[PASSED] Repeal “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”

[Varanius]

The World Assembly (WA),

Appreciative of the aim of GA#693 to eradicate forced blood sports, which many delegations consider to be a blight redolent of brutal gladiatorial combat and similarly repulsive, brutal spectacle;

Frustrated with the definition of “forced blood sport”, which is restricted only to activities “intended to entertain”, forcing WA delegations to discern the intent of participants without any meaningful impact on the activities associated with blood sports or the scope for injuries and death on the part of participants, sapient or otherwise;

Distressed that, for sapient individuals, the protection against forced participation in any activity is already covered by GA23, and for non-sapient species, potentially by local laws against animal abuse;

At the same time, acknowledging the inherent difficulty of regulating this issue in the presence of GAR 267, which gives certain exemptions to certain circumstances such as threats to ecosystems from invasive non-sapient species, as well as catering to some WA members that may rely on hunting animals for food as their primary source of food;

Frustrated that the result is that the target resolution provides a blanket exemption for “hunting for sapient consumption shall not be considered a forced blood sport for the purpose of this resolution”, thus allowing some member states to bring themselves into compliance by holding a barbecue at the end of every hunting event, assuming the hunted species is edible, regardless of whether entertainment or competitive aspects are in place, and defeating much of the purpose of the target resolution in the first place;

Hereby Repeals GA#693 “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”.

The World Assembly (WA),

Appreciative of the aim of GA#693 to eradicate forced blood sports, which many delegations consider to be a blight redolent of brutal gladiatorial combat and similarly repulsive, brutal spectacle;

Frustrated with the definition of “forced blood sport”, which is restricted only to activities “intended to entertain”, forcing WA delegations to discern the intent of participants without any meaningful impact on the activities associated with blood sports or the scope for injuries and death on the part of participants, sapient or otherwise;

Concerned by the description of this resolution’s nature as “subject to relevant past World Assembly laws still in force”, a deeply unprofessional choice which implies potentially conflicting previous legislation, and responds to said hypothetical by suggesting that those contentious pieces of GA#693 simply not be enforced, which would make the legislation awkward and incomplete;

Distressed that, for sapient individuals, the protection against forced participation in any activity is already covered by GA23, and for non-sapient species, potentially by local laws against animal abuse;

At the same time, acknowledging the inherent difficulty of regulating this issue in the presence of GAR 267, which gives certain exemptions to certain circumstances such as threats to ecosystems from invasive non-sapient species, as well as catering to some WA members that may rely on hunting animals for food as their primary source of food;

Frustrated that the result is that the target resolution provides a blanket exemption for “hunting for sapient consumption shall not be considered a forced blood sport for the purpose of this resolution”, thus allowing some member states to bring themselves into compliance by holding a barbecue at the end of every hunting event, assuming the hunted species is edible, regardless of whether entertainment or competitive aspects are in place, and defeating much of the purpose of the target resolution in the first place;

Hereby Repeals GA#693 “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”.

The General Assembly,

Appreciative of the aim of GA#693 to end forced blood sports, a blight redolent of brutal gladiatorial combat and similarly repulsive, brutal spectacle;

Frustrated with the outlined definition of “forced blood sport”, being so myopic that it only applies to those activities performed for entertainment, when there exists plenty of ultra-violent competitions not performed to entertain an audience; and yet simultaneously meaninglessly broad, given that a plethora of routine activities, particularly most high-contact sports, could be considered “likely” to lead to severe injury;

Concerned by the description of this resolution’s nature as “subject to relevant past World Assembly laws still in force”, a deeply unprofessional choice which implies potentially conflicting previous legislation, and responds to said hypothetical by suggesting that those contentious pieces of GA#693 simply not be enforced, which would make the legislation awkward and incomplete;

Distressed by the ultimate redundancy of much of the resolution, finding that forcefully compelling individuals to do engage in blood sports at all would be in violation of GA#23 “Ban On Slavery and Trafficking” as would much of sections 2 and 3’s provisions prohibiting the containment and transportation of people against their consent under GA#23’s clauses forbidding human trafficking;

Disheartened to find that GA#693 is a resolution marred by its maladroitly defined scope which fundamentally prevents it from actually eradicating forced blood sports, an egregious error only partially redeemed through the existence of previously passed legislation which renders many of GA#693's actionable clauses irrelevant;

Hereby Repeals GA#693 “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”.

The General Assembly,

Appreciative of the aim of GA#693 to end forced blood sports, a term redolent of brutal gladiatorial combat and similarly repulsive, brutal spectacle;

Frustrated with the outlined definition of “forced blood sport”, being so myopic that it only applies to those activities performed for entertainment, when there may exist plenty of ultra-violent competitions not performed to entertain an audience; and yet simultaneously meaninglessly broad, given that a plethora of routine activities, particularly most high-contact sports, could be considered “likely” to lead to severe injury;

Concerned by the description of this resolution’s nature as “subject to relevant past World Assembly laws still in force”, implying the potential of a conflicting resolution and yet also failing to explain this proposal’s relation to this implied legislation;

Distressed by the ultimate redundancy of much of the resolution, finding that forcefully compelling individuals to do engage in blood sports at all would be in violation of GA#23 “Ban On Slavery and Trafficking” as would much of Sections 2 and 3’s provisions prohibiting the containment and transportation of people against their consent under GA#23’s clauses forbidding human trafficking;

Disheartened to find GA#693 is a resolution marred by its maladroitly defined scope which fundamentally prevents it from actually eradicating forced blood sports, an egregious error only partially redeemed through the existence of previously passed legislation which renders many of GA#693's actionable clauses irrelevant;

Disappointed, then, to find that the resolution in question fails to achieve its euphonious aims of ending such vile practices, instead proving redundant and ineffectual;

Hereby Repeals GA#693 “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”.

Coauthored by A Bloodred Moon and Simone Republic

[The Ice States]

I'm just going to say that I don't think this is motivated by genuine concern; at best it's motivated by rather nonsensical sanctions against Tinhampton. Subordinating clauses are well-accepted and I am certainly not the originator of them, so that is an especially absurd argument. I don't see why to give genuine feedback beyond this point.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “This repeal is well-written, and it does identify some flaws in the targeted delegation. As the ‘disappointed’ clause notes, however, there does need to be some legislation against this deplorable practice. Will your Excellencies be drafting that replacement?”

[Varanius]

I'm just going to say that I don't think this is motivated by genuine concern; at best it's motivated by rather nonsensical sanctions against Tinhampton.

It is not. Though even if it was, I fail to see what the point of this allegation is. If people not typically involved in the GA (my singular coauthorship is not what I would consider regular involvement) become more active in the GA and supply (forgive the tooting of my own horn) well-reasoned regulation, but do so out of some secret and nefarious purpose, the net change is still well-reasoned legislation being submitted.

Subordinating clauses are well-accepted and I am certainly not the originator of them, so that is an especially absurd argument.

Something being commonplace does not mean it is automatically good legislating, or immune from critique.

I don't see why to give genuine feedback beyond this point.

k

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “This repeal is well-written, and it does identify some flaws in the targeted delegation. As the ‘disappointed’ clause notes, however, there does need to be some legislation against this deplorable practice. Will your Excellencies be drafting that replacement?”

No. I’m not remarkably familiar with the topic, and from where I’m standing a resolution on animal cruelty would better cover the few holes that repealing would lead to (given, as outlined, any similar treatment of sapient creatures is already forbidden under GA#23, leaving only the clauses preventing such to animals as unique bits of law), but I don’t particularly intend on authoring a replacement regardless, though I wouldn’t begrudge others for trying.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

a voice can be heard from somewhere in the chamber...

This is actually quite good and identifies some significant weaknesses of the target.

We would however disagree with the Kenmorian ambassador that a replacement is necessarily important. The authors seem to indicate that almost everything covered in the target is already punishable under extant legislation. We agree with the authors' reading that forced blood sports are already banned under GA23, and banning other forms of blood sports would require a different approach entirely. If the GA wishes to get into the business of banning competitions to which parties have given their mutual and informed consent, we would consider that a gross overreach.

We were curious to hear the author's thoughts on whether a replacement was necessary and if so from what angle, but upon a refresh our question seems to be answered.

[Comfed]

The language here is a little flowery but the substance is reasonable.

Subordinating clauses are well-accepted and I am certainly not the originator of them, so that is an especially absurd argument.

You are correct that they are well-accepted. I say, what better time than the present to chip away at the entrenchment of that kind of lazy writing?

[The Ice States]

Ooc:

I'm just going to say that I don't think this is motivated by genuine concern; at best it's motivated by rather nonsensical sanctions against Tinhampton.

It is not. Though even if it was, I fail to see what the point of this allegation is. If people not typically involved in the GA (my singular coauthorship is not what I would consider regular involvement) become more active in the GA and supply (forgive the tooting of my own horn) well-reasoned regulation, but do so out of some secret and nefarious purpose, the net change is still well-reasoned legislation being submitted.

You see, I don't believe this. If it were motivated by genuine concern, then it is at best poor optics to select a target which "coincidentally" is co-authored by the latest target of MGC sanctions, and is authored by a player you already dislike. If you truly want to get involved in the GA that's fine, but you should still select a better target. But again, I don't believe that this is because of genuine concern at these argued flaws; your only GA authorship was also an effort to advance MGC sanctions, and I do not see any evidence that this is different. This is especially the case when the co-author's only real claim to fame in the GA is quorum raids "to piss off the GA"[1]; while this does not itself make good faith impossible, it does make it less likely. Additionally you personally have repeatedly stated your dislike of the GA, which makes the "supply well-reasoned regulation" argument especially implausible. These three factors -- the author's history, the co-author's history, and the nature of the target -- make the possibility of good faith too small for me to believe it. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Subordinating clauses are well-accepted and I am certainly not the originator of them, so that is an especially absurd argument.

Something being commonplace does not mean it is automatically good legislating, or immune from critique.

I say, what better time than the present to chip away at the entrenchment of that kind of lazy writing?

Then you should repeal "Access to Abortion", "Extradition Rights", "Freedom of Association", "Patient Travel Freedoms", "Provisional Rule in Wartime", and "Restrictions on Forced Eugenics".

Ic:

We were curious to hear the author's thoughts on whether a replacement was necessary and if so from what angle, but upon a refresh our question seems to be answered.

"While the resolution does in fact address forced blood sports on sapients, the primary focus is in fact blood sports involving animals. Even if we accept that blood sports involving sapients are prohibited, a replacement continues to be necessary to address blood sports involving animals."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Varanius]

Ooc:

It is not. Though even if it was, I fail to see what the point of this allegation is. If people not typically involved in the GA (my singular coauthorship is not what I would consider regular involvement) become more active in the GA and supply (forgive the tooting of my own horn) well-reasoned regulation, but do so out of some secret and nefarious purpose, the net change is still well-reasoned legislation being submitted.

You see, I don't believe this. If it were motivated by genuine concern, then it is at best poor optics to select a target which "coincidentally" is co-authored by the latest target of MGC sanctions, and is authored by a player you already dislike. If you truly want to get involved in the GA that's fine, but you should still select a better target. But again, I don't believe that this is because of genuine concern at these argued flaws; your only GA authorship was also an effort to advance MGC sanctions, and I do not see any evidence that this is different. This is especially the case when the co-author's only real claim to fame in the GA is quorum raids "to piss off the GA"[1]; while this does not itself make good faith impossible, it does make it less likely. These three factors -- the author's history, the co-author's history, and the nature of the target -- make the possibility of good faith too small for me to believe it. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

To which I direct you to the second half of that response, why does what you feel like projecting into my head have any effect on the resolution?

Then you should repeal "Access to Abortion", "Extradition Rights", "Freedom of Association", "Patient Travel Freedoms", "Provisional Rule in Wartime", and "Restrictions on Forced Eugenics".

I’m not sure why you think I’d be against repealing any of those.

[The Ice States]

Ooc:

You see, I don't believe this. If it were motivated by genuine concern, then it is at best poor optics to select a target which "coincidentally" is co-authored by the latest target of MGC sanctions, and is authored by a player you already dislike. If you truly want to get involved in the GA that's fine, but you should still select a better target. But again, I don't believe that this is because of genuine concern at these argued flaws; your only GA authorship was also an effort to advance MGC sanctions, and I do not see any evidence that this is different. This is especially the case when the co-author's only real claim to fame in the GA is quorum raids "to piss off the GA"[1]; while this does not itself make good faith impossible, it does make it less likely. These three factors -- the author's history, the co-author's history, and the nature of the target -- make the possibility of good faith too small for me to believe it. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

To which I direct you to the second half of that response, why does what you feel like projecting into my head have any effect on the resolution?

It doesn't, simply because I am certain that this repeal will be pursued regardless and likely rammed through using Gameplay power. However, I do feel it necessary to bring the obvious reality of this repeal to the public record, both for the sake of voters and for posterity.

[Hulldom]

To which I direct you to the second half of that response, why does what you feel like projecting into my head have any effect on the resolution?

It doesn't, simply because I am certain that this repeal will be pursued regardless and likely rammed through using Gameplay power. However, I do feel it necessary to bring the obvious reality of this repeal to the public record, both for the sake of voters and for posterity.

Just going to add, briefly, that if you believe the reasons for the repeal are BS, the burden is on you to argue that and to eventually campaign on that line. There is nothing stopping you from counter campaigning Vara if he does, in fact, pursue this regardless and try to ram this through "using Gameplay power". It's frankly pretty lazy to believe that there's nothing of politics in the GA. It's always been political, it's always been subservient to the whims of the Gameplay people who control WA votes. I know many here don't like that, but that's the reality we live in. The difference is some of us cultivated Gameplay support while others whined about having to actually play politics in their politics simulator.

[The Ice States]

It doesn't, simply because I am certain that this repeal will be pursued regardless and likely rammed through using Gameplay power. However, I do feel it necessary to bring the obvious reality of this repeal to the public record, both for the sake of voters and for posterity.

Just going to add, briefly, that if you believe the reasons for the repeal are BS, the burden is on you to argue that and to eventually campaign on that line. There is nothing stopping you from counter campaigning Vara if he does, in fact, pursue this regardless and try to ram this through "using Gameplay power". It's frankly pretty lazy to believe that there's nothing of politics in the GA. It's always been political, it's always been subservient to the whims of the Gameplay people who control WA votes. I know many here don't like that, but that's the reality we live in. The difference is some of us cultivated Gameplay support while others whined about having to actually play politics in their politics simulator.

What's the point if Vara has more Gameplay power than whatever I could accrue in that time?

[Fachumonn]

While I almost never agree with GP, or Vara for that matter, to accuse someone of "using their gameplay power" by just posting a repeal is frankly bizarre and uncalled for.

[Hulldom]

Just going to add, briefly, that if you believe the reasons for the repeal are BS, the burden is on you to argue that and to eventually campaign on that line. There is nothing stopping you from counter campaigning Vara if he does, in fact, pursue this regardless and try to ram this through "using Gameplay power". It's frankly pretty lazy to believe that there's nothing of politics in the GA. It's always been political, it's always been subservient to the whims of the Gameplay people who control WA votes. I know many here don't like that, but that's the reality we live in. The difference is some of us cultivated Gameplay support while others whined about having to actually play politics in their politics simulator.

What's the point if Vara has more Gameplay power than whatever I could accrue in that time?

If you are going to whine about it but do nothing about it, then your complaint is invalid, and as Fachumonn put it, bizarre. There are tools you could use to halt the GP NatSovers advance on the GA, but many here systematically refuse to do that.

In any case, and on topic, full support, though it's not as if I wasn't a pair of eyes.

[The Ice States]

What's the point if Vara has more Gameplay power than whatever I could accrue in that time?

If you are going to whine about it but do nothing about it, then your complaint is invalid, and as Fachumonn put it, bizarre. There are tools you could use to halt the GP NatSovers advance on the GA, but many here systematically refuse to do that.

This is nonsense. A complaint doesn't become "invalid" just because I'm not interested in engaging in futile efforts with no chance of actually solving the problem and which necessarily include engaging in a community which has constantly been hostile to the GA, almost always engaging with it either to harm it or by using it as a tool to advance factional conflicts. Frankly, I am enjoying NS a lot more now than one year ago with regards to not holding Gameplay influence that forces me to participate in such drama. At the very least, it helped get a glimpse of how the Gameplay machine works from inside.

[A Bloodred Moon]

I don't see why to give genuine feedback beyond this point.

That is regrettable, as your later posts indicate you believe this resolution should not be targeted for a repeal, and I’d be curious to your arguments. As Vara said, we are both fairly new to the GA, and I personally was hopeful you’d provide some guidance as to the contents of the repeal.

Ooc:

You see, I don't believe this.

In the interest of putting this to bed, I’ll reiterate Tinhampton’s co-authorship has no bearing on this proposal. I’m not a member of an MGC region, and I have never displayed any interests in enforcing their sanctions because I have none. Frankly, I wasn’t even aware she was the target of any, and Vara never gave any indication that it was a factor for him either.

If it were motivated by genuine concern, then it is at best poor optics to select a target which "coincidentally" is co-authored by the latest target of MGC sanctions, and is authored by a player you already dislike.

You seem more focussed on the optics than the resolution’s quality, which is unfortunate and disappointing, especially since you previously repeatedly expressed your dislike over judgements based on a resolution’s author. I’m mildly surprised to find you changed your stance.

This is especially the case when the co-author's only real claim to fame in the GA is quorum raids "to piss off the GA"[1]; while this does not itself make good faith impossible, it does make it less likely.

I’ve already said my piece above; the only thing I’d like to rebuke here is to point out that that is not me and those are not my words. Moreover, you know this and yet make it seem like you are quoting me, unless I’m severely misinterpreting things. If you’d like to make the argument I am not to be trusted based on my NatSov stances, please quote me right - it is no secret, but I also fail to see why it would have bearing on the contents of the repeal.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “This repeal is well-written, and it does identify some flaws in the targeted delegation. As the ‘disappointed’ clause notes, however, there does need to be some legislation against this deplorable practice. Will your Excellencies be drafting that replacement?”

Thank you - personally I will not be pursuing a replacement for my own reasons. I’m certain others will rise to the challenge, however.

[The Ice States]

I’ve already said my piece above; the only thing I’d like to rebuke here is to point out that that is not me and those are not my words. Moreover, you know this and yet make it seem like you are quoting me, unless I’m severely misinterpreting things. If you’d like to make the argument I am not to be trusted based on my NatSov stances, please quote me right - it is no secret, but I also fail to see why it would have bearing on the contents of the repeal.

I will just say, to avoid further misinterpretation of my posts, that indeed that was not meant to be quoting you; I quoted that message from someone else as evidence for the motives of the said quorum raids.

[Yelda]

Full support for the repeal, no support for a replacement. This matter is best handled at the national, or even state and local level. Devolution is good etc etc

[Astrobolt]

OOC: Opposed given the authors have been open about quorum raiding to target GA proposals. If the authors denounce quorum raids targeting the GA, then we can give this repeal more thought. Until then, I don't see why we should give a GA badge to those who don't respect this body.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I present some feedback, on an annotated copy of the draft. Incidentally, the rationale for a replacement is the area of GA #693 not covered by GA #023, which is blood-sports involving animals, such as dog-fighting. If the authoring delegation does not wish to pursue a replacement, then, in some time, this Delegation might do so.”

The General Assembly,

Appreciative of the aim of GA#693 to end forced blood sports, a term redolent of brutal gladiatorial combat and similarly repulsive, brutal spectacle; Though this clause flows very well, it does not make complete sense. It is not that GA #693’s aim is to end “forced blood sports”, as a term; rather, GA #693 seeks to end forced blood sports, as a concept. For this reason, I suggest the placement of “blight” in place of “term”.

Frustrated with the outlined definition of “forced blood sport”, being so myopic that it only applies to those activities performed for entertainment, when there may exist plenty of ultra-violent competitions not performed to entertain an audience; and yet simultaneously meaninglessly broad, given that a plethora of routine activities, particularly most high-contact sports, could be considered “likely” to lead to severe injury; Given that there are, in fact, numerous ultra-violent competitions that are not done for entertainment, I recommend that your Excellency substitute “exists” for “may exist”. This is less passive.

Concerned by the description of this resolution’s nature as “subject to relevant past World Assembly laws still in force”, implying the potential of a conflicting resolution and yet also failing to explain this proposal’s relation to this implied legislation; Your Excellency could develop this point further by adding “Thereby introducing uncertainty into the canons of international law”, or similar wording that explains why the lack of specification is problematic.

Distressed by the ultimate redundancy of much of the resolution, finding that forcefully compelling individuals to do engage in blood sports at all would be in violation of GA#23 “Ban On Slavery and Trafficking” as would much of Sections 2 and 3’s provisions prohibiting the containment and transportation of people against their consent under GA#23’s clauses forbidding human trafficking; Where “section” references a legislative part, it ought not to be capitalised.

Disheartened to find GA#693 is a resolution marred by its maladroitly defined scope which fundamentally prevents it from actually eradicating forced blood sports, an egregious error only partially redeemed through the existence of previously passed legislation which renders many of GA#693's actionable clauses irrelevant; “That” should be inserted between “find” and “GA#693”.

Disappointed, then, to find that the resolution in question fails to achieve its euphonious aims of ending such vile practices, instead proving redundant and ineffectual; This clause is redundant considering the previous clause. Though it has rhetorical impact, it has little actual argument.

Hereby Repeals GA#693 “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”.
Coauthored by A Bloodred Moon

[Comfed]

Then you should repeal "Access to Abortion", "Extradition Rights", "Freedom of Association", "Patient Travel Freedoms", "Provisional Rule in Wartime", and "Restrictions on Forced Eugenics".

This is not a substantive argument in favour of the line in the resolution you are defending. In any case, my support of this repeal is based on more flaws than that one clause.

[Wallenburg]

The Wallenburgian delegation, Trevanyika and Gerald accompanied by three other staffers, enters the room in whispered, heated discussion. Gerald takes up the text and begins reading it back to the rest of the delegation in Wallenburgian. Trevanyika jots down several notes, then compares them with those of her staff. Nodding, she directs her attention toward the authoring Entities.

Frustrated with the outlined definition of “forced blood sport”, being so myopic that it only applies to those activities performed for entertainment, when there may exist plenty of ultra-violent competitions not performed to entertain an audience; and yet simultaneously meaninglessly broad, given that a plethora of routine activities, particularly most high-contact sports, could be considered “likely” to lead to severe injury;

"This argument might be more convincing if you could demonstrate some sort of activity that (1) does not fall under the target's definition of 'forced blood sport' and (2) that must be addressed by this body but cannot presently with suitable cohesion without the repeal of the target."

Concerned by the description of this resolution’s nature as “subject to relevant past World Assembly laws still in force”, implying the potential of a conflicting resolution and yet also failing to explain this proposal’s relation to this implied legislation;

"My office has made certain our stance on these non-contradiction clauses: we find them distasteful and incompatible with good legal practice. That said, I see no way to argue that this does not explain how the target relates to other legislation. Quite clearly, its relationship is that where a contradiction would otherwise occur with the target's mandates, the mandates do not apply. As such, claiming this is not explained would seem to violate the Honest Mistake rule. You'd do better to argue the professional quality of this mechanism rather than simply claiming the existence of ambiguity where none apparently exists."

Distressed by the ultimate redundancy of much of the resolution, finding that forcefully compelling individuals to do engage in blood sports at all would be in violation of GA#23 “Ban On Slavery and Trafficking” as would much of Sections 2 and 3’s provisions prohibiting the containment and transportation of people against their consent under GA#23’s clauses forbidding human trafficking;

"A notable gap in GAR #23's prohibitions leaves imprisoned convicts vulnerable to such treatment. The target prohibits the use of prisoners for blood sports. It also prohibits entities from holding people to blood sports contracts they wish to withdraw from. It also prohibits the use of animals, which are not protected at all under GAR #23. The existence of some redundancy does not diminish the target's good work."

Disheartened to find GA#693 is a resolution marred by its maladroitly defined scope which fundamentally prevents it from actually eradicating forced blood sports, an egregious error only partially redeemed through the existence of previously passed legislation which renders many of GA#693's actionable clauses irrelevant;

"Unconvincing to the point of another probable Honest Mistake violation. I don't see any colorable argument for 'many' of the target's mandates to be 'irrelevant'. Each one imposes meaningful policy requirements that previously did not exist. I'll need to see a much more convincing argument for repeal to support such action as this."

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

too few Wolfist coauthors; against

[The Overmind]

That this is well-written and appears substantive on a first reading does not mean that it rises to the level of a good argument for repeal. If you collectively look at the arguments, it makes the target resolution seem quite flawed, and yet, each argument individually is weak, which, we suppose, is why this repeal can't identify any fatal flaw in the resolution.

Relying on the word "likely" to argue that this proposal outlaws most high-contact sports is a reach, since, while injuries are commonplace in most high-contact sports, severe injury is not.

Legal praxis aside, the clause intercepting any potential contradiction does nothing to weaken the target's aims.

It is also clear that the target's scope is larger than just instances of blood sports that involve trafficking, but also seeks to outlaw instances of compulsion that do not rely on the physical transport or containment of potential victims.

There is nothing to say about the last two clauses since they are not arguments, just summaries.

Given that each point is so individually weak, if only partly on track with something approaching substantive if proposals could be exercised purely in bad faith (which they cannot, thanks to standing legislation), this repeal is overall not what its high falutin and damning language would suggest.

Oh, and absolutely no shot at repeal without replacement.

[Varanius]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I present some feedback, on an annotated copy of the draft. Incidentally, the rationale for a replacement is the area of GA #693 not covered by GA #023, which is blood-sports involving animals, such as dog-fighting. If the authoring delegation does not wish to pursue a replacement, then, in some time, this Delegation might do so.”

The General Assembly,

Appreciative of the aim of GA#693 to end forced blood sports, a term redolent of brutal gladiatorial combat and similarly repulsive, brutal spectacle; Though this clause flows very well, it does not make complete sense. It is not that GA #693’s aim is to end “forced blood sports”, as a term; rather, GA #693 seeks to end forced blood sports, as a concept. For this reason, I suggest the placement of “blight” in place of “term”.

Frustrated with the outlined definition of “forced blood sport”, being so myopic that it only applies to those activities performed for entertainment, when there may exist plenty of ultra-violent competitions not performed to entertain an audience; and yet simultaneously meaninglessly broad, given that a plethora of routine activities, particularly most high-contact sports, could be considered “likely” to lead to severe injury; Given that there are, in fact, numerous ultra-violent competitions that are not done for entertainment, I recommend that your Excellency substitute “exists” for “may exist”. This is less passive.

Concerned by the description of this resolution’s nature as “subject to relevant past World Assembly laws still in force”, implying the potential of a conflicting resolution and yet also failing to explain this proposal’s relation to this implied legislation; Your Excellency could develop this point further by adding “Thereby introducing uncertainty into the canons of international law”, or similar wording that explains why the lack of specification is problematic.

Distressed by the ultimate redundancy of much of the resolution, finding that forcefully compelling individuals to do engage in blood sports at all would be in violation of GA#23 “Ban On Slavery and Trafficking” as would much of Sections 2 and 3’s provisions prohibiting the containment and transportation of people against their consent under GA#23’s clauses forbidding human trafficking; Where “section” references a legislative part, it ought not to be capitalised.

Disheartened to find GA#693 is a resolution marred by its maladroitly defined scope which fundamentally prevents it from actually eradicating forced blood sports, an egregious error only partially redeemed through the existence of previously passed legislation which renders many of GA#693's actionable clauses irrelevant; “That” should be inserted between “find” and “GA#693”.

Disappointed, then, to find that the resolution in question fails to achieve its euphonious aims of ending such vile practices, instead proving redundant and ineffectual; This clause is redundant considering the previous clause. Though it has rhetorical impact, it has little actual argument.

Hereby Repeals GA#693 “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”.
Coauthored by A Bloodred Moon

Thanks! All of this will be edited in shortly.

"This argument might be more convincing if you could demonstrate some sort of activity that (1) does not fall under the target's definition of 'forced blood sport' and (2) that must be addressed by this body but cannot presently with suitable cohesion without the repeal of the target."

Any blood sport not performed for entertainment is, under this definition, not a blood sport. A gladiatorial combat event not performed with an active audience, and instead for competition or monetary gain (a group of slaves forced to engage in gladiatorial combat in which the winner acquires freedom done not for any audience, but rather out of some perverse values that the strongest should be free, is still by any rational definition a sport, a similar game done not with an audience but in which people may still place bets on a winner may entertain no one, but is still a sport).

Similarly, the note on the definition being too loose is especially salient. If a PE teacher forces their class to play football (American), a game in which participants are likely to suffer severe injury (certainly moreso than they are by not playing it), is this a forced blood sport? You can certainly argue it’s immoral, but necessitating World Assembly prohibition? I think not.

"My office has made certain our stance on these non-contradiction clauses: we find them distasteful and incompatible with good legal practice. That said, I see no way to argue that this does not explain how the target relates to other legislation. Quite clearly, its relationship is that where a contradiction would otherwise occur with the target's mandates, the mandates do not apply. As such, claiming this is not explained would seem to violate the Honest Mistake rule. You'd do better to argue the professional quality of this mechanism rather than simply claiming the existence of ambiguity where none apparently exists."

This is fair, I’d happily edit it accordingly.

"A notable gap in GAR #23's prohibitions leaves imprisoned convicts vulnerable to such treatment. The target prohibits the use of prisoners for blood sports.

But which https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... l=1&id=534 also does, just as well (arguably better). This can be included in my repeal argument if that’s suggested.

It also prohibits entities from holding people to blood sports contracts they wish to withdraw from.

If it is believed that blood sports require unique treatment from other forms of employment in this vein, I could see this as argument for a replacement, but for keeping poorly defined resolutions on the books? No

It also prohibits the use of animals, which are not protected at all under GAR #23.

Something which would be much better covered through an animal cruelty resolution.

The existence of some redundancy does not diminish the target's good work."

Which is thankfully not my argument. The point is that this resolution approaches a serious topic with a poorly defined scope, and then does with the scope many things which are already covered by other resolution, and most of what is covered is best covered by newer, broader legislation. There’s simply no need for this resolution in its current form.


I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on much of this, which is absolutely fine, but you’ve far from convinced me that this resolution should stay on the books.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I don't think this is a resolution I care for much at all. The republic's public games have become much more dull since its enactment. Instead of watching men fight savage animals in a display of martial excellence we watch men carry around the objective™ with throws and passes until it reaches an arbitrary location on a large featureless rectangular plain. Make games fun again.

OOC. I see this resolution as micromanagement, voted against it then and will probably vote for repeal now.