[DRAFT] Building Regulation Act

[The Langburn Islands]

OOC: Please pull this from the submissions. It needs a lot of work, still. As written, it nonsensically bans all construction ever.

OOC: I fail to understand how any part of this bans all construction ever. It prevents extremely dangerous and reckless construction.

Opposed. More of a local issue that can be addressed.

"We note the Ambassador's concerns but respectfully disagree Regulation is desperately needed at international level and when we fail to intervene into WA member states with a complete lack of building regulations, we fail the victims of building collapses".

"Ambassador, we note your dissent and thank you for your input. The Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands firmly believes that there should be a basic level of building regulation enshrined into international law similar to how there is a federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in the United States of America with state governments able to set higher state minimum wages".

"And yet, you've not managed to make a particularly strong case for it other than the ambiguous risk of collapse and fatality, a risk not necessarily traceable to poor building code and unconvincingly articulated as a sufficiently high cost to justify international interference."

"Ambassador, there is nothing ambiguous about the threat of building collapse. I disagree that building collapses are 'not necessarily traceable to poor building code. The primary reasons of building collapses are:

1. Weak or structurally sound foundations.
2. Building materials are not strong enough or not fit for purpose.
3. Professional errors by the construction workers.
4. Load is heavier than expected.
5. Strength of building isn't sufficiently tested.

All of these five reasons can be addressed and the consequences of such failures either mitigated or prevented through better building regulation at an international level.

I thank all ambassadors for their questions. If anyone has any questions on the proposal, please ask away!"

[Bananaistan]

"Opposed, not an international issue.

"Also "greatest possible steps" is complete overkill. No building ever gets built because the greatest possible step to prevent injury is to stay in the van."

OOC: You only posted the first draft one week ago. The draft is far from polished IMO and considering the difficult topic, you need to have an absolutely top class draft to have any chance. I agree with Ara, pull it for further edits.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Please pull this from the submissions. It needs a lot of work, still. As written, it nonsensically bans all construction ever.

OOC: I fail to understand how any part of this bans all construction ever.

OOC: I'm not the only one who sees it:

"Also "greatest possible steps" is complete overkill. No building ever gets built because the greatest possible step to prevent injury is to stay in the van."

That added to "to prevent harm from occurring to any individual" means, no buildings. Because someone is always harmed in some insignificant way when buildings are constructed. Be it stress from noise in the neighbourhood or whatever, but there's always some harm even if nobody got seriously injured or died on the construction site.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Since Banana also brought it up, I'll just leave it here.

OOC: Clause 4a seems a bit too much with the only consideration being "greatest possbile". I mean construction of a hundred storey skyscraper definitely needs far more safety measures than construction of a two storey home, yet "greatest possbile measures" means both have to done with equal safety measures which seems absurd.

[PotatoFarmers]

Cross posting what I wrote on TNP forums:

Recognising that the building quality of buildings varies immensely across WA member nations,

First of all, using building as an adjective and as a noun in the same sentence is going to turn a lot of people off. I find it bearable, thought I would prefer "structural quality of buildings". Even then, "quality" doesn't sound correct. Something just feels off here, but I can't think of a replacement right now.

Concerned that in many WA member nations either through lack of government, lack of government intervention, wilful neglect or sheer ignorance, regulation of the construction of buildings either doesn’t exist or is woefully insufficient,

That is a mouthful. And has a terrible grammar structure. With "either" appearing twice in one sentence, I can't seem to comprehend this unless I take a piece of paper and write down, clause by clause, in bullet form, what this is trying to say. That is not something you would expect someone to be doing, especially when your point is just "concerned that regulations concerning the construction of buildings is lacking in member nations". I don't say my English is fantastic, but at least this is more towards the point.

Anxious that this lack of regulation is leading to serious building collapses with resulting injuries and fatalities

The World Assembly is "anxious". Is there a better word to use here? Also, nothing sounds grammatically correct in this sentence. I am tempted to correct this, but at this rate I am going I should be writing a completely new proposal and submit it.

Maintaining the belief that greater regulation of the construction of buildings will bring many benefits to the wider architectural community by increasing public confidence in the safety of all buildings,

"Maintaing the belief"? Innovative attempt, but sounds terrible as compared to "Believing that". Also don't understand how regulations can be "greater" or smaller. Also, increasing public confidence isn't many benefits.

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. a 'building' as a structure that has a roof or walls which either permanently or semi-permanently remains in a single position;

Now, that is an interesting definition for a building. I believe that a huge tentage set up at a place for months is going to be called a building by this. Because we have no idea what is "semi-permanently", and a tentage has a top covering, so I believe that has a roof, and would be classified as a building.

b. an 'independent building assessor' as an individual appointed independently and acting independently from the personnel and organisations responsible for the construction of buildings to objectively assess the construction quality of the building;

I didn't know you can use different forms of the same word to define a word. Surely using the word "independently" to define what is an independent building assessor is not saying anything that helps me understand what you mean by "independent".

c. 'hazardous material' as being any substance used in the construction of buildings that is generally considered to be harmful to the health and well-being of any individual;

On paper it sounds okay, but there are potential issues because this is quite vague. Let me take note of this definition, and refer to it when this phrase is being used.

d. 'negligent construction work' as construction work that fails to take the adequate steps or care to prevent harm from occurring to any individual.

But...construction work can't take steps to prevent harm! The idea is there, but the Subject-Verb agreement is not making sense. Also, potential problem similar to that of the previous definition.

2. Requires:
a. the construction of all buildings to be performed in a safe and non-hazardous manner with the greatest possible steps taken to limit harm to construction workers;

"(S)afe and non-hazardous manner" sounds repetitive. How do you intend to quantify "greatest (sic) possible steps taken"? Furthermore, saying that these steps are only taken "to limit harm" suggest that construction is harmful to workers, and without suggesting in what aspects should harm be reduced, I can very well argue that some forms of harm cannot be reduced. Can you reduce the physical harm to your body caused by...say pushing the wheelbarrow of bricks? Or that caused by operating the machinery for hours straight everyday? Do you intend to address those issues too?

b. the construction of all buildings to be reviewed by an independent building assessor as determined by the national and subnational governments of WA member nations;

You mean, review the construction process? Or review the building itself?

c. the independent building assessor to compile an objective appraisal of the quality of the construction work of all buildings and provide this information to the responsible government or authority of each WA member nation;

Now you are suggesting that this building assessor is assessing only the building quality, the structural integrity, etc. I don't see the same in the previous clause. And also, "requiring the assessor to provide this information to the responsible government of each member nation" doesn't make sense. Even the alternative, which was to "(require) the assessor to provide this information to the responsible authority of each member nation" isn't any better. The word "responsible" is terrible. Try "relevant authorities" or "relevant government agency". But definitely not passing the information to the government, because politicians can't be the ones looking at building reports.

d. construction work found to be faulty by the objective appraisal is required to immediately cease until structural and safety improvements are made as determined by the independent assessor;

Incoherent. Firstly, construction work can't be faulty. Secondly, the "objective" appraisal can't find something to be faulty. Also, the use of the word "objective" is just awkward. Drop it, or change the sentence phrasing.

e. citizens and organisations who suffer from the negligent construction work of personnel and organisations responsible for the construction of buildings to have the right to sue for damages under the law of each WA member nation;

Okay, so I am required to give my people the rights to sue for damages. Sure. They have the rights to bring up lawsuits, but if there is no law that states that the company must pay damages, it is still useless. Also, remember that I was complaining that the definition of "negligent construction work" is vague? Here is one example - a man who is unable to walk, comes to work in this building everyday using a wheelchair, decides to sue the construction contractors because the man "suffers from inconvenience" caused by having to go one big round in order to get to the lift which brings him to his office. Sounds ridiculous, because this is a building design issue, and therefore, it is the fault of the developer and building designer. But because the building is a production of the construction work undertaken by the contractors, therefore, I can say that this is "negligent construction work" under the definition. Go figure.

f. the greatest possible steps be taken to ensure that the materials used in the construction of buildings will not cause harm to any individual who uses buildings;

I think I talked about the "greatest possible steps" bit. Or maybe not. But the phrase just sounds weird. Firstly, the missing article in the part "to any individual who uses buildings". Also, I don't know any individual who uses a building, maybe you can enlighten me about it? That isn't even the worse part. The worse part I that, I am free to use sub-standard brick tiles that are hollow, and I still won't get punished. Why? Because the brick per se isn't going to cause harm. The brick doesn't produce toxic fumes, for instance. But it affects the structural integrity of the building, which in turn affects the well-being of the occupants. Not covered under this clause, even though I believe that is what is intended.

3. Prohibits:
a. personnel and organisations responsible for constructing buildings in WA member nations from offering inducements, payments, gifts or bribes to independent building assessors in order to secure a positive appraisal;

The only readable clause in the entire proposal. Finally!

b. the use of hazardous materials in the construction of buildings.

Defining "hazardous materials" in front, only to use a different phrasing to say the same thing in 2f, and then repeating that particular clause with the phrase "hazardous materials" here. Again, look at my example for 2f.

---

Now here is my personal thoughts:
That is a detailed analysis and breakdown of your entire proposal. Granted, I like your idea. But, with its current grammatical issues and totally incoherent sentences, there is no way you are getting any support for this. Really. I see that there has been others who have made other suggestions too. Take all the suggestions and redraft a better proposal. I am very tempted right now to write an entire new draft with completely new phrasing, because in its current state I am pretty sure I could rewrite everything from scratch without plagiarizing a single phrase, only just using your idea behind it as a basis for the proposal.

[Refuge Isle]

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. a 'building' as a structure that has a roof or walls which either permanently or semi-permanently remains in a single position;

...

b. the construction of all buildings to be reviewed by an independent building assessor as determined by the national and subnational governments of WA member nations;

Like...all of them? Like all new construction needs a WA inspector, including chicken coops in rural desolation and army tents in a medieval warzone? I'm also amused by the phrasing that a building is a structure which has a roof or walls. If a wall of any definition is able to constitute a building, provided it is permanent or semi-permanent, then 90% of Irish roads fit the description

c. the independent building assessor to compile an objective appraisal of the quality of the construction work of all buildings and provide this information to the responsible government or authority of each WA member nation;

Like all of them? Ever? There's no scope or context of this clause, so I can only assume that the assessor is to gather data on all buildings which still fit the description of having walls or a roof, and tabulating all objects remotely resembly structures from this moment to the dawn of civilization. Every ancient temple, every motor home which has sat for fifteen years, and every building which has since been relaimed by nature in an abandoned part of the country would need to not only be located but assessed for it's construction quality.

This resolution would possibly be the most work given by the World Assembly to date...One wonders if every assessor needs to have their own unique registry of all structures which exist.

[The Langburn Islands]

Proposal withdrawn for further changes.