NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal: "On Scientific Cooperation"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[PASSED] Repeal: "On Scientific Cooperation"

Postby Hulldom » Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:16 pm

I'm taking this idea from something Banana said in the WA server.

Anyways, happy shredding!

Image

Repeal: “On Scientific Cooperation”

Category: Repeal | Target: GAR#322


The General Assembly,

Recognizing the noble goal of [resolution=GA#322]GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”[/resolution] to promote scientific cooperation among the august member states of the World Assembly;

Believing, however, that there are several flaws with this legislation,

Finds as follows:
  1. Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature”, given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, raises a not unreasonable possibility that literature that fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.
  2. Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to it’s mandate” is so vague as to be unviable. The sheer amount of, wide variety of sources of, these data, presents a problem unavoidable given the lack of constraint on the literature collected in 1(a). Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection could find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result.
  3. That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.
  4. There is no mechanism for WASP to make critical claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, the lack of blindness in the peer review process provided, since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, raises the possibility of bias–a possibility which undermines the credibility of results obtained by WASP-facilitated peer review or data sharing.
Therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”.
Last edited by Hulldom on Fri Feb 04, 2022 10:10 am, edited 14 times in total.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Apatosaurus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 877
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Apatosaurus » Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:23 pm

Support. Will give feedback later.
Hey there! :D Have a great day!~
6x WA Author | I've done stuff | WA Delegation | Factbook | He/Him
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort - Altmoras
I'm happy to accept an ideological ban rule where Max lists every single ideology and tells us whether every single policy does or does not ban every possible ideology - Imperium Anglorum
That's like saying that gasoline tastes better than diesel when cheesecake is on the menu - Separatist Peoples

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11448
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:32 pm

From a structural standpoint, the "hereby" goes before the repeal line, rather than before some "finds" section.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Minskiev
Minister
 
Posts: 2227
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Minskiev » Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:03 pm

You don't need ellipses before or after quoted sections, they're only stand-ins for cut-out sections between quoted text. If you did need ellipses, then all quotes would have ellipses. All quotes don't have ellipses though, so.
Hulldom: At some point, authors without real end goals for what they want to do turn their resolutions into shitposting.
I have a goal of promoting democracy, equitable competition, and readiness. Sep focuses on conduct during war. IA on liberalization of the economy and society.
I have no freaking clue with Minsk.
Salem: i hope Walrus gets DOS in a year and the black walruses gets raided
Andusre: cause like, cringe, we stan walrus
Moon: who gave a walrus RO powers
Spode: Does a walrus really have anything to say about other animals being weird? Like half of history is people trying to convert them into pool balls.
Pathoal: Walrus is the only one here with the courage to expose liberal yahoos
Minskiev \o/ Walrus
Official Blubber Bitch Baby
3x Officer of the Rejected Realms
8x WA Author, Amb. Wallace Russell
Current Delegate of the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1492
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:05 pm

Support
Imperium Anglorum wrote:From a structural standpoint, the "hereby" goes before the repeal line, rather than before some "finds" section.

I think the way it's currently written, it would sound better with the "hereby" excluded altogether.

I'll give more feedback in a sec.
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:15 pm

Minskiev wrote:You don't need ellipses before or after quoted sections, they're only stand-ins for cut-out sections between quoted text. If you did need ellipses, then all quotes would have ellipses. All quotes don't have ellipses though, so.

Sorry, history major brain there!
Morover wrote:Support
Imperium Anglorum wrote:From a structural standpoint, the "hereby" goes before the repeal line, rather than before some "finds" section.

I think the way it's currently written, it would sound better with the "hereby" excluded altogether.

I'll give more feedback in a sec.

Removed the "hereby".
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Diplomat
 
Posts: 710
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Thousand Branches » Sat Dec 11, 2021 10:13 pm

Okay this one is a bit heavy on the rewrites but I made sure to keep your language and style as much as possible. It’s definitely a good start!

Hulldom wrote:Recognizing the noble goal of [resolution=GA#322]GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”[/resolution] to promote scientific cooperation among the member states of the World Assembly;

“member states” might flow better with an adjective before it.

Hulldom wrote:Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation that render it unsuitable for further promulgation as settled law,

“Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation” could flow better as “Believing, however, that several flaws are present within the legislation”

“promulgation” is a super weird word to use here because in this case, the resolution has already been “promulgated”. Promulgating something is just to put it into law which… it is in fact law so it can’t exactly become further promulgated? Idk what you’re trying to say here tbh :p

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature” includes literature which is unfit to be called scientific. Given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, the collection activities delegated to the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) include literature which fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.

I’m gonna go ahead and suggest a rewrite for this one because this is a bit of a jumble to read:

“Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature”, given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, includes literature that fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.”

Pretty much reorganized a couple things for clarity and cut out the bit about WASP because it wasn’t particularly necessary in this clause given the quote (just use the full name the first time it is used elsewhere if using this edit). Feel free to pick and choose what you like from that as well :)

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to it’s mandate” is so vague as to be unviable. The sheer amount of data, and the wide variety of sources of these data, presents a problem unavoidable given the lack of constraint on the literature collected in 1(a). Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection will find its way into the WASP archive as a result.

Once again, rewrite because I realized I was trying to reword like 3/4 of the clause :p

“Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to its mandate” is vague to a point of unviability; The wide variety and sheer amount of data bolsters the unavoidable problem that unscientific and pseudo-scientific data will find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result.”

Fixed a couple of grammatical inaccuracies and made a couple of bits a little more concise (removed the need for 3 sentences).

Hulldom wrote:That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.

Okay I’m starting to feel really bad about this but another rewrite here (I’m sorryyyy):

“Given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”, the resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, and allows states to outlaw portions of scientific study to prevent dissemination of materials from the WASP, thus failing to prevent malicious states from misrepresenting scientific data and undermining the goals of this resolution.”

Almost all reorganization this time! Mostly writing kept the same but fixed the 3 sentence problem again and just generally swept up the floors a bit, maybe organized the pantry, you know me.

Hulldom wrote:There is no mechanism for WASP to make critical claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, the lack of blindness in the peer review process provided for by WASP in 1(d), since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, raises the possibility of bias in the process of review and replication of findings–a possibility which undermines the credibility of results obtained by WASP-facilitated peer review or data sharing.

…rewrite but mostly for posterity’s sake :p

“The resolution introduces no mechanism for WASP to make claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, a lack of blindness raises the possibility of bias during the review/replication process, and since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, the credibility of any results obtained through this process is throughly undermined.”

Again, mostly reorganizing, a little bit of wording changes toward the end.

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(f)’s mandate for the University Library Coalition (ULC) to collect only that data which is “necessary to the scientific process” provides two problems. First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, thus presenting a contradiction in terms. Second, given the possibility of innovation, this new dataset could leave out important overturned findings and data that contribute to the later knowledge base.

Rewrite again:

“Clause 1(f)’s mandate that the University Library Coalition (ULC) collect only data that is “necessary to the scientific process” creates two major problems; First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, and second, given the possibility of future innovation, any new datasets could leave out important overturned findings or data that contributes to the later knowledge base.”

This rewrite was mostly yard trimming, just making things a little more concise!

Hulldom wrote:This legislation presents no mandate on the member states of the World Assembly, only providing for their potential cooperation.

“the member states of the World Assembly” can be shortened to just “member states”

“providing” is a weird word, perhaps like “requesting”? I’m not sure what you mean by providing.

Okay sorry I know this one was really rewrite-heavy but there was a lot of organization stuff and that’s the easiest way I have to show that. As previously mentioned, feel free to use whatever you like! Hope you have a great day!

-A
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Failed General Assembly Resolutions Archive || The Grand (Newspaper Archive) •○•
○•○ Have an awesome day you! ○•○

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1394
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ainocra » Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:08 am

Here is a link to the original drafting thread

I had intended to repeal it and rework it myself but never got around to it. Read the entire thing some of your arguments were covered in there.
It was actually ruled illegal at the time but since it was already at vote it was passed into law.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=327209

1c was added to protect states from being forced to share something that is a state secret, A good modern analogy would be the design of a nuclear submarine. Yes there is good science there but it might not be a good idea for a nation to share it all with it's neighbors.

As for your argument on peer review, clause 1d actually covers that providing for peer review. The resolution is designed to actually foster international peer review of the gathered material.
Alcon Enta
Supreme Marshal of Ainocra

"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:16 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:Okay this one is a bit heavy on the rewrites but I made sure to keep your language and style as much as possible. It’s definitely a good start!

Hulldom wrote:Recognizing the noble goal of [resolution=GA#322]GAR#322: “On Scientific Cooperation”[/resolution] to promote scientific cooperation among the member states of the World Assembly;

“member states” might flow better with an adjective before it.

Hulldom wrote:Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation that render it unsuitable for further promulgation as settled law,

“Believing though that there are several flaws with this legislation” could flow better as “Believing, however, that several flaws are present within the legislation”

“promulgation” is a super weird word to use here because in this case, the resolution has already been “promulgated”. Promulgating something is just to put it into law which… it is in fact law so it can’t exactly become further promulgated? Idk what you’re trying to say here tbh :p

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature” includes literature which is unfit to be called scientific. Given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, the collection activities delegated to the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) include literature which fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.

I’m gonna go ahead and suggest a rewrite for this one because this is a bit of a jumble to read:

“Clause 1(a)’s reference to “any and all publicly available scientific literature”, given the lack of constraint on the word “scientific”, includes literature that fails to meet the standards of peer review and, given the lack of a catchment, pseudo-scientific literature published in journals with low evidentiary or replicability standards.”

Pretty much reorganized a couple things for clarity and cut out the bit about WASP because it wasn’t particularly necessary in this clause given the quote (just use the full name the first time it is used elsewhere if using this edit). Feel free to pick and choose what you like from that as well :)

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to it’s mandate” is so vague as to be unviable. The sheer amount of data, and the wide variety of sources of these data, presents a problem unavoidable given the lack of constraint on the literature collected in 1(a). Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection will find its way into the WASP archive as a result.

Once again, rewrite because I realized I was trying to reword like 3/4 of the clause :p

“Clause 1(b)’s collection of “all data relevant to its mandate” is vague to a point of unviability; The wide variety and sheer amount of data bolsters the unavoidable problem that unscientific and pseudo-scientific data will find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result.”

Fixed a couple of grammatical inaccuracies and made a couple of bits a little more concise (removed the need for 3 sentences).

Hulldom wrote:That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.

Okay I’m starting to feel really bad about this but another rewrite here (I’m sorryyyy):

“Given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”, the resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials, and allows states to outlaw portions of scientific study to prevent dissemination of materials from the WASP, thus failing to prevent malicious states from misrepresenting scientific data and undermining the goals of this resolution.”

Almost all reorganization this time! Mostly writing kept the same but fixed the 3 sentence problem again and just generally swept up the floors a bit, maybe organized the pantry, you know me.

Hulldom wrote:There is no mechanism for WASP to make critical claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, the lack of blindness in the peer review process provided for by WASP in 1(d), since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, raises the possibility of bias in the process of review and replication of findings–a possibility which undermines the credibility of results obtained by WASP-facilitated peer review or data sharing.

…rewrite but mostly for posterity’s sake :p

“The resolution introduces no mechanism for WASP to make claims regarding settled scientific fact or propagate new ideas beyond sharing them for peer review as in 1(d). Additionally, a lack of blindness raises the possibility of bias during the review/replication process, and since WASP disseminates the data to all member states, the credibility of any results obtained through this process is throughly undermined.”

Again, mostly reorganizing, a little bit of wording changes toward the end.

Hulldom wrote:Clause 1(f)’s mandate for the University Library Coalition (ULC) to collect only that data which is “necessary to the scientific process” provides two problems. First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, thus presenting a contradiction in terms. Second, given the possibility of innovation, this new dataset could leave out important overturned findings and data that contribute to the later knowledge base.

Rewrite again:

“Clause 1(f)’s mandate that the University Library Coalition (ULC) collect only data that is “necessary to the scientific process” creates two major problems; First, it directly contradicts clause 1(b)’s catchment of “all data relevant to it’s mandate”, and second, given the possibility of future innovation, any new datasets could leave out important overturned findings or data that contributes to the later knowledge base.”

This rewrite was mostly yard trimming, just making things a little more concise!

Hulldom wrote:This legislation presents no mandate on the member states of the World Assembly, only providing for their potential cooperation.

“the member states of the World Assembly” can be shortened to just “member states”

“providing” is a weird word, perhaps like “requesting”? I’m not sure what you mean by providing.

Okay sorry I know this one was really rewrite-heavy but there was a lot of organization stuff and that’s the easiest way I have to show that. As previously mentioned, feel free to use whatever you like! Hope you have a great day!

-A

I took most of your suggestions actually. They were quite helpful in terms of sharpening this repeal's clarity and conciseness.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:39 pm

It’s been a couple days. Bump.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1492
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:44 pm

Thousand Branches covered all of my issues (plus more!) and it looks good-to-go to me - not to say that it's time to submit, though.
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Texkentuck
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1193
Founded: Jan 17, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Texkentuck » Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:31 am

Morover wrote:Thousand Branches covered all of my issues (plus more!) and it looks good-to-go to me - not to say that it's time to submit, though.

Moreover, we like your reasoning for repeal on various proposals like the reasonings for repeal on this proposal currently in place. - Pres. Schirkophf
Last edited by Texkentuck on Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:33 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:04 am

Bump.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Apatosaurus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 877
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Apatosaurus » Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:31 am

Actually, I meant to give feedback earlier but I don't really have much to give now, though I think you should change "Finding all of this, the General Assembly repeals ..." to "Therefore, the General Assembly repeals ...".
Hey there! :D Have a great day!~
6x WA Author | I've done stuff | WA Delegation | Factbook | He/Him
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort - Altmoras
I'm happy to accept an ideological ban rule where Max lists every single ideology and tells us whether every single policy does or does not ban every possible ideology - Imperium Anglorum
That's like saying that gasoline tastes better than diesel when cheesecake is on the menu - Separatist Peoples

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:33 pm

Apatosaurus wrote:Actually, I meant to give feedback earlier but I don't really have much to give now, though I think you should change "Finding all of this, the General Assembly repeals ..." to "Therefore, the General Assembly repeals ...".

Yeah, that makes sense and consider it done.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1394
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ainocra » Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:49 am

All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written
Alcon Enta
Supreme Marshal of Ainocra

"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:18 pm

Bumping this one more time before the holiday. As a side note, I am undecided on whether to write a replacement or what that replacement would entail beyond my preference for a general Scholars Coalition.

As another note: my plan presently is to submit this on January 4, 2022.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:05 pm

Ainocra wrote:All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written

Wanted to address this now: I do intend to do something similar via melding it with another proposal I’ve been sitting on. That would be the replacement.

Given the lack of comment and my satisfaction with this, this was submitted, then withdrawn, and later submitted again as per below.
Last edited by Hulldom on Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 843
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:37 pm

Update: IA graciously DMed me to inform me that he thought that the former clause 5 about 1(f) was an honest mistake. I agree with his interpretation and withdrew this—I plan to resubmit at Major without the clause.

Edit: Submitted
Last edited by Hulldom on Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Milorum
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Nov 29, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Milorum » Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:01 pm

Image
The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal: "On Scientific Cooperation".
Its reasoning may be found here.

Greater Cesnica's Europeian nation.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10318
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:02 pm

This reached queue and will be voted on between the major updates of today (i.e. two minutes ago) and Friday 7th January.

AS OF 0459 GMT ON MONDAY: Approvals: 65 out of 56 needed (Tinhampton, Albrook, Imperium Anglorum, One Small Island, Smiley Bob, Thousand Branches, Chodean Kal, Dokdo and Ulleung, Trovons, Sedgistan, The Unified Pumaxi, Kalanaria, Tau Ceti Omega, Antamaran, Siochania, Kikittaukak, Voxija, Pheonixknight, Quentania, Kingdom of Sealia, The Free Columbian States, Seffa, Denathor, Dilber, Orca and Narwhal, Wischland, Battadia, The Huge Golden Empire, Eastern Kodiak, Wisea, Zombiedolphins, Conservativealia, Andusre, Creeperopolis, The Salaxalans, Karteria, Orennica, Madjack, Gatchina, Republic Of Ludwigsburg, Free Woritanarbio Islands, Cheries, Reultan, Bayin, Kingdom of Englands, Ruinenlust, Amerion, Treadwellia, The Age of Utopia, Americatain, Arab Darussalam, Candensia, Tostandia, Wallstone, Thaelle, Ordivus, Josephtan, The Finntopian Empire, The Andoran Empire ELARIA, BK04, Baccalieu, Morover, Seludong, Calnodia, Auxorii)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Life empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 78
Founded: Jul 14, 2020
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Life empire » Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:25 am

Hulldom wrote:
Ainocra wrote:All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written

Wanted to address this now: I do intend to do something similar via melding it with another proposal I’ve been sitting on. That would be the replacement.

Given the lack of comment and my satisfaction with this, this was submitted, then withdrawn, and later submitted again as per below.


I happen to have a draft for a science advancement resolution you can use it if I get credited as a co-author
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1609780

User avatar
Merni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1719
Founded: May 03, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Merni » Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:38 am

One question:
Hulldom wrote:That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.

How would states "make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus" without falling foul of 436 GA Protecting Free Expression ?
Donate your free time | GA Committee List | OOC by default
The Labyrinth | Admins: Please allow blocking WA TGs! | TGW Warden Lieutenant
RIP Residency 3.5.16-18.11.21, killed by simplistic calculation
Econ -9.5 Soc -3.85
meth
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. — Ronald Reagan (eww)
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.' — Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. — Ardchoille
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion [...] but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. — Samuel P. Huntington (even he said that!)

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 280
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:56 am

After careful consideration, I must vote AGAINST this repeal effort. I must also ask whether it is ILLEGAL under the present interpretation of the Honest Mistake Rule.

This repeal includes irrelevant arguments and multiple factual misrepresentations, which I cannot support. Repeal Clause 5 says we should repeal because OSC doesn't impose mandates and instead 'only facilitates potential cooperation.' Even assuming the allegation were true, that's not a good reason for repeal and not a direction I think we should be going when evaluating what makes a good WA law. Perhaps more importantly, it is a blatant factual misrepresentation to say that OSC "presents no mandate on member states." OSC has the following clause imposing a mandate on WA nations: "Requires all WA members to cooperate with the WASP by supplying it with all data relevant to it's mandate within extant national and subnational law." Saying OSC places "no mandate" on members is obviously false. It should be ruled an Honest Mistake, given how that rule is currently being interpreted.

The point of Repeal Clause 1 is to complain that OSC does not 'constrain' what "scientific" means. However, OSC defines "scientific" literature as "scientific publications such as journals or books that report or review original empirical and theoretical work or research in the natural and social sciences or within a given scientific field." I think that's clear enough about the scope. Repeal Clause 1 goes on to claim that, without further definition, "scientific" could be interpreted to include "pseudoscience." This is a false statement. By definition, pseudoscience is not science. To be considered pseudoscience, a belief or practice must be incompatible with the scientific method. There is no possible definition of pseudoscience in which it is included in the realm of actual science. I don't see how you can fairly claim that further definition is needed in order for "scientific" to exclude something which, by definition, is not scientific. Consistent with current interpretation of the Honest Mistake Rule, it's a misrepresentation to claim that OSC's scientific literature "includes... pseudoscientific literature."

Repeal Clause 2 suffers from similar, and more aggressive, misrepresentation. OSC says WASP will receive from member nations "all data relevant to it’s mandate." The mandate in question is the overall goal of "collect[ing] and archiv[ing] copies of any and all publicly available scientific literature." Repeal Clause 2 claims that "Unscientific and pseudo-scientific data collection will find its way into the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP) archive as a result." By definition, unscientific data and pseudo-scientific data would not be data relevant to a mandate of collecting available scientific literature. That is especially true for UNSCIENTIFIC data! It is a misrepresentation to claim that, because of OSC's mandate to receive and collect scientific data, unscientific data "will find its way" into the archive. Again, it should be ruled an Honest Mistake, given how that rule is currently being interpreted. (See the recent ruling on the legality of "Repeal CPA").

Repeal Clause 4 argues we should repeal OSC because it did not empower WASP to make commentary on the literature it archives and publishes. We are to believe this is inherently a flaw. However, to the extent the repeal author really cared about having a WASP critical review program, that could be accomplished via further legislation without repealing OSC. It is therefore not a logical basis for repeal. Clause 4 goes on to argue that because OSC creates a process for facilitating international peer review, without explicitly mandating that any peer review facilitated by the WA must include "blindness," it "raises the possibility of bias." However, OSC specifically requires that "any new theorems and experimental data submitted to WASP shall be disseminated to all member nations for the purpose of unbiased peer review." OSC is required to spread literature and data around so member nations can review it through their own unbiased processes. So I am not persuaded that, despite the clear purpose statement, there is a colorable risk of OSC fostering scientific bias. Overall, I'm not sure which side of the Honest Mistake Rule this claim is on. In any event, I consider the allegations of Clause 4 to be at best unfounded fear mongering, combined with the classic fallacy of complaining that the resolution doesn't do something that could easily be done without a repeal.

FWIW, I do agree with the argument made in the Repeal Clause 3. OSC does a disservice by calling on WASP to censor scientific works from the public if a member nation declares those materials illegal. However I cannot cast my vote for a repeal proposal unless the Princess stands behind each and every one of the claims.
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:02 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1394
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ainocra » Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:35 am

Hulldom wrote:
Ainocra wrote:All in all not bad. Provided you intend a replacement for it then I would have no issue supporting this as written

Wanted to address this now: I do intend to do something similar via melding it with another proposal I’ve been sitting on. That would be the replacement.

Given the lack of comment and my satisfaction with this, this was submitted, then withdrawn, and later submitted again as per below.


I look forward to seeing it

Feel free to reuse anything from the original you wish.
Last edited by Ainocra on Tue Jan 04, 2022 6:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Alcon Enta
Supreme Marshal of Ainocra

"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chipoli

Advertisement

Remove ads