[SUBMITTED] International Development Organs and Goals

[Bears Armed]

It mandates that any nation which takes funds from the Bank must meet the goals.

OOC: No, it mandates "nations who benefit from the Bank’s services". It doesn't say the nations get the funds. Or even take funds. Or apply for funds. Or anything. It more looks like the bank is the one doing things in member nations. Not the nations themselves.

About the "twenty percent increase" bit: There's also the question of whether that's 20% of the maximum possibility (as you were presuming) or just 20% of those nation's current rates.

If the latter, what's 20% out of zero, for the nations most in need for such help?

Good question... 20% of zero is zero, isn't it, meaning that they actually wouldn't need to improve at all.

Of course, the fact that the nations would have twenty years in which to meet those targets, and could simply drop out of the WA at (20 years - 1 day) if they weren't going to manage it, doesn't help either.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I've marked this illegal as a strength violation. We have modly precedent that vague is not significant. This proposal is too vague and woolly. It is not at all clear whether the committee automatically acts in all member nations or only by request.

I suggest to the author that it would not be advisable to merely resubmit under mild strength. Legal =/= good. To make this good, you need to sort out the rambling and vague "FURTHER REMINDS" and "CREATES" clauses, the vagueness of the MANDATES clause, just what sensitive populations are, why the MANDATES clause mentions "developmental and human rights goals" but the next clause refers to "Permanent Development Goals", and the percentages issue which Ara and BA have discussed at length. I also urge caution regarding how the whole straddles several categories. There's much about education in it, poverty and housing appear to be social justice, and there's also environmental issues.

[Adriatican]

OOC: I've marked this illegal as a strength violation. We have modly precedent that vague is not significant. This proposal is too vague and woolly. It is not at all clear whether the committee automatically acts in all member nations or only by request.

I suggest to the author that it would not be advisable to merely resubmit under mild strength. Legal =/= good. To make this good, you need to sort out the rambling and vague "FURTHER REMINDS" and "CREATES" clauses, the vagueness of the MANDATES clause, just what sensitive populations are, why the MANDATES clause mentions "developmental and human rights goals" but the next clause refers to "Permanent Development Goals", and the percentages issue which Ara and BA have discussed at length. I also urge caution regarding how the whole straddles several categories. There's much about education in it, poverty and housing appear to be social justice, and there's also environmental issues.

Though I’ve never heard the term “wooly”used to strike down a perfectly good bill, I must say I find the Secretariat as an overpowered organization, lacking direction, oversight, appeal, or any real basis on which they found their decisions, they are a negative mechanic of this experience.

I have resigned from the World Assembly, as it never served much purpose to begin with for my nation.

[Liberimery]

OOC: I've marked this illegal as a strength violation. We have modly precedent that vague is not significant. This proposal is too vague and woolly. It is not at all clear whether the committee automatically acts in all member nations or only by request.

I suggest to the author that it would not be advisable to merely resubmit under mild strength. Legal =/= good. To make this good, you need to sort out the rambling and vague "FURTHER REMINDS" and "CREATES" clauses, the vagueness of the MANDATES clause, just what sensitive populations are, why the MANDATES clause mentions "developmental and human rights goals" but the next clause refers to "Permanent Development Goals", and the percentages issue which Ara and BA have discussed at length. I also urge caution regarding how the whole straddles several categories. There's much about education in it, poverty and housing appear to be social justice, and there's also environmental issues.

Though I’ve never heard the term “wooly”used to strike down a perfectly good bill, I must say I find the Secretariat as an overpowered organization, lacking direction, oversight, appeal, or any real basis on which they found their decisions, they are a negative mechanic of this experience.

I have resigned from the World Assembly, as it never served much purpose to begin with for my nation.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I've marked this illegal as a strength violation. We have modly precedent that vague is not significant. This proposal is too vague and woolly. It is not at all clear whether the committee automatically acts in all member nations or only by request.

I suggest to the author that it would not be advisable to merely resubmit under mild strength. Legal =/= good. To make this good, you need to sort out the rambling and vague "FURTHER REMINDS" and "CREATES" clauses, the vagueness of the MANDATES clause, just what sensitive populations are, why the MANDATES clause mentions "developmental and human rights goals" but the next clause refers to "Permanent Development Goals", and the percentages issue which Ara and BA have discussed at length. I also urge caution regarding how the whole straddles several categories. There's much about education in it, poverty and housing appear to be social justice, and there's also environmental issues.

Though I’ve never heard the term “wooly”used to strike down a perfectly good bill, I must say I find the Secretariat as an overpowered organization, lacking direction, oversight, appeal, or any real basis on which they found their decisions, they are a negative mechanic of this experience.

I have resigned from the World Assembly, as it never served much purpose to begin with for my nation.

(OOC: Gensec are an established part of the GA, and are crucial to ensuring that the proposals reaching the voting floor are legal per the rules. Although some calls are subjectives, this was a fairly common issue about strength, which happens quite frequently. Some of the clauses in here are vague, which has precedent as meaning that this is not at ‘significant’ strength.

You drafted quite a good piece of legislation, so I hope that you might decide to come back to the forums at some point in the future. In the mean time, you should alter the tag of this proposal to [ABANDONED] in order to mark that this legislation is no longer being considered.)

[Araraukar]

an overpowered organization, lacking direction, oversight, appeal, or any real basis on which they found their decisions

OOC: It's ironic that this is a perfect description of the "bank" created by the proposal...