NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been working on this proposal to repeal resolution #15, "Protect Historical Sites" since I first read it. I'm confident in what I've written so far, but would like the thoughts, opinions, and criticisms of everyone else before I submit it to the UN. Remember, this is only a draft, so I welcome any ideas you can give me on how to revise it. If you believe it's good as is, then at least say that. Please also let me know how you would vote on this proposal if it reached quorum in the proposals list. I have recently become aware that including the last operative clause may be in violation of the "Hackian Laws" but am unsure of the fact. Edit: Also excuse me if I'm not able to check up on this thread regularly, I will try to reply to all comments, but I may be somewhat late. Thanks in advance for your time. (Sorry, I do not think the link is working properly)

Proposal: Repeal Resolution #15, "Protect Historical Sites (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/)"

NOTING the interests of conservation groups to preserve our heritage, and
RECOGNIZING the attempt by Resolution #15 to save historical sites of importance.

REQUESTS the repeal of Resolution #15 on the following grounds:

1. Although categorized as an Environmental Resolution affecting all businesses, the primary argument for Resolution #15 is that it helps tourism. This is contradictory to the very nature of the bill, which plainly states, "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry."

2. This is a glaring contradiction within the text that went unnoticed during the resolution’s passing into law. Tourism is considered an industry that can generate great profits for the State. Environmental resolutions restrict industry and the profits from industry. Resolution #15 can not help tourism if it is an environmental resolution. It is not helping the tourism industry, but hurting it. It is damaging to all UN member nation’s economies and has no central direction.

3. Resolution #15 does not define a “historical site” nor give criteria which must be met for consideration of protection from destruction. It does not give legal authority to any specific persons or organization to act on behalf of the resolution and still remain within the boundaries of the law. Resolution #15 fails to provide basic guidelines and gives no supportive evidence. There is no mention of ways to monitor and administer over “historical sights”, and no mention of educational or recreational benefits from keeping such sights.

SUGGESTING that if a future “Protect Historical Sites” resolution is considered, let it be based on other merit, or be redefined as pertaining to another category than Environmental – affecting all businesses. This will help clear the purpose of the resolution and resolve any apparent contradictions. This shall not be able to prevent future resolutions from consideration or passing, but be used as a guide for such resolutions.

I've been working on this proposal to repeal resolution #15, "Protect Historical Sites" since I first read it. I'm confident in what I've written so far, but would like the thoughts, opinions, and criticisms of everyone else before I submit it to the UN. Remember, this is only a draft, so I welcome any ideas you can give me on how to revise it. If you believe it's good as is, then at least say that. Please also let me know how you would vote on this proposal if it reached quorum in the proposals list. I have recently become aware that including the last operative clause may be in violation of the "Hackian Laws" but am unsure of the fact. Edit: Also excuse me if I'm not able to check up on this thread regularly, I will try to reply to all comments, but I may be somewhat late. Thanks in advance for your time. (Sorry, I do not think the link is working properly)

Let's see.....

Proposal: Repeal Resolution #15, "Protect Historical Sites (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/)"

NOTING the interests of conservation groups to preserve our heritage, and
RECOGNIZING the attempt by Resolution #15 to save historical sites of importance.

Add the space for consistent formatting....yes style is important :p

REQUESTS the repeal of Resolution #15 on the following grounds:

1. Although categorized as an Environmental Resolution affecting all businesses, the primary argument for Resolution #15 is that it helps tourism. This is contradictory to the very nature of the bill, which plainly states, "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry."

Indeed, should be moral decency IMO, though #2 makes a good argument for free trade

2. This is a glaring contradiction within the text that went unnoticed during the resolution’s passing into law. Tourism is considered an industry that can generate great profits for the State. Environmental resolutions restrict industry and the profits from industry. Resolution #15 can not help tourism if it is an environmental resolution. It is not helping the tourism industry, but hurting it. It is damaging to all UN member nation’s economies and has no central direction.

Ok

3. Resolution #15 does not define a “historical site” nor give criteria which must be met for consideration of protection from destruction. It does not give legal authority to any specific persons or organization to act on behalf of the resolution and still remain within the boundaries of the law. Resolution #15 fails to provide basic guidelines and gives no supportive evidence. There is no mention of ways to monitor and administer over “historical sights”, and no mention of educational or recreational benefits from keeping such sights.

Ok

SUGGESTING that if a future “Protect Historical Sites” resolution is considered, let it be based on other merit, or be redefined as pertaining to another category than Environmental – affecting all businesses. This will help clear the purpose of the resolution and resolve any apparent contradictions. This shall not be able to prevent future resolutions from consideration or passing, but be used as a guide for such resolutions.

Remove last line. This is granted since this is a repeal.

Thank you for your advice, Forgottenlands. I knew you wouldn't pass up on a thread. I will add the space. The reason for the very last line was to restate the rule, in hopes of avoiding that argument, but if it's unneeded, all the better. Edit: I'm now thinking of changing the first operative clause from "Requests the repeal..." to simply "Repeals...". It is more concise, and besides, I can't request for a repeal if this is a repeal anyway.

I see no problem with it. Nothing possibly illegal and spelling and grammer seem to be ok. Take out that last line suggested by Forgottenlands, and you should be good. I'd vote for it.

Good job, Fishyguy

Thank you Holyboy, now the only question is, what day of the week is best for submitting? I was thinking Monday the 26 of September, but if I don't need to make any significant changes, should I risk submitting it when it will run-over into the weekend? Here is the proposed repeal as I would submit it:

NOTING the interests of conservation groups to preserve our heritage, and

RECOGNIZING the attempt by Resolution #15 to save historical sites of importance.

REPEALS Resolution #15 on the following grounds:

1. Although categorized as an Environmental Resolution affecting all businesses, the primary argument for Resolution #15 is that it helps tourism. This is contradictory to the very nature of the bill, which plainly states, "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry."

2. This is a glaring contradiction within the text that went unnoticed during the resolution’s passing into law. Tourism is considered an industry that can generate great profits for the State. Environmental resolutions restrict industry and the profits from industry. Resolution #15 can not help tourism if it is an environmental resolution. It is not helping the tourism industry, but hurting it. It is damaging to all UN member nation’s economies and has no central direction.

3. Resolution #15 does not define a “historical site” nor give criteria which must be met for consideration of protection from destruction. It does not give legal authority to any specific persons or organization to act on behalf of the resolution and still remain within the boundaries of the law. Resolution #15 fails to provide basic guidelines and gives no supportive evidence. There is no mention of ways to monitor and administer over “historical sights”, and no mention of educational or recreational benefits from keeping such sights.

SUGGESTING that if a future “Protect Historical Sites” resolution is considered, let it be based on other merit, or be redefined as pertaining to another category than Environmental – affecting all businesses. This will help clear the purpose of the resolution and resolve any apparent contradictions.

Honestly, let the Solar Panels focus group clear out before we move onto a different topic. The fallout of that resolution is putting EVERYTHING to the backburner - as is evident that we've had more posts on Solar Panel related threads than the discussion thread for Labeling Standards

The best day to submit a proposal is on Thursday/Friday. That way, you catch the weekday crowd before they go on vacation, and you get the weekend crowd who have too much time on their hands.

The best time to submit a proposal is any time after 9:00 GMT. The sooner, the better. (If you are unsure of when GMT is in your time zone, World Clock (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/) may help.)
This is the best time because the update for NS was just performed, which means your proposal will loose a day being a proposal for 24 hours.

Fris said 8:30 EDT, so 12:30 GMT. The reason is there's actually two sweeps of the proposal queue, and posting at 9:00 GMT would hit the second sweep.

Thank you both very much, I agree that the Solar Panel Issue needs to be resolved first. Would 7:30 pm CDT (12:30 am GMT) on Thursday the 29 of September be appropriate? Are we talking pm or am times, does it matter?

Well, the repeal did not receive enough votes to reach quorum on the first try. I'm not really surprised, it is not a big "hot button" issue like repealing the "Right to Teach Evolution" or passing even more environmental legislation. I did not see the final vote count, but I believe it was in the low 40s, does anyone know for sure?
Is there some way I could strengthen the appeal of this proposal so more delegates would take the time to endorse it? Most of the delegates I telegrammed said it looked reasonable, and gave their endorsement. Do I just need to spread the word better, or is this repeal faulty in any way?
Do delegates just not care about "small time" legislation? I don't expect every single one to endorse the proposal. In fact, I suspect that many don't even check the proposals list regularly, but it seems most resolutions that get many endorsements are the ones with catchy titles or hard-line supporters and detractors.
What I'm asking is, is there any way to just get more votes, or is this proposal doomed to never see the General Assembly?

All right, here is the new draft. I think this one will do better because it is easier to read, much clearer, and more concise. If there are no major objections I need to revise, then it will be submitted at 12:30 GMT tonight (tomorrow morning to be precise).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTING the interests of conservation groups to preserve our heritage, and

RECOGNIZING the attempt by Resolution #15 to save historical sites of importance.

REPEALS Resolution #15 on the following grounds:

1. The argument for Resolution #15 contradicts the category in which it is placed. An environmental resolution cannot help tourism.

2. The State can generate great profits from the tourism industry. Environmental resolutions restrict the profits from industry. This means that environmental resolutions also hurt the tourism industry.

3. Resolution #15 does not define a “historical site” nor provide criteria for protection from destruction.

4. Resolution #15 lacks ways of achieving its goal, and has no guidelines to follow. There is no mention of ways to monitor and administer over “historical sights”, and no educational or recreational benefits for keeping such sights.

SUGGESTING a future “Protect Historical Sites” resolution be based on other merit, or be placed in a category other than environmental. This will clear the purpose of the resolution, and resolve any apparent contradictions.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/cluichstan.jpg

The people of Cluichstan fully support repealing the resolution in question, if only on the following grounds alone, as articulated in this proposal:

3. Resolution #15 does not define a “historical site” nor provide criteria for protection from destruction.

Clearly, if for no other reason, the resolution in question should be repealed (indeed, should never have even passed), as it is obviously vague.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Well, Cobdenia quite likes this proposal, as it gives us an excuse not to tart up our public buildings

The Socialist Republic does not agree completely with the argument given for a repeal, as we believe that the minor technical issue with its projected effect is insignificant, but we also believe that protecting significant historical sites should be a compulsory national responsibility. That, coupled with the lack of a definition for "historical sites," means that we will probably approve the repeal when it is proposed.

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The reasons given to repeal this proposal are more than enough for The Discotheques to vote to repeal proposal #15...We are for a stronger UN without all the constant contradictions, if this proposal is repealed The Discotheques itself would be willing to rewrite this proposal to make more sense, Since the fundamental message is a good one, hopefully this will sway some of you on the fence about repealing proposal 15

I thank you all for your replies. I have been quite busy lately and was unable to submit the repeal yesterday or the day before, but rest assured I will try my best to submit it tonight. Keep your eyes peeled. Many thanks,

- Fishyguy