Edited

Lots of new faces. Welcome, everyone.

The next WA vote is likely going to be on the Water Fluoridation Act:

Proposal: page=UN_view_proposal/id=scalizagasti_1607437218
Forum thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=494791

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It's the first GA in a while that I really don't have any issue with. It's pretty well written, the author received and incorporated good feedback, and it's both specific in its targets and broad enough to apply fairly on a nation-by-nation basis. Unless I'm overlooking something, it's a very agreeable measure.

I do actually think that this is fantastically written and probably one of the best uses of a committee in recent memory.

It looks like there are two requirements for this proposal.
1) requires members to conduct research and sent it to the WA committee.
2) require public drinking water fluoridation if the committee determines it to have positive health effects.

And the rest of the resolution deals with setting up the circumstances of how that conclusion can be reached and what information it's based on. The biggest hurdle of something like this already seems to be accounted for in 4(d), where nations may request financial, technological, or logistical aid where they wouldn't be able to carry out the fluoridation on their own. I can't really find a problem in the way it's constructed to do that.

It might have been a better idea to include a section, possible 6(d) that could have said "no available fluoride in their territory" so member nations aren't functionally required to synthesise fluoride out of the air or otherwise buy it from neighbouring nations. Presumably in such a situation, 4(d) can also accommodate shipments of the stuff. That isn't really a deal-beaker for me though. So I will be voting for this when it's up.

Chacapoya, Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, Flohovistan, and 2 othersHoneydewitopia, and Junitaki-cho

Honeydewitopia

3 years 151 days ago

Edited

Forest

Sylh Alanor wrote:

Sorry about that, we actually had a discussion about this in the server yesterday and I was caught off guard with it going up this morning. Normally we would have talked about it in the RMB. To summarise our thoughts from yesterday, there's no ill will toward Praeceps specifically. They seem to be a fine person, though maybe it's a bit early to give them a commendation. In fact, it's telling that most of the responses in the thread talk about how much they like Praeceps as a person instead of anything about the resolution itself.

The issue with the proposal is that it's badly written. The major issue I personally have with it is that one of the points in the commendation seeks to reward Praeceps for the condemnation of the co-author, Noah's Second Country (under a meme nation pseudonym). This is probably the reason Noah's main is not named, and it's instead this joke nation. I just find it kind of distasteful and quid-pro-quo'y to attempt to commend someone because they wrote a resolution for you. That's gross.

Also, there are a lot of pointless memes and jokes in the proposal which are just there to fill space, since there isn't enough there to actually warrant a commendation. I think it's very badly written and can't support it on those grounds.

Clarification: Praetor was not at all involved in the drafting of SC#320, and was even going to oppose it at first (before voting for). That clause is referring to the time Praetor punished Noah for heisting a guild member. Other than the punishment thing (and the co-authorships, LOL), I am unable to see what other jokes are contained within the proposal.

Refuge Isle wrote:

I do actually think that this is fantastically written and probably one of the best uses of a committee in recent memory.

I completely agree with you. However negative perceptions of fluoride + TNP stomp will have this proposal sink. :(

Melenavenia and Flohovistan

The Socialist Solarpunk Society of Sylh Alanor

3 years 151 days ago

I agree with the points on Water Fluoridation Act. I like it a lot- it's one of the best GA resolutions I've seen go up to vote in a while- and I'm going to be voting for it when it comes up.

Honeydewitopia wrote:

I don't feel that's particularly clear in the text, then, because I'm not the only one who made that mistake. Regardless, even if it's just a card guild punishment, the quid-pro-quo criticism still stands. It feels a bit obvious when the argument is made through a puppet that's not stated to be Noah.

Melenavenia and Flohovistan

The Fanciful Tales of Refuge Isle

3 years 151 days ago

Honeydewitopia wrote:

I completely agree with you. However negative perceptions of fluoride + TNP stomp will have this proposal sink. :(

After having checked around my usual places to scan for vote opinions I'm a little bit unnerved by the sort of libertarian conspiracy theories about fluoride that are being used to determine voting positions on this topic.

Chacapoya, Sylh Alanor, Melenavenia, Flohovistan, and 2 othersHoneydewitopia, and Junitaki-cho

The Holy Empire of Noahs Fifth Country

3 years 151 days ago

Forest

Sylh Alanor wrote:

I stand to gain absolutely nothing by being mentioned in this proposal.

Honeydewistania proposed that I coauthor a proposal under "Pineappleistania" long before the idea to commend Praeceps even surfaced. Frankly I don't really see where you see any pointless jokes and memes beyond that one line.

Also, I never asked anyone to condemn me. It's cool but I'm by no means in debt to Westinor or Honeydewistania for writing the resolution.

Anyway, I just happened to see this discussion as you're currently the second-largest delegate to oppose the proposal so I was curious. Have a nice day.

Melenavenia, Michelland, and Flohovistan

RefugiaBoard

«12. . .109110111112113114115. . .1,1591,160»

«12. . .109110111112113114115. . .1,1591,160»

Refugia Board

«1 2. . .109 110 111112113 114 115. . .1,159 1,160 »

«1 2. . .109 110 111112113 114 115. . .1,159 1,160 »