[DEFEATED, author: Pax Russica] Disability Assistance Law

[Ballotonia]

Note: The author is the nation Pax Russica. I am creating this topic because the proposal is 6 votes away from entering the queue, with no resolution at vote and no resolution likely to come next but this one.

Proposal link

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that there are only a few supportive measures for people with disabilities or neurodivergence,

Expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of assistance for such individuals,

At the same time, trusting that a regulation of this kind could resolve the issue, the World Assembly enacts legislation to support persons with disabilities and those who are neurodivergent.

1) Applicability of the law on means of transport, at stops, and in everyday commuting:
-1/a) Low-floor boarding and alighting areas at stops and on vehicles, elevators, automatic doors and ramps.
-1/b) Installation of tactile paving for the visually impaired on kerbs and vehicles, installing Braille writing on every important subtitle.
-1/c) Installation of devices at crossings that assist both the visually and hearing impaired via sound signals.

2) Applicability of the law on helps of people with neurodivergence:
-2/a) Designing quiet, calm, and uncluttered stores for autistic individuals, or at least introducing "quiet hours" into opening times.
-2/b) Designing schools for neurodivergent students where their needs are met to facilitate learning.
-2/c) Developing supportive education for students with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia.
-2/d) Creating less rigid, more active lessons for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
-2/e) Giving every neurodivergent student whatever they need to start a succesful life, where they're not rejected by the community.

3) Applicability of the law on online platforms:
-3/a) Optimizing websites and applications for screen reader software, such as sign language interpretation or text descriptions of images.
-3/b) Creating websites that allow users to switch to a dyslexia-friendly font at the touch of a button. Providing electronic, dictation-based, and predictive text input options instead of handwriting on official forms. Visually presenting numerical data.
-3/c) Creating clean websites free of advertisements and flashing elements, websites that don't cause sensoric overload.
-3/d) Use of simple, easy-to-understand language in documents; simple wording for invoices and informational materials.
-3/e) Enabling personalized administration service by providing—in addition to telephone support—chat options and scheduled, no-wait appointments.

Against. Terrible format you could interpret widely, zero flexibility for varying technological advancement, forced language usage(Braille), disregard for member nations capabilities, lack of definitions for critical definitions such as neurodivergent and disability(what's the cut off? What is classified as neurodivergent?)

[The Ambis]

I am no expert in GA rules, but I feel an argument could be made that this proposal violates 1c. The author would likely argue that the "At the same time" clause satisfies an operative clause, I remain skeptical that it is enough to satisfy it. I could be (and am likely) wrong. I'm an SC guy, not a GA guy lol.

[Italiani Shoklissina]

I don't understand why everyone is against it?

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I don't understand why everyone is against it?

Not drafted in the forums for a start so the author has received no feedback on how their draft could be improved.

It’s also not well written or formatted.

[Amexico]

I'm opposed to this resolution because I'm not even understanding what exactly this resolution is suppose to accomplish. The writing and formatting are not very logical.

[Ballotonia]

Greetings,

I am no expert in GA rules, but I feel an argument could be made that this proposal violates 1c. The author would likely argue that the "At the same time" clause satisfies an operative clause, I remain skeptical that it is enough to satisfy it. I could be (and am likely) wrong. I'm an SC guy, not a GA guy lol.

I don't see 1c as a problem here. Whenever it says "Applicability of the law " and then lists a number of things, it implicitly means those things must be done by the member nations. So, there are a lot of things the member nations are expected to do, and hence there are lots of operative clauses in this proposal.

But agreed, it could've been written down better (explicitly instead of implicitly). Note we don't enforce good writing in legality determinations, it's for players to decide where the threshold is on that by voting one way or the other.

Ballotonia

[Gideon]

-2/e) Giving every neurodivergent student whatever they need to start a succesful life, where they're not rejected by the community.

I’ll take $1 million, please and thank you.

[Bisofeyr]

*** World Census Stats Announcement ***

The World Census Official Delegate to the World Assembly stumbles in, having been talking to an empty room for six hours before realizing he got turned around. The official statistical profile for this resolution has been released, with apologies for the delay in the "official announcement" that the World Census knows everyone reads and looks forward to.

Winners
Accessibility
Income Equality
Public Education

Losers
Averageness
Economy
Rudeness

[Zeu]

This proposal could do many great things, but if something hasn’t gotten feedback, it’s not at its full potential.

[Tikikey]

Whilst I can understand what this proposal is trying to accomplish, the wording is just... off.
Also a subject as "touchy" as this should I feel be left to the national level. Some nations may not even have the resources to implement these. Not every store can be guaranteed "quiet" as well.

[Great Yin]

i vote against this, not because i disagree with the intent, but because the actual drafting is way too vague, prescriptive, and in some places technically confusing.

what exactly constitutes:

* “whatever they need”?
* “successful life”?
* “less rigid”?
* “active lessons”?
* “quiet, calm, and uncluttered”?
* “important” Braille information?
* “simple” language?
* a website that “doesn't cause sensory overload”?

clause 2/e is probably the biggest red flag for us

> “Giving every neurodivergent student whatever they need to start a successful life”

this could very easily be interpreted as an open-ended international mandate.

a government could reasonably ask: what exactly am i legally required to provide here?

a personal aide? specialized equipment? additional teachers? therapy? individualized education? transportation? there's no actual limit or definition in the proposal.

then there's clause 1/b:

> “Braille writing on every important subtitle.”

what is an “important subtitle”?

a bus stop? a station sign? a building directory? every piece of signage? every vehicle?

if this is supposed to be legislation, these things need to actually be defined.

3/a also seems to conflate different accessibility technologies. screen readers, sign-language interpretation and image descriptions aren't really the same thing and should probably be addressed separately.

3/c is another big issue for us.

> “Creating clean websites free of advertisements and flashing elements”

i can understand the concern about flashing elements and sensory overload, but a blanket requirement that websites be free of advertisements goes way beyond accessibility and starts regulating how online services operate economically.

and it doesn't distinguish between government websites, educational websites, banking platforms, commercial stores, social media, private forums, independent websites, etc.

on 2/a, quiet hours are certainly a possible accommodation, but i don't think the World Assembly should dictate one specific implementation. different businesses and countries are going to have different ways of achieving the same accessibility goal.

2/b has a similar problem. the intention is good, but “designing schools for neurodivergent students where their needs are met” is extremely vague. does that mean separate schools? separate classrooms? inclusive classrooms with additional support? individualized education?

there's also a philosophical issue here between specialized education and inclusive education, and the proposal doesn't really establish any framework for that distinction.

2/d:

> “Creating less rigid, more active lessons for students with ADHD.”

how “less rigid”?

how “active”?

who determines whether a lesson is sufficiently active?

would every nation have to redesign its curriculum around this? would teachers be legally required to change their teaching methods?

again, the intent is understandable, but that's not really a workable international legal standard.

another problem is that the proposal doesn't really distinguish between the different groups it is trying to address:

- physical disabilities
- blindness
- hearing impairment
- autism
- ADHD
- dyslexia
- dysgraphia
- dyscalculia

these can require very different accommodations, yet the proposal largely puts them under one broad umbrella and then gives extremely general requirements.

the proposal also lacks definitions almost everywhere. who is covered, what exactly has to be provided, which institutions are covered, and what actually counts as compliance are often left undefined.

there's also basically no proportionality. what is reasonable for a wealthy country with extensive infrastructure may be completely different from what is practical for a small or developing nation.

so yeah, i support the *intent* of the proposal. accessibility and support for disabled and neurodivergent people are obviously worthwhile goals.

but i vote against this particular resolution because it is too vague and undefined to be good international legislation.

imo this needs to be rewritten with actual definitions, clear standards, proportional requirements, and more flexibility in how countries achieve the accessibility goals.

support the intent, against the current drafting.

[Lipizia]

I don't understand why everyone is against it?

The proposal Is written quite badly

[Pax Russica]

Hello, it's Pax Russica here, the author of the proposal.
The truth is that it's actually my first time doing this, and I know it's really far away from a good proposal. To be fair, I actually wanted to avoid the forums, because it's too complicated for me, but now I see it was an extremely bad idea. For some reason, I thought "I can do it without the forums". As you can see, I couldn't. Honestly, the vote will be a huge letdown, I'll be happy if I get 10%. I thought it will happen, so my idea was to make a forum theme after the vote, and try to correct the proposal, and if I don't submit it again, at least I have some experience. But then I saw this topic, and "Oh, so somebody did this topic? What the hell am I going to do now?". So yeah, I'm kinda at a loss right now. I was positive because it went through the Delegates pretty easily, but when I woke up, and saw a 5%-95%, my positivity completely vanished. So what now?

[Kshemarashtram]

Hello, it's Pax Russica here, the author of the proposal.
The truth is that it's actually my first time doing this, and I know it's really far away from a good proposal. To be fair, I actually wanted to avoid the forums, because it's too complicated for me, but now I see it was an extremely bad idea. For some reason, I thought "I can do it without the forums". As you can see, I couldn't. Honestly, the vote will be a huge letdown, I'll be happy if I get 10%. I thought it will happen, so my idea was to make a forum theme after the vote, and try to correct the proposal, and if I don't submit it again, at least I have some experience. But then I saw this topic, and "Oh, so somebody did this topic? What the hell am I going to do now?". So yeah, I'm kinda at a loss right now. I was positive because it went through the Delegates pretty easily, but when I woke up, and saw a 5%-95%, my positivity completely vanished. So what now?

Hello there
It is generally a good idea to draft your proposal on the forums for at least a week before submitting, so you can act on feedback provided by others, correct potential mistakes etc. The idea behind the proposal is reasonable, so you can probably consider the oversights pointed out here and post an improved draft on the forum again (maybe on a separate thread since this is already at vote plus you're not the OP), and then consider feedback from even more people and improve your draft even more before submitting.

[Pax Russica]

Hello, it's Pax Russica here, the author of the proposal.
The truth is that it's actually my first time doing this, and I know it's really far away from a good proposal. To be fair, I actually wanted to avoid the forums, because it's too complicated for me, but now I see it was an extremely bad idea. For some reason, I thought "I can do it without the forums". As you can see, I couldn't. Honestly, the vote will be a huge letdown, I'll be happy if I get 10%. I thought it will happen, so my idea was to make a forum theme after the vote, and try to correct the proposal, and if I don't submit it again, at least I have some experience. But then I saw this topic, and "Oh, so somebody did this topic? What the hell am I going to do now?". So yeah, I'm kinda at a loss right now. I was positive because it went through the Delegates pretty easily, but when I woke up, and saw a 5%-95%, my positivity completely vanished. So what now?

Hello there
It is generally a good idea to draft your proposal on the forums for at least a week before submitting, so you can act on feedback provided by others, correct potential mistakes etc. The idea behind the proposal is reasonable, so you can probably consider the oversights pointed out here and post an improved draft on the forum again (maybe on a separate thread since this is already at vote plus you're not the OP), and then consider feedback from even more people and improve your draft even more before submitting.

Yes I know. Now I know. As I said, I didn't want to use the forums, but now it'll change. Do you think I should correct this proposal and try again?

[Kshemarashtram]

snip

Yes I know. Now I know. As I said, I didn't want to use the forums, but now it'll change. Do you think I should correct this proposal and try again?

As I said, I think the fundamental idea behind the proposal is a noble one, so you can definitely write an improved draft and then post it again on the forums for more feedback. Then once it looks ready, you can submit it again. Whether you want to or not is your choice though.

[Saulope]

Personally, from what I have read, it's mostly because the author didn't consult forums and other people for help and just did it on their own. I just see it as glazing the "expectation" of consulting through the forums as part of the reason why at least the secretaries of the WA are against it, but I also understand the implications and problems of the proposal. Again, I see that they are frustrated that Pax Russica didn't go through the traditional method, but I do believe a good proposal can be drafted without external help. My opinion is summary is, that I am frustrated that the secretaries are blind to the truth and refuse to see it.

Sincerely from the Parliamentary Republic,

Saulope.

[Heavens Reach]

Personally, from what I have read, it's mostly because the author didn't consult forums and other people for help and just did it on their own. I just see it as glazing the "expectation" of consulting through the forums as part of the reason why at least the secretaries of the WA are against it, but I also understand the implications and problems of the proposal. Again, I see that they are frustrated that Pax Russica didn't go through the traditional method, but I do believe a good proposal can be drafted without external help. My opinion is summary is, that I am frustrated that the secretaries are blind to the truth and refuse to see it.

Sincerely from the Parliamentary Republic,

Saulope.

Had they dropped an amazing proposal without drafting it, and it could be reasonably ascertained that they actually wrote it despite no drafting on the forum, it would have passed regardless. But when there is no evidence of effort and your proposal doesn't earn support on the merits, it's going to be widely voted against.

[Merethin]

Again, I see that they are frustrated that Pax Russica didn't go through the traditional method, but I do believe a good proposal can be drafted without external help.

You are right, this is possible. But this is rare, and was not the case here.

"a lack of community-oriented drafting, whether through the forums or Discord, often leads to lower-quality proposals [...] this resolution is a perfect example of this phenomenon".

I fail to see how the sentence above, taken from my own recommendation, implies that it is not possible to draft a good proposal without the forum, as you seem to think. The point is that most non-forum proposals are lower quality than forum-drafted ones, including this one.

In any case, it's a basic step to have others look at your proposal and check it, even if it is already well made from the start. It's just good practice and courtesy.

[Kractero]

This is an enormous draft that covers in very shallow detail enormous regulation of accessibility.

For example: clause 3, the web consortium alone has its own set of guidelines for website accessibility. And a small sub-section of it is budgeted to essentially 3a, 3b, and 3c, with clearly like no research into the main focuses of web accessibility being done. I don't even know what 3e is, mandating all sites have those annoying helper chatbots at the bottom right?

[Saulope]

Again, I see that they are frustrated that Pax Russica didn't go through the traditional method, but I do believe a good proposal can be drafted without external help.

You are right, this is possible. But this is rare, and was not the case here.

"a lack of community-oriented drafting, whether through the forums or Discord, often leads to lower-quality proposals [...] this resolution is a perfect example of this phenomenon".

I fail to see how the sentence above, taken from my own recommendation, implies that it is not possible to draft a good proposal without the forum, as you seem to think. The point is that most non-forum proposals are lower quality than forum-drafted ones, including this one.

In any case, it's a basic step to have others look at your proposal and check it, even if it is already well made from the start. It's just good practice and courtesy.

Honestly, just a personal opinion rant from me, but I do agree with your viewpoint. As you noticed, my rants most of the time don't actually include any actual evidence but is just a personal opinion that I decided to type out. But yeah, I do believe forums do help the proposal achieve better results.

[Grenartia]

or Discord,

I'd rather not legitimize drafting on discord, it feels like a very 'smoke-filled back rooms' thing. Not everyone has access to a given discord server (especially considering server count limits).

The forums are much more accessible to everyone.

[Heavens Reach]

or Discord,

I'd rather not legitimize drafting on discord, it feels like a very 'smoke-filled back rooms' thing. Not everyone has access to a given discord server (especially considering server count limits).

The forums are much more accessible to everyone.

Regional authorship programs are generally hosted on Discord

[Grenartia]

I'd rather not legitimize drafting on discord, it feels like a very 'smoke-filled back rooms' thing. Not everyone has access to a given discord server (especially considering server count limits).

The forums are much more accessible to everyone.

Regional authorship programs are generally hosted on Discord

I think this is one of those situations where its useful to distinguish between "is" and "ought".

[Heavens Reach]

Regional authorship programs are generally hosted on Discord

I think this is one of those situations where its useful to distinguish between "is" and "ought".

It would not be reasonable to have them hosted anywhere else