NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Repeal Resolution #83: International Road Safety

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Free Azell
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

[DEFEATED] Repeal Resolution #83: International Road Safety

Postby Free Azell » Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:16 am

"VERSION WITH SUGGESTED EDITS INCORPORATED" (Draft 7)

The World Assembly,

Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;

Disappointed that the scope of these regulations is not clearly laid out in the resolution - although the target does state that the standards put out by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must to some extent improve traffic safety, by regulation roads, vehicles, or training for their operators, and must be reasonable in terms of cost, no specific benchmark for these regulations is ever stated;

Convinced that this is likely to cause significant inefficiency and inadequacy in addressing the concerns stated in the target itself;

Dissatisfied that, given the absence of an upper limit on the stringency of the committee’s regulations, said regulations could have unnecessary adverse effects regarding other matters, such as disruption to local wildlife;

Believing that a replacement resolution actively instructing a committee to create clear, unambiguous safety regulations would be far preferable to this attempt at enacting a "one-size-fits-all" policy that, in its vagueness, achieves very little of substance;

Hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety.”

Co-authored by Maowi


The World Assembly,

Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;

Disappointed that the scope of these regulations is not clearly laid out in the resolution - although the target does state that the standards put out by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must concern road safety, vehicle safety, or training standards for operators of the vehicles; must be reasonable in terms of cost; and must at least to some extent improve safety, no specific benchmark for these regulations is ever stated;

Convinced that this is likely to cause significant inefficiency and inadequacy in addressing the concerns stated in the target itself;

Dissatisfied that, given the absence of an upper limit on the stringency of the committee’s regulations, said regulations could have unnecessary adverse effects regarding other matters, such as disruption to local wildlife;

Believing that a replacement resolution actively instructing a committee to create clear, unambiguous safety regulations would be far preferable to this attempt at enacting a "one-size-fits-all" policy that, in its vagueness, achieves very little of substance;

Hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety.”

Co-authored by Maowi



The World Assembly,

Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;

Disappointed that the scope of these regulations is not clearly laid out in the resolution - although the target does state that the standards put out by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must concern road safety, vehicle safety, or training standards for operators of the vehicles; must be reasonable in terms of cost; and must at least to some extent improve safety, the specific intended effects of these regulations are never stated;

Adamant that a resolution with the purpose of increasing safety should stipulate what safety measures it wishes to enact, or to what extent it wishes the committee to regulate safety;

Vexed that the target does not instruct the committee on what the regulations it promulgates must cover, so that the committee may issue anything from no regulations at all to a huge number with member nations forced to comply with them all;

Outraged that under the target resolution, the regulations promulgated by the committee must not necessarily be limited to improving road safety and may cause a whole plethora of negative effects on other aspects of the member nation, given the resolution's extraordinary vagueness;

Believing that a replacement resolution actively instructing a committee to create clear, unambiguous safety regulations would be far preferable to this attempt at enacting a "one-size-fits-all" policy that, in its vagueness, achieves very little of substance;

Hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety.”

Co-authored by Maowi
Last edited by Jakker on Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:01 am, edited 16 times in total.

User avatar
Free Azell
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

note

Postby Free Azell » Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:05 am

I have made some updates to the proposal based on some feedback I have received.
Last edited by Free Azell on Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1104
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:36 pm

OOC: Hey there, welcome to the General Assembly :) This is a very good start for a proposal - it reads like a GA repeal and has a clear sense of direction. I've left some feedback here below:

Free Azell wrote:Noting that road, bridges, and tunnels that are used for international travel between nations need to be kept up to a certain standard.

Applauding the intentions of this resolution to prevent death from accidents on public highways that are connected in more than one nation.

Realizing that regulations are needed for vehicles that are on these roads and all roads in general need to kept to a certain standard as well.

You can certainly recognise the good intentions of a target resolution - many successful repeals have done so - but generally it's a good idea to keep that quite succinct and to the point, ideally in just one clause.

Disappointed that regulations for said roads and vehicles are not clearly laid out in the resolution.

To be properly convincing, you need to go into the details. Where, specifically, is there ambiguity, and why exactly is that a problem? I agree that there is a lack of clarity in the target's mandates but you need to be precise in your reasoning in the repeal.

Concerned that the resolution states it will “ recommend safety standards for domestic roads and related infrastructure” and then goes on to state it “requires compliance of standards”later in the resolution

It's worth noting that in terms of domestic infrastructure, compliance with the ITSC's safety standards is only ever "strongly urged" by the target - never made a binding mandate.

Appalled that the creation of the International Transport Safety Committee allowed the Committee to regulate standards in individual nations when it clearly oversteps a nation's right to regulate roads and vehicles in there nation.

Believing that all nations have the right to regulate the roads, tunnels, bridges, and vehicles in their said nations without oversight of a World Assembly created Committee.

Troubled that member states are required to keep standards not set by themselves for signage, roads, gates, customs plazas, sidewalks, curbs, and streetlamps.

I think you again need more justification here. The only binding mandates regulate standards related to roads where they cross borders, which is a very light, narrow-ranging burden, and vehicles which will cross borders, which is less specific but - to me - pretty reasonable. You either need to flesh out these points and make them more convincing, or scrap it and focus on expanding your point about the target's general ambiguity (or do that but leave these three as one condensed point at the end rather than as the meat of the proposal).

User avatar
Free Azell
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Free Azell » Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:04 pm

deleted post.
Last edited by Free Azell on Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18515
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:52 pm

OOC: put new drafts into the first post and spoiler previous drafts.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Free Azell
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Free Azell » Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:29 am

Sorry about that! I have updated it. I will delete my previous post.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15350
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:16 pm

Free Azell wrote:I will delete my previous post.

OOC: You don't have to do that. It's okay to post a new draft in a separate post (it works as a bump for the draft, too) as long as you also add it to the first post.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Free Azell
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Free Azell » Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:33 pm

Thanks for letting me know. Would love feedback on improvements if more are needed?

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1104
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:32 pm

OOC: To make sure your proposal follows standard GA formatting conventions, it should be phrased as one long sentence which reads "The World Assembly, [insert clauses with justification], hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety"." So you need to add "The World Assembly," to the very start and make sure each of your clauses reads as one continuous phrase and ends with a comma or semicolon.

Free Azell wrote:Noting that road, bridges, and tunnels that are used for international travel between nations need to be kept up to a certain standard. Applauding the intentions of this resolution to prevent death from accidents on public highways that are connected in more than one nation.

So as an example of what I said above, the two parts of this clause need to be merged into one single phrase. Something along the lines of: "Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;".

Disappointed that regulations for said roads and vehicles are not clearly laid out in the resolution. For example in section 5 and 6 it only authorizes the International Transport Safety Committee to “Promulgate Regulation” for commercial vehicles and persons that operate them. Though they do not specify the actual regulation themselves.

Again, this needs to be one unbroken clause. It could be phrased a little better; you could focus more on the fact that the committee is pretty much left to its own devices. The resolution only stipulates that the standards set out by the committee must be related to road safety, vehicle safety, or training standards for operators of the vehicles, must be reasonable in terms of cost, and have to at least to some extent improve safety. In a resolution where pretty much the whole point is to increase safety, you'd expect that the committee only set out standards that improve safety - so you can capitalise on that here. Also, in this clause and the rest, there's no need to number the target's clauses and refer to them specifically. You do need to refer to what they do specifically, but you don't particularly need to name them.

Noting the word Promulgate mean “promote or make widely known (an idea or cause).” How can a resolution require nations to comply with something that is simply an idea or cause?

In fact, "promulgate" does have another, more relevant meaning - "put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation." That in itself doesn't particularly matter as far as this clause goes, because member nations can still take the interpretation you've mentioned if it is advantageous to them. But I do think the target would still put the same burden on a member nation under each reading of it. The Google definition of "promulgate" mentioning that what is promulgated is an "idea or cause" is pretty generic. The target has specified that the committee is promulgating standards, and then requires member nations to meet some of those standards. That seems pretty clear-cut to me, and I don't think there's ambiguity in this case.

Concern with what this resolution requires but does not state. In sections 10-14 it requires compliance to standards that have not been set in the resolution. This could lead to a misuse of power based on the vagueness of the requirements in the said resolution.

To be honest, this to me seems like it is pretty much the same point as your "Disappointed" clause. If you flesh that one out more, you can afford to get rid of this one - unless you did mean something different by it, in which case you should make your point very clearly and directly.

Convinced that prohibiting nations from making higher standards than that of ITSC which is stated in the last section of the resolution. Limits a nation's ability to go above an beyond with safety standards.Considering the vagueness of what these standards actually are in the resolution.

I see your point but I think you should consider the caveat at the end of that clause in the target: having higher safety standards is prohibited "unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers." The general idea there seems pretty reasonable to me, but it doesn't completely invalidate your point. Where vehicles come in from a foreign member nation which don't really have a domestic equivalent, it would be very hard for member nations to apply more stringent safety standards on them - as those standards simply wouldn't exist domestically - so they would have to default to the ITSC's standards which, as you say, are weak. I think a rewrite to focus on that would be helpful.

Appalled that the creation of the International Transport Safety Committee allowed the Committee to regulate standards in individual nations when it clearly oversteps a nation's right to regulate roads and vehicles in there nation.

Believing that all nations have the right to regulate the roads, tunnels, bridges, and vehicles in their said nations without oversight of a World Assembly created Committee even in the event that the road or structure continues into another nation.

Troubled that member states are required to keep standards not set by themselves for signage, roads, gates, customs plazas, sidewalks, curbs, and streetlamps as stated in section 14 of the resolution

I still think you are trying to make three clauses out of one here, which isn't even your strongest point - as below:
Maowi wrote:I think you again need more justification here. The only binding mandates regulate standards related to roads where they cross borders, which is a very light, narrow-ranging burden, and vehicles which will cross borders, which is less specific but - to me - pretty reasonable. You either need to flesh out these points and make them more convincing, or scrap it and focus on expanding your point about the target's general ambiguity (or do that but leave these three as one condensed point at the end rather than as the meat of the proposal).


Hereby Repeal Resolution #83 International Road Safety.

Rewrite this as "Hereby repeals GAR #83, International Road Safety."

User avatar
The JELLEAIN Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1518
Founded: Jul 15, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby The JELLEAIN Republic » Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:12 am

Doesn’t it make more sense to put the similarly named ones together?

Like the noteds ?
May the autocorrect be with you...
Cannot think of a name wrote:It's a narrative, and narratives don't require masterminds or persian cats.
Male. Lives in USA. Quotes
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Same here. I wash my hands religiously to keep the medical debt away.

User avatar
The COT Corporation
Envoy
 
Posts: 212
Founded: Nov 30, 2019
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The COT Corporation » Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:00 am

Free Azell wrote:Concern with what this resolution requires but does not state. In sections 10-14 it requires compliance to standards that have not been set in the resolution. This could lead to a misuse of power based on the vagueness of the requirements in the said resolution.

"A good point. As the resolution states in paragraph 5 (The fifth paragraph past the "Hereby" mark), the ITSC may only recommend safety standards, although it states nowhere what those standards are or if the ITSC themselves may set them. Maybe you should add that in, it would back up the point without having to actually read the previous resolution."

Free Azell wrote:Convinced that prohibiting nations from making higher standards than that of ITSC which is stated in the last section of the resolution. Limits a nation's ability to go above an beyond with safety standards.Considering the vagueness of what these standards actually are in the resolution.

"Although, yes, there are no standards as you have previously mentioned, limiting a nation's ability to go above and beyond may in fact increase the general safety, as first:
The travel standard is currently the same worldwide, and if nations could increase it as they please, the standard may change per nation hence becoming a hinderance to tourists or travellers,

And:
The increasing of the standard is up to the nations, and that could be definitely manipulated by nations, as the can increase it as they see fit. For example, they could mandate "safety checkpoints" along all roads, with the added perk that you have to pay to get through - reminiscent of the infamous "toll gate"."
- Juleas Brimstone, recently elected WA ambassador. Author of the proposal, Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1104
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:25 am

The COT Corporation wrote:
Free Azell wrote:Convinced that prohibiting nations from making higher standards than that of ITSC which is stated in the last section of the resolution. Limits a nation's ability to go above an beyond with safety standards.Considering the vagueness of what these standards actually are in the resolution.

"Although, yes, there are no standards as you have previously mentioned, limiting a nation's ability to go above and beyond may in fact increase the general safety, as first:
The travel standard is currently the same worldwide, and if nations could increase it as they please, the standard may change per nation hence becoming a hinderance to tourists or travellers,

"In actual fact, the target doesallow member nations to implement higher safety standards, as long as those standards are also in place in that nation's domestic roads. So, to some extent, they can "increase it as they please."

And:
The increasing of the standard is up to the nations, and that could be definitely manipulated by nations, as the can increase it as they see fit. For example, they could mandate "safety checkpoints" along all roads, with the added perk that you have to pay to get through - reminiscent of the infamous "toll gate"."

"And what stops them putting in toll gates anyway? As far as I know, and I'm willing to be corrected, there is no General Assembly resolution that bans member nations from having toll gates. In any case, I think increasing safety standards is a pretty clear directive with not much scope for manipulation. Adding a requirement of payment for passage does not increase safety."

User avatar
The COT Corporation
Envoy
 
Posts: 212
Founded: Nov 30, 2019
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The COT Corporation » Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:58 am

"Perhaps I did not state: a government could create an absurd amount of toll gates under the guise of safety checkpoints. That seems a bit strange; to me."
- Juleas Brimstone, recently elected WA ambassador. Author of the proposal, Limitation of Inhumane Weaponry.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1104
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:45 am

"But the point is they could do that anyway, without needing to disguise them as safety checkpoints ..."

User avatar
Quirinum
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Dec 26, 2019
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Quirinum » Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:49 am

If a nation has conquered 49 per cent of the world and has created a massive road network of (straight) roads stretching from the metropole to the furthest limes, why ought they spend massive sums to retrofit their entire network to fit standards set by the other 51 per cent?
Senatus poplusque romanus.

User avatar
The JELLEAIN Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1518
Founded: Jul 15, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby The JELLEAIN Republic » Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:35 am

Quirinum wrote:If a nation has conquered 49 per cent of the world and has created a massive road network of (straight) roads stretching from the metropole to the furthest limes, why ought they spend massive sums to retrofit their entire network to fit standards set by the other 51 per cent?


World as in world assembaky or world as in or nation ?
May the autocorrect be with you...
Cannot think of a name wrote:It's a narrative, and narratives don't require masterminds or persian cats.
Male. Lives in USA. Quotes
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Same here. I wash my hands religiously to keep the medical debt away.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15350
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:34 am

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:
Quirinum wrote:If a nation has conquered 49 per cent of the world and has created a massive road network of (straight) roads stretching from the metropole to the furthest limes, why ought they spend massive sums to retrofit their entire network to fit standards set by the other 51 per cent?

World as in world assembaky or world as in or nation ?

OOC: Given there's no such thing as one nation accounting for half the WA, they're obviously RPing for their own nation, likely their own planet.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
The JELLEAIN Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1518
Founded: Jul 15, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby The JELLEAIN Republic » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:36 pm

Araraukar wrote:
The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:World as in world assembaky or world as in or nation ?

OOC: Given there's no such thing as one nation accounting for half the WA, they're obviously RPing for their own nation, likely their own planet.



But do articles in the world assembly address them in rp or as all member nations ?
May the autocorrect be with you...
Cannot think of a name wrote:It's a narrative, and narratives don't require masterminds or persian cats.
Male. Lives in USA. Quotes
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Same here. I wash my hands religiously to keep the medical debt away.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6526
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:32 am

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Given there's no such thing as one nation accounting for half the WA, they're obviously RPing for their own nation, likely their own planet.



But do articles in the world assembly address them in rp or as all member nations ?

(OOC: A good WA resolution should consider the legislative impact on all different types of member nations. Due to the one WA nation per player rule, a lot of WA states don’t interact with any other WA states in their canon, and this is something that ought to be taken into consideration.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
The JELLEAIN Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1518
Founded: Jul 15, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby The JELLEAIN Republic » Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:53 am

Kenmoria wrote:
The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:

But do articles in the world assembly address them in rp or as all member nations ?

(OOC: A good WA resolution should consider the legislative impact on all different types of member nations. Due to the one WA nation per player rule, a lot of WA states don’t interact with any other WA states in their canon, and this is something that ought to be taken into consideration.)


In that case what if you made it so you could differentiate empires countries and the like. Either cooperation average or some kind of standard ?
May the autocorrect be with you...
Cannot think of a name wrote:It's a narrative, and narratives don't require masterminds or persian cats.
Male. Lives in USA. Quotes
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Same here. I wash my hands religiously to keep the medical debt away.

User avatar
Free Azell
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Draft 3 Posted with suggested edits

Postby Free Azell » Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:04 am

I have posted the 3rd draft with suggested edits above.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15350
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:27 pm

Free Azell wrote:C/O Authored by Maowi

OOC: Is it really? Remember that you need permission from the person you're naming as co-author.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1104
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:54 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Free Azell wrote:C/O Authored by Maowi

OOC: Is it really? Remember that you need permission from the person you're naming as co-author.

OOC: It is. We discussed the drafting and stuff privately. But yeah, my bad, I should probably have specified here.

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1027
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:38 pm

Maowi wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Is it really? Remember that you need permission from the person you're naming as co-author.

OOC: It is. We discussed the drafting and stuff privately. But yeah, my bad, I should probably have specified here.

OOC: Then maybe one of you can explain how the target could have been specific without becoming either micromanagement or one-size-fits-none? I mean, like, could it be done, or is the currently existing resolution the best one that can be had? And if you believe it could, are you going to try writing a better replacement?
This nation is a plant-based hivemind. It's current ambassador for interacting with humanoids is a bipedal plant creature standing at almost two metres tall. In IC in the WA.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1104
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:08 am

Potted Plants United wrote:
Maowi wrote:OOC: It is. We discussed the drafting and stuff privately. But yeah, my bad, I should probably have specified here.

OOC: Then maybe one of you can explain how the target could have been specific without becoming either micromanagement or one-size-fits-none? I mean, like, could it be done, or is the currently existing resolution the best one that can be had? And if you believe it could, are you going to try writing a better replacement?

OOC: Something a bit like the current one would probably be the best attempt, if it actually mandated that the committee lay out some regulations instead of just authorising it to do so, and if it made sure that the purpose of each of those regulations was to increase safety, which it currently doesn't. I think I'd like to have a go at drafting a replacement, but it'll have to wait a couple of weeks because I have exams and I'll have to be away from NS in that time. Although if someone else decides to write one up before then, I'll happily help out if necessary.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brovity, Gatchina, Junitaki-cho, Maowi, Pluvie, Pope Saint Peter the Apostle, Tinfect

Advertisement

Remove ads