[Draft] Maritime Assistance and Rescue Efforts

[Bears Armed]

OOC: For the millionaire's yacht, does holding parties aboard it to try influencing people who might then favour the millionaire's business activities in some way count as "supports commerce"?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: For the millionaire's yacht, does holding parties aboard it to try influencing people who might then favour the millionaire's business activities in some way count as "supports commerce"?

"One can only hope that mild corruption is considered a form of commercial activity subject to direct government regulation."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:

Just throwing out, what about tying the requirements to whether or not a craft possesses (whether voluntarily or by law/regulation) a ship station? It is doubtful any type of vessel that does not have a ship station could really be expected to respond anyway, and it would help tighten down the ridiculousness of applying international law to a child's paddleboat at the golf course, while likely including your average millionaire yacht. Might even be worth its own resolution on who is required to have one and regulating use.

[Separatist Peoples]

“With respect Ambassador, it’s you who should be convincing me. The current proposal effectively outlaws on water amateur angling if the angler ever sells one fish. At the same time it exempts rich people’s pleasure cruises. One group do not have resources and would be forced to jump through ridiculous record keeping hoops, the other have all the resources and yet would have a WA mandate to sail right by any maritime disaster they encounter. This is bad policy. The People’s Republic of Bananaistan is opposed.

"I would consider it, ambassador, were you offering a meritorious objection. Amateur recreational angling does not involve the sale of fish (OOC: It really, really doesn't, as an amateur angler). To permit such activity allows laypeople to offer aquatic bushmeat for the market without effective points of regulation. If that occurs in your nation, then thank Odin this proposal would regulate them.

"Barring regulating specific tonnage, which is subject to the kind of absurd arguments for which I have little taste, I cannot reliably distinguish between a dinghy and a cruise vessel. As such, excluding recreational vessels is the easiest way to filter out vessels unsuited for rescue. Which was your original concern. If pleasure yachts get a pass so people can kayak in peace, it is a policy sacrifice I am happy to make."

“Also preventing the state from recovering its losses while private actors can is bad too.”

"It fascinates me that any self-respecting socialist entity can see benefit in allowing state emergency services to charge victims of disaster for their rescue. By this metric, Marcus Licinius Crassus would make for a good socialist. You will forgive me for questioning your assessment of quality policy."

OOC:

Just throwing out, what about tying the requirements to whether or not a craft possesses (whether voluntarily or by law/regulation) a ship station? It is doubtful any type of vessel that does not have a ship station could really be expected to respond anyway, and it would help tighten down the ridiculousness of applying international law to a child's paddleboat at the golf course, while likely including your average millionaire yacht. Might even be worth its own resolution on who is required to have one and regulating use.

OOC: I am concerned that players would either try to redefine a ship station or try to claim something as absurd as the current arguments against this proposal to show that their vessels lack such stations. If you can provide a solid definition for a ship station, I am happy to consider it.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:

Just throwing out, what about tying the requirements to whether or not a craft possesses (whether voluntarily or by law/regulation) a ship station? It is doubtful any type of vessel that does not have a ship station could really be expected to respond anyway, and it would help tighten down the ridiculousness of applying international law to a child's paddleboat at the golf course, while likely including your average millionaire yacht. Might even be worth its own resolution on who is required to have one and regulating use.

OOC: I am concerned that players would either try to redefine a ship station or try to claim something as absurd as the current arguments against this proposal to show that their vessels lack such stations. If you can provide a solid definition for a ship station, I am happy to consider it.

OOC:
This is cobbled together (and simplified) from 47 CFR 80, but could be a reasonable starting point:

A ship station is any number of transmitters or combination(s) of transmitters and receivers including all necessary supporting equipment for the carrying on of telecommunications located on a vessel that is not permanently moored to permit communication with the shore, other ship stations, or between associated on-board communications stations.

Which still seems excessive. My more concise, but probably loophole it to death version would be:

Any communication system installed on a method of conveyance on water capable of contacting any other communications system.

[Old Hope]

OOC: I am concerned that players would either try to redefine a ship station or try to claim something as absurd as the current arguments against this proposal to show that their vessels lack such stations. If you can provide a solid definition for a ship station, I am happy to consider it.

OOC:
This is cobbled together (and simplified) from 47 CFR 80, but could be a reasonable starting point:

A ship station is any number of transmitters or combination(s) of transmitters and receivers including all necessary supporting equipment for the carrying on of telecommunications located on a vessel that is not permanently moored to permit communication with the shore, other ship stations, or between associated on-board communications stations.

Which still seems excessive. My more concise, but probably loophole it to death version would be:

Any communication system installed on a method of conveyance on water capable of contacting any other communications system.

Loophole:
....do not have an installed communication system?

[Bananaistan]

OOC:
This is cobbled together (and simplified) from 47 CFR 80, but could be a reasonable starting point:

A ship station is any number of transmitters or combination(s) of transmitters and receivers including all necessary supporting equipment for the carrying on of telecommunications located on a vessel that is not permanently moored to permit communication with the shore, other ship stations, or between associated on-board communications stations.

Which still seems excessive. My more concise, but probably loophole it to death version would be:

Any communication system installed on a method of conveyance on water capable of contacting any other communications system.

Loophole:
....do not have an installed communication system?

OOC: Unreasonable. The boats and ships we'd want to respond will all have these systems and literally none of them will decide to forgo them at the expense of their own safety and activities just to avoid helping others in distress.