[Draft] Repeal GA# 498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports

[9003]

The General Assembly,

Commending the noble intentions of GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”, a resolution which sought to place reasonable restrictions on blood sports in member nations and establish a process for handling former participants,

Concerned, however, that problematic wording and general sloppiness has largely undermined the effectiveness of this resolution, leading to a repeal being in the best interests of this Assembly,

Puzzled at the resolution outlawing all violent blood sports involving both sapient and non-sapient participants, even relatively humane ones in which the sapient participant is the only one in danger, by virtue of non-sapient participants being unable to provide informed consent,

Annoyed by the resolutions’ use of sapience as a means of determining “animal” status, thereby relying on consent from creatures not legally recognized as people and excluding said creatures from benefiting from the mandates of clause 4,

Recognizing that clause 4 of the target resolution only applies to “formerly captive” participants of blood sports, allowing member nations to dodge every one of its subclauses by keeping said participants in captivity,

Dismayed at subclause 4(d) requiring all formerly captive sapient participants to be “given their freedom” without any nuance other than incarceration for criminal conduct, even when said participants may be suffering from physical or mental trauma, or require assistance to reintegrate into society, or not even be legally recognized as people,

Confused at the resolution’s provision in subclause 4(b) for the relocation of animal participants to their “natural habitat” under certain circumstances, even when remaining in humane captivity would be in the best interest of said participants,

Understanding that a typographical error in subclause 4(a), while not extreme, nevertheless makes compliance difficult even for nations acting in good faith,

Noting that GA 23 “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking” already prohibits forced labor such as non-consentual blood sports, and

Believing that the extremely narrow scope of the target resolution along with the presence of a potential replacement by the same author prevent anything of value from being lost with the repeal of this resolution,

Hereby repeals GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”.

Co-authored by Cretox State.

Seeing as the current repeal attempt that was submitted most likely will fail I'm drafting this to clear the way for the replacement that is currently being drafted on the forums. This is my first GA proposal but Cretox has helped author it.

[Honeydewistania]

Note: I'm addressing Cretox in all my points.

The General Assembly,

Commending the noble intentions of GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”, a resolution which sought to place reasonable restrictions on blood sports in member nations and establish a process for handling former participants,

So this is not just a repeal, it's a lazy repeal. You couldn't even be bothered to changed the first word of each clause?

Concerned, however, that problematic wording and general sloppiness has largely undermined the effectiveness of this resolution, leading to a repeal being in the best interests of this Assembly,

Assembly here should be 'assembly' instead.

Puzzled at the resolution outlawing all violent blood sports involving both sapient and non-sapient participants, even relatively humane ones in which the sapient participant is the only one in danger, by virtue of non-sapient participants being unable to provide informed consent,

While perhaps slightly draconian, I don't see this as bad or negative, because if you're consensually putting yourself at risk of death for entertainment of others which is pretty much Darwin award winning behaviour.

Annoyed by the resolutions’ use of sapience as a means of determining “animal” status, thereby relying on consent from creatures not legally recognized as people and excluding said creatures from benefiting from the mandates of clause 4,

This is a very silly clause. If you are sapient, you are able to consent. If you aren't, you can't, so you're an animal, but you still benefit. What's so difficult to understand?

Recognizing that clause 4 of the target resolution only applies to “formerly captive” participants of blood sports, allowing member nations to dodge every one of its subclauses by keeping said participants in captivity,

Okay, fair point, but it's largely moot because only keeping animals captive from before GA#498 till now would be legal, and they would had either died or escaped by now.

Dismayed at subclause 4(d) requiring all formerly captive sapient participants to be “given their freedom” without any nuance other than incarceration for criminal conduct, even when said participants may be suffering from physical or mental trauma, or require assistance to reintegrate into society, or not even be legally recognized as people,

So you want me to immediately lock up the former participants in the loony bin after getting their freedom? If you want to do that, write your own resolution. Don't use this to repeal animal rights.

Confused at the resolution’s provision in subclause 4(b) for the relocation of animal participants to their “natural habitat” under certain circumstances, even when remaining in humane captivity would be in the best interest of said participants,

I don't see a case where an animal that isn't abnormally harmful to people or animals would be better off in captivity than natural habitat. Example maybe?

[qupte]Understanding that a typographical error in subclause 4(a), while not extreme, nevertheless makes compliance difficult even for nations acting in good faith,[/quote]

Does it? If a nation acting in good faith can't execute that clause correctly, they need to take more literacy classes.

Noting that GA 23 “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking” already prohibits forced labor such as non-consentual blood sports, and

No, no, no. No, stop it. Bad grey parrot. Do not. This is not only extremely pointless as you recommend a replacement in the end, but it tells me you're grasping at straws for arguments.

Believing that the extremely narrow scope of the target resolution along with the presence of a potential replacement by the same author prevent anything of value from being lost with the repeal of this resolution,

If it were up to me, this would be an (dis)honest mistake for blatant lying. Yes, that thing of value being lost would be the temporary loss of an essential civil/animal rights law.

Hereby repeals GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”.

Co-authored by Cretox State.

Seeing as the current repeal attempt that was submitted most likely will fail I'm drafting this to clear the way for the replacement that is currently being drafted on the forums. This is my first GA proposal but Cretox has helped author it.

I preferred the other one slightly. It was crap but at least it was written in good faith (I assume)

[Cretox State]

Note: I'm addressing Cretox in all my points.

Then I suppose I'll be the one to respond to them.

The General Assembly,

Commending the noble intentions of GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”, a resolution which sought to place reasonable restrictions on blood sports in member nations and establish a process for handling former participants,

So this is not just a repeal, it's a lazy repeal. You couldn't even be bothered to changed the first word of each clause?

What?

Concerned, however, that problematic wording and general sloppiness has largely undermined the effectiveness of this resolution, leading to a repeal being in the best interests of this Assembly,

Assembly here should be 'assembly' instead.

Could change to ",thereby warranting a repeal" or similar.

Puzzled at the resolution outlawing all violent blood sports involving both sapient and non-sapient participants, even relatively humane ones in which the sapient participant is the only one in danger, by virtue of non-sapient participants being unable to provide informed consent,

While perhaps slightly draconian, I don't see this as bad or negative, because if you're consensually putting yourself at risk of death for entertainment of others which is pretty much Darwin award winning behaviour.

So why did you choose to allow consensual blood sports that only involve sapient participants? Your logic is inconsistent.

Annoyed by the resolutions’ use of sapience as a means of determining “animal” status, thereby relying on consent from creatures not legally recognized as people and excluding said creatures from benefiting from the mandates of clause 4,

This is a very silly clause. If you are sapient, you are able to consent. If you aren't, you can't, so you're an animal, but you still benefit. What's so difficult to understand?

Even if you're a whale, dolphin, or other arguably sapient animal?

Recognizing that clause 4 of the target resolution only applies to “formerly captive” participants of blood sports, allowing member nations to dodge every one of its subclauses by keeping said participants in captivity,

Okay, fair point, but it's largely moot because only keeping animals captive from before GA#498 till now would be legal, and they would had either died or escaped by now.

"Yeah the clause is useless but that's completely fine because it doesn't contribute anything!"

Dismayed at subclause 4(d) requiring all formerly captive sapient participants to be “given their freedom” without any nuance other than incarceration for criminal conduct, even when said participants may be suffering from physical or mental trauma, or require assistance to reintegrate into society, or not even be legally recognized as people,

So you want me to immediately lock up the former participants in the loony bin after getting their freedom? If you want to do that, write your own resolution. Don't use this to repeal animal rights.

I'd like a resolution on the subject (say, your replacement on this forum right now) to be a bit more nuanced than "just give them their freedom lol."

Confused at the resolution’s provision in subclause 4(b) for the relocation of animal participants to their “natural habitat” under certain circumstances, even when remaining in humane captivity would be in the best interest of said participants,

I don't see a case where an animal that isn't abnormally harmful to people or animals would be better off in captivity than natural habitat. Example maybe?

If the animal is endangered, it the animal is a target of poaching, or for research purposes.

Understanding that a typographical error in subclause 4(a), while not extreme, nevertheless makes compliance difficult even for nations acting in good faith,

Does it? If a nation acting in good faith can't execute that clause correctly, they need to take more literacy classes.

If I'm reading the clause literally, I can't tell what it means. You have a replacement up, and it's still a problem with the target.

Noting that GA 23 “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking” already prohibits forced labor such as non-consentual blood sports, and

No, no, no. No, stop it. Bad grey parrot. Do not. This is not only extremely pointless as you recommend a replacement in the end, but it tells me you're grasping at straws for arguments.

Huh? The fact that little would be lost due to repealing this is important. And you yourself said that at least some of the repeal makes a "fair point".

Believing that the extremely narrow scope of the target resolution along with the presence of a potential replacement by the same author prevent anything of value from being lost with the repeal of this resolution,

If it were up to me, this would be an (dis)honest mistake for blatant lying. Yes, that thing of value being lost would be the temporary loss of an essential civil/animal rights law.

Hardly "essential" considering that part of it is already covered by GA 23, it only covers violent blood sports, it has issues, and you're drafting a replacement.

Hereby repeals GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”.

Co-authored by Cretox State.

Seeing as the current repeal attempt that was submitted most likely will fail I'm drafting this to clear the way for the replacement that is currently being drafted on the forums. This is my first GA proposal but Cretox has helped author it.

I preferred the other one slightly. It was crap but at least it was written in good faith (I assume)

That's why we're drafting on the forum. So it isn't crap and is also written in good faith.

[Honeydewistania]

So this is not just a repeal, it's a lazy repeal. You couldn't even be bothered to changed the first word of each clause?

What?

Oh please. The structure of this is very similar to Repeal Rights of the Employed. Commend intentions, say its flawed, detail 'flaws', say that another resolution has been passed that covers it, hereby repeals.

While perhaps slightly draconian, I don't see this as bad or negative, because if you're consensually putting yourself at risk of death for entertainment of others which is pretty much Darwin award winning behaviour.

So why did you choose to allow consensual blood sports that only involve sapient participants? Your logic is inconsistent.

True. Maybe I'll write a resolution to ban that then

This is a very silly clause. If you are sapient, you are able to consent. If you aren't, you can't, so you're an animal, but you still benefit. What's so difficult to understand?

Even if you're a whale, dolphin, or other arguably sapient animal?

Sapience in Rights of Sapient Species says that they have to have the ability to make logical judgements. If they are sapient, they would be able to consent, that's the generally agreed definition. Even if you let nations define whales to be sapient, and they can't consent themselves, then consent has not been acquired and they can't be put to the death. And if they say whales aren't sapient, then they get the animal protections. What's the issue here?

Okay, fair point, but it's largely moot because only keeping animals captive from before GA#498 till now would be legal, and they would had either died or escaped by now.

"Yeah the clause is useless but that's completely fine because it doesn't contribute anything!"

It's not useless, and while that flaw is unfortunate it isn't repeal worthy.

So you want me to immediately lock up the former participants in the loony bin after getting their freedom? If you want to do that, write your own resolution. Don't use this to repeal animal rights.

I'd like a resolution on the subject (say, your replacement on this forum right now) to be a bit more nuanced than "just give them their freedom lol."

So? You write a resolution that says 'member nations must help these captive people to be reintegrated into society', instead of repealing the whole thing, so we don't need a replacement.

I don't see a case where an animal that isn't abnormally harmful to people or animals would be better off in captivity than natural habitat. Example maybe?

If the animal is endangered, it the animal is a target of poaching, or for research purposes.

If it's endangered, and it requires to be kept in captivity, then that must be done as per Preventing Species Extinction. For research purposes the scientists can easily round them up again but this time in humane conditions as per Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research. If it's a target of poaching, well tough, but if someone wants to not let it get poached they can still protect it.

Does it? If a nation acting in good faith can't execute that clause correctly, they need to take more literacy classes.

If I'm reading the clause literally, I can't tell what it means. You have a replacement up, and it's still a problem with the target.

If you read the clause literally and ignore the whole thing because of the spelling error, that's not really good faith.

No, no, no. No, stop it. Bad grey parrot. Do not. This is not only extremely pointless as you recommend a replacement in the end, but it tells me you're grasping at straws for arguments.

Huh? The fact that little would be lost due to repealing this is important. And you yourself said that at least some of the repeal makes a "fair point".

???

My point here was that this clause is pointless. Why do you need to include this? You're saying that forced labour is already prohibited, so it's okay to repeal the whole thing. There are better arguments.

If it were up to me, this would be an (dis)honest mistake for blatant lying. Yes, that thing of value being lost would be the temporary loss of an essential civil/animal rights law.

Hardly "essential" considering that part of it is already covered by GA 23, it only covers violent blood sports, it has issues, and you're drafting a replacement.

'It only covers violent blood sports' can you give me an example of a non-violent one that needs prohibition immediately?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. The priestesses of Artemis bid us to support this proposal.

Notes in green.

The General Assembly,

Commending the noble intentions of GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”, a resolution which sought to place reasonable restrictions on blood sports in member nations and establish a process for handling former participants,

Concerned, however, that problematic wording and general sloppiness has largely undermined the effectiveness of this resolution, leading to a repeal being in the best interests of this Assembly,

Puzzled at the resolution outlawing all violent blood sports involving both sapient and non-sapient For the underlined portion, substitute 'individual and animal'; there's no need for sci-fi babble. participants, even relatively humane ones in which the sapient participant is the only one in danger, by virtue of non-sapient participants being unable to provide informed consent,

Annoyed by the resolutions’ use of sapience as a means of determining “animal” status, thereby relying on consent from creatures not legally recognized as people and excluding said creatures from benefiting from the mandates of clause 4, Possible rephrase to something more along the lines that 'it is impossible to determine whether an animal consents or refuses consent to a fight'. I'm reminded of bucks fighting, placing two bucks in the same place probably leads to a consensual fight. Also, most animals, after you start actually fighting them, will fight back. Is that consent?

Recognizing that clause 4 of the target resolution only applies to “formerly captive” participants of blood sports, allowing member nations to dodge every one of its subclauses by keeping said participants in captivity,

Dismayed at subclause 4(d) requiring For the underlined portion, substitute '4(d), which requires...' all formerly captive sapient participants to be “given their freedom” without any nuance other than incarceration for criminal conduct, even when said participants may be suffering from physical or mental trauma, or require assistance to reintegrate into society, or not even be legally recognized as people, All sapients are people per GA 355 (or something around there). That said, you could say that criminals who are previously sentenced for heinous crimes are not necessarily safe to reintegrate into society.

Confused at the resolution’s provision in subclause 4(b) for the relocation of animal participants to their “natural habitat” under certain circumstances, even when remaining in humane captivity would be in the best interest of said participants, Perhaps add impacts related to habitat destruction or hunting.

Understanding that a typographical error in subclause 4(a), while not extreme, nevertheless makes compliance difficult even for nations acting in good faith, How?

Noting that GA 23 “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking” already prohibits forced labor such as non-consentual blood sports, and As I noted in the other thread, non-consensual blood sports are just assault and or murder. Insofar as member nations should be expected to have laws against such things, they already will be prohibited. Note also that government sponsorship of such activities as a form of capital punishment are prohibited by GA 443 'P Innocents'.

Believing that the extremely narrow scope of the target resolution along with the presence of a potential replacement by the same author prevent anything of value from being lost with the repeal of this resolution,

Hereby repeals GA 498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”.

Co-authored by Cretox State.

Consider also rewriting the proposal in terms of a court style repeal, which offers a clear thematic organisation rather than forcing verbs to separate clauses. Consider also reorganising the clauses to place the most important disadvantages to the top.

[Cretox State]

What?

Oh please. The structure of this is very similar to Repeal Rights of the Employed. Commend intentions, say its flawed, detail 'flaws', say that another resolution has been passed that covers it, hereby repeals.

Yes. This is a repeal. That is a structure for repeals. You're being ridiculous.

So why did you choose to allow consensual blood sports that only involve sapient participants? Your logic is inconsistent.

True. Maybe I'll write a resolution to ban that then

You have a replacement up on this forum. That seems like a good opportunity...

Even if you're a whale, dolphin, or other arguably sapient animal?

Sapience in Rights of Sapient Species says that they have to have the ability to make logical judgements. If they are sapient, they would be able to consent, that's the generally agreed definition. Even if you let nations define whales to be sapient, and they can't consent themselves, then consent has not been acquired and they can't be put to the death. And if they say whales aren't sapient, then they get the animal protections. What's the issue here?

That's precisely the problem. The sapient non-people would be unable to consent, thereby prohibiting any blood sports involving them and a consenting sapient.

"Yeah the clause is useless but that's completely fine because it doesn't contribute anything!"

It's not useless, and while that flaw is unfortunate it isn't repeal worthy.

~46.0% of a resolution (by character count) being completely ignorable in good faith "isn't repeal worthy"? Aw shucks man, we just can't repeal stuff for being poorly written.

I'd like a resolution on the subject (say, your replacement on this forum right now) to be a bit more nuanced than "just give them their freedom lol."

So? You write a resolution that says 'member nations must help these captive people to be reintegrated into society', instead of repealing the whole thing, so we don't need a replacement.

Or, and hear me out, we repeal this for its other problems and you incorporate something of the sort into your replacement.

If the animal is endangered, it the animal is a target of poaching, or for research purposes.

If it's endangered, and it requires to be kept in captivity, then that must be done as per Preventing Species Extinction. For research purposes the scientists can easily round them up again but this time in humane conditions as per Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research. If it's a target of poaching, well tough, but if someone wants to not let it get poached they can still protect it.

Being able to sort of work around a problem with enough finagling doesn't make it any less of a problem.

If I'm reading the clause literally, I can't tell what it means. You have a replacement up, and it's still a problem with the target.

If you read the clause literally and ignore the whole thing because of the spelling error, that's not really good faith.

Why not? Is it not the author's responsibility to proofread their proposals?

Huh? The fact that little would be lost due to repealing this is important. And you yourself said that at least some of the repeal makes a "fair point".

???

My point here was that this clause is pointless. Why do you need to include this? You're saying that forced labour is already prohibited, so it's okay to repeal the whole thing. There are better arguments.

I present to you: Repeal:Protecting [sic] Sites of Religious Significance. Anyway, this isn't primarily an argument for repeal. It mainly exists to stymie the inevitable opposition over this being somehow too important to repeal.

Hardly "essential" considering that part of it is already covered by GA 23, it only covers violent blood sports, it has issues, and you're drafting a replacement.

'It only covers violent blood sports' can you give me an example of a non-violent one that needs prohibition immediately?

You misunderstand. The resolution's scope is limited to violent blood sports, not greater civil/animal rights. It's hardly "essential". This is the inevitable "too important to repeal" argument I referred to, which, again, is amusing considering you're actively drafting a replacement.

--snip--

Will consult with the author about implementing these suggestions. Regarding court style, we'll see how it looks.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The argument that X is a solved problem is an argument to the unimportance of the issue that is itself attempting to be resolved. Imagine, eg, an argument over pesticide regulations. If no regulations are actually necessary, there is no reason to burden anyone with enforcing them; if there is no problem to be resolved, there are no benefits to action. If a problem is already resolved satisfactorily, the same applies.

[Honeydewistania]

Sapience in Rights of Sapient Species says that they have to have the ability to make logical judgements. If they are sapient, they would be able to consent, that's the generally agreed definition. Even if you let nations define whales to be sapient, and they can't consent themselves, then consent has not been acquired and they can't be put to the death. And if they say whales aren't sapient, then they get the animal protections. What's the issue here?

That's precisely the problem. The sapient non-people would be unable to consent, thereby prohibiting any blood sports involving them and a consenting sapient.

What's the problem here? They are unable to consent, so they can't consent, so they don't participate.

It's not useless, and while that flaw is unfortunate it isn't repeal worthy.

~46.0% of a resolution (by character count) being completely ignorable in good faith "isn't repeal worthy"? Aw shucks man, we just can't repeal stuff for being poorly written.

How are the rest of three clauses able to be ignored because of a typo? The other three aren't exactly dependent on the first one. The first one is barely ignorable in the first place.

So? You write a resolution that says 'member nations must help these captive people to be reintegrated into society', instead of repealing the whole thing, so we don't need a replacement.

Or, and hear me out, we repeal this for its other problems and you incorporate something of the sort into your replacement.

So Repeal GMO It'l Trade Accord's 'replacement' couldn't have selectively breeded animals incorporated into them?

If it's endangered, and it requires to be kept in captivity, then that must be done as per Preventing Species Extinction. For research purposes the scientists can easily round them up again but this time in humane conditions as per Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research. If it's a target of poaching, well tough, but if someone wants to not let it get poached they can still protect it.

Being able to sort of work around a problem with enough finagling doesn't make it any less of a problem.

Actually, it does, so it's not a problem. You are not prohibited from rounding up the animals again for research.

If you read the clause literally and ignore the whole thing because of the spelling error, that's not really good faith.

Why not? Is it not the author's responsibility to proofread their proposals?

It is my responsibility, yes, but it is the duty of member nations to follow resolutions in good faith.

???

My point here was that this clause is pointless. Why do you need to include this? You're saying that forced labour is already prohibited, so it's okay to repeal the whole thing. There are better arguments.

I present to you: Repeal:Protecting [sic] Sites of Religious Significance. Anyway, this isn't primarily an argument for repeal. It mainly exists to stymie the inevitable opposition over this being somehow too important to repeal.

I don't see GA#23 banning animal blood sports, but I do see GA#287 protecting culturally significant religious sites.

'It only covers violent blood sports' can you give me an example of a non-violent one that needs prohibition immediately?

You misunderstand. The resolution's scope is limited to violent blood sports, not greater civil/animal rights. It's hardly "essential". This is the inevitable "too important to repeal" argument I referred to, which, again, is amusing considering you're actively drafting a replacement.

I guess I'll delete my replacement so your entire repeal collapses

[The Unified Missourtama States]

This is pathetic, it seems like it is some strange two-partied fight, or a badge-hunt. I am in disbelief that Cretox would let their name be put on this. I'd like to give constructive feedback, but I'm just going to try get you to take this draft down, and prevent people from approving it.

Concerned, however, that problematic wording and general sloppiness has largely undermined the effectiveness of this resolution,

Don't fight sloppiness with sloppiness.

Dismayed at subclause 4(d) requiring all formerly captive sapient participants to be “given their freedom” without any nuance other than incarceration for criminal conduct, even when said participants may be suffering from physical or mental trauma, or require assistance to reintegrate into society, or not even be legally recognized as people,

Did you read 4(c) of the resolution?: "if an animal blood sport participant cannot be relocated to its natural habitat due to the above, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released or relocated in accordance with clause 4(b)"

Understanding that a typographical error in subclause 4(a), while not extreme, nevertheless makes compliance difficult even for nations acting in good faith,

No, it does not.

Noting that GA 23 “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking” already prohibits forced labor such as non-consentual blood sports, and

There is some overlap, but "Ban On Forced Blood Sports," notably provides reparations for those harmed by forced blood sports in the past, and also "prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death."


Disappointed.

[Colorado Controlled Territory of Canada]

TUMS, 4(c) is for non-sapeints, 4(d) is for sapients, so not applicable.

. I am in disbelief that Cretox would let their name be put on this.

You sure? I on the other hand am in disbelief that Cretox didn't just write the whole thing, considering the style and types of arguments.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

TUMS, 4(c) is for non-sapeints, 4(d) is for sapients, so not applicable.

Ah, that is my bad, I was thinking of the reference in the clause before the operatives ("for the safety and protection of all sentient being"). In which case that is an okay argument, although to be honest the writing of it all is confusing. I agree with IA in that 'sapient' and 'non-sapient' should be substituted with 'individual' and 'animal.'

[Imperium Anglorum]

Did you read 4(c) of the resolution?: "if an animal blood sport participant cannot be relocated to its natural habitat due to the above, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released or relocated in accordance with clause 4(b)"

The word participant in that clause deals only with animal blood sport participants. This is implied also by section 4(d)'s use of 'all non-animal blood sport participants', which draws a clear exclusive distinction therefrom.

[Cretox State]

That's precisely the problem. The sapient non-people would be unable to consent, thereby prohibiting any blood sports involving them and a consenting sapient.

What's the problem here? They are unable to consent, so they can't consent, so they don't participate.

The problem is that their physiological inability to consent precludes those who can consent from participating.

~46.0% of a resolution (by character count) being completely ignorable in good faith "isn't repeal worthy"? Aw shucks man, we just can't repeal stuff for being poorly written.

How are the rest of three clauses able to be ignored because of a typo? The other three aren't exactly dependent on the first one. The first one is barely ignorable in the first place.

Did I make a mistake in what I replied to? I wasn't referring to the typo; I was referring to the "formerly captive" part.

Or, and hear me out, we repeal this for its other problems and you incorporate something of the sort into your replacement.

So Repeal GMO It'l Trade Accord's 'replacement' couldn't have selectively breeded animals incorporated into them?

Yes, the 'replacement' could. The difference being that selectively bred animals are a different area of legislation, intentionally so. "Give them their freedom lol" isn't.

Being able to sort of work around a problem with enough finagling doesn't make it any less of a problem.

Actually, it does, so it's not a problem. You are not prohibited from rounding up the animals again for research.

So bad writing being circumventable if one tries hard enough makes it not bad writing anymore? Noted.

Why not? Is it not the author's responsibility to proofread their proposals?

It is my responsibility, yes, but it is the duty of member nations to follow resolutions in good faith.

The typo isn't a major argument, it is an issue, and it would be very easy to correct in the replacement.

I present to you: Repeal:Protecting [sic] Sites of Religious Significance. Anyway, this isn't primarily an argument for repeal. It mainly exists to stymie the inevitable opposition over this being somehow too important to repeal.

I don't see GA#23 banning animal blood sports, but I do see GA#287 protecting culturally significant religious sites.

GA 23 bans forced labor, you know this. I'm not willing to go so far as IA might be suggesting I do and claim that GA 23 removes any use for legislation in this area.

You misunderstand. The resolution's scope is limited to violent blood sports, not greater civil/animal rights. It's hardly "essential". This is the inevitable "too important to repeal" argument I referred to, which, again, is amusing considering you're actively drafting a replacement.

I guess I'll delete my replacement so your entire repeal collapses

Be my guest. It's your proposal.

This is pathetic, it seems like it is some strange two-partied fight, or a badge-hunt. I am in disbelief that Cretox would let their name be put on this. I'd like to give constructive feedback, but I'm just going to try get you to take this draft down, and prevent people from approving it.

Actual constructive feedback would be appreciated.

Concerned, however, that problematic wording and general sloppiness has largely undermined the effectiveness of this resolution,

Don't fight sloppiness with sloppiness.

Alright.

Dismayed at subclause 4(d) requiring all formerly captive sapient participants to be “given their freedom” without any nuance other than incarceration for criminal conduct, even when said participants may be suffering from physical or mental trauma, or require assistance to reintegrate into society, or not even be legally recognized as people,

Did you read 4(c) of the resolution?: "if an animal blood sport participant cannot be relocated to its natural habitat due to the above, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released or relocated in accordance with clause 4(b)"

You're missing the point. Again, the problem here is that there are good reasons for keeping an animal in captivity that have nothing to do with them being a danger to themselves or other animals.

Understanding that a typographical error in subclause 4(a), while not extreme, nevertheless makes compliance difficult even for nations acting in good faith,

No, it does not.

I wonder what this would look like if it were shortened and didn't mention the typo that you two seem to see as not worth mentioning in the slightest.

Noting that GA 23 “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking” already prohibits forced labor such as non-consentual blood sports, and

There is some overlap, but "Ban On Forced Blood Sports," notably provides reparations for those harmed by forced blood sports in the past, and also "prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death."

Yes. Again, this is not an argument against the target so much as it is an argument that there won't be much lost by temporarily repealing it.

Disappointed.

Makes the two of us at this point, I think. I'll talk to 9003 about cutting it down and go from there.

You sure? I on the other hand am in disbelief that Cretox didn't just write the whole thing, considering the style and types of arguments.

Really? Personal attacks now? Of course it reads like my style- this is 9003's first GA proposal and I'm their co-author.

TUMS, 4(c) is for non-sapeints, 4(d) is for sapients, so not applicable.

Ah, that is my bad, I was thinking of the reference in the clause before the operatives ("for the safety and protection of all sentient being"). In which case that is an okay argument, although to be honest the writing of it all is confusing. I agree with IA in that 'sapient' and 'non-sapient' should be substituted with 'individual' and 'animal.'

This is the target's own language. I agree it's confusing and weird language; maybe it should be replaced.

[Honeydewistania]

What's the problem here? They are unable to consent, so they can't consent, so they don't participate.

The problem is that their physiological inability to consent precludes those who can consent from participating.

So they are physiologically unable to consent, so how are you going to know if they consent? Are you a mind reader?

How are the rest of three clauses able to be ignored because of a typo? The other three aren't exactly dependent on the first one. The first one is barely ignorable in the first place.

Did I make a mistake in what I replied to? I wasn't referring to the typo; I was referring to the "formerly captive" part.

It's not completely ignorable then, because 'formerly captive' is still a large amount of people and animals.

So Repeal GMO It'l Trade Accord's 'replacement' couldn't have selectively breeded animals incorporated into them?

Yes, the 'replacement' could. The difference being that selectively bred animals are a different area of legislation, intentionally so. "Give them their freedom lol" isn't.

I disagree that selective breeding, an important section of biotechnology, is irrelevant, but that's besides the point here and I don't want to threadjack.

Actually, it does, so it's not a problem. You are not prohibited from rounding up the animals again for research.

So bad writing being circumventable if one tries hard enough makes it not bad writing anymore? Noted.

If this "bad writing" doesn't cause problems and is in fact completely fine, then it isn't. I am not going to say 'if random research scientists want to keep these animals in captivity, they are allowed' because it's superfluous.

I don't see GA#23 banning animal blood sports, but I do see GA#287 protecting culturally significant religious sites.

GA 23 bans forced labor, you know this. I'm not willing to go so far as IA might be suggesting I do and claim that GA 23 removes any use for legislation in this area.

I also do not see GA#23 banning animals from forced labour. Can you point me to where it does? Thx.

Did you read 4(c) of the resolution?: "if an animal blood sport participant cannot be relocated to its natural habitat due to the above, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released or relocated in accordance with clause 4(b)"

You're missing the point. Again, the problem here is that there are good reasons for keeping an animal in captivity that have nothing to do with them being a danger to themselves or other animals.

Member nations can release a former blood sport participant, then put it in humane conditions for research which are established by another resolution. Why are you so adamant about this?

You sure? I on the other hand am in disbelief that Cretox didn't just write the whole thing, considering the style and types of arguments.

Really? Personal attacks now? Of course it reads like my style- this is 9003's first GA proposal and I'm their co-author.

Not an attack, just an observation. And logical deduction.

[Ardiveds]

While perhaps slightly draconian, I don't see this as bad or negative, because if you're consensually putting yourself at risk of death for entertainment of others which is pretty much Darwin award winning behaviour.

So why did you choose to allow consensual blood sports that only involve sapient participants? Your logic is inconsistent.

OOC: I faintly remember an earlier draft outlawing sapient only concensual blood sports, but it got voted out cause apparently a lot of nations have "honorable" death duels.

[Quirinum]

We support this proposal. The target resolution is little more than Abrahamic religious discrimination disguised as facially neutral.

[Honeydewistania]

We support this proposal. The target resolution is little more than Abrahamic religious discrimination disguised as facially neutral.

How?

[Newark Aristocracy]

The singular Newarkian ambassador stands up.
"I honestly love it the way it is. Also,sir representative of Honeydewstania,your earlier suggestions are so idiotic,it is hilarious. Usually I'd be close to starting a international incident with the delegate from Tinhampton,but it seems that your suggestions have put you on my radar. My suggestion is simple,sir:Dont try to suggest anything stupid when I'm in these goddam chambers."

[Honeydewistania]

The singular Newarkian ambassador stands up.
"I honestly love it the way it is. Also,sir representative of Honeydewstania,your earlier suggestions are so idiotic,it is hilarious. Usually I'd be close to starting a international incident with the delegate from Tinhampton,but it seems that your suggestions have put you on my radar. My suggestion is simple,sir:Dont try to suggest anything stupid when I'm in these goddam chambers.

"Who are you again?"

[Newark Aristocracy]

The singular Newarkian ambassador stands up.
"I honestly love it the way it is. Also,sir representative of Honeydewstania,your earlier suggestions are so idiotic,it is hilarious. Usually I'd be close to starting a international incident with the delegate from Tinhampton,but it seems that your suggestions have put you on my radar. My suggestion is simple,sir:Dont try to suggest anything stupid when I'm in these goddam chambers.

"Who are you again?"

"The singular guy who runs the WA delegation of the Newark Aristocracy.
Ever since that incident,the Newarkian delegation has been just me."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Who are you again?"

"The singular guy who runs the WA delegation of the Newark Aristocracy.
Ever since that incident,the Newarkian delegation has been just me."

"If the ambassador from Honeydewistania will forgive the unsolicited interruption, while this delegate is a mystery to me, my dossier suggests that the Newarkian delegation is generally comprised of individuals with no sense of decorum, political savvy, or any of the academic or experiential requirements to participate in meaningful policy analysis and debate. As such, they tend to overcompensate with threats that are as laughable as they are ignorable. I respectfully suggest you ignore them for your own peace of mind."

[Honeydewistania]

"The singular guy who runs the WA delegation of the Newark Aristocracy.
Ever since that incident,the Newarkian delegation has been just me."

"If the ambassador from Honeydewistania will forgive the unsolicited interruption, while this delegate is a mystery to me, my dossier suggests that the Newarkian delegation is generally comprised of individuals with no sense of decorum, political savvy, or any of the academic or experiential requirements to participate in meaningful policy analysis and debate. As such, they tend to overcompensate with threats that are as laughable as they are ignorable. I respectfully suggest you ignore them for your own peace of mind."

"You have been forgiven.

I am reminded of the time they attempted to attack my good friend Ambassador Kyriakos from Ancient Greek Empire. That was not very pleasant, which is why I was surprised to see that the Newarkian delegation has been allowed to continue their tirade of threats and insults towards their fellow ambassadors."