Page 2 of 4
Posted:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:05 pmby Scalizagasti
Wallenburg wrote:You misunderstand how density works. Aluminum foil is not light because it is not dense, but because it has very little volume. You will observe the same properties with gold foil, which you agree classifies as a toxic heavy metal under the target.
I know the difference between density and mass. The density of aluminum foil is around 2.7 g/cm3, while the density of gold foil is 19.3 g/cm3. I never mentioned mass or volume.
Posted:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:23 pmby Wallenburg
Scalizagasti wrote:Wallenburg wrote:You misunderstand how density works. Aluminum foil is not light because it is not dense, but because it has very little volume. You will observe the same properties with gold foil, which you agree classifies as a toxic heavy metal under the target.
I know the difference between density and mass. The density of aluminum foil is around 2.7 g/cm3, while the density of gold foil is 19.3 g/cm3. I never mentioned mass or volume.
Which makes aluminum about as dense as solid rock. In most circles, rock is considered a relatively dense material.
Posted:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:41 pmby Scalizagasti
Wallenburg wrote:Which makes aluminum about as dense as solid rock. In most circles, rock is considered a relatively dense material.
I've not heard regular rock considered dense. And personally, when I think of a dense material I go to gold, uranium, tungsten etc. before I go to aluminum or generic rocks.
Regardless, this is going off-topic, and the fact that we can have this discussion supports the need for this repeal.
Posted:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:05 pmby Jedinsto
Regardless, this is going off-topic, and the fact that we can have this discussion supports the need for this repeal.
Based. If you have any specific suggestions though, I'm all ears!
Posted:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:08 pmby Waldenes
Jedinsto wrote:I guess you didn't see because I edited it into a post instead of making a new one; I'm not writing a replacement. After screwing around with it for a bit I figured the definitions would get too weird. We'd be much better off with a general waste disposal resolution, and obviously we are better off without this resolution in general.
“Be that as it may, until we are assured that such a resolution on general waste disposal is in the works, we cannot support this repeal.”
Posted:
Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:36 amby Jedinsto
Bump.
Posted:
Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:21 amby Araraukar
OOC: Why do you keep bumping without any new content added?
And on this topic, have you read the target resolution's drafting thread? Worth having a look at.
Posted:
Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:22 amby Jedinsto
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Why do you keep bumping without any new content added?
Quite honestly, because that's just kinda what people do.
And on this topic, have you read the target resolution's drafting thread? Worth having a look at.
I have not yet. I will take a look, thanks for the suggestion.
Posted:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 6:17 amby Jedinsto
Since there do not seem to be too many comments, this has been moved to [NON-DESCRIPT DRAFTING STAGE]
Posted:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 6:53 amby Tinhampton
Jedinsto wrote:Since there do not seem to be too many comments, this has been moved to [NON-DESCRIPT DRAFTING STAGE]
Posted:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 6:53 amby Daarwyrth
Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, I have re-read the repeal proposal, and I wanted to draw your attention to the following part of the text:
Realizing that such an incredibly broad definition bans member states from placing any metal in the "natural environment," forces member states to research alternatives to the use of all metals, and generally regulates the use of harmless metals,
I believe this is a good basis for an argument, but it feels somewhat bare at the moment. In its current form, it sounds as three separate statements. My recommendation would be to try to add into this line of argumentation
why this is bad. For example, what implications does the part "bans member states from placing any metal in the natural environment" have that is detrimental to member nations? The same goes for "forces member states to research alternatives to the use of all metals", which might have as a consequence that more vital research gets delayed. Laying out the implications of these things you mentioned, would help strengthen the argument in this part, I believe."
Posted:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:10 amby Jedinsto
"Thank you ambassador, more elaborations have been made."
Posted:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:13 amby Daarwyrth
Jedinsto wrote:"Thank you ambassador, more elaborations have been made."
Vyn Nysen: "These changes were exactly what I meant. Good work, Ambassador."
Posted:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:09 amby Jedinsto
Made changes to the part about halting development due to a potential illegality.
Posted:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:24 amby Daarwyrth
Jedinsto wrote:Made changes to the part about halting development due to a potential illegality.
OOC: The changed language is better, yes. You could technically also rephrase it as " halting development using such metals in the "natural environment" to varying degrees", but I'll leave that to you!
Posted:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:01 pmby WayNeacTia
I see very little reason to repeal the THMA, other than someone is looking for something to repeal. Show us a half way decent replacement and maybe this could be considered.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:49 amby Herby
Wayneactia wrote:I see very little reason to repeal the THMA, other than someone is looking for something to repeal. Show us a half way decent replacement and maybe this could be considered.
Working on it.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:06 amby Jedinsto
Really? Thanks Herby, I wasn't planning on doing so myself.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:53 amby Araraukar
OOC: What's your main beef with your target? Make it short and simple.
Posted:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:51 amby Jedinsto
I am going to keep the current status in the thread title, but this is last call. I've plead with all my regions for feedback, nobody has much left to offer. I'll make some final revisions and submit within a few days, unless I've got some major changes to make. IA will be submitting a legality challenge at some point afterwards to settle a precedential issue.
Posted:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:16 amby Jedinsto
Posted:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:21 amby Greater Cesnica
"Full support, Ambassador."
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:23 amby Jedinsto
Greater Cesnica wrote:"Full support, Ambassador."
"I greatly appreciate the support, ambassador."
OOC:
One more approval needed to reach quorum, come on delegates!Edit: Quorum reached.
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:54 amby Trellania
A raven flies in, with a note attached. Dame Allania unties the note, reads it, nods, and waves at the raven. The raven flies out as she turns her attention back to the matter at hand.
"I have just been notified this, barring some unusual circumstances, the next piece of legislation up for vote. I would like to congratulate you on this."
Posted:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:57 amby Jedinsto
OOC: Yeah this goes to vote next, unless the Old Hope crap reaches quorum. Promotion to the floor is determined by submission order, not quorum order, unless one proposal is at quorum and the other isn't when the voting on the at-vote ends. Hopefully that didn't cause any confusion lol.
