[DRAFT] Repeal: "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Molotovsk]

First drafted this on my past main (Traden), but it got deleted, so redrafting here.

The World Assembly,

Noting that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act gave freedom and regulations to nations which possessed nukes since it became a resolution,

Concerned, however, that this resolution provides multiple mistakes which would otherwise have been left unnoticed, which warrants a repeal,

Noticing it stating weapons instead of nuclear arms, meaning that member nations have to be careful with every weapon they have, rather than just being careful with every nuclear arms they possess,

Realizing it allows nations to possess nuclear arms to defend from hostile nations, but not to attack hostile nations, which can be a conundrum because the resolution does not provide imperative curtailments for attacking nations with nuclear arms,

Reminded of the passing of GA#418 Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, which makes this resolution pointless, because GA#418 Safeguarding Nuclear Materials covers everything from this resolution in a more exquisite way,

Summarizing that GA#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act does not help the world in any way and should be repealed,

Hereby repeals GA#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Much as I'd like for nukes to be banned in NSWA, no support. Badly written, again, doesn't make sense (how is not specifying number of nukes a failing of the resolution?) and in general this is not something you in particular have the capability of tackling. I'm saying this with all the kindness I can muster, because this has been tried by people who are good at this part of NationStates, and they have failed too.

[Molotovsk]

OOC: Much as I'd like for nukes to be banned in NSWA, no support. Badly written, again, doesn't make sense (how is not specifying number of nukes a failing of the resolution?) and in general this is not something you in particular have the capability of tackling. I'm saying this with all the kindness I can muster, because this has been tried by people who are good at this part of NationStates, and they have failed too.

Improved.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Much as I'd like for nukes to be banned in NSWA, no support. Badly written, again, doesn't make sense (how is not specifying number of nukes a failing of the resolution?) and in general this is not something you in particular have the capability of tackling. I'm saying this with all the kindness I can muster, because this has been tried by people who are good at this part of NationStates, and they have failed too.

Improved.

OOC: You missed the underlined bits.

[Molotovsk]

Improved.

OOC: You missed the underlined bits.

I'm not trying this with skill. I'm trying this with faith.

[Jedinsto]

OOC: You missed the underlined bits.

I'm not trying this with skill. I'm trying this with faith.

Exactly.

[Molotovsk]

I'm not trying this with skill. I'm trying this with faith.

Exactly.

Skill is just your talent. Faith, however, is propaganda to never give up, keep trying, and believe that you can do it.

Did that help you?

[Jedinsto]

Exactly.

Skill is just your talent. Faith, however, is propaganda to never give up, keep trying, and believe that you can do it.

Did that help you?

Nope. People legislate by writing something as well as they can and then the faith comes in when they submit and hope the world agrees with them. You don't legislate by shitting on a paper and trying to pull out the most coherent argument from the shit, then ignoring any and all feedback, and submitting. So no that did not help.

[Molotovsk]

Skill is just your talent. Faith, however, is propaganda to never give up, keep trying, and believe that you can do it.

Did that help you?

Nope. People legislate by writing something as well as they can and then the faith comes in when they submit and hope the world agrees with them. You don't legislate by shitting on a paper and trying to pull out the most coherent argument from the shit, then ignoring any and all feedback, and submitting. So no that did not help.

My point is, I don't try but I do. I then have faith that I did it successfully and fix any errors.

Now, have any feedback on the proposal?

[Jedinsto]

Considering how much of a waste of everybody's time giving feedback on your proposals has become, no I do not have any feedback to give.

[South St Maarten]

Exactly.

Skill is just your talent. Faith, however, is propaganda to never give up, keep trying, and believe that you can do it.

Did that help you?

OOC: The concept to repeal this specific act, Molotovsk, is not a novel one but a worthy cause. While I'll never tell anyone not to attempt something, this would need much more elaboration and specificity, along with improved vocabulary, to reach the floor. Same with Tropical Cyclone Convention, which needs further drafting and revision. Take it from me, ambassador, a good draft often requires months of revision to become a proper resolution. Now, if you are committed to this, I'll offer feedback shortly, but I'd encourage you to take your time when in the drafting stage (and on a related note, unsubmit TCC from the GA)

[Kenmoria]

“Repealing NAPA is of approximately the same difficulty as rolling Sisyphus’s rock up Mount Everest, while doing all twelve labours of Heracles simultaneously, and holding a cup of coffee that isn’t horrendously overpriced. I advise you to try less impossible task. Nevertheless, I have some red pen feedback on the draft.”

The World Assembly,

Noting that the Nuclear Arms Possession Act provided arming for all World Assembly member nations since it became a resolution, ‘Provided arming’ is awkward wording, and should be replaced. Also, it is fairly obvious that NAPA did whatever it did since it was passed, since resolutions cannot take effect until they are, so there is no need to mention the time frame. This is a filler clause, but it is commonly-included, so there’s no issue there.

Concerned, however, that this resolution provides multiple mistakes which would otherwise have been left unnoticed, This, however, is a completely unnecessary filler clause. If you want to mention issues in a piece of legislation, do it in a clause which explains what these issues are. Just mentioning that there are issues doesn’t add any justification for a repeal. Further, I believe ‘uncorrected’ would be more appropriate than ‘unnoticed’ here.

Noticing it stating weapons instead of nuclear arms, meaning that member nations have to be careful with every weapon they have, rather than just being careful with every nuclear arms they possess, I am something of a grammarian, so I can assure you that this is not the case. The use of ‘nuclear weapon’ in the first part of that clause establishes that the adjective ‘nuclear’ relates to the noun ‘weapon’. Hence, when ‘weapon’ is used later, it metonymonically refers to nuclear weapons, since there has not been a change of subject. For example, ‘I love chocolate cake - much as my dietician wishes I didn’t - because the cake is just so rich’. Here, it is quite obvious that only chocolate cake is intended to be talked about here, and that I ought to go on a diet.

Additionally, no reasonable member nation would follow your interpretation, since it would disadvantage them severely.

Realizing it allows nations to possess nuclear arms to defend from hostile nations, but not to attack hostile nations, which can be a problem because the resolution does not provide neccesary restrictions for attacking nations with nuclear arms, That’s the entire point. NAPA is supposed to only allow nuclear armaments for defensive measures,

Reminded of the passing of GA#418 Safeguarding Nuclear Materials, which technically makes this resolution pointless, because GA#418 Safeguarding Nuclear Materials covers everything from this resolution in a more professional way, The word ‘technically’ is just a filler term here, and can be removed. Also, the word ‘professional’ doesn’t seem appropriate here,

Summarizing that GA#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act does not help the world in any way and is in need of a repeal, That last phrase sounds too informal. ‘Should be repealed’ would be better wording.

Hereby repeals GA#10 Nuclear Arms Possession Act. That is extraordinarily unlikely.

[Jedinsto]

Submitted, apparently.

[Thermodolia]

Against. Do not attempt. And if you don’t take my advice I’ll make sure it fails

[Kenmoria]

Submitted, apparently.

(OOC: Molotovsk, the reason I gave you feedback despite the nigh-impossible topic choice was because I presumed that you were trying out a lot of concepts, some of which were incredibly unlikely to succeed, in order to gain experience. Though this isn’t the best way to do it, since it does clog up the forum board, it is still a reasonable approach. However, what you are doing here is simply pointless. You have made some of the edits that I suggested, but there is still a lot that could be improved. For example, ‘exquisite’ is a more incorrect word than ‘professional’ was, with a word such as ‘successful’ being more appropriate.

This hasty approach, where you submit things far before they are ready, is not a useful way to engage with the General Assembly. If you maintain this pace of submission, there is virtually no chance of anything you write passing. However, more importantly, you aren’t gaining anything from the experience, which is, particularly with newer players, the primary purpose of the drafting process. Slow down, and take your time; otherwise, your ideas simply won’t serve any function whatsoever.)

[Separatist Peoples]

Nope. People legislate by writing something as well as they can and then the faith comes in when they submit and hope the world agrees with them. You don't legislate by shitting on a paper and trying to pull out the most coherent argument from the shit, then ignoring any and all feedback, and submitting. So no that did not help.

My point is, I don't try but I do. I then have faith that I did it successfully and fix any errors.

Now, have any feedback on the proposal?

Ooc: this is not a practice common in successful authors. At all.

IC: "The Noticing clause is an absurd and unreasonable take, and the entire proposal is based on a false premise. Opposed."

[Outer Sparta]

Submitted, apparently.

They always seem to do that without knowing their proposal is badly written or not feasible or both. Despite the advice given, they still submit it.

[Araraukar]

Submitted, apparently.

They always seem to do that without knowing their proposal is badly written or not feasible or both. Despite the advice given, they still submit it.

OOC: Which is pretty much the definition of a badge-hunter who just keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping some of it will miraculously become wallpaper glue.

[Outer Sparta]

They always seem to do that without knowing their proposal is badly written or not feasible or both. Despite the advice given, they still submit it.

OOC: Which is pretty much the definition of a badge-hunter who just keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping some of it will miraculously become wallpaper glue.

It's been long withdrawn, but that never stops them from trying.