NationStates Jolt Archive

I submitted this proposal a fortnight ago, but it wasn't very sucessful, so i altered it, and submitted it again.
Category: Gun Control - Decision: Tighten
The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal directed energy weapon system developed by the U.S. military. It is a microwave laser.
Operation

The ADS works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. This frequency means the radiation is in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. In comparison, a standard microwave oven cooks food with about 2.4 GHz waves, so the ADS's radiation is more energetic, but much less prone to penetrate skin — the military says the effect "penetrates the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch." The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of one kilometer.

The energy in the waves turns to heat upon skin contact and immediately heats water molecules in the skin to around 130 degrees Fahrenheit, causing an intensely painful burning sensation. A spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system: "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain."

The developers flatly says the Active Denial System "is absolutely not designed or intended or built" for torture and have extensively checked that the system is within the bounds of U.S. and international law. Nonetheless, activist groups protest that the ADS would be a very effective torture device. Therefore, strict guidelines must be used when isuing ADS weaponry.

Military researchers claim that the system causes no long-term damage and the U.S Department of Defense hopes to use it to avoid killing rioters or insurgents. The system could be used to arm police troops within U.N countrys with a nonlethal capability in opperations, for instance, crowd control operations. For example, the beam could be focused on a street or other critical area, and the pain would cause rioters to flee from that area.

Your proposal is illegal as it contains multiple RL references.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Not to mention the fact that Gun Control is for personal weapons, not high-tech experimental weapons developed by the military for the military.

Or the fact that this has no actual law in it.

Or the fact that it's little more than a quoted article.

And the article I wrote on it was far more detailed. :p

OOC: Am I the only person here who initially read its title as 'AIDS weaponry proposal'?

OOC: Am I the only person here who initially read its title as 'AIDS weaponry proposal'?
OOC: Nope.

OOC: Nope.
OOC: Good, that makes three of us.

Why is it, whenever i use any forum, i get crap from a bunch of back seat mods? All my proposal was based on realistic weaponry, and it was a good idea, so bog off!

Why is it, whenever i use any forum, i get crap from a bunch of back seat mods?

That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

All my proposal was based on realistic weaponry, and it was a good idea, so bog off!

Your "proposal" is based on a realistic weapon. There are a number of active denial systems. You describe one in particular -- and incorrectly, I should add. A microwave laser? Somebody failed physics class.

A microwave laser? Somebody failed physics class.
It saves having to explain what a 'maser' is...

Why is it, whenever i use any forum, i get crap from a bunch of back seat mods?Excuse me? Check out the title above the picture to the left of my post. Don't get pissy at me because you didn't read the rules.

OH right, the invisible rules? I saw no rules stating what could be submited for the UN. I'll check again.

Aside from referencing real life, which is in fact illigal, it also does not do anything. It is an article on the nature of some high-tech beam weapon, it doesn't say we can/cannot use it. It is not a proposal, an argument perhaps, but it is not a proposal.

OH right, the invisible rules? I saw no rules stating what could be submited for the UN. I'll check again.Only invisible to those who refuse to see.

There's a link on the submission page, and a sticky at the top of this very forum, fiendishly hidden under the title: "Rules For Proposals [Now Binding]".

Themlight: As far as I can see, all you have posted is rhetoric and copy and pasted some info on what this technology. That’s fine, but you’ve failed to supply substance. What you’ve said is great for background material for people curious about this, but it does not go beyond that. What we need to know is what you intend to do about it.

Now, instead of throwing a hissy fit, try and take some of the advice presented on this topic thus far. I know some people on here can be somewhat blunt in their appraisal, but that’s only because this sort of thing has happened before.

If you need consultation on how to write resolutions, I suggest you look at a group formed to get good quality resolutions to the UN floor.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php

I don’t think I can support any resolution against this technology, but I am not ruling it out, and if you need some help resolution writing then I’ll do what I can.

I proposed supplying the weapon to police, as an alternative to guns, or did i screw up, and press submit before i finished? Uh, i did mess up, so i'll resubmit it, with the nessesary facts.

Here's my jazzed up version. Please tell me if it's okay, and then i'll submit it.

ASD armed police/peacekeeper tropps
Gun control:Tighten
DETERMINED to provide protection for all police officers in all UN member nations, and all peace keeping forces in warzones, whose home countries are members of the united nations.

CONVINCED that this is best provided using ADS weaponry, (Active Denial System - microwave energy non lethal deterent weaponry).

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal ADS weapon, for personal protection.

2. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 1:
a. Using ADS weapons for torture;

5. URGES all United Nation governments to have regular talks with developers of ADS, and upgrade the police weaponry at 5 year intervals.

7. FORBIDS any malicious use of ADS, example: Torture, unnessasary use, ect

Well, you might wanna learn to count.

Spellcheck is your friend.

And... um... gun control? Might want to see what the categories actually are used for.

microwave energy non lethal deterent weaponry).

Noted that it heats up to 130 degrees and causes pain to the person it is directed at. How long do you keep this on a person?

Thus if as said it won't go but so far into the human skin then all one needs to get around it is proper protective clothing. Thus making it not effective in all instances because seems to me it would be easy to make such protective clothing cheap.

Due to the nature of certain living being that might be exposed to this in NS one must ask if it is safe for all living things not just humans? Seems it has only been tested on humans... As know not all living person have the same physical makeup as humans do thus would at 130 degrees find this lethal....

As it may not act like a microwave oven and dry a wet cat as fast but bet in time it will dry the cat... if it is left in the oven long enough even at this freguency range. As once one layer is burned off then comes another and another. Thus we see this burning slowly from the outside inward; where the lower freguency range burns from inside outward. Still can be just as lethal as a weapon..

Also how tight a blast pattern does this thing have and how big is the weapon? As there is more to deal with than just the freguency range here.. As most microwave ovens only run under 3 watts power to cook.. How much wattage are we talking here with this weapon? As the more needed the greater the power source; also chance for it being lethal and impractical as you want it to be. As one must consider any danger to the users of such weapons as well as to those it is to be used on.

Here's my jazzed up version. Please tell me if it's okay, and then i'll submit it. Much better :) Now we have something to discuss.

ASD armed police/peacekeeper tropps
Gun control:TightenYeah you need to do a spellcheck on this once it’s all done.DETERMINED to provide protection for all police officers in all UN member nations, and all peace keeping forces in warzones, whose home countries are members of the united nations.Fair enough.

CONVINCED that this is best provided using ADS weaponry, (Active Denial System - microwave energy non lethal deterent weaponry).I’m not sure this explains it enough, perhaps add a section beforehand along the lines of MINDFUL that the loss of life should be minimised whenever possible, and that non-lethal options should be considered a primary option for protection.1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal ADS weapon, for personal protection.The grammar is a little dodgy.2. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 1:
a. Using ADS weapons for torture;Fair enough.5. URGES all United Nation governments to have regular talks with developers of ADS, and upgrade the police weaponry at 5 year intervals.This could be written a little better perhaps. URGES member states to liase with developers and suppliers of ADS technology, to ensure personnel have updated, safe and reliable equipment7. FORBIDS any malicious use of ADS, example: Torture, unnessasary use, ectAgain spell check it.
The numbering is a bit messed up, but that’s been pointed out already.

Now if you make some of the changes you’ll have a better proposal. But I will vote no on this.

The problem is that a lot of nations get very edgy when resolutions start telling them how to run the country. Most are pretty reasonable about it, some are not. The problem with this idea is it is forcing governments to give their police forces weapons, albeit non-lethal. Moreover it forces governments to take up only one non-lethal option, it offends even further.

Now that doesn’t mean you have to listen to them, what I am saying is that to get this to pass you want a broad base of support. The more consensus you can get the better. Don’t try to please everyone, just 51% of the voters :)

I’m going to vote no because I don’t like being told which form of non-lethal technology to use. If you remove references to specific technologies (which not all nations will have – some roleplay past technology levels) and simply endorse the right for security forces to own non-lethal self-defence equipment, you will have a broader base of support.

If it's a microwave-based weapon, wouldn't its effectiveness decrease when there's rain or fog in the air between user & target?

ASD armed police/peacekeeper tropps
Gun control:Tighten

DETERMINED to provide protection for all police officers in member states, and all peace keeping forces in warzones, whose home countries are members of the united nations.

MINDFUL that the loss of life should be minimised whenever possible, and that non-lethal options should be considered a primary option for protection.

CONVINCED that this is best provided using Active Denial Systems weaponry (ADS).

1. RESOLVES that all nations should recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal ADS weapon, for personal protection.

2. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 1:
a. Using ADS weapons for torture;

3. URGES member states to liase with developers and suppliers of ADS technology, to ensure personnel have updated, safe and reliable equipment.

4. FORBIDS any malicious use of ADS, example: Torture, unnessasary use, ect.

This is not a Gun Control proposal. It should be International Security, Mild.

Still wrong category; still in dire need of spell check.

Non Lethal Armament

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Themlight

Description: DETERMINED to provide protection for all police officers in member states, and all peace keeping forces in war zones, to halt rioters.

MINDFUL that the loss of life should be minimized whenever possible, and that non-lethal options should be considered a primary option for protection.

CONVINCED that this is best provided using Active Denial Systems weaponry (ADS).

1. RESOLVES that all nations should recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal ADS weapon, for personal protection.

2. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 1:
a. Using ADS weapons for torture;

3. URGES member states to liaison with developers and suppliers of ADS technology, to ensure personnel have updated, safe and reliable equipment.

4. FORBIDS any malicious use of ADS, example: Torture, unnecessary use, etc.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 125 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Mar 19 2006

A subclause should never be an orphan; 2 and 2a should be a single clause. 4 is just a restating of 2a.

ah, looks like my proposal is failing. I sent telegrams to at least 40 delagates, but it's failed.

ah, looks like my proposal is failing. I sent telegrams to at least 40 delagates, but it's failed.

Have you saved the names of the ones who have approved it, for use if you decide to re-submit it later on?

And there has been conclusive evidence that microwave lasers can be worse than guns, as they keep their victims in a continuing pain, even when it is stopped. It was on sky news somewhere, I'll do some searching.

Right, i'm re-tweeking it now, then i'll have it up later. :gundge:

Here's my new proposal, and apparetnly, it violates rules. I wish someone would just explain these friggin rules, as if this were the case, my last submition would have been a violation also.

Active Denial Systems: Wasp Pistol

DETERMINED to provide protection for all police officers in member states, and all peace keeping forces in war zones, to halt rioters.

MINDFUL that the loss of life should be minimized whenever possible, and that non-lethal options should be considered a primary option for protection.

CONVINCED that this is best provided using Themlight's new design Active Denial Systems weaponry (ADS) Wasp Pistol (see article 1)

1. RESOLVES that all nations should recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal ADS weapon, for personal protection. (see article 2), and that peace keeping troops should also be armed with ADS.

2. STATES that all member states should have access to ADS.

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
A. Using ADS weapons for torture;
B. Attempting to increase the power setting of the ADS weaponry to create powerful weapons.
C. Trading ADS weaponry with rogue nations/terrorists
D. Supply of ADS to non police/military personel.

4. URGES member states to liaison with the developers of ADS, to ensure personnel have updated, safe and reliable equipment.

5. FORBIDS any use of ADS as stated in clause 3. Any such violation will result in suspension of ADS suply to the nation, and potential removal from the United Nations.


Article 1
The new design Wasp ADS pistol works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. This frequency means the radiation is in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. In comparison, a standard microwave oven cooks food with about 2.4 GHz waves, so the ADS radiation is more energetic, but much less prone to penetrate skin — the military says the effect "penetrates the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch." The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of 200 metres.

The energy in the waves turns to heat upon skin contact and immediately heats water molecules in the skin to around 130 degrees Fahrenheit, causing an intensely painful burning sensation. A spokesman for the Themlight Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system: "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain."

The researchers and developers of the WASP ADS claim that the system causes no long-term damage and the Department of Defense hopes to use it to avoid killing rioters or insurgents. The designer of the weapons, head of Themlight's Themlight Research Laboratory, Dr. Daniel J. Thomson says the system is designed to force people to back down without the complications of killing them and bystanders.


Article 2
Police chiefs have vowed to hunt down the gunman who shot dead a police officer and seriously injured a second in Lakeside city centre, South Themlight.Assistant Chief Constable James Franklin said: "Every single member of South Themlight Police Department, from the Chief Constable to the newest recruit, is absolutely determined they will catch the people responsible for this crime.

"We will make sure that no matter how long it takes that we will bring the people responsible to justice."

The unarmed officers were attacked as they responded to a 999 call at a off license.

Police said the first officer was killed by a single gunshot fired by man as they fled the premises.

Several more shots followed, which hit the second policewoman. Her injuries are not believed to be life threatening.

Police stress that both the officers were wearing protective body armour, but due to new regulations, they were only armed with batrons and pepper spray.

The rules: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

You cannot make reference to real-life. Changing the article so all the references are to Themlight doesn't help; it's a MetaGaming violation. So you cannot refer to Themlight, Themlight Laboratories, or to any people, or anything like that, in the resolution.

I also think Article 2 is uneccesary. It seems like it was merely thrown in there to try to gain support. Other than that, its pretty good.

Ugh.

Past tech nations?

Past tech nations?
You're screwed

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We'll have to import them.

But when we import them, they'll probably turn into a glue gun or something. We'll be fighting criminals with Glue Guns! Think of the Port Sir Richard Constabulary!

We'll have to import them.

But when we import them, they'll probably turn into a glue gun or something. We'll be fighting criminals with Glue Guns! Think of the Port Sir Richard Constabulary!
Like I said, you're screwed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Here's my new proposal, and apparetnly, it violates rules. I wish someone would just explain these friggin rules, as if this were the case, my last submition would have been a violation also.You have been told numerous times and you continue to ignore. At the top of this very forum is a thread with the painfully obvious title of Rules For Proposals [Now Binding]. When you submit a Proposal, there is a link to that thread. Short of printing out a copy and stapling it to your forehead, I can't make the rules any more obvious. If you are having trouble understanding the rules, ask specific questions. Quit acting like they're some hidden mystery of the mysterious.

You have been told numerous times and you continue to ignore. At the top of this very forum is a thread with the painfully obvious title of Rules For Proposals [Now Binding]. When you submit a Proposal, there is a link to that thread. Short of printing out a copy and stapling it to your forehead, I can't make the rules any more obvious. If you are having trouble understanding the rules, ask specific questions. Quit acting like they're some hidden mystery of the mysterious.
It proves the old adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

In addition to the "Rules for Proposals" thread, said rules can also be found in this book.

http://www.redskybooks.net/rsb455/images/items/011506.jpg

:p

Advanced Deterring Weaponry: Wasp Pistol

DETERMINED to provide protection for all police officers in member states, and all peace keeping forces in war zones, to halt rioters.

MINDFUL that the loss of life should be minimized whenever possible, and that non-lethal options should be considered a primary option for protection.

CONVINCED that this is best provided using S-Tech Inc.'s new design Advanced deterring Weaponry weaponry (ADW) Wasp Pistol (see article 1)

1. RESOLVES that all nations should recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal ADW weapon, for personal protection, and that peace keeping troops should also be armed with ADW.

2. STATES that all member states should have access to ADW.

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
A. Using ADW weapons for torture;
B. Attempting to increase the power setting of the ADW weaponry to create powerful weapons.
C. Trading ADW weaponry with rogue nations/terrorists
D. Supply of ADW to non police/military personel.

4. URGES member states to liaison with the developers of ADW, to ensure personnel have updated, safe and reliable equipment.

5. FORBIDS any use of ADW as stated in clause 3. Any such violation will result in suspension of ADW supply to the nation, and potential removal from the United Nations.


Article 1
The new design Wasp ADW pistol works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. This frequency means the radiation is in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. In comparison, a standard microwave oven cooks food with about 2.4 GHz waves, so the ADW radiation is more energetic, but much less prone to penetrate skin ��� the military says the effect "penetrates the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch." The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of 200 metres.

The energy in the waves turns to heat upon skin contact and immediately heats water molecules in the skin to around 130 degrees Fahrenheit, causing an intensely painful burning sensation. A spokesman for the weapons S-Tech Inc. Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system: "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain. The system is designed to force people to back down without the complications of killing them and bystanders. Their has only been one injury, a subject was slightly burnt when a prototype ADW-Wasp was set too the wrong power setting, but the final design Wasp has only the base power setting and anti-tamper defense protocol, which will destroy the device if attempts are made to alter it."

Past tech nations?

Sooooooooooooooo, past tech nations should disarm nukes, or care about half the issues in the UN?

This:
Article 1
The new design Wasp ADW pistol works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. This frequency means the radiation is in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. In comparison, a standard microwave oven cooks food with about 2.4 GHz waves, so the ADW radiation is more energetic, but much less prone to penetrate skin ��� the military says the effect "penetrates the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch." The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of 200 metres.

The energy in the waves turns to heat upon skin contact and immediately heats water molecules in the skin to around 130 degrees Fahrenheit, causing an intensely painful burning sensation. A spokesman for the weapons S-Tech Inc. Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system: "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain. The system is designed to force people to back down without the complications of killing them and bystanders. Their has only been one injury, a subject was slightly burnt when a prototype ADW-Wasp was set too the wrong power setting, but the final design Wasp has only the base power setting and anti-tamper defense protocol, which will destroy the device if attempts are made to alter it."...is all roleplay. It has no business in a Proposal. Proposals are laws, not press conferences.

This:
...is all roleplay. It has no business in a Proposal. Proposals are laws, not press conferences.

That's pritty much what people have been saying throughout this thread and he's still not gotten it.

Not to mention that this "proposal" deals with one very specific type of non-lethal weapon. It's kinda like writing a proposal that addresses only 9mm semiautomatic handguns. What makes this particular non-lethal weapon worthy of UN attention over any other type?

because some other so called non lethal weaponry such as tazers and stun batrons can do serious injury to some people, such as those with cardiac pacemakers.

But what you don't get is that you can't single out a certain specific type of Non-Lethal weapon to make a proposal about.


This proposal is a waste of UN Resources. If it ever comes to the floor I will vote NO

get stuffed. I'm listining to staff, not users who think they know everything.

get stuffed. I'm listining to staff, not users who think they know everything.
I don't know everything. I just know your proposal doesn't stand a goat-hater's chance in Gruenberg of getting anywhere.

Some tips:
- consider that a great many nations like to have a say over whether their police are not armed or not
- consider that a great many nations may not have developed this technology, or may not be able to afford it
- consider that this is one, obscure technology, and there is no mention of alternatives, of possible health effects, or of training in use of this technology
- consider that some nations simply don't need this, at all
- consider that you seem to be basing this off one article.

If you can take all those into account, maybe you'll have a workable proposal on your hands. As it is, this isn't worth much.

get stuffed. I'm listining to staff, not users who think they know everything.Consider:

1) The vast majority of Moderators are not in the UN
2) Legal does not mean passable
3) The "users who think they know everything" are the ones who will be voting for your Proposal
4) We prefer Proposals to be vetted by "users who think they know everything" because they typically know the rules, and are able to help players submit legal Proposals, thus lessening our workload.

because some other so called non lethal weaponry such as tazers and stun batrons can do serious injury to some people, such as those with cardiac pacemakers.
Fair enough, but you cannot rule out other non-lethal methods that may be developed. Plus many of those discoveries are only now being made; what if the Wasp pistol turns out to have dangerous effects down the line? The option should be left open.

get stuffed. I'm listining to staff, not users who think they know everything.
a) Many of those users know far more than you, and are only trying to help, despite their sometimes hostile-seeming mannerisms.
b) Those users who think they know everything are going to be the type voting on your proposal. For everything they say, a couple thousand other nations think the same way. If they think your proposal doesn't work the way it's written, it doesn't stand much of a chance when it hits the list.

I know you came to this forum looking to hammer out something that will actually get passed. I believe that if you listen to what people have to say here, you have a far better chance of getting your resolution to the floor than if you tell everyone off.

I personally think the idea behind your proposal is good, but it needs some work, such as that suggested in this forum, before it will be a workable resolution.

I accept help, it's just really ******* me off that i've been working a month on this idea, then a bunch of other users and staff tell me it's no good. It's really annoying me, because the rules don't specify enough about what's right and wrong.

Alright, well:

CONVINCED that this is best provided using S-Tech Inc.'s new design Advanced deterring Weaponry weaponry (ADW) Wasp Pistol (see article 1)
This is illegal: you cannot refer to "S-Tech Inc." Instead simply refer to ADW, and define it.

5. FORBIDS any use of ADW as stated in clause 3. Any such violation will result in suspension of ADW supply to the nation, and potential removal from the United Nations.
This is illegal: you cannot remove UN status from nations. Instead you'd be best off permitting diplomatic sanctions against offending nations.

--snipped article--
Not really suitable for a proposal. Just define in a short section what ADW does - no interviews with supporters or anything - and include that as an annex.

It's really annoying me, because the rules don't specify enough about what's right and wrong.What do you want specified? I can't give specific answers if you don't ask specific questions.

allright then, but even if i remove those two illegal parts, i'll get another obsticle thrown up at me. It's even easier to make a proposal at the real UN then is is here. :D

Themlight, I totally appreciate why you are getting exasperated about the whole process, especially with members on here. I think you should give yourself credit for managing to write a resolution that follows the advice on here on the structure of a good resolution. I also think you deserve kudos for having the patience to keep this thing going. A month is a long time for a newcomer nation, and most would have given up by now. Give yourself a pat on the back for that.
Now I agree with you most strongly that some of the comments on here have not been the most positive or constructive. It’s a big problem with some members that they can be perceived by newcomers such as yourself to assume their word is law. At the same time, most of those who have commented have got a resolution passed, or seen enough come through these doors to have a good idea on what makes a good resolutions – so to ignore them is foolhardy.


allright then, but even if i remove those two illegal parts, i'll get another obsticle thrown up at me.Well, if we get what’s illegal out of the way first, then we can deal with the remainder of the problems. Illegal and it will be deleted by the mods. If it has flaws but is legal, then it will not be deleted, but it may have problems passing. That doesn’t mean you should stop working on it, but it does mean you have to understand that to give your proposal the best possible chance of passing, it needs to have support from 51% of the electorate. Failing to take account of past or future tech nations is a good way to alienate some voters, although some may not care.

Lets just look at a quick list of what the issues raised are.
1. It doesn’t consider past tech nations
2. It’s too specific, it’s micromanagement
3. It’s illegal
4. The essay on the end is considered poor form.

number 3 has been dealt with thanks to members on here. So lets see how we might be able to sort out problems 1 and 2.

When you look at it, 1 and 2 might be the same issue. Consider this – will stone age nations be able to buy the equipment you describe? On the other end of the scale, should ultra-tech nations be expected to bring such technology out of retirement to replace their more modern, more effective equivalents?

That’s the problem – you can’t use a one size fits all approach to technology. What’s the solution? Take away the specifics. Keep it vague enough so nations use their own appropriate solutions. Stone age nations get stout clubs. Future tech nations get phasers set to stun. I know that means the inspiration for the proposal is removed, but it's developed into something workable.

(For the record, I agree with you about nukes and past tech nations – a lot of inconsistencies exist – that should only serve to show to you that considering different tech levels is not compulsory. It’s not in the rules. It’s desirable. You don't have to listen to me or anyone else about considering technology when writing proposals.)

No 4 – the essay can be removed if you follow my suggestion for 1 & 2.

It's even easier to make a proposal at the real UN then is is here. :DThat’s debatable. Less people to please in the RLUN makes it sound easier. But with the UN debating these things for days at a time as their job means they argue more about these things than anyone on here can when their spare-time permits.

For the record, I agree with you about nukes and past tech nations – a lot of inconsistencies exist – that should only serve to show to you that considering different tech levels is not compulsory

Actually, there are no resolutions on the books that actively force nations to have a certain level of techology. There are some that ask, some that are only applicable to modern tech nations, some that call upon nations to look into researching, but nothing that says, as this one does, "You must have this level of technology..."

Lets just look at a quick list of what the issues raised are.
1. It doesn’t consider past tech nations
2. It’s too specific, it’s micromanagement
3. It’s illegal
4. The essay on the end is considered poor form.

number 3 has been dealt with thanks to members on here. So lets see how we might be able to sort out problems 1 and 2.

When you look at it, 1 and 2 might be the same issue. Consider this – will stone age nations be able to buy the equipment you describe? On the other end of the scale, should ultra-tech nations be expected to bring such technology out of retirement to replace their more modern, more effective equivalents?

That’s the problem – you can’t use a one size fits all approach to technology. What’s the solution? Take away the specifics. Keep it vague enough so nations use their own appropriate solutions. Stone age nations get stout clubs. Future tech nations get phasers set to stun. I know that means the inspiration for the proposal is removed, but it's developed into something workable.

No 4 – the essay can be removed if you follow my suggestion for 1 & 2.

Very well said, Hirota. Doing this removes the need to define what you are wanting to use wth such large and lengthy articles. There is another option, Themlight, if you really want to include the Wasp Pistol; just say something like: RESOLVES that all nations should recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal deterrance weapon for personal protection, such as an ADW.

Then you add something for weapons that have been proven to have fatal consequences, such as tazers, which you don't want.

The definition for such a non lethal weapon could also be at the end of your preamble.

There is another option, Themlight, if you really want to include the Wasp Pistol; just say something like: RESOLVES that all nations should recognize the right for every police officer to be armed with non lethal deterrance weapon for personal protection, such as an ADW.

I'd suggest adding the words who is armed at all after policeman, because some nations might want to keep most [perhaps even all] of their police totally unarmed...