NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[DRAFT] Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 6:48 am

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "In the event that "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" will be passed by the General Assembly in the current vote, we have written the following draft to repeal this resolution proposal. Commentary and feedback are more than welcome, and will be added into the argumentation that we have written below. We anticipate that "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" will be numbered as GAR #553, in the event that it passes."

Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


General Assembly Resolution #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development, but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those nations.

  2. Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.

  3. In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow.

  4. The target resolution regulates on the topic of controlled burns in Clause 3.d.i, and ignores the provisions already set forth by GAR #296 "Prevention of Wildfires", which deals with the subject in a more refined manner, for example by Clause 1.i that instructs member nations to have "laws against both reckless fire-starting and the deliberate starting of inadequately controllable fires", or Clause 1.ii that instructs member states to have "suitable plans, with the necessary personnel and equipment for those, in place for managing fires everywhere within their borders, to the best extent practical within reason".

  5. Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems wherein prairie tall grasses appear, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sun May 09, 2021 12:58 pm, edited 18 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 6:48 am

DRAFT 5:
Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


General Assembly Resolution #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development, but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those nations.

  2. Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.

  3. In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow.

  4. The target resolution regulates on the topic of controlled burns in Clause 3.d.i, and ignores the provisions already set forth by GAR #296 "Prevention of Wildfires", which deals with the subject in a more refined manner, for example by Clause 1.i that instructs member nations to have "laws against both reckless fire-starting and the deliberate starting of inadequately controllable fires", or Clause 1.ii that instructs member states to have "suitable plans, with the necessary personnel and equipment for those, in place for managing fires everywhere within their borders, to the best extent practical within reason".

  5. GAR #553 continues to show its superfluous nature by ignoring GAR #287 "Cultural Site Preservation", as due to the rare nature of prairie tall grasses, these biomes can be considered as "sites with cultural significance" to member nations wherein they occur, which they "need to preserve... for future generations", as per the preamble of GAR #287. Clause 2c enables the WATCH committee to recommend "specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites", while Clause 5 mandates "nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant".

  6. Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems wherein prairie tall grasses appear, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".


DRAFT 4:
Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


General Assembly Resolution #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems and their role within the biospheres that these particular species of tall grasses occur in, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are prevalent, if not the dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development, but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those nations.

  2. GAR #553 makes the grave error of assuming, and even presuming, that the specific species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.

  3. GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. Due to the flexibility of GAR #465, species of prairie tall grasses that are threatened with extinction are included in the responsibilities and duties that it places upon member nations. GAR #553 fails to add any meaningful additions to an already excellent resolution, and thus is entirely superfluous in its nature.

  4. GAR #553 is founded upon a significant contradiction of its own wording, by its presumption that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across the member nations of the World Assembly. By this assumption, it inherently recognises that the species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are widespread and common enough to not be considered a threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it adds no meaningful improvements to GAR #465, but rather contradicts itself and thus defeats the very intent with which it was written.

  5. Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems wherein prairie tall grasses appear, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".


DRAFT 3:
Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


General Assembly Resolution #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems and their role within the biospheres that these particular species of tall grasses occur in, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. Due to the flexibility of GAR #465, species of prairie tall grasses that are threatened with extinction are included in the responsibilities and duties that it places upon member nations. GAR #553 fails to add any meaningful additions to an already excellent resolution, and thus is entirely superfluous in its nature.

  2. GAR #553 makes the grave error of assuming, and even presuming, that the specific species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.

  3. GAR #553 is founded upon a significant contradiction of its own wording, by its presumption that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across the member nations of the World Assembly. By this assumption, it inherently recognises that the species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are widespread and common enough to not be considered a threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it adds no meaningful improvements to GAR #465, but rather contradicts itself and thus defeats the very intent with which it was written.

  4. GAR #553 continues to show its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are indeed prevalent, if not the dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development, but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those nations.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".


DRAFT 2:
Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


General Assembly Resolution #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems and their role within the biospheres that these particular species of tall grasses occur in, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. Due to the flexibility of GAR #465, species of prairie tall grasses that are threatened with extinction are included in the responsibilities and duties that it places upon member nations. GAR #553 fails to add any meaningful additions to an already excellent resolution, and thus is entirely superfluous in its nature.

  2. GAR #553 makes the grave error of assuming, and even presuming, that the specific species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.

  3. GAR #553 presumes that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across the member nations of the World Assembly. By this assumption, it inherently recognises that the species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are widespread and common enough to not be considered a threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it adds no meaningful improvements to GAR #465, but rather contradicts itself and thus defeats the very intent with which it was written.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".


DRAFT 1:
Repeal "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


General Assembly Resolution #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems and their role within the biospheres that these particular species of tall grasses occur in, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. Due to the flexibility of the aforementioned resolution, species of prairie tall grasses that are threatened with extinction are included in the responsibilities and duties that GAR #465 places upon member nations. GAR #553 fails to add any meaningful additions to an already excellent resolution, and thus is entirely superfluous in its nature.

  2. GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" makes a grave error of assuming, and even presuming, that the specific species of prairie tall grasses that it seeks to protect and preserve are prevalent across all member states of the World Assembly. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, yet also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 in its current implementation would prevent the member nations responsible for those aforementioned biospheres from destroying the prairie tall grasses as an invasive species, to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystem.

  3. GAR #553 "Protecting Native prairies and Grasslands" stands on a significant contradiction of its own wording, namely by its presumption that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across the member states of the World Assembly. By this assumption, it inherently recognises that the species of prairie tall grasses that it seeks to protect and preserve are widespread and common enough to not be considered as a threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it adds no meaningfully improved additions to GAR #465 "Preventing Species Extinction", but rather contradicts itself, and thus defeats the very intent with which it was written.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands".
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sun May 09, 2021 12:57 pm, edited 7 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Mar 03, 2021
Corporate Bordello

Postby Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth » Tue May 04, 2021 9:35 am

So you want to repeal a Resolution that is not even passed yet because it is copying an already passed resolution? Would it not be easier for a legal challenge?

User avatar
Jedinsto
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 495
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Tue May 04, 2021 9:53 am

Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth wrote:So you want to repeal a Resolution that is not even passed yet because it is copying an already passed resolution? Would it not be easier for a legal challenge?

Considering the proposal is legal, no.
My drafts
James DuBois
Capitalism, centrism, environment, civil rights
Communism, socialism, nukes, fascism, Trump

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 10:15 am

Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth wrote:So you want to repeal a Resolution that is not even passed yet because it is copying an already passed resolution? Would it not be easier for a legal challenge?

Vyn Nysen: Ambassador, please read our introductory statement once again, and please pay close attention to the first sentence:

In the event that "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" will be passed by the General Assembly in the current vote, we have written the following draft to repeal this resolution proposal.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11693
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Outer Sparta » Tue May 04, 2021 11:00 am

Jedinsto wrote:
Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth wrote:So you want to repeal a Resolution that is not even passed yet because it is copying an already passed resolution? Would it not be easier for a legal challenge?

Considering the proposal is legal, no.

You could file for a legality challenge even if the proposal is deemed legal.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Jedinsto
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 495
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Tue May 04, 2021 11:14 am

Outer Sparta wrote:
Jedinsto wrote:Considering the proposal is legal, no.

You could file for a legality challenge even if the proposal is deemed legal.

I'm aware, but it would be much easier to repeal a resolution than win a legality challenge on a legal proposal. This proposal could be illegal I suppose, but I'm not seeing it.
My drafts
James DuBois
Capitalism, centrism, environment, civil rights
Communism, socialism, nukes, fascism, Trump

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11693
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Outer Sparta » Tue May 04, 2021 11:22 am

Jedinsto wrote:
Outer Sparta wrote:You could file for a legality challenge even if the proposal is deemed legal.

I'm aware, but it would be much easier to repeal a resolution than win a legality challenge on a legal proposal. This proposal could be illegal I suppose, but I'm not seeing it.

Hasn't stopped people from doing it in the past such as Cretox twice trying to file a legality challenge on a repeal by Honeydew.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8188
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue May 04, 2021 11:51 am

The self-declared "Voice of the Tinhamptonian Delegation:" Consistency is good. Don't thank me later - I'm not going to do much here.

The Voice grabs a printout of the repeal and makes the following scribbles in blue pen:
Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems and their role within the biospheres that these particular species of tall grasses occur in, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. Due to the flexibility of the aforementioned resolution GAR #465, species of prairie tall grasses that are threatened with extinction are included in the responsibilities and duties that GAR #465 it places upon member nations. GAR #553 fails to add any meaningful additions to an already excellent resolution, and thus is entirely superfluous in its nature.

  2. GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands" makes a the grave error of assuming, and even presuming, that the specific species of prairie tall grasses that it seeks to protect and preserve are prevalent across all member states of the World Assembly nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, yet but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 in its current implementation would prevent the therefore prevents member nations responsible for those aforementioned biospheres from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species, in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.

  3. GAR #553 "Protecting Native prairies and Grasslands" stands on a significant contradiction of its own wording, namely by its presumption presumes that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across the member states nations of the World Assembly. By this assumption, it inherently recognises that the species of prairie tall grasses that it seeks to protect and preserve are widespread and common enough to not be considered as a threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it adds no meaningfully improved additionments to GAR #465 "Preventing Species Extinction", but rather contradicts itself, and thus defeats the very intent with which it was written.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies And and Grasslands".

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems and their role within the biospheres that these particular species of tall grasses occur in, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  1. GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. Due to the flexibility of GAR #465, species of prairie tall grasses that are threatened with extinction are included in the responsibilities and duties that it places upon member nations. GAR #553 fails to add any meaningful additions to an already excellent resolution, and thus is entirely superfluous in its nature.

  2. GAR #553 makes the grave error of assuming, and even presuming, that the specific species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.

  3. GAR #553 presumes that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across the member nations of the World Assembly. By this assumption, it inherently recognises that the species of prairie tall grasses it seeks to protect and preserve are widespread and common enough to not be considered a threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it adds no meaningful improvements to GAR #465, but rather contradicts itself and thus defeats the very intent with which it was written.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

I STAND WITH PAM DUNCAN-GLANCY

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 12:02 pm

Tinhampton wrote:The self-declared "Voice of the Tinhamptonian Delegation:" Consistency is good. Don't thank me later - I'm not going to do much here.

The Voice grabs a printout of the repeal and makes the following scribbles in blue pen:

Vyn Nysen: "The stylistic changes are very much appreciated, and we have taken them over into the new draft. You have my thanks."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10393
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue May 04, 2021 1:46 pm

I'd imagine if you made a country called 'Great Plains' or something and imagine that your land was mostly tall grass prairie... you'd never be able to build anything anywhere.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 2:06 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd imagine if you made a country called 'Great Plains' or something and imagine that your land was mostly tall grass prairie... you'd never be able to build anything anywhere.

OOC: A valid observation. I've included an argument along those lines in the new Clause 4.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 920
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Tue May 04, 2021 2:17 pm

This is a hard one because many of the problems with the target are inherently OOC and therefore hard to work into the IC text.

As I said on the RMB in Forest, are we now to expect a barrage of resolutions each protecting a specific localised habitat present in a only a small number of nations? It GA#465 doesn't provide enough protection for threatened habitats, as the target's author has argued, then I'd like to see something that works in a similar way to make member nations look after their key habitats whatever they might be. It just seems better than hitting each nation with 10 resolutions on protecting peat bogs, taiga, boreal forest etc etc when few if any of them will actually apply to the majority of nations at all.

I'll come back to this draft later on in more detail. I feel it may need a lot of polishing.

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 2:33 pm

Uan aa Boa wrote:This is a hard one because many of the problems with the target are inherently OOC and therefore hard to work into the IC text.

As I said on the RMB in Forest, are we now to expect a barrage of resolutions each protecting a specific localised habitat present in a only a small number of nations? It GA#465 doesn't provide enough protection for threatened habitats, as the target's author has argued, then I'd like to see something that works in a similar way to make member nations look after their key habitats whatever they might be. It just seems better than hitting each nation with 10 resolutions on protecting peat bogs, taiga, boreal forest etc etc when few if any of them will actually apply to the majority of nations at all.

I'll come back to this draft later on in more detail. I feel it may need a lot of polishing.

OOC: I tried to avoid any references to real life environments, yes. I tried to look at it from the perspective that there may be various environments and biospheres among the member nations of the WA. One example is the new Clause 4, as it may be entirely plausible that we have member nations in the WA where there's almost only prairie tall grasses. But I was also thinking about environments where prairie tall grasses would be an invasive species, and thus a danger to the environment.

If you have suggestions on how to improve the arguments in the draft, please share they at your leisure, they're more than welcome :)

EDIT: I've added in an argument about what you said about a resolution for every rare biosphere.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2883
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue May 04, 2021 3:25 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd imagine if you made a country called 'Great Plains' or something and imagine that your land was mostly tall grass prairie... you'd never be able to build anything anywhere.

OOC: A valid observation. I've included an argument along those lines in the new Clause 4.


OOC: I'd put this front and centre. It's the biggest problem.

IC: "Full support."
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
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 3:34 pm

Bananaistan wrote:
Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: A valid observation. I've included an argument along those lines in the new Clause 4.


OOC: I'd put this front and centre. It's the biggest problem.

IC: "Full support."

OOC: I toyed around with the order of arguments and put that one as the first one in the list, thanks for the suggestion! :)
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1166
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Wed May 05, 2021 9:01 am

Vyn Nysen: "Our delegation has expanded - and hopefully refined - the arguments in this potential repeal of ""Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands", should it indeed come to pass. We would appreciate any feedback and commentary on the current text."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Wed May 05, 2021 9:55 am

Before this proposal gets too much attention, I would just like to take time to issue some challenges to the arguments raised in this repeal about the content of the current proposal.

  1. GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development, but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those nations.


There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.

Finally, the situation that is being described is, at best, a fringe case. You could make the same argument about a nation which is comprised entirely of endangered ecosystems, or other protected biomes, such as wetlands. The logical extension of this argument is that no ecosystem can be set aside for conservation, because any nation could have a great number of protected lands within their boarders.

  • GAR #553 makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems.


  • Tall grass prairies do not occur in every member state, that is not what what the proposal says. It makes generic assertions that these tallgrass prairies exist in more than just one nation, and it also makes generic references to the fact that tallgrass prairies are greatly diminished on an international scale and worthy of protection.

    Regarding invasive species, I would point out that the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to remove invasive species and restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited.

  • GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow.


  • The problem with GA 465 is that it does not extend protections to species that are not currently endangered. It does provide protections for the species currently at risk of becoming extinct (ie, endangered), but it does not protect species and habitats that are at risk of becoming endangered (ie threatened, or at risk of becoming at risk of becoming extinct, which is definitely not protected under GA 465). Under GA 465, a nation could destroy an ecosystem to the brink of becoming endangered, then back off and let it recover for a bit, then continue to destroy the ecosystem. This prevents critical ecosystems from reaching the prevalence required to see the environmental and industrial benefits provided by these ecosystems on a large scale. The thing about the current proposal is that it continues to protect habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows us to realize the potential benefits afforded by tallgrass prairies on a large scale, such as effective runoff filtration, and establishment of habitat for large mammals, such as the RL examples of bison and grey wolves who are otherwise nonexistent in the currently remaining scattered parcels.

  • GAR #553 regulates on the topic of controlled burns in Clause 3.d.i, and ignores the provisions already set forth by GAR #296 "Prevention of Wildfires", which deals with the subject in a more refined manner, for example by Clause 1.i that instructs member nations to have "laws against both reckless fire-starting and the deliberate starting of inadequately controllable fires", or Clause 1.ii that instructs member states to have "suitable plans, with the necessary personnel and equipment for those, in place for managing fires everywhere within their borders, to the best extent practical within reason".


  • A fire can still be ecologically damaging, even if it does not expand enough to be considered a "wildfire". The provisions in the current proposal also creates alternatives to controlled burns, if such action may be damaging to the ecosystem, whether or not this action risks causing a wildfire.

  • GAR #553 continues to show its superfluous nature by ignoring GAR #287 "Cultural Site Preservation", as due to the rare nature of prairie tall grasses, these biomes can be considered as "sites with cultural significance" to member nations wherein they occur, which they "need to preserve... for future generations", as per the preamble of GAR #287. Clause 2c enables the WATCH committee to recommend "specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites", while Clause 5 mandates "nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant".


  • While a few sites may be considered "culturally significant" under GA 287, it is doubtful that this proposal would effectively preserve enough of this ecosystem to be relevant. The provisions of GA 287 would still be fulfilled if a single acre of prairie was set aside indefinitely for preservation, if it can be considered "culturally relevant" with no other sites meeting the same criteria.

  • Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems wherein prairie tall grasses appear, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently.


  • It's typically easier to have an international law targeted at each specific ecosystem type, since it is easier to tailor management and protection techniques to those specific ecosystems. A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.

    In reality, most smaller, unique ecosystems do not afford the same ecological and economic benefits that the prevalence of tallgrass prairies do. There are really quite few ecosystems for which an individual proposal would be required, and some already are protected under previous legislation (wetlands, for example).
    I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
    Pretending to give my citizens freedom
    Actually giving my citizens freedom

    User avatar
    Daarwyrth
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1166
    Founded: Jul 05, 2016
    Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

    Postby Daarwyrth » Wed May 05, 2021 12:09 pm

    Big Boyz wrote:There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.

    Finally, the situation that is being described is, at best, a fringe case. You could make the same argument about a nation which is comprised entirely of endangered ecosystems, or other protected biomes, such as wetlands. The logical extension of this argument is that no ecosystem can be set aside for conservation, because any nation could have a great number of protected lands within their boarders.


    OOC: First of all, you're completely wrong. A nation could still be in the early stages of economic development, not all nations in the World Assembly are fully developed and highly technologically advanced nations. There are nations in the WA that are just emerging from the industrial revolution, or are still in the middle ages. Yet even for those nations that are still developing in the modern age, your proposal has ended all possible development for them. If prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere for that nation, they will be confined to the settlements that they have, and they will be unable to develop better infrastructure or expand their food produce because they can't develop new agrarian land. Their population isn't going to stay the same, it is going to grow. Because they won't be able to develop new settlement, nor expand existing cities because they may be surrounded by prairie tall grasses, then the proposal condemns them to dangerous levels of overpopulation in the cities that they do have. You refuse to look beyond what you want to see, and completely ignore the existence of developing nations in the World Assembly.

    Also, even a fringe case deserves to be addressed, because you are severely if not disastrously affecting those nations with this proposal. If there was not a single other alternative, we might have to choose the lesser evil. Yet there literally is an alternative here, which is a better proposal that takes into account these factors, factors which have been pointed out to you during the drafting of your own proposal, but which you dismissed out of hand. As a result, they will not form one of the repeal hooks in this proposal. That's how the WA works.

    Big Boyz wrote:Tall grass prairies do not occur in every member state, that is not what what the proposal says. It makes generic assertions that these tallgrass prairies exist in more than just one nation, and it also makes generic references to the fact that tallgrass prairies are greatly diminished on an international scale and worthy of protection.

    Regarding invasive species, I would point out that the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to remove invasive species and restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited.


    OOC: You have based your entire argument on real life references, something that the rules of GA proposal making clearly states is a no-go. Prairie tall grasses may be indeed threatened in real life, but that does not go up in NationStates no matter how many times you repeat that it does. NationStates is its own universe with its own rules, and prairie tall grasses can be entirely not-endangered in the reality of NS. That is the entire problem that poster after poster tries to make clear to you, yet you ignore anything that is being said to you, time after time. Real life = not NS. General things apply, sure, but prairie tall grasses are not a general thing. They're a very specific and unique biome that only occurs in the USA and a few parts of Canada. It therefore doesn't count as a general thing that can be taken over in the reality of NS, as its so specifically tied to the real world. If prairie tall grasses occurd across the entire Earth, then perhaps it might have counted. But not in this case. Really, this has been repeated to you by many posters, why can't you simply understand that you are wrong in this regard and admit your mistake?

    Big Boyz wrote:The problem with GA 465 is that it does not extend protections to species that are not currently endangered. It does provide protections for the species currently at risk of becoming extinct (ie, endangered), but it does not protect species and habitats that are at risk of becoming endangered (ie threatened, or at risk of becoming at risk of becoming extinct, which is definitely not protected under GA 465). Under GA 465, a nation could destroy an ecosystem to the brink of becoming endangered, then back off and let it recover for a bit, then continue to destroy the ecosystem. This prevents critical ecosystems from reaching the prevalence required to see the environmental and industrial benefits provided by these ecosystems on a large scale. The thing about the current proposal is that it continues to protect habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows us to realize the potential benefits afforded by tallgrass prairies on a large scale, such as effective runoff filtration, and establishment of habitat for large mammals, such as the RL examples of bison and grey wolves who are otherwise nonexistent in the currently remaining scattered parcels.


    OOC: Yet you have no proof that prairie tall grasses are at risk of becoming endangered. In the real world? Yes, true. Yet in the reality of NationStates? No, there real life data that is so specific and closely tied to a real life unicum doesn't go up. That is why a resolution pertaining all unique environments would have solved this issue perfectly, and you would have garnered even greater support. Yet for some inexplicable reason you refuse to listen to this advice. In NationStates you have to take into account the fact that players come with a variety of different nations. You can't just dismiss this, because otherwise it becomes another repeal hook, as it became here. GA 465 does an excellent job of addressing that variety, that diversity, because it uses the neutral term "species" which can apply to so many things. That's the strength of that proposal, a strength that is completely lacking in yours. Look over many of the proposals that have passed and you will see that authors even use neutral terms such as "sapients" instead of "humans", to avoid infringing upon that diversity. You can't dictate how people should RP their nations, yet to draft and create a solid proposal, you need to take their RP into account. Your refusal to do so has given me an excellent repeal hook.

    Big Boyz wrote:A fire can still be ecologically damaging, even if it does not expand enough to be considered a "wildfire". The provisions in the current proposal also creates alternatives to controlled burns, if such action may be damaging to the ecosystem, whether or not this action risks causing a wildfire.


    OOC: Your current definition has made wildfires appear sentient, that is what your proposal has done. GA 296 does a better job at describing both how to approach the topic of wildfires as well as controlled burns. Your proposal uses nebulous terms such as "in the best interest of". What is this best interest? How is a wildfire supposed to know what is in the best interest of the surrounding environment? Or a controlled burn? Your proposal has created a superfluous bureaucratic burden, that is much better approached by the aforementioned resolution.

    Big Boyz wrote:While a few sites may be considered "culturally significant" under GA 287, it is doubtful that this proposal would effectively preserve enough of this ecosystem to be relevant. The provisions of GA 287 would still be fulfilled if a single acre of prairie was set aside indefinitely for preservation, if it can be considered "culturally relevant" with no other sites meeting the same criteria.


    OOC: If prairie tall grasses are a unique environment to a nation, and economically and culturally important as you have stated before, then there is no reason why the WATCH can't designate the entirety of the prairie tall grass area a cultural site. In additional, the proposal literally states "nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant". This one sentence manages to accomplish what you needed an entire proposal for. Especially when you take the two other resolution alongside this, then there is already ample enough protection for prairie tall grasses. And if you really wanted to make a special resolution, then a resolution that addressed all unique environments would have been the right path to walk.

    Big Boyz wrote:It's typically easier to have an international law targeted at each specific ecosystem type, since it is easier to tailor management and protection techniques to those specific ecosystems. A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.

    In reality, most smaller, unique ecosystems do not afford the same ecological and economic benefits that the prevalence of tallgrass prairies do. There are really quite few ecosystems for which an individual proposal would be required, and some already are protected under previous legislation (wetlands, for example).

    OOC: If it had been an ecosystem that occurs in many environments, then perhaps you would have been correct. Yet you refuse to see how intricately tied prairie tall grasses are to a single specific biome on Earth. Besides, the WA prizes efficiency of resource distribution. Having a resolution for every single unique environment would make the already bloated bureaucracy even more bloated and chaotic. How can you not see that a single resolution for all unique environments or ecosystems is a efficient way to approach the problem of them becoming endangered? It would have cut down on bureaucratic chaos and make things overseeable. If the WA has 50 individual resolutions for 50 unique biomes, then we'll have a bureaucratic mess of the likes we have never seen in the WA. You accuse a singular proposal to be laden with bureaucracy, yet fail to see how your propsoed approach is exactly what you accuse it of.

    Also, again "in reality", which does not go up in NS. A nation may have an entirely different environment be a driving force for its culture and economy, and never even heard of prairie tall grasses. Had this been a proposal in the real world, you might have had a point. But in NS it simply does not go up, and the rules of GA proposal writing support this notion, even if you conveniently ignore its existence. It's right here:

    "Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any real world references. This includes but is not limited to, world leaders, real world persons, places, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena."
    Last edited by Daarwyrth on Wed May 05, 2021 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    The Royal State of Daarwyrth

    Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


    User avatar
    Refuge Isle
    Diplomat
     
    Posts: 684
    Founded: Dec 14, 2018
    Left-wing Utopia

    Postby Refuge Isle » Wed May 05, 2021 1:31 pm

    "Full support, the target effectively blocks any development in nations with areas that have 1.5m grass that occasionally catches fire."

    OOC: for the sake of sentence variety, may you consider something other than beginning every section with "GAR #553".

    User avatar
    Daarwyrth
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1166
    Founded: Jul 05, 2016
    Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

    Postby Daarwyrth » Wed May 05, 2021 1:33 pm

    Refuge Isle wrote:OOC: for the sake of sentence variety, may you consider something other than beginning every section with "GAR #553".

    OOC: Of course! :) It's still in the early stages of drafting, so it was primarily to set up a certain consistency for the argumentation at the start. But now that I have my idea hammered out, I will improve upon this resolution stylistically!
    Last edited by Daarwyrth on Wed May 05, 2021 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    The Royal State of Daarwyrth

    Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


    User avatar
    Daarwyrth
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1166
    Founded: Jul 05, 2016
    Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

    Postby Daarwyrth » Fri May 07, 2021 7:33 am

    OOC: In light of Refuge Isle's comments, I made a few stylistic alterations to the start of every Clause :)
    The Royal State of Daarwyrth

    Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


    User avatar
    Imperium Anglorum
    Postmaster-General
     
    Posts: 10393
    Founded: Aug 26, 2013
    Left-Leaning College State

    Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri May 07, 2021 11:17 pm

    Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. You have our full support in principle.

    Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
    Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
    Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
    Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
    Delegate for Europe
    Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
    Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
    Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

    User avatar
    Daarwyrth
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1166
    Founded: Jul 05, 2016
    Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

    Postby Daarwyrth » Sat May 08, 2021 1:43 am

    Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. You have our full support in principle.

    Vyn Nysen: "We are grateful for your delegation's support. If you do have pointers on what can be improved upon in this repeal draft, please don't hesitate to share those with us.

    We are eager to see the target resolution repealed, yet we want to do so with care and quality, not reckless abandon."
    Last edited by Daarwyrth on Sat May 08, 2021 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
    The Royal State of Daarwyrth

    Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


    User avatar
    Daarwyrth
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1166
    Founded: Jul 05, 2016
    Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

    Postby Daarwyrth » Sun May 09, 2021 1:00 pm

    OOC: In light of feedback I received on Forest's internal forums, I have removed the former Clause 5, which was about prairies being designated as cultural sites. I agree that the argument was rather redundant, and was included in the draft without the expectation it would remain in it. As such, it has now been excised from the newest draft :)
    The Royal State of Daarwyrth

    Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


    Next

    Advertisement

    Remove ads

    Return to General Assembly

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Nouvelle Provence

    Advertisement

    Remove ads