[DRAFT] [POTENTIAL] [WIP] Nuclear Power Regulatory Act

[Tajijstan]

Preamble
Seeing as Global Warming requires for use of non-polluting energy, the most reliable of which is nuclear power, and, seeing as bad state actors can exploit the Uranium and Plutonium used by or produced, in the case of Plutonium, to power a nuclear program under the guise of civilian nuclear power program.

Section 1; Clause 1
No more than 45 tons (48 tonnes) of Class 3 material is to be one mode of transport at a time.
Likewise, Class 2 transport limit is 30 tons (27 tonnes), Class 1 is limited to 15 tons (13 tonnes).

Section 1; Clause 2

A Class 3 material is defined as emitting 1 Curie/per second
A Class 2 material is defined as emitting 5 Curies/ per second
A Class 1 material is defined as emitting 10 curies or more/ per second

[Untecna]

[post retracted]

[Imperium Anglorum]

Illegal, for RL references (curies, global warming).

Please stop offering this kind of bad advice. Curies are a non-SI unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_(unit). While BA might think the capitalisation makes it an RLR, I would not agree. Scientific terminology is acceptable. Global warming also is acceptable: there is no real life reference... globes can warm. Eg Venus. If you do not know how the rules work, stop making bold pronouncements on them. Confine your feedback to the idea itself and not its rules-compliant implementation.

Again, this is not legal, but the above is a better way of formatting things, if you plan on becoming an author.

Don't talk down to people with this sort of language, especially when you have a grand total of zero authorship badges.

[Tajijstan]

Illegal, for RL references (curies, global warming).

Please stop offering this kind of bad advice. Curies are a non-SI unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_(unit). While BA might think the capitalisation makes it an RLR, I would not agree. Scientific terminology is acceptable. Global warming also is acceptable: there is no real life reference... globes can warm. Eg Venus. If you do not know how the rules work, stop making bold pronouncements on them. Confine your feedback to the idea itself and not its rules-compliant implementation.

Again, this is not legal, but the above is a better way of formatting things, if you plan on becoming an author.

Don't talk down to people with this sort of language, especially when you have a grand total of zero authorship badges.

So, what advice would you have for someone trying to write WA proposals?
I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically.

[Tajijstan]

Illegal, for RL references (curies, global warming).

Also, bad formatting. If this was legal, here would be a better way to format it:

The World Assembly,

Seeing as Global Warming requires for use of non-polluting energy, the most reliable of which is nuclear power,

Seeing as bad state actors can exploit the Uranium and Plutonium used by or produced, in the case of Plutonium, to power a nuclear program under the guise of a civilian nuclear power program,

Hereby:

1. No more than 45 tons (48 tonnes) of Class 3 material is to be one mode of transport at a time. Likewise, Class 2 transport limit is 30 tons (27 tonnes), Class 1 is limited to 15 tons (13 tonnes).
   
   1. A Class 3 material is defined as emitting 1 Curie/per second
   2. A Class 2 material is defined as emitting 5 Curies/ per second
   3. A Class 1 material is defined as emitting 10 curies or more/ per second

Again, this is not legal, but the above is a better way of formatting things, if you plan on becoming an author.

Bro,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H141sH2zrzs

[Attempted Socialism]

Please stop offering this kind of bad advice. Curies are a non-SI unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_(unit). While BA might think the capitalisation makes it an RLR, I would not agree. Scientific terminology is acceptable. Global warming also is acceptable: there is no real life reference... globes can warm. Eg Venus. If you do not know how the rules work, stop making bold pronouncements on them. Confine your feedback to the idea itself and not its rules-compliant implementation.


Don't talk down to people with this sort of language, especially when you have a grand total of zero authorship badges.

So, what advice would you have for someone trying to write WA proposals?
I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically.

Some general things:
- Establish the issue, the policy, and the implementation. First, what's the thing you try to solve? Answering this gives you a direction, and it lets others see where you want to go. Second, what's a sound policy to get to a solution? Is it something dangerous that must be banned, or can there be safe ways to transport nuclear material? And can your policy be adapted to get states, companies, or individuals to work with it? Third, which specific regulations do you require, and how are states supposed to enforce it? Do they just make doing X a crime? Shall they monitor X? Educate on the topic of X?
- Recognise that WA lawmaking is a marathon, not a sprint. It's common to see a resolution in the works weeks, if not months (And sometimes years) before it becomes a passed resolution.
- Reading the rules is a must, but applying them can be hard. It's beneficial to read up on passed resolutions or participate in other drafting threads to get a good feel for how the rules work in practise.
- When editing your draft, don't delete old drafts but put them in a spoiler, preferably in another post than your original post, and maintain your most current draft in your OP. Furthermore, while the pace of your drafting is up to you, you don't have to fix every issue immediately; you can work on a separate draft on your computer and only update your draft here when you have fixed a number of issues in a way that you are confident will work and not introduce more issues.
- Many topics require substantial work, and you may be required to demonstrate your grasp on the particulars of an issue during the drafting. If you have no understanding of transport, physics, and engineering, legislating on the topic of transport of nuclear fuel will be difficult.
- WA legislation is political, and while it's not necessary to curry favour with influential delegates, getting on their bad side or breaking decorum can sink an otherwise decent proposal. As an example, there are style guides that, while not required, are preferred by some delegates. Additionally, some topics (Or attempting repeals of some resolutions) are generally non-starters because of the general leanings of the WA.

[Tajijstan]

So, what advice would you have for someone trying to write WA proposals?
I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically.

Some general things:
- Establish the issue, the policy, and the implementation. First, what's the thing you try to solve? Answering this gives you a direction, and it lets others see where you want to go. Second, what's a sound policy to get to a solution? Is it something dangerous that must be banned, or can there be safe ways to transport nuclear material? And can your policy be adapted to get states, companies, or individuals to work with it? Third, which specific regulations do you require, and how are states supposed to enforce it? Do they just make doing X a crime? Shall they monitor X? Educate on the topic of X?
- Recognise that WA lawmaking is a marathon, not a sprint. It's common to see a resolution in the works weeks, if not months (And sometimes years) before it becomes a passed resolution.
- Reading the rules is a must, but applying them can be hard. It's beneficial to read up on passed resolutions or participate in other drafting threads to get a good feel for how the rules work in practise.
- When editing your draft, don't delete old drafts but put them in a spoiler, preferably in another post than your original post, and maintain your most current draft in your OP. Furthermore, while the pace of your drafting is up to you, you don't have to fix every issue immediately; you can work on a separate draft on your computer and only update your draft here when you have fixed a number of issues in a way that you are confident will work and not introduce more issues.
- Many topics require substantial work, and you may be required to demonstrate your grasp on the particulars of an issue during the drafting. If you have no understanding of transport, physics, and engineering, legislating on the topic of transport of nuclear fuel will be difficult.
- WA legislation is political, and while it's not necessary to curry favour with influential delegates, getting on their bad side or breaking decorum can sink an otherwise decent proposal. As an example, there are style guides that, while not required, are preferred by some delegates. Additionally, some topics (Or attempting repeals of some resolutions) are generally non-starters because of the general leanings of the WA.

\
Thank you!