[DRAFT] International Regulations on Radio Signals Act

[Lecosia]

"A revised draft has been submitted for perusal based on members' critiques."

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'll look into the actual contents later, but on the category issue - since the repealed original passed, there have become new categories available. This sounds like very much something that could be made to fit into "Regulation" category. However, that category has areas of effect, instead of strengths, so you'll need to have a thorough look-see through them. You can find the details in the proposal rules thread on this forum.

[Lecosia]

OOC: I'll look into the actual contents later, but on the category issue - since the repealed original passed, there have become new categories available. This sounds like very much something that could be made to fit into "Regulation" category. However, that category has areas of effect, instead of strengths, so you'll need to have a thorough look-see through them. You can find the details in the proposal rules thread on this forum.

OOC: Ah, gotcha, I see that now. Yeah, this is looking a lot like a safety regulation, but I'll take a closer look at the rules thread tomorrow and make sure.

[Linux and the X]

International emergency frequencies should be already in wide use, to the extent possible. Not specifying this was part of why res. 75 was repealed, and you're actively prohibiting it! I'd also suggest dropping the blocker clause.

[Lecosia]

International emergency frequencies should be already in wide use, to the extent possible. Not specifying this was part of why res. 75 was repealed, and you're actively prohibiting it! I'd also suggest dropping the blocker clause.

What I meant to say was that the frequencies that WILL be widely used solely for international emergencies in the future shouldn't have been in wide usage BEFORE being monopolized by the World Assembly. I'll address the language to make that a little more clear. Unless you're saying that there are enough unofficial international emergency services that we don't need that clause at all? Or are you saying that it's silly to assume there would be frequencies with so few people currently using them?

OOC: I don't know what you mean by "blocker clause". Which clause is the blocker clause?

[Kenmoria]

International emergency frequencies should be already in wide use, to the extent possible. Not specifying this was part of why res. 75 was repealed, and you're actively prohibiting it! I'd also suggest dropping the blocker clause.

What I meant to say was that the frequencies that WILL be widely used solely for international emergencies in the future shouldn't have been in wide usage BEFORE being monopolized by the World Assembly. I'll address the language to make that a little more clear. Unless you're saying that there are enough unofficial international emergency services that we don't need that clause at all? Or are you saying that it's silly to assume there would be frequencies with so few people currently using them?

OOC: I don't know what you mean by "blocker clause". Which clause is the blocker clause?

(OOC: Clauses 1 and 5 are the ones that most look like blockers to me, but there isn’t really a blocker clause here. All of the restrictions on future legislation seem narrow and justified, as opposed to curing out broad swathes of possible legislation.)

[Linux and the X]

International emergency frequencies should be already in wide use, to the extent possible. Not specifying this was part of why res. 75 was repealed, and you're actively prohibiting it! I'd also suggest dropping the blocker clause.

What I meant to say was that the frequencies that WILL be widely used solely for international emergencies in the future shouldn't have been in wide usage BEFORE being monopolized by the World Assembly. I'll address the language to make that a little more clear. Unless you're saying that there are enough unofficial international emergency services that we don't need that clause at all? Or are you saying that it's silly to assume there would be frequencies with so few people currently using them?

If you look at the res. 75 repeal, you'll note that not making the IRC consider established emergency frequencies in their selections was considered concerning.

[Lecosia]

What I meant to say was that the frequencies that WILL be widely used solely for international emergencies in the future shouldn't have been in wide usage BEFORE being monopolized by the World Assembly. I'll address the language to make that a little more clear. Unless you're saying that there are enough unofficial international emergency services that we don't need that clause at all? Or are you saying that it's silly to assume there would be frequencies with so few people currently using them?

If you look at the res. 75 repeal, you'll note that not making the IRC consider established emergency frequencies in their selections was considered concerning.

OOC: All I'm seeing in the repeal is a concern with regards to the users who would be bumped off their frequencies in creating the emergency ones, but I'll try to address the things you mentioned as well.

IC: I've revised the clause based on your comments, ambassador, but am wondering if it's too wordy, confusing, or impractical? Tell me what you think of this for a start:

3. Tasks the above commission to set specific frequencies—not previously in wide usage, monopolized with the consent of any previous users, and obtained without infringing upon the quality or airing of previously established emergency frequencies—solely for the purpose of international emergency communications between any nations of the world that wish to use such services,

[Kenmoria]

“What is the intended category and area of effect or strength of this proposal?”

[Lecosia]

“What is the intended category and area of effect or strength of this proposal?”

"Category: Regulation, Area of Effect: Safety. That is, unless the assembly thinks another category would fit better?"

[Lecosia]

"I've edited my current draft based on members' concerns. All feedback is welcome."

[Lecosia]

OOC: I'll submit after 48 hours if there are no more critiques.

[Kenmoria]

“There should be a comma after the ‘Hereby’.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: How does this fit the area of effect?

[Lecosia]

OOC: How does this fit the area of effect?

OOC: I was thinking that the central purpose of the act is to protect the general public from the physical harm that comes from the use of high-powered radio waves. I thought briefly about "Energy", but the act has nothing to do with power generation or consumption.

[Araraukar]

OOC: How does this fit the area of effect?

OOC: I was thinking that the central purpose of the act is to protect the general public from the physical harm that comes from the use of high-powered radio waves. I thought briefly about "Energy", but the act has nothing to do with power generation or consumption.

OOC: I can't remember if this got answered properly: are you trying to ban radio signal weapon use? If yes, then you should put this in Global Disarmament, because that's going to have the biggest impact.

[Lecosia]

OOC: I was thinking that the central purpose of the act is to protect the general public from the physical harm that comes from the use of high-powered radio waves. I thought briefly about "Energy", but the act has nothing to do with power generation or consumption.

OOC: I can't remember if this got answered properly: are you trying to ban radio signal weapon use? If yes, then you should put this in Global Disarmament, because that's going to have the biggest impact.

No, if you read over the current text I believe in clause 2 it now allows for weapon use in cases of self-defense and declared times of war.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I can't remember if this got answered properly: are you trying to ban radio signal weapon use? If yes, then you should put this in Global Disarmament, because that's going to have the biggest impact.

No, if you read over the current text I believe in clause 2 it now allows for weapon use in cases of self-defense and declared times of war.

OOC: Given that it also allows self-defence, it's not exactly protecting general public from it either, so again not very fitting for the AoE. Also, the "unless one of the parties" wording is unclear to who or what it's referring to. Like, is it talking of the manufacturers?

[Lecosia]

No, if you read over the current text I believe in clause 2 it now allows for weapon use in cases of self-defense and declared times of war.

OOC: Given that it also allows self-defence, it's not exactly protecting general public from it either, so again not very fitting for the AoE. Also, the "unless one of the parties" wording is unclear to who or what it's referring to. Like, is it talking of the manufacturers?

OOC: "Protecting the general public" doesn't always mean enforcing uniform standards without allowing for specific cases. In fact, the description for "safety" regulation specifies keeping only "bystanders" from physical harm, not those involved in conflict. In addition, a good argument can be made that not allowing for self-defense decreases safety by not allowing nations to defend themselves against criminal use of powerful radio waves.

The purpose of the act is to prevent unwittingly dangerous radio signals from harming bystander nations. To me, this seemed like a regulation, because it protects people previously unprotected, specifically protecting the average bystander from unwittingly dangerous radio waves. So I don't really understand how you think that doesn't fit the area of effect, but if you have another suggestion for a category I'll happily consider it.

I've cleaned up the "unless one of the parties" section so that it specifies "members".

[Araraukar]

a good argument can be made that not allowing for self-defense decreases safety by not allowing nations to defend themselves against criminal use of powerful radio waves.

OOC: If that's your angle, then it should be International Security.

From proposal rules, categories: Regulation: A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public. - Safety: Enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm. It's not a combo that's about weapons or the safety in terms of safe-from-criminals. It's mostly about product safety. Which your proposal is not, with the random foray into weapons tech.

You could fairly easily rewrite it to touch only non-weapon use, basically leaving the high-powered systems for other proposals entirely, exactly because of the weaponization capacity. Limit the scope to consumer goods - radios, TV, telecommunications - and you're going to git the Category-AoE combo much better.

[Lecosia]

a good argument can be made that not allowing for self-defense decreases safety by not allowing nations to defend themselves against criminal use of powerful radio waves.

OOC: If that's your angle, then it should be International Security.

From proposal rules, categories: Regulation: A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public. - Safety: Enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm. It's not a combo that's about weapons or the safety in terms of safe-from-criminals. It's mostly about product safety. Which your proposal is not, with the random foray into weapons tech.

You could fairly easily rewrite it to touch only non-weapon use, basically leaving the high-powered systems for other proposals entirely, exactly because of the weaponization capacity. Limit the scope to consumer goods - radios, TV, telecommunications - and you're going to git the Category-AoE combo much better.

OOC: It’s okay to put as international security even if I’m not increasing military budgets? (Also, would that be mild since it only pertains to radio signals, or would it be significant?)

[Araraukar]

OOC: It’s okay to put as international security even if I’m not increasing military budgets? (Also, would that be mild since it only pertains to radio signals, or would it be significant?)

OOC: It all depends on what you're actually trying to DO with the proposal. Which right now isn't entirely clear.

(IS category is about increasing police and military spending, GD about reducing them. If you target only one or the other (police or military), then it's allowed as mild.)

[Lecosia]

OOC: It’s okay to put as international security even if I’m not increasing military budgets? (Also, would that be mild since it only pertains to radio signals, or would it be significant?)

OOC: It all depends on what you're actually trying to DO with the proposal. Which right now isn't entirely clear.

(IS category is about increasing police and military spending, GD about reducing them. If you target only one or the other (police or military), then it's allowed as mild.)

OOC: As I feel like I've articulated before, the point of the proposal is to protect bystanders from unintended physical harm related to radio signals, while continuing to allow the use of radio weaponry as it was used before. I'm not trying to increase military or police budgets of any kind, just trying to set regulations on radio signals so that they aren't malfunctioning or operating at dangerous frequencies and power levels. It's like how setting regulations on dangerous firearms domestically doesn't mean you're increasing military or police budgets, and it doesn't mean you disallow the use of firearms during wartime.

I personally think that's pretty clear from the text and I'm not sure why I should spend so much time trying to alter my proposal to better fit into one category or the other. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of categories--I figured they were just an organizational tool to help put similar proposals in the same place, and in that case, it doesn't matter so much that proposals fit exactly with the categories. We should fit the categories to the proposals, not the other way around.

[Bears Armed]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of categories--I figured they were just an organizational tool to help put similar proposals in the same place, and in that case, it doesn't matter so much that proposals fit exactly with the categories. We should fit the categories to the proposals, not the other way around.

OOC
Category, and Strength or 'Area of Effect', determine the changes that are applied automatically to all member nation's stats when a resolution passes: The reason why a proposal's contents have to match its specified Category [& etc.] is so that they are appropriate enough to "justify" those particular stat changes.
An experiment to code each resolution's effects individually, so that this factor wouldn't matter, was suggested but fell through due to a shortage of players who [as Issues Editors] had been cleared to know how the coding works, had enough knowledge of the GA's passed resolutions to see how much "new" effect a resolution's 'text actually implies, and had enough time available to guarantee that the coding could be done in the few days between it becoming reasonably certain that a proposal would go to vote and it being passed as a resolution.

[Lecosia]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of categories--I figured they were just an organizational tool to help put similar proposals in the same place, and in that case, it doesn't matter so much that proposals fit exactly with the categories. We should fit the categories to the proposals, not the other way around.

OOC
Category, and Strength or 'Area of Effect', determine the changes that are applied automatically to all member nation's stats when a resolution passes: The reason why a proposal's contents have to match its specified Category [& etc.] is so that they are appropriate enough to "justify" those particular stat changes.
An experiment to code each resolution's effects individually, so that this factor wouldn't matter, was suggested but fell through due to a shortage of players who [as Issues Editors] had been cleared to know how the coding works, had enough knowledge of the GA's passed resolutions to see how much "new" effect a resolution's 'text actually implies, and had enough time available to guarantee that the coding could be done in the few days between it becoming reasonably certain that a proposal would go to vote and it being passed as a resolution.

Okay, now I understand a bit more. But still, the short line of legislation on wartime and self-defense exemptions shouldn't affect stats too much--people are already using radio waves in this way. The only way people's lives will be altered is that radio devices will be regulated to prevent unforeseen damage to bystanders.