[Challenge] Repeal "Toxic Heavy Metals Act"

[Separatist Peoples]

Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.

Not only RL findings of fact, but RP'd findings of fact as to what, precisely, WASP has "noted" as being a potentially toxic heavy metal. I am convinced by the argument that a WA committee staffed by generally competent people would not mindlessly put every metallic element and compound known to exist on its list of toxic heavy metals, nor that (consisting largely of scientists to begin with) it couldn't subsequently correct its own initial findings.

I also don't think the claim that development is the same thing as "discharging" substances into the environment is a reasonable use of the word.

I have therefore marked the proposal illegal in the queue.

This is my understanding.

For the record, I have spoken with IA previously about how to address this precise issue with GA committees. He and I were largely in agreement. I wanted to make sure I mentioned this publicly. I do not believe this conversation violates any ethical codes requiring my recusal, as it was not particular to this proposal or the author of the challenged proposal. Nonetheless, in the interest of transparency, I wanted to make sure everybody was aware of this.

[Bears Armed]

Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.

Not only RL findings of fact, but RP'd findings of fact as to what, precisely, WASP has "noted" as being a potentially toxic heavy metal. I am convinced by the argument that a WA committee staffed by generally competent people would not mindlessly put every metallic element and compound known to exist on its list of toxic heavy metals, nor that (consisting largely of scientists to begin with) it couldn't subsequently correct its own initial findings.

I also don't think the claim that development is the same thing as "discharging" substances into the environment is a reasonable use of the word.

I have therefore marked the proposal illegal in the queue.

Agreed.

[Jedinsto]

The new version has been marked illegal on the following grounds and I'm contesting this decision as I fail to see how I didn't clear this up-

39 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Honest Mistake: WASP is not required to "note" ALL heavy metals that could be toxic in any situations whatsoever as toxic ENOUGH to be noted as such for the purpose of the target resolution, and as WA Committees are presumed to be efficient it can be taken that they would use reasonable discretion in this.

only "potentially toxic" (which may apply to far more metals than is intended), reasonably dense and noted as such by the World Assembly Scientific Programme,

How in the hell does this say "'note' ALL heavy metals that could be toxic in any situations whatsoever as toxic ENOUGH to be noted as such for the purpose of the target resolution.

[Greater Cesnica]

The new version has been marked illegal on the following grounds and I'm contesting this decision as I fail to see how I didn't clear this up-

39 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Honest Mistake: WASP is not required to "note" ALL heavy metals that could be toxic in any situations whatsoever as toxic ENOUGH to be noted as such for the purpose of the target resolution, and as WA Committees are presumed to be efficient it can be taken that they would use reasonable discretion in this.

only "potentially toxic" (which may apply to far more metals than is intended), reasonably dense and noted as such by the World Assembly Scientific Programme,

How in the hell does this say "'note' ALL heavy metals that could be toxic in any situations whatsoever as toxic ENOUGH to be noted as such for the purpose of the target resolution.

I suspect that BA marked it illegal not knowing that this was a new version of the draft.

[Separatist Peoples]

The new version has been marked illegal on the following grounds and I'm contesting this decision as I fail to see how I didn't clear this up-

39 minutes ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Honest Mistake: WASP is not required to "note" ALL heavy metals that could be toxic in any situations whatsoever as toxic ENOUGH to be noted as such for the purpose of the target resolution, and as WA Committees are presumed to be efficient it can be taken that they would use reasonable discretion in this.

only "potentially toxic" (which may apply to far more metals than is intended), reasonably dense and noted as such by the World Assembly Scientific Programme,

How in the hell does this say "'note' ALL heavy metals that could be toxic in any situations whatsoever as toxic ENOUGH to be noted as such for the purpose of the target resolution.

Take a deep breath. Relax. BA probably made a mistake, which has since been corrected. Even bears make mistakes. The first half of your comment was fine. The second half suggests an overreaction. Let's not overreact.

[Jedinsto]

Huh. I thought I said it was probably a mistake here, apparently I said that in just about every place I mentioned this ruling except here. My apologies.

[Wallenburg]

The new version has been marked illegal on the following grounds and I'm contesting this decision as I fail to see how I didn't clear this up-



How in the hell does this say "'note' ALL heavy metals that could be toxic in any situations whatsoever as toxic ENOUGH to be noted as such for the purpose of the target resolution.

Take a deep breath. Relax. BA probably made a mistake, which has since been corrected. Even bears make mistakes. The first half of your comment was fine. The second half suggests an overreaction. Let's not overreact.

Except it hasn't been corrected. Their error persists, only countered by the correct rulings of other members of GenSec. An author is perfectly in their rights to be upset that their proposal was marked illegal for no other reason than carelessness.

[Separatist Peoples]

Huh. I thought I said it was probably a mistake here, apparently I said that in just about every place I mentioned this ruling except here. My apologies.

No worries. Glad we could clear up this addressed mistake.

[Bears Armed]

Take a deep breath. Relax. BA probably made a mistake, which has since been corrected. Even bears make mistakes. The first half of your comment was fine. The second half suggests an overreaction. Let's not overreact.

Except it hasn't been corrected. Their error persists, only countered by the correct rulings of other members of GenSec. An author is perfectly in their rights to be upset that their proposal was marked illegal for no other reason than carelessness.

I'm currently only able to get online for one hour/day, Monday-Saturday, so there can be up to 31 hours -- or 55 hours if a Sunday intervenes -- or so between my visits... and currently I do have other matters (concerning survival) that need attending to while I can, as well. How often do you expect me to be here to correct things?

I'll take another look at it now.

EDIT: I've now taken that look. Yes, I missed that "potentially" last time around. Oops!
I'd correct my ruling, but as the proposal is now fortunately at vote anyway I can't do do (and it doesn't matter, neither). This is one reason why we have a committee to handle legality rulings, instead of relying on just one or two interested Mods...

[Herby]

but as the proposal is now fortunately at vote anyway I can't do do

You mean a bear doesn’t in the woods?

Anyway glad this is cleared up. Better get my ass moving on this replacement!

[Bears Armed]

but as the proposal is now fortunately at vote anyway I can't do do

You mean a bear doesn’t in the woods?

Nope. we have plumbing... or, at least, outhouses.

And in ourr speech, the equivalent question would be "Do trees have trunks?"