by Holy Roman Empires2 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:23 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:55 pm
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:This establishes the fishing rights act. It specifies the legal terms of the fishing industry.
Acknowledging that harmful chemicals can get into our meals which are fish, and demanding that we do something to prevent further damage.
Accepting, than the fishing industry is barely regulated in nation states
Provides the following terms:
All corporations, governments, ex that are involved in the fighting industry must protect their fishes from Hamid chemicals,
Must be given proper regulation per goverment funding.
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:17 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:This establishes the fishing rights act. It specifies the legal terms of the fishing industry.
Cool, but it doesn't. There is no specification of legal terms here.Acknowledging that harmful chemicals can get into our meals which are fish, and demanding that we do something to prevent further damage.
Good idea, I'd say. You'll want to see how existing legislation handles the disposal of chemicals and regulation of oceangoing practices.Accepting, than the fishing industry is barely regulated in nation states
Not exactly: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=9653061&hilit=fishing#p9653061
Resolutions must be written in-character, from the perspective of the WA. "NationStates" is a RL reference/metagaming violation that would get this pushed out of the queue were it submitted.Provides the following terms:
All corporations, governments, ex that are involved in the fighting industry must protect their fishes from Hamid chemicals,
"Fishing industry", and I'm not sure what "Hamid chemicals" are.Must be given proper regulation per goverment funding.
What does this mean?
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:39 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:30 pm
by East Meranopirus » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:48 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“First of all, what is the category and strength of this proposal? They should be on the draft text at the beginning. You also should remove your definition of the ‘fishing industry’, as it isn’t used anywhere in the active clauses. Thirdly, it’s ‘WA’ not ‘W.A’ or ‘w.a’; that’s the way it has always been stylised.
Lastly, you ought to give some thought to your definition of ‘chemicals’. Currently, it includes substances such as water. Water is a compound made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom, and is often something to which sewage is purified artificially. Seeing as you want to restrict chemicals, it may be useful to define chemicals as only those that are damaging to sapient health.”
by The New Nordic Union » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:35 am
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
[...]
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected
by Wallenburg » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:36 am
by Bananaistan » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:39 am
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:00 am
Bananaistan wrote:OOC:Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Fishing
Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2
This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.
ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.
ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.
AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a
HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.
Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.
Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections
Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected
I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:37 am
Bananaistan wrote:OOC:Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Fishing
Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2
This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.
ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.
ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.
AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a
HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.
Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.
Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections
Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected
I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:58 am
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OOC:Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Fishing
Proposed by: Holy Roman Empires2
This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.
ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.
ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.
AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a
HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.
Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.
Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections
Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected
I have marked this illegal because it doesn't actually do anything that improves the environment. It would probably be a regulation/consumer protection proposal as it stands. I'd recommend withdrawing it and continue to draft for some time. I'm sure this is a workable idea and you could turn it into a passable resolution with drafting and advice from the community.
If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:If I were to mark it that way, would it pass?
OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.
"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©
by Kenmoria » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:27 pm
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: Doubtful. "Legal" under the GA proposal rules is a different thing from "good" and a very different thing from "popular enough to pass at vote." Changing the category would only get you the first of those. You'll need to spend a lot longer drafting this (on the order of weeks) to achieve the third.
"It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint"™®©
Is the timing important? For example if there are no other proposals, or their illegal itd be more likely to pass? What would you reccomend for this to become "popular"
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:55 pm
This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.
ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.
ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.
AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a
HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.
Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.
Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections
Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:08 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Basing the feedback on the submitted version, as I can't quite tell what is supposed to be the most recent draft. You should put the most recent draft in the first post, leaving it visible, then spoilering older drafts.This document establishes the fishing rights act, specifying the regulating actions that the w.a must take to keep harmful chemicals out of fish.
ACKNOWLEDGING that harmful chemicals can get into our fish, from various ocean going practices as well as other ways.
ADMITTING that the w.a does not regulate chemicals in the fishing industry to such the extent that it should.
AWARE that the fishing industry can be easily regulated to a faster and more efficient extent by the w.a
HEARBY
Defines the fishing industry as any government, corporation or independent partaker that partakes in harvesting fish in any way or form.
Defines chemicals as a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.
Defining inspecting fish properly as taking samples of fish individually and testing their blood samples for chemicals
Defines the W.A helping as needed as funding fish inspections
Requires that all w.a members prevent chemicals from tainting fish supplies, by inspecting them properly with help from the W.A as needed
Prohibits any W.A member nation to sell fish not properly inspected
I'm going to guess that English isn't your first language, so you're having some trouble explaining what you actually want done. Or you don't quite know how things work in reality, and that compounded with the language issue leave you taking random stabs at the subject.
A prime example the definition for inspecting fish; you talk of "taking samples" but then talk of "testing their blood samples" instead. Fish blood samples won't tell you much, if the poisonous chemical you're concerned about is, as tends to be the case in Real Life, fat-soluble and thus is in the tissues, the flesh, that's eaten. Also, fish tend to be long dead (sometimes frozen and then thawed later, to keep them from spoiling) by the time they get sampled for toxicity, and getting a blood sample specifically would be difficult. Also, if you want blood samples tested, you need to specify the taking of blood samples, too.
Not to mention the silly requirement of taking samples of every single fish caught. I mean, are you aware of how small most fish species that are eaten, are? And that in most parts of the world the fish is sold directly from the catcher to the consumer - having to institute a sample testing for each single fish would require massive laboratories in every single fishing village all over the world, not to mention some way of keeping the fish fresh enough while waiting for the test results.
I would suggest you look online for information about how food safety testing is done in Real Life, to get a better idea of the sampling methods used.
On top of which this has already been addressed by an existing resolution.
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:16 pm
Holy Roman Empires2 wrote:Ill implement your advice.
Also, im American
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imbalistan » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:17 pm
Chan Island wrote:And I'm expecting this thread to devolve into a
racist and/or religious and/or politics shitshow within 3 pages.
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:23 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:33 pm
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:55 pm
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:03 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Holy Roman Empires2 » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:08 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: I have to say that at this point I'm just downright curious as to what the excuse is for the clumsy language and spelling errors.
I would also suggest using the Passed Resolutions thread and searching it with keywords (1 search per word and note that the search treats plurals and singulars as entirely unrelated words) that have anything to do with your topic.
...I'm also curious how you can deduct fish behaviour as normal or abnormal after it's been pulled out of the water...
by Kenmoria » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:19 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement