NationStates

Replacement

Hey. I debated whether or not to do this extensively, because I don't think it's great for people to compete with others over resolution ideas. The reason I went through with this, however, is because I knew I should repeal GA#584 as soon as Feyrisshire commented on the "first member state of citizenship." As the author of GA#584, I cannot faithfully have such defiance of my intent remain in GA law, and I feel that as I am responsible for it, I should rectify it.

I am also not big on Tin's points in her repeal, and her replacement is...wow. Words cannot describe my distaste of its bloat and vagueness. So:

The General Assembly,

Praising GA#584 Paid Leave Act's noble intent to let workers have both social lives and work lives, yet saddened by a few unfortunate provisions,

Dismayed that Clause 4 of GA#584 potentially allows employers to quickly fire workers giving notice of their upcoming requests for paid leave as the clause fails to protect workers from retaliation after alerting their employer that they might take paid leave soon, but before the actual paid leave is, and Clause 3 unfortunately only protects workers from retaliation while they are on paid leave or because they filed for paid leave; since alerting an employer of future paid leave is not equivalent to filing for paid leave, workers receive zero protection from losing their job right before a period during which they cannot work, an unfortunate tragedy and a resolution-sinking loophole,

Outraged that Clause 5 of GA#584 places the burden of paid leave financial compensation on unrelated member states, as it “allows any employer of a worker filing for paid leave to require that worker's first member state of citizenship to provide any financial compensation throughout that paid leave”, hurting developing countries as oftentimes those of developing countries move to developed countries to work; it is utterly nonsensical for a member state that receives no tax money from a worker to pay a worker’s paid leave financial compensation,

Appalled that Clause 5 of GA#584 incentivizes employers to stop after employing 49 workers by placing the burden of paid leave financial compensation on member states of employed workers “if [their] employer employs less than fifty workers”, hurting growth and slashing all opportunities for further job development due to this effective economical cap at 49; it would be a tremendous blow to the profit of a small business to suddenly pay all of the paid leave financial compensation of at least 50 workers suddenly,

Disappointed that Clause 5 of GA#584 fails to take into account any social insurance funds of member states allowing employers to take out funds to pay off the compensation, even if that employer has over 49 workers,

Believing that the above offenses act against the intent of the resolution, and in good standing cannot remain in such high-profile law,

Hereby repeals GA#584.

... Just allow Tinhampton to repeal this. Really?

Apatosaurus wrote:... Just allow Tinhampton to repeal this. Really?

I stated my reasoning. I want GA#584 repealed and her inclusion of poor arguments would hurt the chances of that occurring.

Tinhampton (or any author) has no monopoly on an idea.

Furthermore, Tin tends to let drafts sit for long periods of time before submission. Her replacement, I believe, was made before I ever drafted my repeal of GA#527. I want to fix my error as quickly as possible.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tinhampton (or any author) has no monopoly on an idea.

This. (I never intended to submit my repeal until I could be confident in the quality of my replacement - which is quite obviously not the case yet.)

I remain supportive of a repeal in principle - but I very much do not want to throw the General Assembly into a rabbit hole of repeals.

Against due to formatting.

Minskiev wrote:Furthermore, Tin tends to let drafts sit for long periods of time before submission. Her replacement, I believe, was made before I ever drafted my repeal of GA#527. I want to fix my error as quickly as possible.

Thats so any big errors can be dealt with and significant discussion can be had. Keeping drafts on for a while is normal.

Untecna wrote:

Minskiev wrote:Furthermore, Tin tends to let drafts sit for long periods of time before submission. Her replacement, I believe, was made before I ever drafted my repeal of GA#527. I want to fix my error as quickly as possible.

Thats so any big errors can be dealt with and significant discussion can be had. Keeping drafts on for a while is normal.

I am very well aware, my first proposal sat for 3 months. But during those long periods there is often very little discussion.

Honeydewistania wrote:Against due to formatting.

How serious is this?

Minskiev wrote:

Untecna wrote:Thats so any big errors can be dealt with and significant discussion can be had. Keeping drafts on for a while is normal.

I am very well aware, my first proposal sat for 3 months. But during those long periods there is often very little discussion.

And I suppose yours are different? Every proposal will hit a point of no discussion.

Minskiev wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:Against due to formatting.

How serious is this?

Probably serious, since this isn't even formatted as a proposal.

Untecna wrote:

Minskiev wrote:I am very well aware, my first proposal sat for 3 months. But during those long periods there is often very little discussion.

And I suppose yours are different? Every proposal will hit a point of no discussion.

Not for 3-4 months at a time.

Minskiev wrote:How serious is this?

Probably serious, since this isn't even formatted as a proposal.

Yes it is. It has reasoning for a repeal and an operative clause.

Minskiev wrote:

Untecna wrote:And I suppose yours are different? Every proposal will hit a point of no discussion.

Not for 3-4 months at a time.

Beautiful assumption that Tinhampton leaves them up for that long.

Minskiev wrote:

Probably serious, since this isn't even formatted as a proposal.

Yes it is. It has reasoning for a repeal and an operative clause.

I have never seen a proposal that starts with something as simple, from this body, with "Let it be that". This isn't formatted like a proposal, its just stating things with no real reason to be stating them.

Untecna wrote:

Minskiev wrote:Not for 3-4 months at a time.

Beautiful assumption that Tinhampton leaves them up for that long.

It's not an assumption.

Minskiev wrote:
Yes it is. It has reasoning for a repeal and an operative clause.

I have never seen a proposal that starts with something as simple, from this body, with "Let it be that". This isn't formatted like a proposal, its just stating things with no real reason to be stating them.

It's innovation.

Minskiev wrote:

Untecna wrote:Beautiful assumption that Tinhampton leaves them up for that long.

It's not an assumption.

I have never seen a proposal that starts with something as simple, from this body, with "Let it be that". This isn't formatted like a proposal, its just stating things with no real reason to be stating them.

It's innovation.

Innovation is a strong word.

The format wars are a waste of time.

Minskiev wrote:Let it be

Let it be.

I do think this is very short, anyway, and could use a lot more elaboration.

Apatosaurus wrote:

Minskiev wrote:Let it be

Let it be.

I do think this is very short, anyway, and could use a lot more elaboration.

It's short because it doesn't bullshit you with fluff like "Cognizant that this resolution is indeed of the not so adequate variety and must be deemed to quite frankly be immediately and urgently repealed promptly" or "Wishing that some other resolution would replace this one wink wink". It also does away with clauses that obscure the point. Finally, its formatting packs it as close together as possible.

"Let it be" sounds like an enacting clause. Make sure that your text isn't advertently legislating in a repeal. Something like "The World Assembly finds as follows" avoids that problem.

Other than that, the formatting question seems to be a tremendous waste of letters.

Will be submitting soon if there are no further questions.

Minskiev wrote:Will be submitting soon if there are no further questions.

Hasn’t most of the feedback here been really negative? As your friend I’d recommend taking a breath and chilling out. Let the discussion on replacements especially reach a more developed stage before submitting a repeal for this. Especially one that very few people have found adequate.

Minskiev wrote:Will be submitting soon if there are no further questions.

It's been up 3 days, there are definitely further questions. Regarding that:

The proposal is extremely brief, to the point it's hard to read. The entire proposal is less than 150 words. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this, except that it's also structured in an uncommon way, which makes it difficult to understand the flow of ideas. There are no points for brevity, so you may as well use some of your word count to explain and justify yourself a little more. The repeal has to convince people to vote for it. As it is, it looks like you've just written a list of grievencecs and called it a proposal. The relevant info is there, but it takes effort to pull it out.

Minskiev wrote:ReplacementWhereas:

• Clause 4 of GA#584 potentially allows employers to quickly fire workers giving notice of their upcoming requests for paid leave, as it fails to protect workers from retaliation after alerting their employer but before the actual paid leave is,

This feels like an unfinished sentence. It took me 3 reads to parse it. This needs rewording so it's not a puzzle to decipher.

Minskiev wrote:

Clause 5 of GA#584 places the burden of financial compensation in paid leave on the workers’ first member states of citizenship if their employers employ less than 50 workers each, hurting developing countries as oftentimes those of developing countries move to developed countries to work,

Again needs some more expansion and explanation of the point. Given that this detail was missed when you first drafted GA584, it evidently isn't the most easy to spot. Guide the reader to the logical conlcusion, instead of just stating it in a single overly long sentence.

Minskiev wrote:

Clause 5 of GA#584 incentivizes employers to stop after employing 49 workers, hurting growth and slashing all opportunities for further job development due to this effective cap at 49, and

the above offenses act against the intent of the resolution, and in good standing cannot remain in such high-profile law,

the General Assembly hereby repeals GA#584.

Again, more expansion/explanation needed. Don't make the reader work to understand. Explain how it incentivises, and why that leads to reduced growth/job oppurtunities.

Generally, it's helpful to paraphrase the relevant clauses you're arguing against when making your points. There's nothing more irritating to a reader than having to constantly refer back to a different document while reading another (TBH this practice is basic due dilligence and should be done by everyone, but in the real world, most GA members wont bother). It's also a pet peeve of mine when proposals are written as a single giant run-on sentence. Full stops are entirely functional pieces of punctuation, and can in fact be used in proposals. I'm aware I'm a hypocrite about this, but I'm trying to improve.

Alright, lengthened and added a counterpoint.

Bump, I think. Will submit on weekend most likely

Minskiev wrote:Bump, I think. Will submit on weekend most likely

Two-and-a-half days after the co-author of the target resolution asked you to hold off on this for a bit... and about two days since you expanded it (with no comments offered). I'm not American but I'm led to believe that it's been "finals week" for quite a few of them so those people may not have gotten to your draft yet - not to mention everyone else