[DEFEATED] The Amelioration of Maritime Conditions

[Morover]

This is my opinion posted to TRR Forums:

Against. While I agree with the intentions of the author, I simply cannot support it because of several fatal flaws.

1. I think the author goes about it wrong. Frankly, I'd have created a committee (either the IMDMC, WHAMMO, or some other relevant committee) that member-states must send reports regarding maritime pollution in order to have a comprehensive list of high-polluting nations.

2.. Clause 2 does not go far enough for me. Honestly, it should be a mandate for private organizations and/or corporations under the jurisdiction of a member state to submit that data to the mother nation, for that nation to submit to the aforementioned committee.

3. The final clause is inherently flawed - the international average will fall naturally as a result of those above the average lowering their maritime pollution. Unless, of course, it's referring to a one-time reduction, in which case it's fairly pointless and would work much better as an international treaty as opposed to concrete legislation.

4. I'm not expert on it, but I believe they misused 'fiscal year.'

[Starkville Mississippi]

In my opinion, I am against this 110% due to the face that he wants all governmental officials to follow guidelines that comprehend pollutants in the hydrosphere.

[Maowi]

"A useless proposal, if I ever saw one ... on top of the criticism put forward by other delegations, clause 1 uses the term "pollutant," which is not defined."

[Kenmoria]

“I am agreed with the other ambassadors in here. Although the proposal has some potential, the execution is such that I cannot support this legislation.”

[Radical Republic]

First off, I would like to apologize to The World Assembly for my travesty of a proposal. I was unfamiliar in the process of drafting and amending a proposal and released it prematurely. I was unfortunately unable to heed these warning before the proposal reached the voting floor and I am ashamed of what I have brought. While I believe that the proposal has very little chance of passing and most everyone who reads this has already voted against it, I ask everyone to say no to this proposal. I truly wish to offer an earnest and complete bill to the World Assembly and ask for the second chance to do this. I am truly sorry for what I have done.

[Okarine]

Don't forget to fix that typo next time (second line) "added directly to the hyrdosphere"
I'm surprised no one comment about this already.

[Valtrona]

First off, I would like to apologize to The World Assembly for my travesty of a proposal. I was unfamiliar in the process of drafting and amending a proposal and released it prematurely. I was unfortunately unable to heed these warning before the proposal reached the voting floor and I am ashamed of what I have brought. While I believe that the proposal has very little chance of passing and most everyone who reads this has already voted against it, I ask everyone to say no to this proposal. I truly wish to offer an earnest and complete bill to the World Assembly and ask for the second chance to do this. I am truly sorry for what I have done.

That’s perfectly fine, accidents happen. Just learn from it, and improve immensely upon it.

[Neop]

First off, I would like to apologize to The World Assembly for my travesty of a proposal. I was unfamiliar in the process of drafting and amending a proposal and released it prematurely. I was unfortunately unable to heed these warning before the proposal reached the voting floor and I am ashamed of what I have brought. While I believe that the proposal has very little chance of passing and most everyone who reads this has already voted against it, I ask everyone to say no to this proposal. I truly wish to offer an earnest and complete bill to the World Assembly and ask for the second chance to do this. I am truly sorry for what I have done.

well you’ve earned my vote

[Underwater Sovereignties]

The Dominion of Underwater Sovereignties, despite agreeing that the resolution at vote is poorly executed, will temporarily vote in favor due to our nation's subaquatic position.
Edit: nvm, I'm voting against this.

[Araraukar]

First off, I would like to apologize to The World Assembly for my travesty of a proposal. I was unfamiliar in the process of drafting and amending a proposal and released it prematurely.

OOC: I'd be more likely to believe that if you hadn't also campaigned for it.

[Superbunny]

Is there a difference between pollutant and maritime pollutant? You define one but not the other, and then proceed to only use "pollutant" until the end of your proposal.

This feels like a draft that accidentally got submitted and approved. It is far too short and far too ambiguous. I would gladly reconsider voting if this was resubmitted in a far better and more defined form.

[Araraukar]

Is there a difference between pollutant and maritime pollutant? You define one but not the other, and then proceed to only use "pollutant" until the end of your proposal.

This feels like a draft that accidentally got submitted and approved. It is far too short and far too ambiguous. I would gladly reconsider voting if this was resubmitted in a far better and more defined form.

OOC: Many of the problems with the proposal were pointed out to the author about 3 weeks ago. They still went on with the submission.

[Republic of Satherland]

Good day!

I have a question about Clause (4), which mandates that maritime pollution be reduced by 5% at the end of the fiscal year. This just doesn't appear to fit with the resolution. Seeing as the strength of this resolution is supposed to be mild, is this "mandate" binding, or is it simply a guideline for WA member nations to comply with at their own discretion?

I hope that someone can get back to me about this soon, as this clause will decide this nation's vote on this resolution. Thanks.

[Kenmoria]

Good day!

I have a question about Clause (4), which mandates that maritime pollution be reduced by 5% at the end of the fiscal year. This just doesn't appear to fit with the resolution. Seeing as the strength of this resolution is supposed to be mild, is this "mandate" binding, or is it simply a guideline for WA member nations to comply with at their own discretion?

I hope that someone can get back to me about this soon, as this clause will decide this nation's vote on this resolution. Thanks.

(OOC: That is is indeed a binding mandate. Nations are obligated to reduce marine pollution by 5%, despite how challenging that could be.)

[Republic of Satherland]

Good day!

I have a question about Clause (4), which mandates that maritime pollution be reduced by 5% at the end of the fiscal year. This just doesn't appear to fit with the resolution. Seeing as the strength of this resolution is supposed to be mild, is this "mandate" binding, or is it simply a guideline for WA member nations to comply with at their own discretion?

I hope that someone can get back to me about this soon, as this clause will decide this nation's vote on this resolution. Thanks.

(OOC: That is is indeed a binding mandate. Nations are obligated to reduce marine pollution by 5%, despite how challenging that could be.)

Wait a minute, isn't the strength of this resolution supposed to be mild? Why in heavens name is there a binding mandate in a mild resolution? The categorisation of this resolution as mild feels like false advertising.

[Bananaistan]

(OOC: That is is indeed a binding mandate. Nations are obligated to reduce marine pollution by 5%, despite how challenging that could be.)

Wait a minute, isn't the strength of this resolution supposed to be mild? Why in heavens name is there a binding mandate in a mild resolution? The categorisation of this resolution as mild feels like false advertising.

OOC: Mild resolutions can have mandates where the scope is limited. The defined pollutants only included those "directly added" by "methods like dumping and runoff", and only member states above average need reduce by 5%. 5% isn't a whole lot. Presumably there are fewer bigger nations above average than there are smaller nations below average.

[Marxist Germany]

Wait a minute, isn't the strength of this resolution supposed to be mild? Why in heavens name is there a binding mandate in a mild resolution? The categorisation of this resolution as mild feels like false advertising.

OOC: Mild resolutions can have mandates where the scope is limited. The defined pollutants only included those "directly added" by "methods like dumping and runoff", and only member states above average need reduce by 5%. 5% isn't a whole lot. Presumably there are fewer bigger nations above average than there are smaller nations below average.

OOC: Wouldn't the average go down each year?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Wouldn't the average go down each year?

OOC: That's indeed the problem with using "average"; the average is always the average.

To those who have trouble understanding that, let's use simple numbers as an example:

Nation A has numerical value of 4, Nation B has 6 and Nation C has 8. The average is 6. Only Nation C is over the average and it improves until it, too, has numerical value 6. That makes the average 5.3333... so both Nation B and Nation C are now above average. Basically, unless all nations have the same numerical value, there will always be nations above the average that need to improve.

Percentages are equally difficult, because if the amount of pollutants you need to reduce 5% of is 100 million metric tons, then you need to get it down to 95 million metric tons and you're golden. But if another nation that's otherwise identical, except it has already cleaned up its act, has total of 5000 metric tons of pollutants, it needs to get it down to 4750 metric tons, which is difficult when you consider it has already reduced its pollutant output by 99.995%!

[Vistulange]

Vistulange votes against - it is our belief that explaining something in its own terms is quite non-explanatory. Defining "maritime pollutant" through the usage of the phrase "pollutant" is, in our belief, counter-productive to actually defining what a "maritime pollutant" is, as the word "pollutant" itself is left ambiguous for the purposes of this resolution. In its current state, the wording leads us to assume that the definition of "...a pollutant that affects the hydrosphere or on its organisms" can be anything, seeing "pollutant" was not previously defined.

[Scherzinger]

*Anzu takes a brief break from not paying attention*

"You know, im no morals expert, but i think that the people who made this legal for the floor should be more to blame than the person whom wrote it. If it hadnt been made legal for the floor in the first place, and instead had some feedback, i am sure this bill would be much better than its current state. This is the problem with the WA elite, is that they are more than happy to blame the drafter instead of those who made it possible to put an unfinished work onto the floor in the first place. Will i be making any vote for or against this proposal? no, simply because my 'vote' isnt required in this resolution, as well as i feel that making any motion on a bill that needs work would make me a hypocrite in my own light."

*Anzu Kadotani then returns to her scripts and writing*

"I encourage the Representative of the Radical Republic to continue trying to make drafts, but to consider asking some of the nicer WA members for feedback and advice, so that your next resolution proposal carries a little more weight. As always, i continue to look down on the WA elite for placing the entirety of the blame at the writer's feet to the point that they are ashamed of their own writing.

I was once told, and continue to believe, that the WA elite is always smug and brutish because they are irritated that the resolutions that people make werent written by them"

[Araraukar]

and instead had some feedback, i am sure this bill would be much better than its current state.

OOC: It got feedback, which was ignored! Legal does not equal good. Blame the delegates who approve crappy proposals.

This is the problem with the WA elite

There is no "WA elite", unless you mean the superdelegates who can gang up on a proposal to sway a vote one way or another. If you mean GA regulars (there's at least one mod ruling saying "WA elite" counts as trolling, by the way), then I guess I'm one. I gave feedback on the very first version posted on this thread. It was ignored. If the proposal-writers ignore advice and submit anyway, it IS their fault and no-one else's.

I was once told

By a player who kept submitting crap over and over again and got upset when people didn't cheer it as the best writing ever.

the WA elite is always smug and brutish because they are irritated that the resolutions that people make werent written by them"

No, we're irritated when people submit crap even after we've tried to help them make it less crappy. As for brutish? Never ever ever go to NSG, they're not as nice there as we are here.

[Superbunny]

Is there a difference between pollutant and maritime pollutant? You define one but not the other, and then proceed to only use "pollutant" until the end of your proposal.

This feels like a draft that accidentally got submitted and approved. It is far too short and far too ambiguous. I would gladly reconsider voting if this was resubmitted in a far better and more defined form.

OOC: Many of the problems with the proposal were pointed out to the author about 3 weeks ago. They still went on with the submission.

OOC: Haha, yikes.

And as to the proposal officer: It's possible for you to do better,

And as to the guy above me: Brushing off the WA as "smug elite" is a really great way to make everyone see you as one of those types who believes everyone is out to get them, or makes you look like a troll. This proposal has several fatal flaws, legal or illegal. It doesn't matter if it passed even if it was legal, that still doesn't mean your proposal gets an automatic pass.

Back to the writer: voting ends in about an hour or so, and when your proposal fails to pass, I would recommend going back to the drawing board. Ask other proposal writers for advice (and maybe actually follow it) and go through several drafts instead of just hurrying to submit and immediately getting it marked as illegal.

[Kenmoria]

"The Amelioration of Maritime Conditions" was defeated 11,679 votes to 3,286.

(OOC: To the author, I agree with several others that this needed a longer drafting period, and taking the advice given by people in that period.)

[Radical Republic]

A quick explanation for why I posted it so quickly. One, I'm still new to the forums and what I should expect from them (and what they should expect from me), I tried to incorporate feedback I was given but I made the mistake of submitting it instead of posting an updated draft. Two, I panicked when I saw a copy of my proposal submitted to the WA by one of the nations that had provided feedback. It was marked illegal but I still panicked. This isn't to justify my actions, just provide the reasoning behind my lapse in judgement.

[Kenmoria]

A quick explanation for why I posted it so quickly. One, I'm still new to the forums and what I should expect from them (and what they should expect from me), I tried to incorporate feedback I was given but I made the mistake of submitting it instead of posting an updated draft. Two, I panicked when I saw a copy of my proposal submitted to the WA by one of the nations that had provided feedback. It was marked illegal but I still panicked. This isn't to justify my actions, just provide the reasoning behind my lapse in judgement.

(OOC: That’s fine; you can draft the proposal again and it will hopefully have a better chance of success the second time.)