NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "International Road Safety"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Giovanniland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Aug 10, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Repeal "International Road Safety"

Postby Giovanniland » Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:14 am

OOC: 2nd try at a resolution, feel free to post helpful feedback.

Draft 2:
General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles;

Dismayed that, although the target states that regulations by the ITSC must improve international road safety, the effects of those regulations in member nations are either vague or not written at all;

Further dismayed the consequences of that flaw on member nations could be very severe, such as causing negative effects instead of actually improving road safety, and disagreement among member states’ governments over different effects caused by the aforementioned regulations;

Appalled by the fact the target resolution's own standards are also vague, such as not stating specific safety procedures, the scope of what will be affected by the standards, and possibly other items, resulting in a hindrance to the resolution's purpose;

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Victoria.

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles;

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution;

Dismayed that, although the target resolution states that regulations by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must improve international road safety, the effects of those regulations in member nations are either vague or not written at all;

Further dismayed the consequences of that flaw on member nations could be very severe, such as causing negative effects instead of actually improving road safety, and possibly also causing disagreements among member states’ governments over different effects caused by the aforementioned regulations;

Observing that, by listing specific items at border checkpoints to meet ITSC standards, the proposal inadvertently excludes other possible infrastructure at the aforementioned checkpoints and exposes them to hazard;

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Victoria.
Last edited by Giovanniland on Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:27 am, edited 8 times in total.
Giovanniland
Speaker of the Hall of Nations of the West Pacific
Trading Card Collector - check out my index of collections!

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6069
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:27 am

“I’ve put my feedback on the draft in red pen.”
General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly, Why is this italicised? I’m against unnecessary italicisation generally, but this line in particularly doesn’t need to be formatted.

Aware of the importance of safety within international roads;

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles; At most, only one clause is necessary to extol the target resolution.

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution, This clause ends in a comma, but should end in a semicolon. Also, a resolution not legislating on something is rarely a flaw, since future legislation could target what is omitted.

Observing that, by listing specific items at border checkpoints to meet ITSC standards, the proposal inadvertently excludes other possible infrastructure at the aforementioned checkpoints and exposes them to hazard; Member states could add infrastructure not mandated by the WA themselves.

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Further noting that the above problem causes member states to either go bankrupt or not comply with the resolution; I think bankruptcy is a little extreme as a consequence of some quite reasonable requirements.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Hong Kong.
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
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6837
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:02 pm

1: Show me your replacement.
2: What have Novasamita and The Citizens of HK actually contributed to your proposal?
Author: SC#250, SC#251, SC#267, GA#484
Joint author: Issue #1115 (with Turbeaux)
Co-author: GA#491 (by The Greater Soviet North America)
New recipe - now contains 4.9g of sugar per 100ml
RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2577
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:24 pm

"This is extreme petty nitpicking. If you want to propose something dealing with vehicles that carry less than ten passengers, you can do so. If want to add other items to ITSC standards, you can do so.

"And your financial arguments are completely unreasonable hyperbole. Installing a a few signs etc will not bankrupt any nation.

"Opposed."

OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1237
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:28 pm

Bananaistan wrote:"OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

The entire thing is NatSov. And this little nugget "Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution," is a flat out lie as the resolution was never meant to deal with passenger cars in the first place.

User avatar
The Unified Missourtama States
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Unified Missourtama States » Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:51 pm

I do agree with others in that bankruptcy is unlikely (definitely hyperbolic), however there are many real life instances that prove changing road signage can be extremely costly because of the cost of complying with regulatory standards, paying for installation labor, printing, and stamping costs.

RL examples:
~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217
~ https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf
~ https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2019/2/22/ ... ld-it-cost
The Unified Missourtama States (WA Elite Member?)
  • Author of SC#302
  • Deputy Minister of WA Recruitment for The West Pacific
  • Founder of The Card Gardening Society

Praise [violet]! Respect our Moderators and appreciate the Administrators.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6837
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:06 pm

The Unified Missourtama States wrote:I do agree with others in that bankruptcy is unlikely (definitely hyperbolic), however there are many real life instances that prove changing road signage can be extremely costly because of the cost of complying with regulatory standards, paying for installation labor, printing, and stamping costs.

RL examples:
~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217
~ https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf
~ https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2019/2/22/ ... ld-it-cost

A single hypothetical about the USA changing their road signs from miles to kilometres is not "many real life instances." Besides, even if the USA was in the WA, GA#88 "WA Numeration and Units Act" would leave it under no obligation to engage in such a conversion.
Author: SC#250, SC#251, SC#267, GA#484
Joint author: Issue #1115 (with Turbeaux)
Co-author: GA#491 (by The Greater Soviet North America)
New recipe - now contains 4.9g of sugar per 100ml
RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

User avatar
Giovanniland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Aug 10, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Giovanniland » Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:06 pm

Tinhampton wrote:1: Show me your replacement.
2: What have Novasamita and The Citizens of HK actually contributed to your proposal?

1. Why do we need a replacement?
2. It's a group writing, I had the main idea but they contributed with more clauses, grammar choices (since I'm not native English), etc.
Bananaistan wrote:"This is extreme petty nitpicking. If you want to propose something dealing with vehicles that carry less than ten passengers, you can do so. If want to add other items to ITSC standards, you can do so.

"And your financial arguments are completely unreasonable hyperbole. Installing a a few signs etc will not bankrupt any nation.

"Opposed."

OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

"You admit that GA#83 has flaws. Why write a resolution to cover up the flaws, if we can repeal it?"

Wayneactia wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:"OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

The entire thing is NatSov. And this little nugget "Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution," is a flat out lie as the resolution was never meant to deal with passenger cars in the first place.

OOC: NatSov-only repeals are illegal, I've read the rules. Also, the proposal does deal with passenger transports:
DEFINES "international commercial road vehicle" as a conveyance including and not limited to a truck, a trailer, or a motor coach, that
(a) is driven over public highways across one or more internationally recognized borders between member states, has a point of origin and a destination in two different member states, or both, and
(b) is used to transport freight or is used to transport ten or more passengers or both;
Last edited by Giovanniland on Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giovanniland
Speaker of the Hall of Nations of the West Pacific
Trading Card Collector - check out my index of collections!

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6837
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:32 pm

Giovanniland wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:1: Show me your replacement.
2: What have Novasamita and The Citizens of HK actually contributed to your proposal?

1. Why do we need a replacement?
2. It's a group writing, I had the main idea but they contributed with more clauses, grammar choices (since I'm not native English), etc.

1: Read the first two clauses of your draft again.
2: Thank you for clarifying. :>
Author: SC#250, SC#251, SC#267, GA#484
Joint author: Issue #1115 (with Turbeaux)
Co-author: GA#491 (by The Greater Soviet North America)
New recipe - now contains 4.9g of sugar per 100ml
RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2577
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:41 pm

Giovanniland wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:"This is extreme petty nitpicking. If you want to propose something dealing with vehicles that carry less than ten passengers, you can do so. If want to add other items to ITSC standards, you can do so.

"And your financial arguments are completely unreasonable hyperbole. Installing a a few signs etc will not bankrupt any nation.

"Opposed."

OOC: Srsly that argument about bankruptcy is bogus IMO. Little better than NatSov.

You admit that GA#83 has flaws. Why write a resolution to cover up the flaws, if we can repeal it?


"With all due respect Ambassador, I said nothing of the sort. These are not flaws. They are the extent of the resolution."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
The Unified Missourtama States
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Unified Missourtama States » Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:15 am

Tinhampton wrote:
The Unified Missourtama States wrote:I do agree with others in that bankruptcy is unlikely (definitely hyperbolic), however there are many real life instances that prove changing road signage can be extremely costly because of the cost of complying with regulatory standards, paying for installation labor, printing, and stamping costs.

RL examples:
~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217
~ https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221472.pdf
~ https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2019/2/22/ ... ld-it-cost

A single hypothetical about the USA changing their road signs from miles to kilometres is not "many real life instances."

~ https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29341217 <this actually happened, go ahead and read it, the people of Wisconsin were shocked (and some angry) at the huge unexpected cost of replacement of signs.
Besides, even if the USA was in the WA, GA#88 "WA Numeration and Units Act" would leave it under no obligation to engage in such a conversion.

Yes, however not all sign replacements relate to measurements, such as warning signs, lane lines, instructional signs, and stop signs. Also realizing that even if the may keep their measurements they still may need to change other aspects of ‘measurement’ signage, such as size, color, and design.
The Unified Missourtama States (WA Elite Member?)
  • Author of SC#302
  • Deputy Minister of WA Recruitment for The West Pacific
  • Founder of The Card Gardening Society

Praise [violet]! Respect our Moderators and appreciate the Administrators.

User avatar
Gryphonian Alliance
Envoy
 
Posts: 239
Founded: Nov 12, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Gryphonian Alliance » Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:44 am

Giovanniland wrote:OOC: 2nd try at a resolution, feel free to post helpful feedback.

General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Aware of the importance of safety within international roads;

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles;

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution,


Overall I think this repeal is solid but the clause about the exclusion of smaller passenger vehicles makes an incorrect assumption about the resolution and should be taken it out.
The point of the resolution is to regulate large motor vehicles going between countries. A vehicle with 10 passengers or less crossing international borders is most likely not traveling for commercial reasons: like a family on vacation or moving to a new home. Yes, the resolution doesn't protect/regulate passenger cars but it's not the point of the legislation- it only covers commercial vehicles. This is because commercial vehicle accidents (mainly trucks) are especially lethal.

But I do think there's something you could include instead. The problem with GAR#83 is that if a company or nation wants to avoid spending money on training and adjustments required to meet ITSC standards for its drivers and vehicles, they could simply claim their commercial vehicles are not for international transport purposes, or list them as normal passenger cars in their records and dodge the need to meet the ITSC's regulations. The ITSC has no method to enforce the resolution, it doesn't have the authority to investigate if a country is following ITSC regulations if the country refuses to reveal that information or falsifies it.
Last edited by Gryphonian Alliance on Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gryphonian Alliance
The West Pacific
The GA is a North American country in an alternate universe set a century into the future.
A 9 civilization, according to this index.
1st place in Women’s Individual Large Hill/10 km Nordic Combined
1st place in Mixed Relay 2×6 km+2×7.5 km Biathlon
2nd place in Two-Man Bobsleigh
3rd place in Two-Woman Bobsleigh

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6069
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:53 am

Gryphonian Alliance wrote:But I do think there's something you could include instead. The problem with GAR#83 is that if a company or nation wants to avoid spending money on training and adjustments required to meet ITSC standards for its drivers and vehicles, they could simply claim their commercial vehicles are not for international transport purposes, or list them as normal passenger cars in their records and dodge the need to meet the ITSC's regulations. The ITSC has no method to enforce the resolution, it doesn't have the authority to investigate if a country is following ITSC regulations if the country refuses to reveal that information or falsifies it.

(OOC: This wouldn’t be a particularly strong point to include. It should be quite obvious whether a vehicle is for the purposes of international transport, since any vehicle regularly crossing borders carrying more than 10 passengers can be safely assumed to be. Also, the Compliance Commission does indeed have the authority to investigate possible instances of noncompliance, which would include refusal to reveal or falsification of information.)
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
Giovanniland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Aug 10, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Giovanniland » Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:54 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve put my feedback on the draft in red pen.”
General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly, Why is this italicised? I’m against unnecessary italicisation generally, but this line in particularly doesn’t need to be formatted.

Aware of the importance of safety within international roads;

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety” to ensure that international commercial road vehicles are safe from accidents that, if happened, can cause hazard to passengers, operators, and cargoes within these vehicles; At most, only one clause is necessary to extol the target resolution.

Appalled by the fact that GAR#83 has a flawed definition for the term “international commercial road vehicles“ by excluding vehicles with less than 10 passengers, thus exposing them to accidents since they do not have the protection from this resolution, This clause ends in a comma, but should end in a semicolon. Also, a resolution not legislating on something is rarely a flaw, since future legislation could target what is omitted.

Observing that, by listing specific items at border checkpoints to meet ITSC standards, the proposal inadvertently excludes other possible infrastructure at the aforementioned checkpoints and exposes them to hazard; Member states could add infrastructure not mandated by the WA themselves.

Noting that member states must spend a hefty sum of money to adapt themselves to meet those standards, and that the resolution does not give any form of financial aid to these member states;

Further noting that the above problem causes member states to either go bankrupt or not comply with the resolution; I think bankruptcy is a little extreme as a consequence of some quite reasonable requirements.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #83 “International Road Safety”.

Co-authored by Novasamita and The Citizens of Hong Kong.

OOC: Thanks, I've made a few changes and added some other arguments. Although I must disagree on some points: although member states can indeed add infrastructure not mandated by the WA, there's nothing on the target resolution that enforces safety on those infrastructure, so member states could just use lower standards or no safety standard at all.
Though I've removed the bankruptcy argument because nearly everyone who commented said it was too hyperbolic, and looking at it, I can agree.

Tinhampton wrote:
Giovanniland wrote:1. Why do we need a replacement?
2. It's a group writing, I had the main idea but they contributed with more clauses, grammar choices (since I'm not native English), etc.

1: Read the first two clauses of your draft again.
2: Thank you for clarifying. :>

OOC: Stating I recognize the efforts of the target resolution doesn't automatically mean I want a replacement.
Bananaistan wrote:
Giovanniland wrote:You admit that GA#83 has flaws. Why write a resolution to cover up the flaws, if we can repeal it?


"With all due respect Ambassador, I said nothing of the sort. These are not flaws. They are the extent of the resolution."

"I'm sorry, but if the resolution doesn't cover some very important points, such as adding items or better explaining the effects of ITSC standards, it's clear it should be repealed. In my opinion, a resolution just to add up to this one is meaningless."
Giovanniland
Speaker of the Hall of Nations of the West Pacific
Trading Card Collector - check out my index of collections!

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15001
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:06 pm

Giovanniland wrote:"I'm sorry, but if the resolution doesn't cover some very important points"

"Do you understand the concept of "limiting the scope"? Because a resolution addressing only regulations concerning yellow shirts says nothing about blue shirts, does not mean the Yellow Shirt Regulation resolution is flawed. Rather, it invites people to write a resolution to address blue shirts. Or all shirts except yellow ones. Limited scope is not a flaw."

OOC: Also, back when it passed, the character (includes spaces and enter presses and code) limit for a proposal was 3000. Including passenger cars would have required waaaaay more regulations than could have been reasonably fit in those 3000 characters.
- 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.

User avatar
Giovanniland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Aug 10, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Giovanniland » Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:17 am

Araraukar wrote:
Giovanniland wrote:"I'm sorry, but if the resolution doesn't cover some very important points"

"Do you understand the concept of "limiting the scope"? Because a resolution addressing only regulations concerning yellow shirts says nothing about blue shirts, does not mean the Yellow Shirt Regulation resolution is flawed. Rather, it invites people to write a resolution to address blue shirts. Or all shirts except yellow ones. Limited scope is not a flaw."

OOC: Also, back when it passed, the character (includes spaces and enter presses and code) limit for a proposal was 3000. Including passenger cars would have required waaaaay more regulations than could have been reasonably fit in those 3000 characters.

OOC: I understand. Anyways, I now removed those 2 clauses and thought of better arguments. Draft 2 is up.
Giovanniland
Speaker of the Hall of Nations of the West Pacific
Trading Card Collector - check out my index of collections!

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1237
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:24 pm

Giovanniland wrote:
Araraukar wrote:"Do you understand the concept of "limiting the scope"? Because a resolution addressing only regulations concerning yellow shirts says nothing about blue shirts, does not mean the Yellow Shirt Regulation resolution is flawed. Rather, it invites people to write a resolution to address blue shirts. Or all shirts except yellow ones. Limited scope is not a flaw."

OOC: Also, back when it passed, the character (includes spaces and enter presses and code) limit for a proposal was 3000. Including passenger cars would have required waaaaay more regulations than could have been reasonably fit in those 3000 characters.

OOC: I understand. Anyways, I now removed those 2 clauses and thought of better arguments. Draft 2 is up.

And it still remains a nitpicking disaster of whining about how the original doesn’t specify this and regulate that. Pro tip: There are character limits on proposals and they were significant less back when this was passed. Try actually making a meritorious argument.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6069
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:53 pm

“Your ‘dismayed’ clause is, rather ironically, quite vague. What regulations are too vague?”
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
Giovanniland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 138
Founded: Aug 10, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Giovanniland » Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:11 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘dismayed’ clause is, rather ironically, quite vague. What regulations are too vague?”

"The target has this clause on the effects of those regulations:
FURTHER REQUIRES the International Transport Safety Committee to assure that regulations promulgated pursuant to this resolution result in reasonable improvements to traffic safety

In my opinion, simply stating the effect is 'reasonable improvement to traffic safety' is vague.
Positive effects of the regulations on member nations could be a better functioning society, lesser distances between people, etc.
On the other hand, there can also be negative effects, because a specific description of the standards isn't clearly stated on the proposal. If the writer did state only vehicles with more than 10 passengers count, why not display some specific measurements on the standards and effects? I feel that is a weak point of the target."
Giovanniland
Speaker of the Hall of Nations of the West Pacific
Trading Card Collector - check out my index of collections!

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15001
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:56 am

Giovanniland wrote:If the writer did state only vehicles with more than 10 passengers count, why not display some specific measurements on the standards and effects? I feel that is a weak point of the target."

OOC: To make room for RP. If your passengers are 4 metres tall centaurs, they're going to need a bigger vehicle than half a metre tall monkeys. Not all GA nations are populated by humans.
- 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.

User avatar
Big Bad Badger
Envoy
 
Posts: 212
Founded: Apr 25, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Big Bad Badger » Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:04 pm

This repeal looks great. Let's put it up in the queue to be voted upon.
Mr. Badger

Guardian of The West Pacific
Former Delegate of The West Pacific

I've been told that raiding requires booze and a lack of pants! --Neenee

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6069
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:57 pm

Big Bad Badger wrote:This repeal looks great. Let's put it up in the queue to be voted upon.

(OOC: I’m going to reply specifically to this post, although you have made others in other proposal threads, so as to avoid posting my response three times. Why are you suggesting that this put up for vote? The responses from GA regulars in these threads have highlighted issues with all of the repeals you have supported. All of them would benefit from further drafting and feedback, not immediate submission.)
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
Big Bad Badger
Envoy
 
Posts: 212
Founded: Apr 25, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Big Bad Badger » Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:49 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Big Bad Badger wrote:This repeal looks great. Let's put it up in the queue to be voted upon.

(OOC: I’m going to reply specifically to this post, although you have made others in other proposal threads, so as to avoid posting my response three times. Why are you suggesting that this put up for vote? The responses from GA regulars in these threads have highlighted issues with all of the repeals you have supported. All of them would benefit from further drafting and feedback, not immediate submission.)

I support all GA repeals.
Mr. Badger

Guardian of The West Pacific
Former Delegate of The West Pacific

I've been told that raiding requires booze and a lack of pants! --Neenee

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 877
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:05 pm

Big Bad Badger wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I’m going to reply specifically to this post, although you have made others in other proposal threads, so as to avoid posting my response three times. Why are you suggesting that this put up for vote? The responses from GA regulars in these threads have highlighted issues with all of the repeals you have supported. All of them would benefit from further drafting and feedback, not immediate submission.)

I support all GA repeals.

What about their quality? They certainly aren’t ready for submission now
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.

The MT Army Warrior
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

One time GA author (494) & Aspiring Issues Author
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2577
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:28 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:
Big Bad Badger wrote:I support all GA repeals.

What about their quality? They certainly aren’t ready for submission now


OOC; TWP well known for supporting all repeals and opposing all resolutions. No surprise here but you would wonder why a community which is generally anti-GA has suddenly produced so many repeal proposals.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sorentia

Advertisement

Remove ads