[PASSED] Repeal "Sexual Health and Education Act"

[Vancouvia]

---

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the aim of Resolution #359 to attempt to give students a sexual education;

Yet concerned about the many flaws of Resolution #359, including that it:

I. Ignores that this World Assembly is made up of a variety of species, including ones that do not have puberty, ones that do not have any form of sex or gender, and ones that would have no use learning "human anatomy" instead of their own species' anatomy;

II. Arbitrarily sets age brackets for various topics of sexual education to be taught, without reference to the fact that even human children enter puberty at a wide range of ages;

III. Allows students to be exempt from the entire course and have to take a "standard health course" instead, but fails to mention any difference between the two courses, or even what in vague terms a standard health course would cover;

IV. Permits only parents to exempt students from the sexual curriculum, ignoring the plethora of children in our member states who have a guardian instead of a parent;

V. Exempts private schools entirely, allowing nations which do not make use of public schooling to fail to educate students on sexual health at all;

Declaring that these numerous flaws yield to a superfluous, vague, disagreeable, and narrow resolution;

Hereby repeals "General Assembly Resolution #359, Sexual Health and Education Act"

---

[Floor 448]

I see someone has already jumped at the idea of a free number increase on their badge. Just a thought, though:

Code: Select all

[list=I][*]First item[*]Second item[*]Third item[*]And so on[/list]

Becomes:

1. First item
2. Second item
3. Third item
4. And so on

This I know works in proposals.

Also, I'm not sure spoilers work in WA proposals, but if they do, I think you should use one, just for the sake of using spoiler tags in proposals. Something like putting the flaws in a spoiler marked "list of flaws" or something.

EDIT: just checked; they do.

[Vancouvia]

I see someone has already jumped at the idea of a free number increase on their badge. Just a thought, though:

Code: Select all

[list=I][*]First item[*]Second item[*]Third item[*]And so on[/list]

Becomes:

1. First item
2. Second item
3. Third item
4. And so on

This I know works in proposals.

Also, I'm not sure spoilers work in WA proposals, but if they do, I think you should use one, just for the sake of using spoiler tags in proposals. Something like putting the flaws in a spoiler marked "list of flaws" or something.

EDIT: just checked; they do.

I can use the list function, but I don't think putting a spoiler in a resolution would be a good idea....

[United Great Britian]

I would support due to the plethora of flaws in the act.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I see few problems with this resolution and certainty appreciate the use of numbered clauses.
I would like it if they didn't all start with the phrase "The fact that it."
You might want to mention that clause 4 of the SHEA can be interpreted to block nations from mandating sexual education in private schools. I don't particularly agree with this interpretation but it's out there.

I see someone has already jumped at the idea of a free number increase on their badge.

I'm sure these types of cynical comments are super helpful.

[Wallenburg]

You can expect full support from the Wallenburgian delegation on this repeal, should it be necessary. However, it could do with some changes. In particular, your repetition of "the fact that it" is worthlessly redundant. "The fact that" is a pointless phrase that weakens the style and flow of writing. I highly suggest removing "the fact that" from all clauses, and editing accordingly.

[Vancouvia]

I can change it to start with "It..." or "This resolution..."

[Republic of the Northern Lands]

I am unable to find an official listing for Resolution #359.

[Wallenburg]

I can change it to start with "It..." or "This resolution..."

"This resolution" may be confused with the repeal itself, rather than the target. "It" or "the target resolution" works well.

[Vancouvia]

I am unable to find an official listing for Resolution #359.

I give the current resolution a 99% chance that it will pass, and if it does it will become 359, which this will then repeal.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I can change it to start with "It..." or "This resolution..."

"This resolution" may be confused with the repeal itself, rather than the target. "It" or "the target resolution" works well.

How about

Recognizing the aim of General Assembly Resolution #359 to attempt to give students a sexual education;

Yet concerned by the fact that Resolution #359:

I. Ignores that this World Assembly is made up of a variety of species, including ones that do not have puberty, ones that do not have any form of sex or gender, and ones that would have no use learning "human anatomy" instead of their own species' anatomy; Arbitrarily sets age brackets for various types of sexual education to be taught, without reference to the fact that even human children enter puberty at a wide range of ages;

II. Arbitrarily sets age brackets for various types of sexual education to be taught, without reference to the fact that even human children enter puberty at a wide range of ages;

III. Allows students to be exempt from the entire course and have to take a "standard health course" instead, but fails to mention any difference between the two courses, or even what in vague terms a standard health course would cover;

IV. Allows only parents to exempt students from the sexual curriculum, ignoring the plethora of children in our member states who have a guardian instead of a parent;

V. Allows nations which do not make use of public schooling to fail to educate students on sexual health at all;

Declaring that these numerous flaws yield to an unnecessary, vague, disagreeable, and narrow resolution;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #359 Sexual Health and Education Act

I also switched clause I and II since the objection to the age brackets is much more powerful when you already have the context of the WA being made of many species and changed "aware" to "concerned".

[Vancouvia]

Thanks man

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I was going to draft a repeal (then hand it over to someone else), but then I saw this come up. I would recommend to allow someone who hasn't yet participated as heavily and does not have a badge to do the insta-repeal. Instant repeals have a pretty high chance of passing as long as they are well argued and this is a perfect time and place to get more people involved in the World Assembly.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I was going to draft a repeal (then hand it over to someone else), but then I saw this come up. I would recommend to allow someone who hasn't yet participated as heavily and does not have a badge to do the insta-repeal. Instant repeals have a pretty high chance of passing as long as they are well argued and this is a perfect time and place to get more people involved in the World Assembly.

OOC: this is a meritocracy. Free resolutions aren't handed out. Authorship favors the clever, and nobody should have to hand off an easy draft just because an inexperienced player wants an was win.

[Vancouvia]

If anyone wants any help with any part of the process, they can feel free to TG me and I'll help them out. I've had this offer for several months and no one has ever TG'd me before other than asking for approvals of mostly illegal proposals.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Off topic:

OOC: I was going to draft a repeal (then hand it over to someone else), but then I saw this come up. I would recommend to allow someone who hasn't yet participated as heavily and does not have a badge to do the insta-repeal. Instant repeals have a pretty high chance of passing as long as they are well argued and this is a perfect time and place to get more people involved in the World Assembly.

Isn't that plagiarism? Or is it okay if you get permission?

[Traitor Legions]

"If this repeal comes to pass, the delegation of the Legions will surely support it."

[Separatist Peoples]

Off topic:

OOC: I was going to draft a repeal (then hand it over to someone else), but then I saw this come up. I would recommend to allow someone who hasn't yet participated as heavily and does not have a badge to do the insta-repeal. Instant repeals have a pretty high chance of passing as long as they are well argued and this is a perfect time and place to get more people involved in the World Assembly.

Isn't that plagiarism? Or is it okay if you get permission?

OOC: with permission it's OK

[Vivelia]

If this would go through i would hope for antither resulotion with the recognized flaws it the resulotion found.
Will support either way.

[Bears Armed]

I. Ignores that this World Assembly is made up of a variety of species, including ones that do not have puberty, ones that do not

OOC: By effectively requiring that people recognise this aspect of RP, this might count as illegal for Meta-gaming.

[Vancouvia]

I. Ignores that this World Assembly is made up of a variety of species, including ones that do not have puberty, ones that do not

OOC: By effectively requiring that people recognise this aspect of RP, this might count as illegal for Meta-gaming.

Multiple other proposals have referenced non-humans. Repeal "Protection of Sapient Rights" for example

[Wrapper]

Relevant precedent can be found here:

viewtopic.php?p=4489278#p4489278

If a proposal tries to create a roleplay scenario that all WA members have to take part in, it's forced roleplay; that's metagaming.

Multiple other proposals have referenced non-humans. Repeal "Protection of Sapient Rights" for example

Can you point to me which clause of that repeal forces roleplay? The very first line includes the phrase "wherever they may exist", making it possible for a player to completely ignore any roleplay involving sapient non-human species if they don't exist in their world.

[Vancouvia]

Relevant precedent can be found here:

viewtopic.php?p=4489278#p4489278

If a proposal tries to create a roleplay scenario that all WA members have to take part in, it's forced roleplay; that's metagaming.

Multiple other proposals have referenced non-humans. Repeal "Protection of Sapient Rights" for example

Can you point to me which clause of that repeal forces roleplay? The very first line includes the phrase "wherever they may exist", making it possible for a player to completely ignore any roleplay involving sapient non-human species if they don't exist in their world.

This proposal doesn't force roleplay.

[Wrapper]

This proposal doesn't force roleplay.

I didn't say whether it does or it doesn't, I was just citing precedent, so you'll know exactly what to avoid. I'll give my opinion on legality and content in-character soon.

[Wrapper]

Never mind, going to address the metagaming question OOC, since I can't really do it IC.

I. Ignores that this World Assembly is made up of a variety of species, including ones that do not have puberty, ones that do not have any form of sex or gender, and ones that would have no use learning "human anatomy" instead of their own species' anatomy;

II. Arbitrarily sets age brackets for various types of sexual education to be taught, without reference to the fact that even human children enter puberty at a wide range of ages;

Clause I does sound to me like it forces roleplay on players who don't want to roleplay that sapient bears, unicorns, ferrets, zooplankton, etc., exist in the WA. If you take out this clause entirely, how much does it affect the strength of your argument? Perhaps not very much. I would think those RPing non-humans are already yelling "Speciest!" at the target's author, and will vote for your repeal anyway.

Clause II comes perilously close to doing the same thing, though that's easily fixed by striking out the words "even human", yielding: Arbitrarily sets age brackets for various types of sexual education to be taught, without reference to the fact that children enter puberty at a wide range of ages. That shouldn't affect your argument at all, since it's true in real life.