Draft:Limit the use of WMD

[Pogthebravelandia]

Name: Limit the use of WMD

Category: Global Disarmament

Proposed by: Pogthebravelandia

Main text: This is a resolution to limit the death and destruction of WMDs.
Recognises: That WMDs can help take down enemies and keep your nations safe.
Also recognises: That WMDs are dangerous and can kill many innocent people and their properties.
Also recognises: That all of us can agree that killing innocents and damaging their properties is wrong.

The General Assembly resolves, with immediate effect, that:

A. All World assembly nations must limit their uses of WMDs.
B. They must only keep WMDs if they want to and keep the don't fire first and only strike in retaliation.
C. This will mean that WA members will not be able to fire WMDs at each other.
D. With the number of WA members this will mostly eradicate the use of WMDs
E. This would not effect WA members participation in N-day and Z-day

Pls help me with this draft I think this could make great legislation thx

[Railroad Crossing]

i don't really know

[ArmedKing]

pogthebravelandia,Your draft is ok but i will just point out one serious issue: N-Day.
This law will practically ban N-day.

[Pogthebravelandia]

pogthebravelandia,Your draft is ok but i will just point out one serious issue: N-Day.
This law will practically ban N-day.

What is N-day

[Tinhampton]

Poggers!

snip

If this proposal "ban[ned] N-day," it would be illegal under the Game Mechanics rule.

[Tranzoria]

pogthebravelandia,Your draft is ok but i will just point out one serious issue: N-Day.
This law will practically ban N-day.

What is N-day

Nuclear-Day, which is coming soon.

[Pogthebravelandia]

How could I change it to not ban N-day

[Tranzoria]

How could I change it to not ban N-day

Well, say that WMDs can only be used on N-Day and Z-Day, like the purge.
It would make them more exciting.

[Pogthebravelandia]

That better?

[Tranzoria]

That better?

Yes. Looking good.

[ArmedKing]

How could I change it to not ban N-day

You can make it such that N-day and Z-day are the only days to rearm nukes and must be disarmed after the day.

[Tranzoria]

How could I change it to not ban N-day

You can make it such that N-day and Z-day are the only days to rearm nukes and must be disarmed after the day.

Already done.

[Pogthebravelandia]

How could I change it to not ban N-day

You can make it such that N-day and Z-day are the only days to rearm nukes and must be disarmed after the day.

Done

[Atheris]

How could I change it to not ban N-day

You can make it such that N-day and Z-day are the only days to rearm nukes and must be disarmed after the day.

That would violate Rule 4.

[Tranzoria]

You can make it such that N-day and Z-day are the only days to rearm nukes and must be disarmed after the day.

That would violate Rule 4.

Dang.

[Pogthebravelandia]

I am quite new to NationStates do you think this would be nominated/passed?
Also can you see any other reason why mods could make this an illegal proposal

[Pogthebravelandia]

That would violate Rule 4.

Dang.

Whats Rule 4

[Old Hope]

Dang.

Whats Rule 4

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348(rules about proposal legality)

[Atheris]

It's a bit bloggy, and also contradicts GA #330, whose main text states

"Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defense purposes,"

and also possibly contradicts GA #10, whose first clause states

"1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,"

This is illegal. Sorry.

Dang.

Whats Rule 4

GA resolutions have to be in-character and can't have any effects on the game.

[ArmedKing]

ah yes.The Rule of Mechanics.Dang.Max Barry should spent his tiime here instead of writing books.

[Main]

Just a tip that you may want to look at some previous legislation on a similar topic to make sure that it isn't redundant or contradictory.
I may have missed some but these were the ones I found on a cursory sweep.
Chemical Weapons Accord #272
Safeguarding Nuclear Materials #418

Referencing in game events explicitly is broadly discouraged, as can be seen in the General Assembly Rules for Proposals. (Take a look at the mechanics section)

Lastly just wanted to provide encouragement that I appreciate you taking the excellent and helpful step of getting feedback before submitting.

[The New Cordian Empire]

So, I don’t like this at all. I have nearly finished drafting a proposal which does similar things. In fact, if mine passes, parts of yours would have zero effect.

[Pogthebravelandia]

It's a bit bloggy, and also contradicts GA #330, whose main text states

"Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defense purposes,"

and also possibly contradicts GA #10, whose first clause states

"1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,"

This is illegal. Sorry.

Whats Rule 4

GA resolutions have to be in-character and can't have any effects on the game.

It doesn't contradoct with GA:10 it still allows for defensive purposes and I am planning to repeal GA:330

[Atheris]

It's a bit bloggy, and also contradicts GA #330, whose main text states

"Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defense purposes,"

and also possibly contradicts GA #10, whose first clause states

"1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,"

This is illegal. Sorry.


GA resolutions have to be in-character and can't have any effects on the game.

It doesn't contradoct with GA:10 it still allows for defensive purposes and I am planning to repeal GA:330

A repeal of GA #330 would not pass, especially if you don't have replacement legislation already prepared.

[Minskiev]

Alright. First and foremost, I am not really in support of the topic of this resolution anyways. Not because of the writing (although if I’m being honest it’s not exactly Shakespeare) but because what the writing’s about is not something really necessary, at least for me.

Second, there are lots of minor things that just don’t make this a very good proposal. It needs more spaces. It reuses words a lot. Use a thesaurus. It reads like a blog. Make it more fancy, like, what you see constantly churned out by Honeydew, Tin, those nerds, and less like a block of text.

Third, it could be better-written.

Fourth, you should REALLY read the rules of proposals. It’s good that you’re drafting instead of those 7 million ‘2020 Elections for All’ people, but it’s absolutely fundamental to know them. Not by heart, per se, but to just be able to know ‘that seems relatively fine’ and ‘yeah that’s not ok’.

I’ll give this a super basic rewrite so it won’t be treated as a joke but instead a very very early stage of a proposal. A little harsh, but welcome to NS.

Limiting of WMD Use

Category: Global Disarmament

Proposed by: Pogthebravelandia

Recognizing that WMDs may be very advantageous to those who have them,

Reminding, however, that WMDs are detrimental to the impact’s surroundings, which may include the environment or civilians,

Believing that the costs outweigh the benefits of WMDs, hereby:

1. Defines:

a. a “WMD” as a weapon of mass destruction, used to inflict harm upon its target,

b. a “member state” as a nationstate possessing membership to this Assembly,

2. Declares:

A. Member states must sparingly use their WMDs unless the circumstances are dire,

B. Member states may not use WMDs against one another.

Note: I am not a WA regular. You don’t have to take my advice.