is to wait for a few weeks, maybe months, to draft this proposal, otherwise the chance of its passing is almost, if not, zero. There is isn’t really a right time to submit, with regards to the proposal queue, apart from avoiding doing it when there are masses of proposals.)

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:55 pm**

OOC: Basing the feedback on the submitted version, as I can't quite tell what is supposed to be the most recent draft. You should put the most recent draft in the first post, leaving it visible, then spoilering older drafts.

I'm going to guess that English isn't your first language, so you're having some trouble explaining what you actually want done. Or you don't quite know how things work in reality, and that compounded with the language issue leave you taking random stabs at the subject.

A prime example the definition for inspecting fish; you talk of "taking samples" but then talk of "testing their blood samples" instead. Fish blood samples won't tell you much, if the poisonous chemical you're concerned about is, as tends to be the case in Real Life, fat-soluble and thus is in the tissues, the flesh, that's eaten. Also, fish tend to be long dead (sometimes frozen and then thawed later, to keep them from spoiling) by the time they get sampled for toxicity, and getting a blood sample specifically would be difficult. Also, if you want blood samples tested, you need to specify the taking of blood samples, too.

Not to mention the silly requirement of taking samples of every single fish caught. I mean, are you aware of how small most fish species that are eaten, are? And that in most parts of the world the fish is sold directly from the catcher to the consumer - having to institute a sample testing for each single fish would require massive laboratories in every single fishing village all over the world, not to mention some way of keeping the fish fresh enough while waiting for the test results.

I would suggest you look online for information about how food safety testing is done in Real Life, to get a better idea of the sampling methods used.

On top of which this has already been addressed by an existing resolution.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:08 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Basing the feedback on the submitted version, as I can't quite tell what is supposed to be the most recent draft. You should put the most recent draft in the first post, leaving it visible, then spoilering older drafts.

This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.

ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.

ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.

AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a

HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.

Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals

Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections

Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed

Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected

I'm going to guess that English isn't your first language, so you're having some trouble explaining what you actually want done. Or you don't quite know how things work in reality, and that compounded with the language issue leave you taking random stabs at the subject.

A prime example the definition for inspecting fish; you talk of "taking samples" but then talk of "testing their blood samples" instead. Fish blood samples won't tell you much, if the poisonous chemical you're concerned about is, as tends to be the case in Real Life, fat-soluble and thus is in the tissues, the flesh, that's eaten. Also, fish tend to be long dead (sometimes frozen and then thawed later, to keep them from spoiling) by the time they get sampled for toxicity, and getting a blood sample specifically would be difficult. Also, if you want blood samples tested, you need to specify the taking of blood samples, too.

Not to mention the silly requirement of taking samples of every single fish caught. I mean, are you aware of how small most fish species that are eaten, are? And that in most parts of the world the fish is sold directly from the catcher to the consumer - having to institute a sample testing for each single fish would require massive laboratories in every single fishing village all over the world, not to mention some way of keeping the fish fresh enough while waiting for the test results.

I would suggest you look online for information about how food safety testing is done in Real Life, to get a better idea of the sampling methods used.

On top of which this has already been addressed by an existing resolution.

Ill implement your advice. Also, im American

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:16 pm**

Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Ill implement your advice.

OOC: Did you miss the bit that it's already been addressed by an existing resolution?

Also, im American

Which has what to do with what?

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:17 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Ill implement your advice.

OOC: Did you miss the bit that it's already been addressed by an existing resolution?

Also, im American

Which has what to do with what?

ooh: You said that English probably isn't his first language...

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:23 pm**

Imbalistan wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Which has what to do with what?

ooh: You said that English probably isn't his first language...

OOC: So what does his nationality have anything to do with it? There are plenty of Americans (even if assuming that to mean a citizen of USA) who don't have English as their first language. EDIT: On top of which, clumsy language is clumsy language, no matter what one's excuse is.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:33 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Ill implement your advice.

OOC: Did you miss the bit that it's already been addressed by an existing resolution?

Also, im American

Which has what to do with what?

I know its already been adressed, but not to the extent it should be.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:55 pm**

Regulation/Consumer protection

Applaled, that the wa does not regulate the fishing industry as well as it should.

Aware, that fish can be singled out with systems of toxic chemicals.

Acknowledging, that fish that may have toxic chemicals and are showing signs of toxic chemicals are not properly tested.

Accepting that fishing should not be premitted near industrial complexes.

The world assembly hearby:
Requires that fish with clear signs of toxic chemicals, such as- but not limited to bulging eyes, bloated abdomens and abnormal behavior be banned from being sold.

The wa funds programs of identifying fish with clear signs of chemical poisoning.

The wa regulate and set up seclusion zones of where fishing con occur away from industrial production.

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:03 pm**

OOC: I have to say that at this point I'm just downright curious as to what the excuse is for the clumsy language and spelling errors.

I would also suggest using the Passed Resolutions thread and searching it with keywords (1 search per word and note that the search treats plurals and singulars as entirely unrelated words) that have anything to do with your topic.

...I'm also curious how you can deduct fish behaviour as normal or abnormal after it's been pulled out of the water...

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:08 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: I have to say that at this point I'm just downright curious as to what the excuse is for the clumsy language and spelling errors.

I would also suggest using the Passed Resolutions thread and searching it with keywords (1 search per word and note that the search treats plurals and singulars as entirely unrelated words) that have anything to do with your topic.

...I'm also curious how you can deduct fish behaviour as normal or abnormal after it's been pulled out of the water...

Sorry I'm not Charleston Dickens. I will. Thats a mistake, gonna fix it

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:36 pm**

Against

Posted: **Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:19 pm**

(OOC: I recommend going through this with a spelling and grammar checker, and maybe getting a friend to read through this. Lots of the clauses need thinking time before I can work out what you are trying to achieve, which means that feedback is harder to give on the content. Also, as Ara and East Meranopirus said, put your most recent draft in the first post of the thread.)

NationStates

Proposed Fishing Rights Act (draft)

Proposed Fishing Rights Act (draft)