NationStates Jolt Archive

Message from Safalra (resolution author):
Hirota has kindly agreed to take my place in discussion of this resolution. I unfortunately won't be able to spend time here as I had surgery yesterday and will be unable to spend more than a few minutes a day in front of a computer for the next several weeks (to reduce the risk of infection the surgeons haven't stitched the wound, but that means it takes longer to heal - I won't go into the details, as they're pretty gruesome).

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

In queue: Repeal "Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=dumping)

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra, author of Female Genital Mutilation (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=61), the resolution that holds the record for passing by the largest majority, is considering a return to active participation in the United Nations. We begin by proposing the following repeal:

Original resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=34) - proposed repeal:

The General Assembly,

Noting the passage of United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning',

Unconvinced that local charities are the most effective organisations for rectifying large-scale environmental damage,

Regretting that the resolution fails to consider that uncontaminated waste water, a byproduct of many industrial processes, when cooled and aerated is no longer harmful to aquatic ecosystems,

Noting that 'filtering' refers only to the removal of particulate matter and will not remove most chemical contaminants,

Observing that the concept of a 'federal prison' is alien to member States without federated government,

Concerned that the specified legal sentences are insufficiently flexible and prevent State judiciaries from considering extenuating circumstances such as time spent in custody,

Affirming that the basis of a United Nations resolution should be a considered analysis of the situation and not emotive rhetoric,

1. Repeals United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning';

2. Condemns the style of argument, false assumptions and ill-defined terms of the resolution;

3. Urges delegates to consider the differing structures of legislatures in member States when proposing future resolutions.

Comments? Questions?

Edit #1: Spelling (regreting to regretting)
Edit #2: Re-ordered clauses (moved 3 to 1)
Edit #3: Re-ordered clauses (moved Affirming...)
Edit #4: Fixed punctuation (error after swapping 1 and 3)
Edit #5: Submitted
Edit #6: In queue

Sounds fine to me, I've always hated resolutions that sound more like a 5th grade essay then an actual piece of legislation.

if a nation has laws about this subject it's better if they're used rather than a one size fits all UN resolution.

The Empire may be a 'green' nation but I have been directed to support this repeal attempt so a nation can deal with this situation themselves in their own way.

Most of the time a nations own actions are a lot more efficent than a blanket resolution ever will be.

Looks pretty good. Might want to capitalize the operators at the beginning of clauses for readbility.

Might want to capitalize the operators at the beginning of clauses for readbility.
Ugh, I can't stand that - it seems too much like an eccentric shouting the first word of each sentence. Besides, lowercase letters are easier to read and the operators are easily distinguished if needed by being the first word of each clause.

Ugh, I can't stand that - it seems too much like an eccentric shouting the first word of each sentence. Besides, lowercase letters are easier to read and the operators are easily distinguished if needed by being the first word of each clause.

SOP is to underline them, but the limitations of the submission page mean I tend to settle for capitalisation, for emphasis. I do agree it isn't the prettiest, though. I have some comments coming, just posting in another thread.

EDIT: Ok, here goes.

Our nations have gotten far 'out-of-hand.' Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment. We need to not only make it illegal to dump wastes into our streams, oceans, and city water removal systems; but we need to start non-profit, donation only organizations to start cleaning up what we have already destroyed! These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!

I hereby propose that we; UN members:

1.) Make it illegal, where not already, to dump wastes of any sort into public water systems. i.e.: Rivers, streams, oceans, ponds, city water removal systems, etc.

2.) Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes.

3.) Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.

4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ‘dumpers.’

----

Noting the passage of United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning',

Why bother? I put something similar in RRtD because I wanted to show I knew it was recent, but felt the issue hadn't been given due consideration.

Affirming that the basis of a United Nations resolution should be a considered analysis of the situation and not emotive rhetoric,

I don't really see this as relevant. I agree, but at the same time, there are some 'essay' resolutions that actually do a perfectly good job, for all their stylistic flaws. I only see the structure as a problem if it actually impedes the effectiveness of a resolution (e.g. Legalise Euthanasia). I'm prepared to believe that's the case here, but you haven't really shown why it's such a problem.

Unconvinced that local charities are the most effective organisations for rectifying large-scale environmental damage,

I agree, but I think this could be made clearer to those who haven't necessary read the original resolution. Perhaps also a suggestion as to who would be a better option?

Regreting that the resolution fails to consider that uncontaminated waste water, a byproduct of many industrial processes, when cooled and aerated is no longer harmful to aquatic ecosystems,

Regretting has two t's, I think, and arguably - although I don't think it matters - a comma after aerated. Otherwise, fine.

Noting that 'filtering' refers only to the removal of particulate matter and will not remove most chemical contaminants,

Good.

Observing that the concept of a 'federal prison' is alien to member States without federated government,

Or without prisons. Also uses USD as a currency. I'd, here, stress that it's inappropriate for this level of sentencing, especially when, anyway, it's to be left to a court decision.

Concerned that the specified legal sentences are insufficiently flexible and prevent State judiciaries from considering extenuating circumstances such as time spent in custody,

Well, as above, really. I agree on this, though. They also prevent us administering harsher penalties.

1. Condemns the style of argument, false assumptions and ill-defined terms of the resolution;

I suspect 'condemns' is too strong to be allowed in a repeal, but anyway, I don't see it as the primary (i.e. OC1) point of this.

2. Urges delegates to consider the differing structures of legislatures in member States when proposing future resolutions;

Very much so.

3. Repeals United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning'.

Ok. I would actually put this before the other operative clauses. I know the thought process, with this as the final act, but I think it comes across more that you are picking at style than substance - which isn't the case - with your order.

Anyway, I've always hated this one, so I'm very glad to see someone put together a reasonable repeal of it.

Can we get rid of the other stupid tree ones too?

All these repeals of stupid enviro Resolutions warms my heart. :D

Why bother? I put something similar in RRtD because I wanted to show I knew it was recent, but felt the issue hadn't been given due consideration.
I wanted an introductory sentence, but didn't want to 'commend the intentions/goals' as many previous repeals have done. (OOC: In real life I'm a bit of an environmentalist, but I know a lot of NS players are more concerned about their virtual economy than virtual plant-life.)

I don't really see this as relevant. I agree, but at the same time, there are some 'essay' resolutions that actually do a perfectly good job, for all their stylistic flaws. I only see the structure as a problem if it actually impedes the effectiveness of a resolution (e.g. Legalise Euthanasia). I'm prepared to believe that's the case here, but you haven't really shown why it's such a problem.
I didn't want to go into detail about the use of rhetorical questions, repeated phrases, excessive use of exclamation marks and emotive appeals, as I suspect most people only find a subset fo these annoying.

I agree, but I think this could be made clearer to those who haven't necessary read the original resolution. Perhaps also a suggestion as to who would be a better option?
The clause is hinting that government may be a better option, but clearly this is dependent on the nature of the state, and I don't want to sound pro-Big Government.

Regretting has two t's, I think, and arguably - although I don't think it matters - a comma after aerated. Otherwise, fine.
Fixed 'regretting'. I thought about the comma - I put it in without thinking, but reading it back I realised that it looked a bit strange being in there with that parenthetical comment preceding it.

Or without prisons.
The original resolution gives the option of community service. My complaint was that there was no non-federal, prison option.

Ok. I would actually put this before the other operative clauses. I know the thought process, with this as the final act, but I think it comes across more that you are picking at style than substance - which isn't the case - with your order.
Hmm... I guess you have a point there. Fixed.

*17 hours later*

No further objections? I'll wait until tomorrow morning (British time) before submitting it in case anyone else has comments.

OOC

I just don't see it as important to criticise the style of the resolution. "The Sex Worker Industry Act" declares that everyone has the right to be a 'prosititute'. It was a sloppy error, in the midst of a good resolution, but I'm not about to repeal it for that. Poorly-written resolutions can still accomplish something: there are several early resolutions which are pretty badly composed, but which perform a perfectly good function. Until you demonstrate that the stylistic failings of this resolution actually constrain it from effectiveness, I won't support those clauses. I will, of course, ICly still support the repeal. But I see it as needless, as detracting from the force of what should be a destruction of a bad resolution, and possibly of turning off some voters.

Poorly-written resolutions can still accomplish something
I believe a major accomplishment of poorly-written resolutions is to undermine the credibility of the UN.

But I see it as needless, as detracting from the force of what should be a destruction of a bad resolution, and possibly of turning off some voters.
I've moved the clause about the style of the resolution further down to de-emphasise it, as I accept that it doesn't bother some people as much as it bothers me.

OOC

I believe a major accomplishment of poorly-written resolutions is to undermine the credibility of the UN.

What credibility? We passed Promotion of Solar Panels and, grammatical errors aside, that was well-written enough. It was also, in someone's words (I forget who, Hack or Fris I think) the most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by the UN.

I personally think UNWODC is an excellent resolution. It undoubtedly contains emotive rhetoric. I think the Taxation Ban is one line. It does its job fine.

Not every proposal author is Powerhungry Chipmunks or Ausserland. I find Love and esterel's numbering system annoying: that's not why I oppose his proposals. Until the UN sorts its legislation out, I'm simply not concerned by this. I always favour a better written proposal over a less well written one...if they do exactly the same thing. I appreciate the time and effort L&E puts into getting his resolutions into a decent English standard: it's admirable. But, at the end of the day, the only way the UN is going to win back credibility in NS - which it undoubtedly does not have at present - is by putting together resolutions with good, constructive, realistic aims, and kicking out the filth - and I include the resolution you're targetting, both ICly and OOCly. I happen to think a resolution is more likely to be effective when it's well written, because its statement will be clearer. But there's a hell of a lot of abject crap to get rid of before we start getting fancy about Oxford comma rules.

Anyway, I'm wasting both our time: OOCly and ICly, I support your repeal, so good luck. Let me know if you want/need help campaigning.

I've submitted the proposal - link in the first post.

Can we get rid of the other stupid tree ones too?

All these repeals of stupid enviro Resolutions warms my heart. :D

The people of Cluichstan are loving it, too.

Can we get rid of the other stupid tree ones too?

All these repeals of stupid enviro Resolutions warms my heart. :D


*getting excited* There is another tree resolution left? Happy, Happy! Joy, Joy! Better get my axe out.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio "Treeslayer" Sulla

*getting excited* There is another tree resolution left? Happy, Happy! Joy, Joy! Better get my axe out.
But trees are nice. I only chose to repeal this resolution 'cause it looked easy. I like the environment really.

:cool: Well, it's convinced me.:cool:

Well, it's convinced me.
It's also convinced 46 delegates. Only 78 more needed...

I've telegrammed the delegates of the 315 largest regions (excluding those that state in the World Factbook Entry that they don't want telegrammes), so now it's just a case of waiting.

Thursday morning update: 69 approvals, 55 more required, one day to go

Friday morning update: 103 approvals, 21 required, probably going to fail to reach quorum :-(

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!
I love you all! *jumps around, lights fireworks, burns down office, gets jailed, jumps bail, joins the army- oh hang on...*

*regains composure*

This resolution seems to have had to fight against apathy - few posts in this thread, and little contact from the ~700 delegates I telegrammed. When I proposed Female Genital Mutilation I received dozens of telegrammes ranging from May your way be paved with laurel and sweet petals of rose (I love Mezzenrach) to Nazi! You're one of those education fascists.

Congrats.

Will a moderator sticky this thread automatically now, or do I have to telegramme one of them? (Last time I submitted a resolution was before resolution threads were stickied.)

I'm sure they'll sticky it soon enough. You have about a fortnight before it goes to vote, anyway.

I'm sure they'll sticky it soon enough. You have about a fortnight before it goes to vote, anyway.
Well Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions" has just been stickied, so hopefully they'll notice this one too.

How come editing the title of the first post no longer changes the thread title? Bloody Jolt...

I'm on IRC now, so I'll ask.

imagine if this and madatory recycling get repealed at the same time......

There would be still be Resolution #25, if your concern is what I think it is. Anyway, just burn all your waste. Much easier. Fuck breathable air!

There would be still be Resolution #25, if your concern is what I think it is. Anyway, just burn all your waste. Much easier. Fuck breathable air!I launch mine into SPACE!

There would be still be Resolution #25, if your concern is what I think it is. Anyway, just burn all your waste. Much easier. Fuck breathable air!
child protection act? whats that got to do with it? nah, i was more thinking kill this and mandatory recycling, and i could see the ocean becomeing the dumping ground

Err...I meant #34. Sorry. So the ocean would be safe.

I appreciate space dumping is an option for some nations, but for those without, you know, any space program, then it's a bit more of a stretch.

Err...I meant #34. Sorry. So the ocean would be safe.

I appreciate space dumping is an option for some nations, but for those without, you know, any space program, then it's a bit more of a stretch.
then again, you could mean #25. i mean, the children are the future, and if you stuff the environment, it aint exactly protecting the children, is it ;)

then again, you could mean #25. i mean, the children are the future, and if you stuff the environment, it aint exactly protecting the children, is it

Nor if we stuff our economies.

Nor if we stuff our economies.
good point

imagine if this and madatory recycling get repealed at the same time......
There would be still be Resolution #25, if your concern is what I think it is.
Sorry for sounding stupid, but what is the concern here?

Sorry for sounding stupid, but what is the concern here?

I was getting confused; it was me sounding stupid. I meant #34: he was pointing out that if recycling was no longer mandated, and a ban on water dumping repealed, then nations really would be free to start clogging the waters again. I was arguing that there is still an additional prohibition on dumping of oceanic waste.

:)

We rejoice at the possibility of yet another eco-friendly repeal. It is about time people stop dumping waste on the UN books, and start cleaning previous BS. Furthermore, the two repeals currently on the floor allow delegates to consider submitting effective legislation on resource preservation and waste disposal.

So, please think of the children, and of the forests, and of the oceans, and of the dolphins, and support this repeal.

This repeal has reached quorum. Unfortunately Safalra will be unable to join in the discussion when it comes to vote due to RL issues.

I will be trying to keep an eye on the discussion in his stead, but weekends are very difficult to get online here.

I know this repeal will pass because for economical reasons you are ready to do whatever.
But the earth has nothing to do with your economy, you kill it again and again and again (the third repeal of an ecological law !)
Continue, continue...vote "for"...Luckily there are no tsunamis or dramatical events in our game !

but, as "the soul of the earth" (Gaia), i vote AGAINST this repeal.

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

The Empire of Kirisubo has voted for this repeal so a better and more practical replacement can created.

The resolution frankly is an essay and a pipe dream and ranks up with now defunct 'mandatory recyling' act. The environment is high on our governments priorities but a better and updated resolution is required to take account off the differing styles of governments and nations.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero, Deputy Ambassador from the Empire of Kirisubo

"Observing that the concept of a 'federal prison' is alien to member States without federated government, "

Klitvilia has a federal government but has not prisons; only rehabilitation clinics, so, I'm just noting, this clause applies to me.


Also, how long do you think before you will have a replacement of some kind?
Because, though most of the origional documents are poorly worded, some kind of legislation IS needed for most of these issues

Edit: Klitvilia voted FOR the repeal

My biggest problem with #35 is that it leaves the punishing power in the hands of possibly corrupt governments, which is why I'm in favor of repealing it.

Hey, but if someone's going to write up a replacement for #35, which places its executive power in the hands of the UN, not the corrupt governments of Man, then I'd have to vote for that as well. Specifically, I refer clause 3 of #35: "Governments court system's decision [as far as punishment goes]". Gangleonia is dedicated to stamping out corruption, and it currently views this body as less corrupt than some of the individual nations.

Okay, people, let's get rid of this thing.

While I will vote for this resolution, I have to wonder how these resolutions got passed in the first place with such reasoned arguments against them.

The people of Dryroot feel somewhat stymied in our own efforts to clean up our environment, when neighbors feel perfectly free to dump pollutants into the atmosphere and waterways we share. So generally, a resolution with "clean up!" in its title would receive a favorable reading from us...

The Federal Republic is abstaining at this moment, owing to the towering specter of "replacement!!!" that overshadows this debate. Until we are assured that there will be no replacement for this international embarrassment, we cannot in good conscience vote for something that will bring such replacement about.

Good God, people!! Just because we're repealing something, it don't mean we have to replace it!!

The Federal Republic is abstaining at this moment, owing to the towering specter of "replacement!!!" that overshadows this debate. Until we are assured that there will be no replacement for this international embarrassment, we cannot in good conscience vote for something that will bring such replacement about.

Good God, people!! Just because we're repealing something, it don't mean we have to replace it!!

AMEN!!!! Preach it brother Riley!:D Can I hear another Amen?

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
*sitting in the Amen pew*

Message from Safalra (resolution author):
Hirota has kindly agreed to take my place in discussion of this resolution. I unfortunately won't be able to spend time here as I had surgery yesterday and will be unable to spend more than a few minutes a day in front of a computer for the next several weeks (to reduce the risk of infection the surgeons haven't stitched the wound, but that means it takes longer to heal - I won't go into the details, as they're pretty gruesome).

In protest at the endless repeals that do not offer a replacement for the laws they repeal I plan to vote against every repeal that is propsed, unless it offers a replacement resolution. The UN has become a farce because of these constant repeals. This is degrading to the UN. Are there any resolutions left that haven't been repealed? I encourage others who feel the same to join me in the hope that eventually no more unconstructive repeals will be passed. Thankyou.

While I will vote for this resolution, I have to wonder how these resolutions got passed in the first place with such reasoned arguments against them.Well, this is a pretty old Resolution. This was passed before the UN members got "serious" about making their Proposals; things were more laid back.

Also, just look at some of the "arguements" against this Repeal to get the rest of your answer. A great number of players will support any Proposal as long as it's under the "Environmental" category, regardless of the text of the Proposal.

I plan to vote against every repeal that is propsed, unless it offers a replacement resolution.Then you will always vote against every Repeal. Repeals cannot introduce replacement legislation.

Are there any resolutions left that haven't been repealed?Well over 100. Sorry to ruin your hyperbole with reality.

I encourage others who feel the same to join me in the hope that eventually no more unconstructive repeals will be passed. Thankyou.Cleaning out the flotsam from the UN is not "unconstructive". The UN is finally removing all the dogshit that's been sitting on the books. This is a good thing.

Glorious Hack is 100% correct. Joe Bobs is not being very considerate of the FACTS. Like (aside from the fact that new legislation can't even be proposed in repeals), he seems to be of the oppinion that we should let EVERY poorly written, considered (by voters and writers), but mildly good intending piece of dribble stay...Anyway, I'm happy for the repeals. I DO however concur that NEW Resolutions Must be made. There are some areas these repeals are helping to clean out, but the task must be completed.

I was a little too severe in my initial post, and I am aware of the hyperbolic nature of my statement, which was purely a rhetorical device.

I am not against repeals, I agree that poor resolutions need to be repealed. However, I would like to see the occasional resolution be passed. In the last few weeks I can only remember one resolution that wasn't a repeal. Maybe there were more and I missed them.

Also, I think that the repeals can be too pedantic. It will put people off proposing new resolutions if they are caught out on any little linguistic slip they make and have to define every term they use. I also think the use of "APPALLED" to begin a statement is just snobbish and is an attempt to ridicule the writer of the original proposal, but that's just a side point.

I wasn't aware that new proposals couldn't be made in appeals and I apologise for that. I suppose that means I must turn my back on my original idea, but I urge proposers to propose something new, and for repealers to be more lenient and less pedantic.

... but I urge proposers to propose something new, ...Why don't you propose something new?

I got the impression there was a circle of people that generally proposed stuff. Maybe I will propose something then. Although I'm sure I've made myself nicely unpopular now and will get shot down! If I do propose something, I'm going to work my ass off on it until there isn't a single leak in it. :)

I think I'll pick a repealed resolution and rework it. I'll begin work on it next week. You have not seen the last of Joe Bobs! :P

I got the impression there was a circle of people that generally proposed stuff. Maybe I will propose something then. Although I'm sure I've made myself nicely unpopular now and will get shot down! If I do propose something, I'm going to work my ass off on it until there isn't a single leak in it.

I think I'll pick a repealed resolution and rework it. I'll begin work on it next week. You have not seen the last of Joe Bobs!
Can I suggest you post a draft on the forums? We may be mean and nasty in debates, but we do try to keep that in that debate. I disagree with you now, but that doesn't mean I - and others - wouldn't be willing to help you with any proposal you brought to the forum.

Thankyou Gruenberg. I didn't come to make enemies, I thought others would be rqually frustrated with these endless repeals. I have apologised for my original errors and it was a sincere apology. I look forward to working in the UN and I will post drafts here first.

I also apologise for the radicalism of my original post and I can only justify it by saying that I have never posted in the UN forums before so was inexperienced and I was attempting to use rhetoric to gain support. Obviously that failed.

You can expect proposals from me in future, and I continue to oppose repeals I consider superfluous and also to repeals that attempt to humiliate the proposer of the original resolution, which I believe some do. I shall leave it there.

(Smedley is back in the buttonless highly decorated unitard, but doesn't seem to have an honor guard just now. His progress to the podium is filled with many nervous starts, and he scans the audience with deep paranoia as he speaks)

The Duke provides all charity and disagrees with anyone who would start any local ones. All companies who gather the raw materials for our lucrative liquor export market are already regulated by him.

GGGG will be voting for this repeal.

(Smedley does a quick spin, and then takes off into the Assembly like a flushed quail)

I'm am new to this whole thing... so how does one go about proposing a new law??? I'm sure it is mentioned in the forum somewhere but I figured that this would be a good place to ask since Joe Bobs has already brought up the topic. Thanks to anyone who replies with and answer :)

I'm am new to this whole thing... so how does one go about proposing a new law??? I'm sure it is mentioned in the forum somewhere but I figured that this would be a good place to ask since Joe Bobs has already brought up the topic. Thanks to anyone who replies with and answer :)
You have to:
1. Be in the UN (remember to only have one UN country).
2. Get two endorsements. In your case, you need to get other people into your region, or move to a region with more people, briefly.
3. When your proposal is ready, go to the UN page, and click on the 'Submit new proposal' link (http://www.nationstates.net/30185/page=UN_new_proposal).

Additionally:
1. You should read the Passed Resolutions (http://www.nationstates.net/30185/page=UN_new_proposal), to see what's been done.
2. You should read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).
3. This guide (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681196&postcount=3), though long, may be useful.
4. You should post a draft in this forum, before you submit, so we can help you.

Hope this helps. :)

Its beyond me how many poorly written resolutions have been passed just because they are eco-friendly resolutions.

At least now something is being done to clean up the UN.

I am concerned that this proposal doesn't offer any alternatives to #35. The repeal would allow the disposal of waste without the consideration of environmental effects.

This proposal seems to exist only to denounce the old resolution, meanwhile suggesting no alternatives to how the waste SHOULD be removed. Why not insist that industry cleans up their own stinking messes, for example?

I agree that Resolution #35 could use some more teeth and be more specific, but at this time I feel it is unneccesary to repeal it totally and have no legislation on the subject. Safalra's time would have been better spent proposing alternatives instead of complaining.

NAY vote from the Commonwealth of North Tacoma

BTW, I noticed that Safalra's gov't is in anarchy, so I'm guessing he would just as soon have NO legislation on toxic dumping.

I am concerned that this proposal doesn't offer any alternatives to #35. The repeal would allow the disposal of waste without the consideration of environmental effects.

This proposal seems to exist only to denounce the old resolution, meanwhile suggesting no alternatives to how the waste SHOULD be removed. Why not insist that industry cleans up their own stinking messes, for example?

I agree that Resolution #35 could use some more teeth and be more specific, but at this time I feel it is unneccesary to repeal it totally and have no legislation on the subject. Safalra's time would have been better spent proposing alternatives instead of complaining.

NAY vote from the Commonwealth of North Tacoma

BTW, I noticed that Safalra's gov't is in anarchy, so I'm guessing he would just as soon have NO legislation on toxic dumping.


Ironic that you mentioned that phrase.

If some nations would take a good look around themselves, they would realise that every SINGLE nation that opposes the repeal of these resolutions all have several things in common, albeit with the exception of a few.

1) They all say having a bad resolution is better than not having one.
2) They demand replacements before support a repeal.
3) Their usual argument usually composes of passionate pleas/reprimands/insults, the occasional "You destroying the world", all very touching yet utterly lacking in constructive suggestions.
4) They are ultimately defeated by a majority vote.

YET

1) Hardly any of them actually start drafting replacements
2) They state that OTHERS are wasting their time by being destructive and not constructive.
3) We have yet to see a single environmental resolution reach quorom for quite a while now.


Answer me this: Who is wasting whose time?

Even if this repeal has a few typos it will only be repealing a previous poorly written bill with no research put into it. These poorly thought out bills always pass the UN if they sound one bit "treehuggish", why is that? Can the potential harm and economic ruin of less developed nations that are being forced to do things they do not have the knowledge or money to do not be seen? It's easy to talk about a utopia, alot harder to make one.

The Community of Kitsune Clans if in belief that this resolution is correct in its guidelines but our nation believes that it should be followed by a resolution that corrects the problems of the original resolution into a more binding and effective concept. The Community of Kitsune Clans is in crisis... Our nation has become polluted and poisoned since the repeal of 'Save the forests of the World'.

We believe that many resolutions that are repealed should be revised if they overlap other resolutions in order to create better continuity in such matters. In order to allow for a better future the environment must be also protected as well as the people of member nations. It is our view that Resolutions should be reexamined for possible revisions and corrections before being repealed and these fixes to the original resolution be quickly implimented.

The Community of Kitsune Clans is in crisis... Our nation has become polluted and poisoned since the repeal of 'Save the forests of the World'.
Well that really is rather strange, since 'Save the forests of the World' didn't actually do anything. Are you sure that's what's causing it?

To all nations who reject this repeal simply because a replacement has not been determined - why don't you write your own? I'm pretty sure if enough intelligent people got together, they could write a proposal which was strong and effective.

I don't know if the Green Think Tank has any thoughts on this, for example, and they are a pretty intelligent bunch.

To all nations who reject this repeal simply because a replacement has not been determined - why don't you write your own? I'm pretty sure if enough intelligent people got together, they could write a proposal which was strong and effective.
I would be interested in writing a replacement, for one, and I have raised the issue at the GTT. I'd be willing to work with anyone who had a good idea about how to approach this issue.

Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations! It gives me immense pleasure to announce that for the first time in its history, the Federal Republic will oppose a repeal at vote! [The assembly breaks out in spontaneous cheering and applause.] ... Thank you. Wow, I am so overwhelmed! This is just such an auspicious moment for our humble nation, and we alone cannot take credit for it! So many people contributed to our opposition: The fluffies, who refused to support this because it doesn't offer any replacement laws; the other fluffies, who insisted upon replacing this legislation; the Green Think Tank, and specifically Sheknu, for agreeing to take up the replacement project; the resolution author, for being absent from this debate, for refusing to offer any justification for repealing this article (save the fact that it is poorly written), and for refusing to start a single post without noting that he authored "the most successful resolution of all time"; the increasing likelihood that legislation with actual teeth on this matter will be adopted by this body; Amb. Bausch, for being so delightfully insane and right-minded on all matters that come before this body; Sen. Sulla, for his friendship and steadfast support for the Federal Republic's policies; the Thessadorian ambassador, for always wearing those tiny little T-shirts and tight sweaters to give us lonely diplomats some eye candy; and, of course, our charismatic and plain-spoken president, who ...

[President Fernanda, seated behind him -- his eyes glassed over, bloodhsot and dilated -- is munching from a small bag of Fine Yeldan Doritos™, having been glaring at his UN representative with zombie-like bemusement during his entire speech, giggling inexplicably throughout.]

... who if he weren't in his present "herbalized" state would tell you all what he said so eloquently the other day, that "the whole fucking UN is a waste of time!" And while we don't agree entirely, as some UN business is very worthwhile (here I would point to Cluichstan's excellent anti-terrorism accord (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-terrorism)), a lot of items that come before this body are a waste of time, and this repeal is one of them.

So thank you all, good night, and remember, children: resolutions are not toys! If you run with them you can put an eye out! They should only be submitted with the utmost care, thought and proper deliberation, and only after numerous suggestions and alternatives from fellow members have been considered; and members should undertake to repeal them only if they must, or if a particular resolution is supremely awful -- not just because they'd like a crack at rewriting it. From here on out, members sponsoring a repeal with that intention will do so at their risk, for they may well find themselves on the receiving end of a "musical" assault by Ashlee Simpson, courtesy of the Federal Republic.

:p

Omigodtheykilledkenny might want to read a post I've just answered to him on another thread. I contrarily support a full repeal because there is no replacemet. One step closer.

1) Hardly any of them actually start drafting replacements
2) They state that OTHERS are wasting their time by being destructive and not constructive.
3) We have yet to see a single environmental resolution reach quorom for quite a while now.


Answer me this: Who is wasting whose time?

Sorry, but I don't see anything constructive about your argument, either.

You're saying that you condone the lack of waste removal legislation. You don't mind that given the chance, your big companies would probably dump their garbage in your backyard if it saved them a few pennies. The resolution that already exists is protecting you from that. It's ironic that the someone else is looking out for your own health.

There are plenty of ways we could improve the language of this resolution instead of abolishing it altogether. Require the nations to insist its companies are eco-friendly, set emission-control standards, etc. These sorts of things have been suggested before, don't pretend they don't exist.

Protect the resolution, and protect yourself. Vote NAY.

There are plenty of ways we could improve the language of this resolution instead of abolishing it altogether. Require the nations to insist its companies are eco-friendly, set emission-control standards, etc. These sorts of things have been suggested before, don't pretend they don't exist.
Unfortunately, they're all illegal amendments. Would you be interested in working on a replacement, though?

Unfortunately, they're all illegal amendments. Would you be interested in working on a replacement, though?

Absolutely.

I respect your view that the existing resolution is weak, but why remove it altogether? #35 is a step in the right direction; why must we go back to square one?

I'm not going to pretend that I know all the ins and outs of UN constitutionality, but I think other progressive nations would agree that it's a mistake to abandon ideology. Here's some points I'm most concerned with:

1) the requirement of waste disposal

2) who is responsible for carrying out the disposal

3) who is paying for the disposal

The reason I oppose this new resolution is because it fails to answer any of these questions. I would be happy to help draft a replacement for #35 with anyone with more experience in drafting proposals.

Ok. However, #35 does have some genuine problems:

1. Definitions

We need to define 'waste', and what can be dumped (biodegradable material, perhaps?) and what can't (unused mercury, which isn't necessarily 'waste').

2. Process

Filtration is not enough. Chemical analysis is also required to ensure removal of soluble toxins.

3. Implementation

We shouldn't worry about being so specific with how businesses are fined. We need to concentrate on several issues:
1. The international aspect (so dumping from one country flowing into another).
2. The effect on other ecosystems (such as pollution of soil).
3. Monitoring and inspecting companies.
4. Providing realistic alternatives.

1. Definitions
Biohazards would be a good place to start in the waste catagory. The important thing here also is the containment of substances that are a threat to life. If a company were to ask, "Is dumping our mercury in a landfill good
enough?" We need to be able to say no, and define the proper methods.

2. Processes
3. Implementation
I agree with these points. I think we ought to make the penalties fit the companies they are levied against, course. Having a flat penalty sum apply to everyone would be a mistake, and of course take into account the severity of the infraction.

Also, it's important to realize that companies aren't the only entities that create waste. Your regular Joe-Six Packs create a ton of waste on their own. We need to take into account that some nations may lack legislation on illegal dumping on the part of private citizens. In that regard, I think #35 had the right idea with allowing community cleanup organizations to formed.

I had the assumption you were only interested in deregulating waste disposal in the interest of private companies. I'm happy that's not the case :)

I respect your view that the existing resolution is weak, but why remove it altogether? #35 is a step in the right direction; why must we go back to square one? Because that's the way the UN works. You can't contradict, duplicate or overlap existing UN legislation. It's in the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). Please read them.

I'm not going to pretend that I know all the ins and outs of UN constitutionality, but I think other progressive nations would agree that it's a mistake to abandon ideology.I ain't gonna cry one tear if you refuse to support this repeal. We oppose it too, because it will allow the UN to replace it. And we are sick and tired of repeal/replace.

The reason I oppose this new resolution is because it fails to answer any of these questions. As well it shouldn't. Repeals repeal. They cannot do anything else. And you cannot introduce new legislation without repealing the old. But seriously, if you do introduce new legislation, I'm so gonna invade somebody! :mad:

Biohazards would be a good place to start in the waste catagory. The important thing here also is the containment of substances that are a threat to life. If a company were to ask, "Is dumping our mercury in a landfill good
enough?" We need to be able to say no, and define the proper methods.
I quite agree. One of the things I think we should concentrate on is the movement of hazardous wastes. Ultimately, countries might choose to foul up their own lakes and, whilst I think we should try to stop them, we really can't do it all. What we can do is our most to prevent that countries' shit from flowing into a clean country.

I agree with these points. I think we ought to make the penalties fit the companies they are levied against, course. Having a flat penalty sum apply to everyone would be a mistake, and of course take into account the severity of the infraction.
I'm not convinced we should we levying sentences at all. It's not something we could really appropriately devise. It might be better to give this responsibility to some sort of arbritration committee.

Also, it's important to realize that companies aren't the only entities that create waste. Your regular Joe-Six Packs create a ton of waste on their own. We need to take into account that some nations may lack legislation on illegal dumping on the part of private citizens. In that regard, I think #35 had the right idea with allowing community cleanup organizations to formed.
Public waste is an important issue too, I quite agree. However, I'm not sure community cleanup organizations are the answer - although we should be supporting them in general. However, such bodies may not really be that effective in many cases, so we shouldn't let the existence of such organizations override the need for national and international action.


Incidentally, we're discussing replacement here too: http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?showtopic=63

Omigodtheykilledkenny,

I argued with the repeal of the resolution because I was under the impression that Sheknu had no intention of replacing it. When you see a guy whose nation is in anarchy, you get the idea that he'd be just as happy with no regulation, ok? If you want to support resolutions without taking into account the author's true intentions, I have a Patriot Act to sell you. :D Now that I've talked to Sheknu myself and seen that's not the case, I feel confident in supporting his resolution.

if you do introduce new legislation, I'm so gonna invade somebody!

I'll take on your biker gangs any day! Beatles to battle! :p :)

Um...sorry, I think you're getting confused. This is Safalra's repeal. I'm just someone bumming along for the ride. I don't think Safalra does plan to replace it; given that, I'd like to.

Shenku:

Arrgh, details, details. :rolleyes: Thanks for that. In that case, let's make sure to replace it.

In respect to penalties and sentances, I think it's important to set these so the seriousness of the legislation would be clear. Somehow, the punishment of a "hearing with the arbitration committee", doesn't seem to have the teeth that the threat of serious financial consequences does. However I do respect the need for some sort of due process, but do we really want do give a seperate committee the power to levy such punishments?

Community organizations should be a part of environmental cleanup, but I never intended to mean that they should be the ONLY part. No matter how much I dislike my neighbor, I wouldn't wish biohazard cleanup on him! ;) I was merely arguing to require nations to allow the existance of such organizations to clean up the smaller jobs.

In respect to penalties and sentances, I think it's important to set these so the seriousness of the legislation would be clear. Somehow, the punishment of a "hearing with the arbitration committee", doesn't seem to have the teeth that the threat of serious financial consequences does. However I do respect the need for some sort of due process, but do we really want do give a seperate committee the power to levy such punishments?
No, I'm not saying the hearing is the punishment: I'm saying we need to find a compromise between legal due process, and between the fact we can't really lay down fines in the resolution. It makes more sense to empower the committee to be able to hand down fines, for example.

Community organizations should be a part of environmental cleanup, but I never intended to mean that they should be the ONLY part. No matter how much I dislike my neighbor, I wouldn't wish biohazard cleanup on him! ;) I was merely arguing to require nations to allow the existance of such organizations to clean up the smaller jobs.
Agreed. Even then, I have some reservations. The worst thing in the world is the overenthusiastic, undertrained volunteer, whose intentions are noble, and is thus blind to the damage their actions are causing. So we need to require nations to allow such organizations to exist, but at the same time to be able to check or subsume their activities as part of structured responses.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/STS_501E2.JPG

By Order Of His High Goat-Ordained Holiness The Sultan Of Gruenberg:
Baaaaaaaaaaaa

Friends, associates, fluffies. We come before you to issue a statement of resounding support for the words of Ambassador Riley of the Federal Republic as we join with them in, for the first time in our voting history (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Gruenberger_UN_policy#Voting_Record) as UN members, opposing a repeal. We would further like to add that we feel this is a shit resolution, and are glad to see the repeal will pass. This allows us to do what we do best: pointless grandstanding that accomplishes nothing, but which makes us feel good about ourselves.

The Gruenberger UN Office has collaborated in the authorship of four repeals, each containing sentiments establishing a trend which, in the wake of the Universal Library Coalition and the UN Biological Weapons Ban, was already acknowledged as an ingredient of the New UN: repeal-replace. We have as yet not backed any replacement for those four resolutions, although we do admit to be considering such. However, we also recognise that there is a time and a place for such, and that time and place is not every single repeal in existence. Some resolutions need to die, and stay dead. We will stand against this growing wave of what can only be termed Legislative Necrophilia.

Further, we wish to express our disappointment that the author of this particular repeal did not heed our comments as to the impropiety of attacking mere stylistic considerations. We in Gruenberg care about what a law does, not how it sounds. We will always support poorly-written proposals with curled edges and coffee-stains over the annexes SO LONG AS THEY HAVE A WORTHY EFFECT. That - and the fact that the law preserves the interests of Gruenberg - is the only consideration in our support for a repeal. Some legislators doubtless have more succinct styles, more eloquent phraseology, more direct terms of speech; we care not. We only care about what laws do.

Thirdly, we have to be seen to vote against a repeal occasionally, and as we campaigned for the next two in queue, and do not anticipate immediate successors to them, this may well be our last opportunity for some time. We urge all fellow nay-saying virgins to test the water this time. There's a chance they might then drown and not vote against the next two.

Finally, "Ban FGM" was passed like a year ago. Give it a rest, already.

Anyone else notice how just about every proposed resolution gets passed?

And then we bring up new resolutions that repeal them?

I guess thats just the way it is with the fickle masses.....

Anyone else notice how just about every proposed resolution gets passed?

And then we bring up new resolutions that repeal them?

I guess thats just the way it is with the fickle masses.....
Not really. Over 20 resolutions have failed. Over 100 have not been repealed.

I guess that's just the way it is with people who don't check their facts.

Anyone else notice how just about every proposed resolution gets passed?Except for the dozens that go down in flames.

And then we bring up new resolutions that repeal them?Except for the dozens that nobody wants to repeal.

Can I suggest you post a draft on the forums? We may be mean and nasty in debates, but we do try to keep that in that debate. I disagree with you now, but that doesn't mean I - and others - wouldn't be willing to help you with any proposal you brought to the forum.

Speak for yourself. ;)

Further, we wish to express our disappointment that the author of this particular repeal did not heed our comments as to the impropiety of attacking mere stylistic considerations. We in Gruenberg care about what a law does, not how it sounds. We will always support poorly-written proposals with curled edges and coffee-stains over the annexes SO LONG AS THEY HAVE A WORTHY EFFECT. That - and the fact that the law preserves the interests of Gruenberg - is the only consideration in our support for a repeal. Some legislators doubtless have more succinct styles, more eloquent phraseology, more direct terms of speech; we care not. We only care about what laws do.
Then surely you should ignore every word of the repeal's text and vote based on what it does (repeals the original resolution). Or do I misunderstand you?

Then surely you should ignore every word of the repeal's text and vote based on what it does (repeals the original resolution). Or do I misunderstand you?
Repeals become binding, in a way resolutions do not, and although we have traditionally favoured repeals of resolutions we dislike, we will never vote for a repeal whose arguments we consider to be false. Your exhortation for us to ignore your arguments and simply vote for an effect are dishonest: your 'condemnation of style' is clearly intended to have an effect. We will never engage in disingenuous voting practices, merely to satisfy the whims of legislators, but will instead vote on what we think is right.

Well that really is rather strange, since 'Save the forests of the World' didn't actually do anything. Are you sure that's what's causing it?

The day after that resolution was passed our nation went from being known for lush forests to having barren lands overnight. That seems to imply a cause and effect relationship.

The day after that resolution was passed our nation went from being known for lush forests to having barren lands overnight. That seems to imply a cause and effect relationship.
There is a difference between the mechanical, gameplay effects of a resolution, and the roleplayed, text effects of a resolution.

What the hell are you talking about? We can't just chop down trees like that! We should try and look after our enviroment!

THE PRIME MINISTER OF BAROVONIA

What the hell are you talking about? We can't just chop down trees like that! We should try and look after our enviroment!
This isn't about trees...

YEah this isnt about trees, but the bigger picture when it comes to the envioment. We have to have at least some rules or regulations out there moderating whats whats. And on a second thought, whats the point of having this UN if all that we are going to do is veto and undo what the past has done; arnt there more important matters at hand?

YEah this isnt about trees, but the bigger picture when it comes to the envioment. We have to have at least some rules or regulations out there moderating whats whats. And on a second thought, whats the point of having this UN if all that we are going to do is veto and undo what the past has done; arnt there more important matters at hand?
Well...are there? The UN is democratic. Anyone can submit a proposal. What's yours about?

Well...are there? The UN is democratic. Anyone can submit a proposal. What's yours about?

Not entirely true. You need to have two endorsements to submit a proposal. ;)

So many people contributed to our opposition: [snip] the resolution author, for being absent from this debate,
When I submitted it I wasn't planning on having emergency surgery.

for refusing to offer any justification for repealing this article (save the fact that it is poorly written),
I mentioned at least three jusitifications in the repeal itself: the fact that it's totally ineffective, as it still allows the dumping of soluble pollutants, that it overrides the ability of state judiciaries to determine sentencing, that it calls for the creation of vast numbers of local charities to do the same thing as each other.

and for refusing to start a single post without noting that he authored "the most successful resolution of all time";
Ah, I love it when my opponents resist the temptation of insinuation an instead outright lie. I mentioned my resolution in the first post as part of my (re-)introduction (to show I'm not some newbie). Of course your comment above implies that you stopped reading at that point as you make the patently false claim that I refuse to offer justification.

Even if this repeal has a few typos
Where?

I mentioned at least three jusitifications in the repeal itself: the fact that it's totally ineffective, as it still allows the dumping of soluble pollutants, that it overrides the ability of state judiciaries to determine sentencing, that it calls for the creation of vast numbers of local charities to do the same thing as each other.We must have been remembering posts you lodged in this article's defense during the draft and submission stages, and not the repeal text itself.

Ah, I love it when my opponents resist the temptation of insinuation an instead outright lie.Oh, is that why the accomplishment is listed in your sig? :rolleyes:

And no, you cannot suffer us to read everything on this topic, as the subject matter interests us very little.

Archibaldaria will be voting against as we wish to dump where we like.

Archibaldaria will be voting against as we wish to dump where we like.Yet another newbish dumbass who doesn't know what "repeal" means ... :rolleyes:

HaHa ... ,I vote " for " ..

Yet another newbish dumbass who doesn't know what "repeal" means ... :rolleyes:


Against the existing resolution, number 35, stupid! And you know what voting against that means....?

thank goodness prohibition has been repealed or we would all be drinking alcahol in america... :rolleyes:

Yet another newbish dumbass who doesn't know what "repeal" means ... :rolleyes:

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/supern00b[1].jpg

The resolution Repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning" was passed 9,102 votes to 3,359.

Congrats, Safalra!

Oh, is that why the accomplishment is listed in your sig? :rolleyes:
You seem to be confusing the terms start (which you used earlier, accusing me of refusing to start a single post without noting that he authored "the most successful resolution of all time") and end (which is where the signature occurs). Not exactly reassuring qualities of a UN delegate. :-)

And no, you cannot suffer us to read everything on this topic, as the subject matter interests us very little.
Then why bother writing long posts on why you voted against if you're so apathetic about the subject?

You seem to be confusing the terms start (which you used earlier, accusing me of refusing to start a single post without noting that he authored "the most successful resolution of all time") and end (which is where the signature occurs). Not exactly reassuring qualities of a UN delegate.
Ok but, seriously, it is getting a little old. Well done and all - fantastic achievement - but, still.

Then why bother writing long posts on why you voted against if you're so apathetic about the subject?
Fun?

Anyway, congrats on it passing.

Ok but, seriously, it is getting a little old.
I'll edit my signature once Jolt has stopped trashing people's profiles when they try...

Anyway, congrats on it passing.
Thanks very much. I'll probably disappear from the UN forum for another six seasons now...

Edit: I've updated the Resolution Safety page with the last six resolutions: http://www.safalra.com/special/nationstates/safety/