GA Resolution: Repeal "The Gem Trading Accord"

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Repeal "The Gem Trading Accord"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#113
Proposed by: Nykibo


Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #113: The Gem Trading Accord (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the intent of the Gem Trading Accord to make transparent the quality of all precious stones and gems traded by World Assembly nations and to combat fraud and misrepresentation in the gemstone market, however

CONCERNED that the Gem Trading Accord's definition of "precious stone", defined by that resolution as "any naturally occurring mineral valued for relative qualities of its appearance far beyond its intrinsic value," does not account for types of minerals valued for qualities beyond aesthetic ones and was crafted with imprecise language creating too narrow a focus,

DISAPPOINTED that the Gem Trading Accord established two organizations, the International Gemological Agency (IGA) and the International Gemological Laboratory (IGL), where one organization could have performed the same tasks and functions or been assigned to existing WA committees or organizations, and

TROUBLED that the Gem Trading Accord includes an ambiguously and confusingly worded mandate that states nations be fined for non-compliance, especially without any indication of how the proceeds from said fines should be held or spent, hereby

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #113.

[Consortina]

Against!

While I agree that The Gem Trading Accord is one of the resolutions that could have been improved, I don't think a repeal is necessary and it certainly is not necessary for the stated reasons:

1) adresses an existing problem but comes to a false conclusion. A stone that is valued both for its appearance and its intrinsic value (like diamonds) falls under the accord. The problem might rather be that there are too many semi-precious stones that fall under the accord.

2) raises a good point but it doesn't suffice for a repeal. After all, the IGA and IGL can, like, cooperate and share synergies.

3) Apparently the mandate is so confusing that someone read into it that nations could be fined. It reads that those who are trading the gems should be fined. States will only suffer from fines when they are the ones who sell fraudulent gems.

[Guy]

I'm mainly worried about

CONCERNED that the Gem Trading Accord's definition of "precious stone", defined by that resolution as "any naturally occurring mineral valued for relative qualities of its appearance far beyond its intrinsic value," does not account for types of minerals valued for qualities beyond aesthetic ones and was crafted with imprecise language creating too narrow a focus,

[Urgench]

This version of the repeal is basically the same as the one which preceded it, that previous version was removed from the queue by the Mods because the final grounds for repeal was found to be illegal. You can't repeal a resolution for doing something it doesn't actually do.

This version contains the exact same grounds, reworded slightly, but nonetheless illegal. It slipped through the net because there aren't really enough Mods who take an active interest in the proposals list and Ard can't do everything alone and the queue was rather short meaning this one got to the floor too quickly to be removed. If it had been caught in time it would never have been at vote.

The nation which proposed this repeal resigned the WA just before the repeal came to vote because of a fit of pique. I implored him to ask for his repeal to be removed from the queue in order that it could be retooled (with my help) to no avail.

I was and remain perfectly happy to see the GTA repealed on the basis of any clear faults it contains. And indeed I was willing and in fact did help the repeal author draft a replacement, however his resignation means that no replacement is likely to be forthcoming from him and that's pretty crappy IMO, since my assistance in helping him repeal my own resolution was conditional on being a part of writing the replacement, assistance he had sought from me enthusiastically. I hasten to add that I repeatedly asked him to remove the illegal grounds for repeal and he submitted it anyway.

In this repeal the only grounds which carries any weight, and which is legal, is the one regarding the definition. The real problem with the definition is not really that it covers too many stones, after all Jade may fetch higher prices in one nation that Diamonds do in another and preventing fraudulent sales of both is worth the WA's time, it's more of a semantic problem.

The suggested rewording of the definition which would have been included in the replacement (which wont be authored now) was "Specimens of any mineral...etc" rather than "Any Mineral...etc". This rewording would make the definition slightly more exact but it wouldn't have changed how this form of trade is regulated.

If we had been voting on the retooled repeal, with no illegalities in it, and had I any guarantee that a better replacement was about to be submitted I would have encouraged you all to vote for the repeal.

As it is I'm pretty upset that the GTA will be repealed for doing things the Mods have decided it doesn't do and that there's no likelihood of a better replacement in the works, so I'd ask (very politely) that you not vote for this repeal, to make sure that the quality of repeals remains high and we don't start having lots of repeals in the list which attempt to repeal resolutions on completely spurious grounds.

[Eist]

Good job guys! I was unsure, but you're all very persuasive! I'm against.

[ImperialPoland]

for

[Guy]

I urge everyone to vote against, based on Ard's (WA mod) post:

OOC: Before you guys start hostilities against each other, turn 'em on me. Yes, it was a "clerical error". The latest version of the repeal has exactly the mistake in its last clause that the earlier one had. It says the original resolution fines WA nations, when in fact it doesn't.

I'm sorry about this; I particularly apologise to Urgench. I was about to sweep the list when there was an electrical storm and I had to turn off the computer. When I got back on there was a major moderation brushfire elsewhere and I didn't get back to the list, thinking it wasn't urgent -- I thought there was still a day to go on the previous At Vote.

As Intellect and the Arts says, there's nothing I or any of the mods can do about it now except use our votes, which I urge you to do, too.[/u]

(I shall now get back into character and glumly contemplate the Great Stinky Swamp, to which Dicey has been sent on a fact-finding tour. )

[daitru]

On the grounds that:

Either:
1A) The legislation being repealed regulates types of stones that are mined for their practical value rather than their visual qualities (such as diamonds)
Or:
1B) The legislation being repealed does not regulate types of stones that are mined for their practical value rather than their visual qualities (such as diamonds)


Given 1A:
2A) Stones are required to be evaluated on grounds unrelated to their intended purpose

Given 2A:
3A) The legislation being repealed causes unnecessary overhead.


Given 1B:
2Bi) As many types of stones are sometimes mined for their practical value, rather than their visual qualities,
2Bii) These types of stones are not being regulated

Given 2Bi and 2Bii:
3B) The legislation is ineffective in achieving its stated intent.



Daitru hereby votes for the repeal of the legislation. Daitru keeps in mind that the repeal contains unnecessary, confusing, or incorrect wording. However, as repeals are not codified as law, only the effect is important. The fact that the Nykibo's reasoning is unsound does not automatically make the conclusion incorrect. As per the above presented argument, Daitru finds the conclusion to be correct regardless of the poor argument presented by Nykibo.


~
Slaine Casitrus, representative for Daitru