[PASSED] REPEAL Extinction Preparation Act

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Sounds fine to me: iApprove.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: Due to circumstances beyond my control I was unable to campaign for this as well as I would have liked. I will let this sit for a day or two, then try once more.

[Krioval]

Delegates approving this legislation, just prior to the close of the voting period:

Mallorea and Riva, Flibbleites, Charlotte Ryberg, Knootoss, Benigea, Redrake, The Island of ZAM, Mexico and its People, Going Postal, Indian Gangs, General Hammond, Galactic Furs, Iverista, Krioval, Ghanara, NewTexas, Diol, Shikarpur, Todd McCloud, Dagnia, The Child of the Jago, Monikian WA Mission, Caffeine Addicts, Jasarite, Portlos, Leather-Gloved Germany, Cresilia, The Water Supply, Sanctus et Filios, Die Konservativen, Mesarian, Forum Seven, CheyenneMountains, Texina, Eateron, Architeuthis, Grays Harbor, The Triangulum, Shrand, Jedi-Gangsters, Krankor

[Mallorea and Riva]

Delegates approving this legislation, just prior to the close of the voting period:

Mallorea and Riva, Flibbleites, Charlotte Ryberg, Knootoss, Benigea, Redrake, The Island of ZAM, Mexico and its People, Going Postal, Indian Gangs, General Hammond, Galactic Furs, Iverista, Krioval, Ghanara, NewTexas, Diol, Shikarpur, Todd McCloud, Dagnia, The Child of the Jago, Monikian WA Mission, Caffeine Addicts, Jasarite, Portlos, Leather-Gloved Germany, Cresilia, The Water Supply, Sanctus et Filios, Die Konservativen, Mesarian, Forum Seven, CheyenneMountains, Texina, Eateron, Architeuthis, Grays Harbor, The Triangulum, Shrand, Jedi-Gangsters, Krankor

Many thanks for this list. Apologies to all for the weak effort on my own part, I will put this on hold for a day or two then put forth a proper effort.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Submitted!

[Parti Ouvrier]

Submitted!

We will vote for this should it come to vote.

CJ
Ambassador for the DRPO

[Mallorea and Riva]

Submitted!

We will vote for this should it come to vote.

CJ
Ambassador for the DRPO

Your support is very much appreciated! As things currently stand:
Status: Lacking Support (requires 18 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days 7 hours

Which seems like a good number of votes with a large amount of time remaining.

[Bears Armed]

Regarding the argument, raised by several people, that this is something that the member nations could do well enough for themselves:
If they have to build facilities of their own for this purpose then some might not bother, meaning that if any species endemic to those nations were to become extinct then those species would be lost to the worlds forever: However if there is already a (WA-run) facility in existence for this purpose that they could use, so that all they have to do is collect & send off the genetic samples, then I think that they'd be more likely to save the samples and that therefore those species would be a bit more likely to be recoverable if their current stocks died out... which would be a good thing.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Regarding the argument, raised by several people, that this is something that the member nations could do well enough for themselves:
If they have to build facilities of their own for this purpose then some might not bother, meaning that if any species endemic to those nations were to become extinct then those species would be lost to the worlds forever: However if there is already a (WA-run) facility in existence for this purpose that they could use, so that all they have to do is collect & send off the genetic samples, then I think that they'd be more likely to save the samples and that therefore those species would be a bit more likely to be recoverable if their current stocks died out... which would be a good thing.

I applaud the idea behind the Act, but the practicality of a single facility to serve this purpose is ludicrous. If nations are unwilling to create a facility to store species endemic to their nations then it seems unlikely that they will bother to send samples to this far away facility. Especially since the Act makes no provisions for acquiring genetic samples.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Approvals: 84 (Robustial, Mallorea and Riva, Zepplien, Jedi8246, Ghanara, Flibbleites, Mewsland, Indian Gangs, Wapakalypse, The Water Supply, Emperor Neo, Moral Arbitration, Aridiya, NewTexas, Grays Harbor, Tchaikovskia, Moses Wilhelm, Sergetank, Boatail hollowpoints, Radkicks, Vaelkhar, Kleinekatzen, The Triangulum, Mesarian, Drunk teaspoons, Donktonkia, General Hammond, Lago Maggiore, Denjaruut, RobertLodge-sur-Mer, Adamtopiah, Knootoss, Feranal, Charlotte Ryberg, The Island of ZAM, Darmen, Mousebumples, Odinslund, Draculanovia, Mosershall, Nothim, Nuew, BangDeck, EndlessOcean, Thulcan, Mortelatuzia, MorecambeFC, Tunneydam, Napaleo, Yavin 1221, Freedansia, Arogue, K-Dawgland, Human and Alien Life, Shrand, Leather-Gloved Germany, Krioval, Todd McCloud, Architeuthis, Heartland Federation, Diol, Jedi-Gangsters, Brynnar, DaemonMan, Trektopolis, Kawther, Ayakera, Smt_101, The Orion Nebula, Octopucta, Houkong, Kvaughn, Navonodish, Galactic Furs, Excaliburia, Tutislovania, Nayrbja, Cold Archivia, The Child of the Jago, The Warring Factions, Capisaria, BURNINATI0N, Kitago, The Voltarum)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

And now we wait.

Extra votes appreciated HERE

[Darenjo]

Congratulations. I will certainly vote in support of your repeal effort.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Congratulations. I will certainly vote in support of your repeal effort.

All support is greatly appreciated!

[Catollicco]

You have the vote of the Holy Empire of Catollicco for your wonderful bill. We will do whatever we can to help this situation.

Regards,
His Holiness, Emperor of Catollicco, Francis Xavier

[The Penguins Island]

[*] The logistical issues that some nations may encounter when making contributions and/or sending their scientists to the facility to conduct research;
[*] The security risk as a single disaster - whether caused by nature or by man - would take out all materials, information, and employees of the facility

These are realistic issues. A network of multiple (regional?) facilities would be less costly and more safe.
My government will support the abrogation.

[Mallorea and Riva]

You have the vote of the Holy Empire of Catollicco for your wonderful bill. We will do whatever we can to help this situation.

Regards,
His Holiness, Emperor of Catollicco, Francis Xavier

[*] The logistical issues that some nations may encounter when making contributions and/or sending their scientists to the facility to conduct research;
[*] The security risk as a single disaster - whether caused by nature or by man - would take out all materials, information, and employees of the facility

These are realistic issues. A network of multiple (regional?) facilities would be less costly and more safe.
My government will support the abrogation.

Thank you to both of you for your support, the argumentation on this thread has died out as the opposition has either given up or become busy with their own legislation.

[Jedi Utopians]

As evidenced by my vociferous objection to the Act on record, I cannot wait to vote in the affirmative for this repeal, and I would welcome a discussion of how to address this most calamitous of occurences in a more efficient way.

[The Coyote Coalition]

To: The Halls of the General Assembly
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

While I disagree with this proposal, I'll reserve any and all rebuttals I might have for the impending vote. It should go without saying that, should this repeal succeed, I will gladly consider the content contained within as constructive criticism when considering a future draft.

In addition to the criticism contained within the proposal itself, there are distinct indications that the current mindset within the World Assembly would prefer tag along information to specify what many would view as self-explanatory. I want it to be clear, though, that this isn't an attempt to be insulting but, rather, an acknowledgement that extra information would help to further clarify various points to those who don't fully grasp the concepts an author might place within any proposal put to a vote within this esteemed organization.

(OOC: Fortunately, it looks like the bulk of the voting period should be over the weekend, so I'll actually be able to participate. I look forward to the inevitable debate.)

[Jedi Utopians]

To: The Halls of the General Assembly
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

While I disagree with this proposal, I'll reserve any and all rebuttals I might have for the impending vote. It should go without saying that, should this repeal succeed, I will gladly consider the content contained within as constructive criticism when considering a future draft.

In addition to the criticism contained within the proposal itself, there are distinct indications that the current mindset within the World Assembly would prefer tag along information to specify what many would view as self-explanatory. I want it to be clear, though, that this isn't an attempt to be insulting but, rather, an acknowledgement that extra information would help to further clarify various points to those who don't fully grasp the concepts an author might place within any proposal put to a vote within this esteemed organization.

(OOC: Fortunately, it looks like the bulk of the voting period should be over the weekend, so I'll actually be able to participate. I look forward to the inevitable debate.)

To put a different spin on your ideas here, I think what people would like is clarity. We have hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, and they often have multiple, sometimes contradictory meanings. We also have thousands of lawyers, whose very profession is owed to fact that meaning can be misinterpreted by even the slightest change of a word or phrase. Thus, lawmaking bodies such as this need to be exceedingly careful in the words they use and the way they are put together in order to prevent "self-explanatory" from being corrupted into "self-serving." For this reason, I often get involved (when I have time) to seeing that words that seem self-evident are clearly defined in law (you'll find that in the real world, this is also done) so as to prevent any corruption, not confusion.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This should be coming up to vote on Friday, around 12pm Eastern Standard time. Hitting the vote early gives your vote more influence and is certainly appreciated. Unless of course you do not support. If you do not support, then don't worry about when it will be up to vote. I'll let you know

[The Coyote Coalition]

To: Son Rai, envoy of the Republic Council
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

To put a different spin on your ideas here, I think what people would like is clarity. We have hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, and they often have multiple, sometimes contradictory meanings. We also have thousands of lawyers, whose very profession is owed to fact that meaning can be misinterpreted by even the slightest change of a word or phrase. Thus, lawmaking bodies such as this need to be exceedingly careful in the words they use and the way they are put together in order to prevent "self-explanatory" from being corrupted into "self-serving." For this reason, I often get involved (when I have time) to seeing that words that seem self-evident are clearly defined in law (you'll find that in the real world, this is also done) so as to prevent any corruption, not confusion.

While this may be true to a degree, during the creation of this resolution there was a great deal of debate over what the word "acceptable" meant in "acceptable preservation methods". It goes without saying the argument is ridiculous, as acceptable is a straightforward word with a definite meaning. Many seemed to feel that a preservation method that would be viewed as acceptable by the staff scientists at WASP would be little more than a dank closet somewhere. While I, personally, feel that many of those arguing this were adopting a position of willful ignorance, I can't be certain this was the case for everyone.

Of course, the reasoning behind this particular decision came about because it was brought to our attention that many nations have technology much more advanced than our own. The initial draft had specific instruction for preservation, (which were modeled after the two facilities that existed in the real world at the time and, both of our nations being analogous to real world technology seemed like a good idea), although, in light of the varied nations a definitive word such as acceptable was clearly the way to go. Of course, there was also a minor quibble over the use of the word arctic, (some confusing it with the proper noun Arctic, which would have specified a real world location) until some unfortunate definition wars cleared it up. That, of course, isn't the primary concern of this repeal attempt.

One issue that was explained in full during the initial debate was the decision to go with a single facility. (I work in the morning, though, so that'll have to wait until I have more than five or ten minutes on my hands).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper votes in favour.

[Discoveria]

This appears to be a sensible resolution. Discoveria votes FOR.

[Jedi Utopians]

To: Son Rai, envoy of the Republic Council
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

To put a different spin on your ideas here, I think what people would like is clarity. We have hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, and they often have multiple, sometimes contradictory meanings. We also have thousands of lawyers, whose very profession is owed to fact that meaning can be misinterpreted by even the slightest change of a word or phrase. Thus, lawmaking bodies such as this need to be exceedingly careful in the words they use and the way they are put together in order to prevent "self-explanatory" from being corrupted into "self-serving." For this reason, I often get involved (when I have time) to seeing that words that seem self-evident are clearly defined in law (you'll find that in the real world, this is also done) so as to prevent any corruption, not confusion.

While this may be true to a degree, during the creation of this resolution there was a great deal of debate over what the word "acceptable" meant in "acceptable preservation methods". It goes without saying the argument is ridiculous, as acceptable is a straightforward word with a definite meaning. Many seemed to feel that a preservation method that would be viewed as acceptable by the staff scientists at WASP would be little more than a dank closet somewhere. While I, personally, feel that many of those arguing this were adopting a position of willful ignorance, I can't be certain this was the case for everyone.

"Willful ignorance" is the plaything of lawyers. I find, when writing (or reading) legislation, assume that the person who would violate this will use every means at their disposal to do so, including archaic definitions. I remember "acceptable" (slightly) and without digging up the conversation, I can think of a few arguments against using that word!

Of course, the reasoning behind this particular decision came about because it was brought to our attention that many nations have technology much more advanced than our own. The initial draft had specific instruction for preservation, (which were modeled after the two facilities that existed in the real world at the time and, both of our nations being analogous to real world technology seemed like a good idea), although, in light of the varied nations a definitive word such as acceptable was clearly the way to go. Of course, there was also a minor quibble over the use of the word arctic, (some confusing it with the proper noun Arctic, which would have specified a real world location) until some unfortunate definition wars cleared it up. That, of course, isn't the primary concern of this repeal attempt.

Yes...well, modly godly "We have telekinetic mind powers that can blow your brains into jelly!" and "our level of technology is better than everyone else's!" and so forth. Adding to the complexity and frustration of trying to get people on the same page.

[Mallorea and Riva]

ooc: I don't have a reliable internet connection currently, but I see things are going very well here.

[Isaris]

I am for this repeal. While the resolutions intentions are pure, its methods are flawed. In my opinion, to most effective, multiple facilities would be required and should be located off-planet. Technology needs to be developed that could allow humans to establish such facilities on captured asteroids with propulsion systems. These facilities would be immune to planetary devastation, and would be transportable so as to escape the inevitable death of our sun. These facilities could then be the basis of spreading Earth life onto other habitable worlds.