Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Treize_Dreizehn

  1. This is full of holes and errors. It's also going down in flames already, but I suggest a vote against.
  2. Cyber Security Act A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets. Category: International Security Strength: Mild Proposed by: Friday Freshman Description: RECOGNIZING that in today's world, cyberterrorism is a serious threat that is often neglected by governments. REALIZING the raw destruction that can be brought upon an area both on a domestic and international level by a small group or even a single person using computers and other technology BELIEVING that all countries need to protect themselves and the international community from the perils of the web and the malicious people using the internet as a disguise for crime. APPLAUDING those who have already taken steps to deal with cyberterrorism and other internet based problems. Thus, DEFINES the terms Cyberterrorism as a maliciously intended attack using computers or any computing devices to cause large or small scale destruction or disruption including but not limited to physical, economical, political, and infrastructural to any other person and/or organization and/or their property by a non-state actor Cyberterrorist as one who commits an act of cyberterrorism Non-State Actors as entities that participate or act in international relations or organizations with sufficient power to influence and cause a change even though they do not belong to any established institution of a state. Organizations or individuals contracted or hired by the state are considered state actors for the terms of this resolution. MANDATES that member nations make cyberterrorism illegal in their nations DIRECTS member nations to seek out any cyberterrorists in their jurisdiction and bring said cyberterrorists to justice REQUIRES that member nations also make the supporting of cyberterrorists through any means, but most importantly monetary assistance, illegal RECOMMENDS member nations to share information with both their allies and the rest of the international commmunity on known cyberterrorists so that other countries can pursue those cyberterrorists who may fall in their jurisdiction. URGES member nations raise awareness of cyberterrorism and other internet related issues within their nations in an attempt to educate the public as to the dangers of the internet.
  3. I thought we were done with this the last time it came around. There is no way this is international enough of an issue to deal with. Against.
  4. Despite my NatSov philosophy, I've always held back an exception for protecting Children and this resolution does a good job of plugging a hole in WA law that has existed for quite a while. I recommend a vote for.
  5. This is... not a good piece of legislation. It's a mess, it's almost impossible to read, and it when you finally get through the wall of text it's not anything approaching appropriate legislative language("whatever is legal there in terms of political matters" made me cringe). This piece also assumes all nations have basically the same legal system, which is... unfortunate. I personally think this may be a good idea, but the issue is not pressing enough(as it's been a question since WA#4) to pass THIS version. It needs a bit more time in the oven. I recommend a vote against.
  6. Indeed! Lots of interesting stuff going on!
  7. As the author, I'm prepared to answer any questions y'all have. And I recommend a vote for.
  8. I haven't been able to pay attention to all the threads going on in the WA recently. My apologies. Often times I feel bad if I take apart a piece that I haven't personally helped correct(because then it has a bunch of minor errors, like that one, that could've been corrected... and then we'd be talking about the actual issue rather than misplaced commas, mispelled words, and bad wording) But I stand by the Ministry of WA Affairs' evaluation. And by the way, welcome to the forums!
  9. I am quite neutral on this one. On the one hand it's definitely needed, on the other hand there are many clauses that bother me as an overreach of WA power. I'm advising an abstention on this one, and that's my vote.
  10. Ok. So this particular resolution attempts to prevent forest fires. And it's a nation of bears who authored it. Apparently only you can prevent forest fires. On a more serious note, while I have some problems with the language in the introductory clauses ("wise to"... really?), it's the operative clauses that cause the most problems. We talk all the time about repealing legislation for inadequately defined terms. The problem comes in adding in the language of course. Section 1.i is our first stop: Now one assumes the inclusion of the term "across all of their territory" is supposed to mean you can't just have a law against fires in one small section of the nation and consider that part fullfilled. Sadly, the phrasing there is vague enough(in that I can have a law across all my territory not to start fires in a small section of the nation), to fail in that task while still drawing attention to the fact that that was the intent. It's sloppy work to fix a problem that probably didn't need fixing in the first place. Beyond that, "inadequately controllable" is a difficult phrase to really get behind. No fire is absolutely controllable, and I'd have sincerely preferred that it either refrain from mentioning such fires at all. Controlled burns are a method firefighters use to fight wildfires, and they do get out of hand on occasion. I don't see why I need to have laws governing that unless they're being reckless(in which case our own nations likely have a law against reckless endangerment/manslaughter or an ability to sue for property damage). The phrase is "inadequately controllable" is inadequately sufficient to deal with all of the nuance that controlled burns involve. Section 1.ii is another charlie foxtrot. Comma misplacement aside, the phrase "to the best extent practical within reason" ought to be a crime itself. 1.iii and iv have some of the same problems as above. They repeat "practical within reason" and require nations to notify other nations when a planned or unplanned fire can affect them. Now I'm not a stickler for IntFed reasoning, but while you're on the topic shouldn't there be a bit in here about notifying people within your own borders as well? It seems that while you're there that would be a reasonable step. 1.v has a clause about not using fire as a weapon of war. Which strikes me as a bit of an overreach. The facts on the ground could be anything, and I'd much rather not tie the hands of my generals in the use of tactics. I'd discourage it, strongly even... but getting rid of it completely is too far. Section 2 are encouraging clauses... so nothing in them has to be followed. We'll ignore them. Section 3 on the other hand is a whole 'nother matter. There are two missing commas. It should read "to distribute, as appropriate, information about fire hazards". Without the comma the clause takes on a different meaning. Which is bad because the next line while still an "urges" clause, asks that nations "share all relevant data". I wouldn't mind not saying "all data relevant to fighting fires" (which, while better defined, is still a minefield due to state secrets), but the final line makes it a requirement on non-wa nation who wish to participate in the program. Assuming of course that you take the misspelling of "date" as "data". All in all, this resolution is heavily flawed. Filled with typos and I think is remarkably unneeded. I recommend a vote against.
  11. Seeing as how I am the author, I'm going to recommend you read it and ask me any questions you have. I also recommend a vote of aye.
  12. This argument is simple and incredibly relevant. The ICC seeks to bring to justice criminals in nations that have broken WA Laws. But either they reside in WA Nations, where those things must be enforced, or they aren't, and the WA has no power. The whole resolution is a useless piece of junk which does nothing but try to infringe on the sovereignty of nations that are not in the WA. I recommend a vote for.
  13. Against. There's no legitimate or sane reason for the WA to be legislating on this.
  14. Stamps, if I had money to wager. But seriously, as long as it keeps getting voted down I don't mind. It just sucks when it is so clearly bad because I want to post indepth reviews but I can't say much except "this is terrible".
  • Create New...