[DISCARDED] Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"

[Bisofeyr]

but also erroneously restricts the resolution to only activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber of a volcano, to the exclusion of other volcano-related events, such as lahars, tsunamis, post-eruption famines, or earthquakes

Is this accurate? It seems to me that "activity of a volcano" could certainly include items outside the scope of the activity as described in this clause. For example, a brief search shows that some volcanoes have more than one magma chambers, which would seem to contradict the assertion here that "volcanic activity" only applies to buildup within the core chamber (it could be found in a secondary chamber, for instance).

[Elyreia]

I would argue the crux of the resolution - that it avoids dangers related to volcanoes that are not due to "volcanic activity" e.g. magma or gas buildup in any number of magma chambers - still necessitates its repeal, if at all else for a better replacement. Even expanding the repeal's definition to include secondary, tertiary, or even quaternary chambers still excludes that many of the most dangerous parts of a volcano are not caused exclusively by volcanic activity.

Earthquakes can be caused by the tectonic movements, for instance, rather than gas or magma build up. They can even be caused by the collapse of a magma chamber not brought on by magma or gas build up in said chamber or neighboring chambers.

Likewise, many other events can be triggered at a volcano, but not by the volcano. Landslides, avalanches, lahars, glacial floods... all of these can be caused by events such as dome collapse, which would be a non-volcanic activity, making even long-dormant or extinct volcanos a threat, while the target legislation does nothing to address the threats of extinct volcanoes that do no have "volcanic activity" occur in them.

I believe the best way forward is to repeal the legislation as ineffectual - there are three pieces of legislation that do everything the target resolution does, but better. Worst case, I can write up a replacement for the repeal that handles the omissions if it's needed.

_{Editted for further elaboration from someplace that wasn't my phone}

[Sloventa]

Regarding this repeal for one... The resolution your trying to appeal mentions and I quote "Mortified that the previous resolution says nothing on cooperation between member nations when it comes to handling disasters like multinational volcanic activity" and this resolution would have been basically merged with resolution #570 and this is basically a waste of time anyhow but the resolution confirms the safety of volcanic activity and would be a more trusted source since it specifically specializes in it making communities safer, with the mention of it there resources will be less spread and be in one area being volcanic activity. What I'm basically saying repealing this bill would be a waste of time and probably resources.

-Sincerely
WA Ambassador -Kasimir Anastasia
Diplomatic Chief Executive- Fred Božo

[Elyreia]

Regarding this repeal for one... The resolution your trying to appeal mentions and I quote "Mortified that the previous resolution says nothing on cooperation between member nations when it comes to handling disasters like multinational volcanic activity" and this resolution would have been basically merged with resolution #570 and this is basically a waste of time anyhow but the resolution confirms the safety of volcanic activity and would be a more trusted source since it specifically specializes in it making communities safer, with the mention of it there resources will be less spread and be in one area being volcanic activity. What I'm basically saying repealing this bill would be a waste of time and probably resources.

-Sincerely
WA Ambassador -Kasimir Anastasia
Diplomatic Chief Executive- Fred Božo

And yet the target resolution does not take into account non-volcanic activities which are more common at volcanoes, particularly dormant or extonct ones. Again, it require repeal if all else for replacement. I am for writing a replacement if the community at large deems it necessary but for many months now, no one has said a peep about a replacement being necessary.

As someone who lives next to active and inactive volcanoes, this resolution would do next to nothing to actually prepare communities for disasters prone in our area.

[The Overmind]

Regarding this repeal for one... The resolution your trying to appeal mentions and I quote "Mortified that the previous resolution says nothing on cooperation between member nations when it comes to handling disasters like multinational volcanic activity" and this resolution would have been basically merged with resolution #570 and this is basically a waste of time anyhow but the resolution confirms the safety of volcanic activity and would be a more trusted source since it specifically specializes in it making communities safer, with the mention of it there resources will be less spread and be in one area being volcanic activity. What I'm basically saying repealing this bill would be a waste of time and probably resources.

-Sincerely
WA Ambassador -Kasimir Anastasia
Diplomatic Chief Executive- Fred Božo

And yet the target resolution does not take into account non-volcanic activities which are more common at volcanoes, particularly dormant or extonct ones. Again, it require repeal if all else for replacement. I am for writing a replacement if the community at large deems it necessary but for many months now, no one has said a peep about a replacement being necessary.

As someone who lives next to active and inactive volcanoes, this resolution would do next to nothing to actually prepare communities for disasters prone in our area.

I think the arguments against replacement make well-taken points. There is already existing legislation in extant resolutions that are sufficient to avoid the need for replacement.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A challenge has been moved sua sponte against this proposal on grounds that the phrase "restricts the resolution to only activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber of a volcano" is not a plausible reading of the proposal and that "activity of a volcano" must include secondary magma chambers. It has been taken up.

[Elyreia]

A challenge has been moved sua sponte against this proposal on grounds that the phrase "restricts the resolution to only activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber of a volcano" is not a plausible reading of the proposal and that "activity of a volcano" must include secondary magma chambers. It has been taken up.

I again argue that the crux of the resolution is not that the activity is solely exclusive to the core chamber, and can include secondary chambers, but that the reason for repeal is that so many volcanic activities are not related to gas or magma build up in any chamber, and in fact the complete lack of volcanic activity can still cause devastating events such as lahars, landslides, avalanches, glacial floods, etc, which is the purpose of the repeal.

However, I also understand that the GA, by its very nature, must be specific and at times pedantic by necessity - should the challenge succeed, the repeal will be re-submitted as I believe every other part of the repeal stands on their own. At the very least, the fact that "volcanic activity" is defined as "activity of a volcano" is circular and not a definition at all - is this any and all activities that may occur at a volcano (which could include droughts, floods, blizzards, hurricanes, wind storms, wildfires, etc) or activity that involves simply magma eruptions (which excludes dome collapses, most earthquakes, gas build up, ashfall, post-eruption famines) or activity that is geothermal in nature? The target resolution makes no effort to define the term, and there is no universal consensus IRL within the vulcanological or geological scientific communities about the scope of "volcanic activity".

As someone who actually lives in a volcanic area, VAC would not offer any benefits whatsoever to my area because we are not in an active volcanic zone, despite being surrounded by long-dormant and extinct volcanoes and many fatalities from non-volcanic activities as a result of the loose sediment and soil that are common in their vicinity, and earthquakes caused by the tectonics that created the volcanoes (which means the earthquakes are not 'volcanic activity' but are more common at volcanic areas).

[Nassau Pirate Haven]

The hypothesis that members of a league of nations would deny funding and support to an international effort to aid those impacted by a natural disaster because of a craven legal interpretation of the word volcano is, in our view, deeply flawed and ridiculous on its face. We vote against the repeal. If you want to clarify language create your own resolution.

[Kay Pacha]

The hypothesis that members of a league of nations would deny funding and support to an international effort to aid those impacted by a natural disaster because of a craven legal interpretation of the word volcano is, in our view, deeply flawed and ridiculous on its face. We vote against the repeal. If you want to clarify language create your own resolution.

What is a volcano though?

[Elyreia]

The hypothesis that members of a league of nations would deny funding and support to an international effort to aid those impacted by a natural disaster because of a craven legal interpretation of the word volcano is, in our view, deeply flawed and ridiculous on its face. We vote against the repeal. If you want to clarify language create your own resolution.

Can't create our own resolution unless the target resolution is repealed.

[The Overmind]

We encourage you to redraft without the illegal clause and resubmit.

[Elyreia]

We encourage you to redraft without the illegal clause and resubmit.

That was the original plan. This is, after all, my first proposal and it was likely to fail at any step of the process.


To pass with such an overwhelming majority was also very encouraging to see.

I have reconsidered my resubmission currently given the current state of legal challenges coming up. I will wait to see the current trend; if I submit again and get another legal challenge on text that was already present and not challenged, I would be quite irate.

[The Overmind]

We encourage you to redraft without the illegal clause and resubmit.

That was the original plan. This is, after all, my first proposal and it was likely to fail at any step of the process.


To pass with such an overwhelming majority was also very encouraging to see.

I have reconsidered my resubmission currently given the current state of legal challenges coming up. I will wait to see the current trend; if I submit again and get another legal challenge on text that was already present and not challenged, I would be quite irate.

You can submit a legality challenge against your own proposal on any clause you suspect might be illegal to head off vultures at vote. Review potential rule violations here. If players, and particularly GenSec, are going to bring late challenges, they invite more work for themselves from players who want to head off such quibbling, last minute challenges.

[Elyreia]

For personal tracking and future telegrams:
"Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"" was discarded by the WA for rule violations after garnering 9,122 votes in favor and 2,634 votes against.

[Of The Revived Soviet Union]

For personal tracking and future telegrams:
"Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"" was discarded by the WA for rule violations after garnering 9,122 votes in favor and 2,634 votes against.

how the hell did this happen?

[The Overmind]

For personal tracking and future telegrams:
"Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"" was discarded by the WA for rule violations after garnering 9,122 votes in favor and 2,634 votes against.

how the hell did this happen?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=554984

Note: my provision of this link does not constitute an endorsement of the contents of the linked thread.