[LAST CALL] Drone Regulation Act

[Youssath]

OOC: GP does not belong here.

Ignore him, MG. He can go ahead and bash all he wants, but I am not going to add even a single comma for him.

-snip-

I read your reasoning. Seems quite reasonable since my original draft was almost somewhat that I was trying to strive for (and failed miserably as I got called out for micromanaging ). There are a few stuff that I will be addressing with your reasoning soon, but until then I will need to put out some flames in the WA before attending to this shortly. Most notably, its clause 2. (since sapients can be injured badly given the circumstances here, think of it as an elderly woman on a bicycle and a fit strong man on a bicycle as well. If both of them fall, how does this clause interpret this? The man will be fine, but the elderly woman could be seriously injured as a result of the collision)

Other than that, not much issues raised. I will leave this up for further discussion while I reply to your reasoning appropriately. Thanks a lot Araraukar!

[Araraukar]

think of it as an elderly woman on a bicycle and a fit strong man on a bicycle as well. If both of them fall, --- The man will be fine, but the elderly woman could be seriously injured as a result of the collision

OOC: More than half asleep, but most "people getting hurt hilariously" videos suggest that the man got more seriously hurt because he tried to jump his bicycle over three of his mates riding down a cardboard ramp from the roof of his or his parents' house...

[East Meranopirus]

Because the mere mention wasn't doing anything, like I pointed out three or four times. Just saying X does Y does not actually make Y happen, unless you spell Y out. The effect is still there in #5, it just doesn't mention the committee by name. Even before the regulations only applied to the drones themselves, not the drone users, which doesn't make much sense. Part of the effect is shared with #4, which is mandatory, in that the flight plan requirements etc. are now enforced with criminality for ignoring them. Precedent suggests that the flight plans would have to follow existing laws (both national and international) to be viable.

It's also possible that the resolution that established the committee and its guidelines (EDIT: Do the guidelines actually exist? What resolution creates them?) was repealed, in which case this one would be left with a tyrannical committee free to decide whatever it wanted as guidelines, and many people (myself included) detest such use of committees. So as the committee was doing more harm than good, any mentions of it were removed without removing the main effects.

There's also GA #342 to cope with.

Then perhaps the committee could be mandated to create these guidelines? Or if committees aren't preferable, then nations themselves can be mandated to create the guidelines? I think of these guidelines as more for drone manufacturers, rather than users.

[Araraukar]

OOC: In bed with migraine can't look at mobile screen for long, but there's no reason for the committee and vague or unexplained guidelines will do more harm than good. This should focus on the USE regulation anyway, manufacturing regs would be micromanagement.

[Kenmoria]

“The semicolon in clause 3 should be a comma.”