[DEFEATED] Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals

[Izadi]

Izadi is against this bill due to its vagueness in the number of boats allowed at a time. This bill lends a lot of power to the canal authorities. I thought governments were in charge of trade not CANAL AUTHORITIES!

[Wallenburg]

Why is everyone against this? I don't see anything wrong with it.

Maybe they'll post their reasoning here later? EDIT: At least I hope they do. Hard to improve on it if they don't. FURTHER EDIT: Some of the delegates voting against are ones who approved it to go to vote, so I'd be really interested on their reasoning especially.

The argument I've seen go around is that it's too much micromanagement, which I quite frankly don't see. I'm not sure how TNP specifically juggles micromanagement and vague mandates simultaneously. Presumably vague clauses would be incapable of micromanagement, or at least would not lend themselves to it well.

[Araraukar]

General Assembly Vote Recommendation of The North Pacific for "Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals"

OOC: And since you're one of the ones mentioned there as having something to do with the recommendation, can you explain which bits are "unpersuasive", how you totally forgot (or just skipped to purposefully lie to people, I'm not sure which is worse) the underlined part from "any possible fees for the use of canals" and whether you were simply unaware of there being other resolutions that come under the heading of "maritime laws"? Because honestly I'm confused about what proposal version that recommendation is based on, as it's definitely not the one we submitted.

---

Izadi is against this bill due to its vagueness in the number of boats allowed at a time.

OOC: That's because there are big canals and there are small canals. A small canal might only fit one. A big one might fit dozens or even hundreds. There are different sized of ships and boats as well.

This bill lends a lot of power to the canal authorities.

Only over the canal management.

I thought governments were in charge of trade not CANAL AUTHORITIES!

Unless you have a very small nation with only a few people who do everything while also being the government, your government is going to be appointing all kinds of authorities to manage different functions of the nation. But if your nation can manage that, there's nothing in the proposal saying your government can't double as the canal authorities - as long as they, as the canal authorities, can observe and control the canal and what goes on there remotely or on the location. I really would suggest you to find out how canals are managed in Real Life. It might be educational.

[Greater Cesnica]

General Assembly Vote Recommendation of The North Pacific for "Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals"

OOC: And since you're one of the ones mentioned there as having something to do with the recommendation, can you explain which bits are "unpersuasive", how you totally forgot (or just skipped to purposefully lie to people, I'm not sure which is worse) the underlined part from "any possible fees for the use of canals" and whether you were simply unaware of there being other resolutions that come under the heading of "maritime laws"? Because honestly I'm confused about what proposal version that recommendation is based on, as it's definitely not the one we submitted.

The Ministry found that insufficient reasoning was provided so as to justify the following provisions:

Requires that all canals have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident,

Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships due to error or deliberate action of their crews hold up traffic unnecessarily,

Additionally clarifies that though this resolution does not further legislate on them, any possible fees for the use of canals count as canal operation requirements,

These clauses were found to be exceptionally micromanaging and without adequate justification. As for the "any possible fees" part being mentioned in the proposal, I was not involved in writing the final text itself, so that would be a question for Boston Castle or Cretox. I can say however that even without the "for the use of" part, the meaning (that being of canal fees paid by ship crews for passage through a canal) is still evident, at least to me. As for the part regarding "maritime laws", the Ministry found that additional clarification should have been provided as to which maritime laws were being referred to.

Also, you are free to make an account with the TNP forums and elaborate upon your resolution here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194777. Walfo has already done so.

[Araraukar]

necessary emergency services
appropriate compensation

The argument I've seen go around is that it's too much micromanagement, which I quite frankly don't see. I'm not sure how TNP specifically juggles micromanagement and vague mandates simultaneously. Presumably vague clauses would be incapable of micromanagement, or at least would not lend themselves to it well.

OOC: I also don't really get the complaints about "necessary", "unnecessary" and "appropriate".

Like "necessary emergency equipment" - I'd say fire suppressant capability would be quite necessary, for example, but some nation might think to save on that, thinking the ships come equipped with such systems anyway. Well, they usually do, but such systems are not infallible, as we know from Real Life, nor always sufficient.

Or "unnecessary delays of transit" - if your ship experiences engine failure, that's going to create an unavoidable necessary delay, but if they then turn down offered help from tugboats, that's going to create an unnecessary delay, and given they'll be blocking traffic, they should get fined for it, just like you can get fined if you block a street if your lorry's engine breaks down and you refuse to have it towed out of a busy intersection.

As for the "appropriate compensation" - what did they want? A specific currency amount set? It would depend entirely on the length and severeness of the delay. If a ship gets stuck sideways in the canal, blocking all traffic in either direction and in addition damages the canal's structures, obviously they should get a bigger fine than if they just slow down other traffic until the tugboats can be attached to pull them along the rest of the way.

None of those can really be done any other way, given all the variables that exist even in RL, not to mention the myriad NS worlds.

These clauses were found to be exceptionally micromanaging and without adequate justification.

OOC still: See above. Still confused?

As for the part regarding "maritime laws", the Ministry found that additional clarification should have been provided as to which maritime laws were being referred to.

Your ministry needs someone who has a better grasp of GA. Or better grasp of Enligsh. What did you think "maritime laws" meant?

TNP forums

I don't do offsite forums.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: I also don't really get the complaints about "necessary", "unnecessary" and "appropriate".

They're subjective terms. They differ from person to person, never mind from nation to nation.

Your ministry needs someone who has a better grasp of GA. Or better grasp of Enligsh. What did you think "maritime laws" meant?

I didn't write this IFV directly, you can direct those concerns towards Cretox and Boston Castle. But...

I don't do offsite forums.

In the past, you've talked about how you don't want to use IA's InfoEurope utility since you didn't trust it for whatever reason. What's the problem with Xenforo forum boards?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I also don't really get the complaints about "necessary", "unnecessary" and "appropriate".

They're subjective terms. They differ from person to person, never mind from nation to nation.

OOC: ...that's the point. Re-read the definition of a canal. Look up RL examples of such canals. They vary from the Suez to the Saimaa and in NS world way beyond. Because the same regulations are meant to fit so many different sizes and locations of canals, it would be insane to require the same literal lists (which would be even more micromanagery!) of equipment and personnel of canals that see a few dozen sailboats a year to ones that see dozens of container ships a day.

I didn't write this IFV directly, you can direct those concerns towards Cretox and Boston Castle.

And if you can get them to come to here to comment, great!

In the past, you've talked about how you don't want to use IA's InfoEurope utility since you didn't trust it for whatever reason.

Honestly I don't remember that, nor do I care; the resolutions are findable on the forums and on the gameside, don't need to go offsite for them.

What's the problem with Xenforo forum boards?

...they're offsite forums. I don't do offsite forums for NS stuff. I don't even do onsite regional stuff except for the zombiecalypse event.

[Slandiltopia]

I'm not a fan of this one specifically because of provision 3a. ('[This motion] requires that canal authorities do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with canal operation requirements, safety, national security, or unless otherwise required by another General Assembly resolution.') I think most people are unwilling to surrender autonomy - I want to be able to refuse canal access to certain vessels or nations for reasons other than national security or safety. I'm not going to allow a fascist dictatorship to use my canal, for example - That's not a safety issue, I just don't want that kind of nation to be supported by services I control.

[South Olpen]

(Image)
Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals

Regulation:Transport

Proposed by: Walfo

---

The World Assembly,

Aware of the importance of canals acting as shortcuts on important trade routes,

Seeking to prevent congestion of traffic through such canals while also making transit through these canals safe,

Wishing to encourage nations in charge of such canals to continue allowing their use for international trade and to consider improvements on their infrastructure if necessary,

Hereby,

1. For the purposes of this resolution, defines:

1. a "canal" as an artificial waterway built along important shipping routes to allow for the transit of commercial vessels, and creating a shortcut between two large bodies of water, or a large body of water and an international port,
2. "canal authorities" as personnel authorized to allow or deny the transit of ships through the canal, whether on-site or remotely,
3. a "ship" as a commercial civilian vessel transporting trade goods or passengers;

2. Requires that all canals:

1. be monitored by the canal authorities assigned to them at all times,
2. have on-call pilots and tugboats to assist ships to pass through the canal safely,
3. have their infrastructure inspected regularly and upgraded when necessary,
4. have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident, and
5. be equipped with weather monitoring with communication capability to warn ships of adverse weather conditions;

3. Also requires that canal authorities:

1. do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with canal operation requirements, safety, national security, or unless otherwise required by another General Assembly resolution,
2. remain aware of how many vessels and of which size are within the boundaries of the canal at any one time,
3. do not allow more ships to begin the transit through the canal than is safe,
4. keep in contact with all ships within their area of control, and
5. react to changing conditions and emerging hazards by quickly alerting the ships in transit and those waiting to enter the canal;

4. Mandates that the crews of all ships wishing to pass through the canal:

1. are able to abide by maritime laws and local regulations,
2. are able to understand and follow the instructions of canal authorities,
3. have made sure that their ship is capable of traveling through the canal in its current condition and the current weather conditions,
4. facilitate any possible border control and customs inspections to take place on their ship prior to entering a canal,
5. have competent personnel in control of the ship, at all times when within the canal,
6. request help from canal authorities to enable safe transit, when necessary,
7. take necessary measures to minimize the spread of invasive species,
8. stay aware of traffic around them and inform canal authorities of any accidents they witness or of any hazards they encounter that they were not already made aware of, and
9. have personal safety equipment for all members of the crew and in the case of passenger ships for all passengers as well;

5. Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships:

1. due to error or deliberate action of their crews,
   
   1. damage the canal's infrastructure,
   2. endanger or damage other ships within the canal,
   3. hold up traffic unnecessarily,
2. or their crews fail any of the duties in clause 4;

6. Additionally clarifies that though this resolution does not further legislate on them,

1. any possible fees for the use of canals count as canal operation requirements, and
2. unless restricted from doing so by another General Assembly resolution, nations are free to conduct border control checks of cargo, crew and passengers prior to letting a ship enter a canal.

Co-authored by Araraukar

Draft XVI

Are you seriously telling me that no aid is given for upholding canals? You discouraging International trade. Also, as far as I see, you have to let fascist, Nazi, communist, and enemy ships through your waters. I would leave the WA if this bill passed.

[South Olpen]

Izadi is against this bill due to its vagueness in the number of boats allowed at a time. This bill lends a lot of power to the canal authorities. I thought governments were in charge of trade not CANAL AUTHORITIES!

OOC: Canal authorities are usually part of a nations government, either military in the case of the US, or economic agencies.

[Araraukar]

I'm not a fan of this one specifically because of provision 3a. ('[This motion] requires that canal authorities do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with canal operation requirements, safety, national security, or unless otherwise required by another General Assembly resolution.') I think most people are unwilling to surrender autonomy - I want to be able to refuse canal access to certain vessels or nations for reasons other than national security or safety. I'm not going to allow a fascist dictatorship to use my canal, for example - That's not a safety issue, I just don't want that kind of nation to be supported by services I control.

OOC: Actually the proposal would give your nation more control over canals than it currently has - existing resolution GA #34, clause 7, means you can't deny access to your territorial waters and harbours to ships that conform to very minimal common sense requirements set out in that resolution.

Are you seriously telling me that no aid is given for upholding canals? You discouraging International trade. Also, as far as I see, you have to let fascist, Nazi, communist, and enemy ships through your waters. I would leave the WA if this bill passed.

OOC: See above for the letting through ships from people you don't agree with, you already have to do that. But I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "upholding canals"? Could you clarify?

OOC: Canal authorities are usually part of a nations government, either military in the case of the US, or economic agencies.

Militaries and economic agencies are not part of the government. I think you mean state (which is the entirety of the organization that runs everything in the nation), not the government (which tends to mean - depending a bit on the system - ministers and senate/parliament members). Canal authorities should definitely be civilians working for the state in my opinion, but like you say in your RL example, as that's not the case everywhere (the commercial entity example), we didn't want to specify they had to be state agents.

[Coronational Chechyans and affiliates]

Opposed. Not sure why we need to be so micromanaged. Seems like this whole thing was meant to be topical due to that cargo ship getting stuck but it doesn't really require an amendment

[Tinhampton]

Walfo is redrafting this. He has said in his redraft thread that "I am relieved this version is not going to pass." Why? It's only 4,000 votes down

[Walfo]

Walfo is redrafting this. He has said in his redraft thread that "I am relieved this version is not going to pass." Why? It's only 4,000 votes down

I actually understand the thinking of those who are opposed. The necessaries are well, unnecessarily! lol. It has some problems, and they deserve to be fixed.

[Araraukar]

I actually understand the thinking of those who are opposed. The necessaries are well, unnecessarily! lol. It has some problems, and they deserve to be fixed.

OOC: We disagree on some things, including that one. Which will be sorted with proper redrafting, not hasty resubmittal.

Walfo, calm down. Failing to pass a proposal on your first try is normal. Go on your vacation, we'll redraft when you get back. Rushing resubmittal is not the right course of action, especially when you're missing the bigger issue.

[Outer Sparta]

I actually understand the thinking of those who are opposed. The necessaries are well, unnecessarily! lol. It has some problems, and they deserve to be fixed.

OOC: We disagree on some things, including that one. Which will be sorted with proper redrafting, not hasty resubmittal.

Walfo, calm down. Failing to pass a proposal on your first try is normal. Go on your vacation, we'll redraft when you get back. Rushing resubmittal is not the right course of action, especially when you're missing the bigger issue.

A proper redraft can solve many issues that people have with the current one at-vote and address their concerns. That's a second chance, and be sure to make the most of it!

[Tinhampton]

"Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals" was defeated 8,219 votes to 3,970. (32.57% support)

For: 3,970: Beepee (672), Agalaesia (199), Sylh Alanor (58), Dabberwocky (40), Hipsters With Airpods (32), Noble Titans (30), Grey County (29), Roma Sparta (29), Floyssauu (29), Karteria (29), Tostandia (26), Suter (24), Castle Federation (22), Tinhampton (21), Sjevre (21), Panther (20), LasVegastan (19), Fachumonn (19), Ecclestia (18), Greater Cuba (16), Baloo Kingdom (16), Calnodia (16), Piadosa (15), J-O-E (15), Lamerdon (15), Isaris (14), Union Of The Squids (14), Franche Comte (13), Acaciatropole (10), Ko-oren (10), Federal republic of Socialsts (10), Harkagrad (10), Albarusija (10), The Voltarum (9), Zamastan (9), The Hard Part (9), Seludong (9), Golanchia (8), The Flyin (8), Yafetistan (8), Dossiny (8), Barkania (8), Tomisburg (8), Oliveriaa (8), East overworld (7), The Red Shinobi (7), Krovnik (7), New Ziah (6), Omniabstracta (6), Hetairaea (6), Atlantian Oceania (6), Luxenermy (6), Londoniopol (5), Namit96 (5), The Scottish Republic (5), Ethwelistan (5), IstanbulHasAids (5), Libonesia (5), Ur-Noxia (5), Khushvad (5), Dushkaria (4), MsJe (4), Lithuanian Ireland (4), Smiley Bob (4), Robotox Empire (4), San Teodoro de Haro (4), Richomp (4), Socruell (4), Dollystana (4), Onionist Randosia (4), Andia Calla (4), The Fire Born (4), Reultan (4), Boarder Princes (4), Yjlom (3), Gurbangulistan (3), New Alentejo (3), Littjara (3), Unbridled Mediocrity (3), Rykkland (3), N E A C (3), Chuliu Emperor (3), The Greater Luzon and Visayas (3), Heromerland (3), Elstomony (3), Adinesi (3), New Bismuthium (3), The Anarchist Federation of Spain (3), CoraSpia (3), The Austrobavarian Empire (3), Soviet Socialist Antegria (2), Miyasaka (2), Dinaris (2), Vampirus Sanguinaria (2), MexicoTown (2), NORTH TELANGANA (2), Juvian (2), Donau Federation (2), Deutsch-Franzosische (2), United Dependencies (2), New Taters (2), Felistia (2), Malgax (2), Scakulever (2), Novamexia 3 (2), Uhremberg (2), Aubistan (2), The Akasha Colony (2), Greater Eireann (2), Numryo (2), Nerdesia (2), NationStates Puppet (2), Sun Burst (2), United Corporate States (2), Lingan (2), Conservativealia (2), Saganye (2), Khaliffia (2), For The worlds of the midrim (2), Vetoland (2), Erisure (2), Socialist States of Ludistan (2), President Pro Tempore (2), Oscines (2), Dracolia (2), Emnaria (2), Powerful companies (2), FarmerGroot (2), Spinys (2), Islands Of Ventro (2), Maiean (2), New Technocratic Prussia (2), Fritzentein (2), Lawid (2), Greater Slavicland (2), and (2,072) individual member nations.

Against: 8,219: Francois Isidore (1,002), Dilber (523), Wischland (353), North East Somerset (253), Primorye Oblast (229), Duby (158), Narvatus (157), You Should See Me in a Crown (135), Lesser Velutaria (133), Ruinenlust (121), Brototh (113), TESDAI (98), ShrewLlamaLand (95), The Salaxalans (79), Josephtan (76), Vancouvia (60), Enlais (59), Octal (53), South Boston Irishmen (52), Nulkia (52), Mikeswill (48), Brys questions (47), Candensia (36), Particle (35), Yodle (32), LollerLand (30), Boris Cult (26), NewTexas (26), West Phoenicia (23), Orioni 2 (22), Volkerben (22), Oi Barbaroi (22), Bassiliya (21), Dune-Aemiliana (19), Volykos (18), Hulldom (17), Ioavollr (14), Cruciland (14), Gatchina (14), FNU (14), One Small Island (13), Lunar Martian Alliance (13), Yasuke (13), Candanadium (12), Vengeance2 (12), Halcyon Nova (12), Otaku Stratus (12), Castelia (11), Gladys and the drowning fish (11), Azgoghk (11), The Sheika (10), Vegaga (10), Miklozia (10), The Union of Costa Rica (10), Thee Imperium 0f Man (10), Lenlyvit (9), Lost Village Mayohiga (9), Border-Albion (9), Somersetonia (9), Brocklandia (9), Muzztopia (9), Lurusitania (9), Calamari Lands (8), Greater Zhanland (8), Russiania (8), Norvew (8), Vest-Skandinavia (7), The Soviet state of Svalbard (7), Lamoni (7), Northern Frost (7), Ecolaria (7), Chodean Kal (7), OmegaShenron (7), Browzantine (7), San Lumen (6), Ospeia (6), Romanian Sultanate (6), Wobbegong (6), GoodKingWenceslas (6), The Sovereign Kingdom of Immobilia (6), New Delfos (6), Echidona (5), Winfallow (5), Lushie (5), Ench Table (5), People of Phoenix (5), Gibraltarica (5), West Selania (5), Terminum (5), Northern Race Empire (5), Auruna (5), Al-Haqqar (5), Zoom-87 (5), FORKTASTICSTAN (5), Cynetia (5), Krovx Luxembourg (5), Pinochet Executionists (5), Rimas (5), Haruhi Japan (5), Crawlaysia (5), ColdHeartedBastards (5), Sunixia Catinia (5), Masonolixia (5), Talthesia (4), Thialrer (4), Deskoslovakia (4), Madrocea (4), Aelythium (4), Barak Khalad (4), Spectral Empire (4), Denathor (4), Kustonia (4), Wabacha (4), Koxor (4), The Palentine (4), Protected Lands of Ike (4), Momma Ayu (4), Jacobopolus (4), Ben Kenobi (4), Sedgistan (3), Frontier Isles (3), 11 Templar Knights (3), Jianxi Fujian Soviet (3), Kleinekatzen (3), North Schoonheid (3), TAF International (3), Matonis (3), Creator Land (3), The Isles of Bermuda (3), Grand Memeland (3), Erianu (3), The Crags of Tel-naeir (3), Suvmia (3), Kilonia (3), North Power (3), Great Ronopolis (3), Zombiedolphins (3), Chespinton (3), Molopovia (3), Fsdh E (3), Coronational Chechyans and affiliates (3), Chap Ven (3), Alistia (3), Krezenel (3), Dragons of Power (3), Kingdom of Derita (3), BromoLand (3), Greenkeep (3), Herby (3), Flor-Fina (3), Tirnot (2), Zarnath 2 (2), Wolflandil (2), Shnrubton (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Lehqhbraot (2), Knootoss (2), Faazsilnorok (2), Kekistan wibu (2), Glorious Scythia (2), Wakanda Reborn (2), Hoshido and Nohr (2), Nopengie (2), Real Gamers (2), Raccquesi (2), Oppy Gasai (2), Hnrrrigstan (2), The New Worship (2), The Neolithic German Empire (2), Slavdomland (2), Rekua (2), Molson Iceland (2), Zuleit (2), Brox Deu (2), Adeiatic (2), Lippoy (2), God the Lord (2), Melanocytes (2), The Ancient World (2), Imren (2), Romulus III (2), Driasau (2), Central Protectorate of Alkoholi (2), Jalamania (2), Beazlend (2), Merulla (2), Whitemore (2), Zarnicovia nova (2), Il Osoris (2), Democratic Exodian Territories (2), Asterian People (2), Emasin (2), Vanra (2), Gonzlandia (2), Kalin Oblast (2), Ponska (2), Free Economic Zone Of Rapture (2), Chundukeratopia (2), Tobiasan (2), Reevenstein (2), Imperiya Snezhnaya (2), and (3,186) individual member nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Please redraft in a separate thread.

[Walfo]

Please redraft in a separate thread.

It has: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=506501