NationStates

Jedinsto wrote:

Barfleur wrote:snip

You may be right about that, I am fine with this draft as long as some cuts are made to the preamble.

Seems like some cuts have been made, but I think there should be some more. So, to the author, I suggest you look back through the preamble and cut whatever you think isn't really necessary, but this has my full support. Good luck!

Thank you! And thanks for all your hard work making suggestions!

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals, and several prominent keystone species,

Groot rubs his chin, then grabs a red pencil. "I am Groot," he says to the author as he offers the following change:

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals and several prominent keystone species that may not be present in other ecosystems,

Groot wrote:

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals, and several prominent keystone species,

Groot rubs his chin, then grabs a red pencil. "I am Groot," he says to the author as he offers the following change:

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals and several prominent keystone species that may not be present in other ecosystems,

"Concur."

Groot wrote:

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals, and several prominent keystone species,

Groot rubs his chin, then grabs a red pencil. "I am Groot," he says to the author as he offers the following change:

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals and several prominent keystone species that may not be present in other ecosystems,

Ambassador Tavoularoglou: Those are good changes for the delegation of this proposal to make, especially considered that the numbering of how many species is rather unnecessary and doesn't fully encapsulate what you may find in different nations' grasslands.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Groot wrote:

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals, and several prominent keystone species,

Groot rubs his chin, then grabs a red pencil. "I am Groot," he says to the author as he offers the following change:

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals and several prominent keystone species that may not be present in other ecosystems,

Ambassador Tavoularoglou: Those are good changes for the delegation of this proposal to make, especially considered that the numbering of how many species is rather unnecessary and doesn't fully encapsulate what you may find in different nations' grasslands.

Fair point.

Ok, I've made some changes to the preamble

Big Boyz wrote:‘land development’ as any sapient activity which permanently alters a landscape from its naturally occurring form;

"Perhaps 'permanently' is too strong of a word here? This could be an exploitable loophole, since not many things are ultimately permanent in life. It could be argued that a building being constructed is not permanent since it may be taken down five hundred years in the future."

Big Boyz wrote:conduct environmental impact studies to determine the effect of any land development within 5 kilometers of areas recognized as containing tall grass prairies;

"Would governments themselves have to conduct these studies? If private developers or NGOs are doing this land development, member states may want to delegate those studies to the ones who are doing the development."

Big Boyz wrote:research methods of reducing land use and pollution associated with agriculture.

"Agriculture in general or agriculture in these at-risk ecosystems?"

"Overall this is a very good draft and I see very few problems with it. As someone largely unfamiliar with grassland ecosystems I can say that the preamble succinctly explains the problem and why we ought to take action. It is good to see the progress from a few days ago and your willingness to incorporate feedback from the other ambassadors."

Scalizagasti wrote:

Big Boyz wrote:‘land development’ as any sapient activity which permanently alters a landscape from its naturally occurring form;

"Perhaps 'permanently' is too strong of a word here? This could be an exploitable loophole, since not many things are ultimately permanent in life. It could be argued that a building being constructed is not permanent since it may be taken down five hundred years in the future."

Big Boyz wrote:conduct environmental impact studies to determine the effect of any land development within 5 kilometers of areas recognized as containing tall grass prairies;

"Would governments themselves have to conduct these studies? If private developers or NGOs are doing this land development, member states may want to delegate those studies to the ones who are doing the development."

Big Boyz wrote:research methods of reducing land use and pollution associated with agriculture.

"Agriculture in general or agriculture in these at-risk ecosystems?"

"Overall this is a very good draft and I see very few problems with it. As someone largely unfamiliar with grassland ecosystems I can say that the preamble succinctly explains the problem and why we ought to take action. It is good to see the progress from a few days ago and your willingness to incorporate feedback from the other ambassadors."

Thanks for all the feedback!
Regarding your specific points:

1. I think you may be right that "permanently" could be used as a loophole, so I will revise this clause in the next draft. Nice catch!
2. I agree that it would probably be easier to allow governments to delegate research studies to private developers/NGOs, but I'm afraid that this might incentivize poor research methods that intentionally overlook potential ecological risks. I'll consider changing this clause for clarity.
3. Agriculture in general, as the general practices can still afflict a multitude of ecosystems, regardless of whether or not they are currently at-risk.

I appreciate you taking the time to look through this! All of the suggestions thus far have been really helpful.

*bump*
Draft 6 has been added.

OOC: Suggest changing the capitalized words (TASKS, etc.) to italics or just unformatted.

IC: "We have no objections to the new draft, and so we still support."

Barfleur wrote:OOC: Suggest changing the capitalized words (TASKS, etc.) to italics or just unformatted.

IC: "We have no objections to the new draft, and so we still support."

OOC: Perhaps you are right, the capitalized words may come off a bit too strongly. I'll change it to italics.
Is there anything else you, or anyone, would like to see changed?

Big Boyz wrote:

Barfleur wrote:OOC: Suggest changing the capitalized words (TASKS, etc.) to italics or just unformatted.

IC: "We have no objections to the new draft, and so we still support."

OOC: Perhaps you are right, the capitalized words may come off a bit too strongly. I'll changed it to italics.
Is there anything else you, or anyone, would like to see changed?

Meh. I prefer the capitalisation, but it's not a big deal.

Honeydewistania wrote:

Big Boyz wrote:OOC: Perhaps you are right, the capitalized words may come off a bit too strongly. I'll changed it to italics.
Is there anything else you, or anyone, would like to see changed?

Meh. I prefer the capitalisation, but it's not a big deal.

I agree that it's pretty trivial, but I just think the italics works better with the tone of the resolution, you know? Anyways, let me know if there is anything more you would like to see changed. I don't want to jump the gun, but I feel like we might be getting close to "last call" time.

Big Boyz wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:Meh. I prefer the capitalisation, but it's not a big deal.

I agree that it's pretty trivial, but I just think the italics works better with the tone of the resolution, you know? Anyways, let me know if there is anything more you would like to see changed. I don't want to jump the gun, but I feel like we might be getting close to "last call" time.

This is fairly polished, I'd recommend a few more weeks. As for the italics, I do prefer the italics to caps.

Jedinsto wrote:

Big Boyz wrote:I agree that it's pretty trivial, but I just think the italics works better with the tone of the resolution, you know? Anyways, let me know if there is anything more you would like to see changed. I don't want to jump the gun, but I feel like we might be getting close to "last call" time.

This is fairly polished, I'd recommend a few more weeks. As for the italics, I do prefer the italics to caps.

Sounds good. I'll wait another week or so before putting out a last call, if there are no more suggestions.

Bump for last-minute suggestions before last call. Last Call will go out Saturday at noon, CST.

*Bump*
*Set*
*Spike*
LAST CALL! The proposal will be submitted on Monday, April 26th, at noon CST if there are no further suggestions.

Thanks everyone for all your hard work!

Big Boyz wrote:*Bump*
*Set*
*Spike*
LAST CALL! The proposal will be submitted on Monday, April 26th, at noon CST if there are no further suggestions.

Thanks everyone for all your hard work!

I don't have any issues with this and it seems polished enough for my liking, even given the fairly short amount of time in drafting, so you have my best wishes with this!

Jedinsto wrote:

Big Boyz wrote:*Bump*
*Set*
*Spike*
LAST CALL! The proposal will be submitted on Monday, April 26th, at noon CST if there are no further suggestions.

Thanks everyone for all your hard work!

I don't have any issues with this and it seems polished enough for my liking, even given the fairly short amount of time in drafting, so you have my best wishes with this!

Thank you! And thanks for all of your suggestions! They have been very helpful!

Submitted. Here's the link.

Big Boyz wrote:Submitted. Here's the link.

Good luck! Make sure to send a campaign TG out.

"No, I rather think Wallenburg will not end all expansion of cities in grassland areas, nor will it require millions of its citizens to starve by limiting agricultural development."

Wallenburg wrote:"No, I rather think Wallenburg will not end all expansion of cities in grassland areas, nor will it require millions of its citizens to starve by limiting agricultural development."

"It is important for Wallenburg to remember that tall grass prairies are highly beneficial to agriculture, as they support a high number of pollinators. Additionally, there is no regulation preventing the development of shortgrass prairies, which are fare more abundant and far less ecologically significant than tallgrass prairies. Tallgrass prairies have been reduced to less than 1% of their historic range, so the advantages of further developing these significant ecosystems are rather small."

Good luck! This has gone quite a long ways when you first made it (which was well-written for a first-timer to begin with).

Outer Sparta wrote:Good luck! This has gone quite a long ways when you first made it (which was well-written for a first-timer to begin with).

Thanks! And thank you for all of the suggestions, they have been really helpful!