Repeal "Scientific Freedom"
Pulcifer
12-01-2006, 03:59
Dear emminent members of the U.N.
I have just submitted a proposal to the U.N. that we repeal Resolution #2, on the grounds that it is badly written and far to vague for the U.N. (among other reasons). I would ask that you all check it out and tell me what you think. I am always open to criticism.
The Most Glorious Hack
12-01-2006, 04:02
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/mossproposal8ky.jpg
Gruenberg
12-01-2006, 04:09
Translation: it's considered polite to post the text of your repeal. If you want delegates to make the effort of approving it, you can at least provide them with the means to do so.
Repeal "Scientific Freedom"
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #2
Proposed by: Pulcifer
Description: UN Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: Whereby:
REALIZING that the goal of "Scientific Freedom" is a worthy endeavour,
UNDERSTANDING the goodwill behind the resolution #2,
ACKKNOWLEDGING the (relatively) large number of votes for the resolution at the time and
ADMITTING that the resolution hails from a time period less established in tradition than the current U.N.
NOTES, however, that the afore mentions resolution is
FIRSTLY vague and provides no methods for achieving its goal of total Scientific Freedom,
SECONDLY is not written in a formal style that befits the dignity of a U.N. resolution
THIRDLY is in direct violation of U.N. regulations by both advertising the nation that proposed the resolution as well as displaying the name and titles of the ruler of the Nation, both practices now being frowned upon,
FOUTH AND FINALLY, the resolution also states irrelevant information concerning the original date of submission.
THEREFORE, we do hereby request the repeal of Resolution #2 Scientific Freedom.
Approvals: 1 (Pulcifer)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 122 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Sun Jan 15 2006
Gruenberg
12-01-2006, 04:17
As a good rule of thumb, if you're going to criticise the 'formal style' of a resolution, you should spell your own repeal correctly. It doesn't really matter, but it looks a bit odd to repeal something on the grounds of poor construction, when there are some errors in yours. This is why I'd advise posting a draft on these forums before submission, so's we can help you with that.
Secondly, your repeal doesn't have any arguments in it. Style can go fuck itself: there are some beautifully written resolutions that are crap. There are some poorly-worded ones which do an excellent job. I think it's better to actually look at the substance of the resolution. Scientific Freedom has no definitions, such that it is very unclear who the burden is on. If it's the home state, then they effectively have licence to send terrorists around the world. If it's the host state, then they can ban anything, and the resolution is useless. There are some severe problems, as I see it, with this resolution, but I don't think the way it's written is one: it is what is written that counts. So, even though I favour a repeal, I could not support this one.
Mad Poodle Eating Dave
12-01-2006, 04:29
I like it myself, I think others need to understand that coming and badmouthing everything about a resolution is in really bad taste.
I like it myself, I think others need to understand that coming and badmouthing everything about a resolution is in really bad taste.
On the contrary, if a proposal deserves to be badmouthed, let it be badmouthed! Criticism lies at the center of any good drafting debate, and without it we'd get more stupid proposals.
Ceorana does not support the repeal, but if a suitable replacement was drawn up, we might consider it.
Pulcifer
12-01-2006, 18:19
Alright, I'll rewrite it. Any suggestions to improve my resolution?
Alright, I'll rewrite it. Any suggestions to improve my resolution?
FIRSTLY vague and provides no methods for achieving its goal of total Scientific Freedom,
Elaborate this a bit more. Are there loopholes? Just no methods?
SECONDLY is not written in a formal style that befits the dignity of a U.N. resolution
I would leave this out.
THIRDLY is in direct violation of U.N. regulations by both advertising the nation that proposed the resolution as well as displaying the name and titles of the ruler of the Nation, both practices now being frowned upon,
This is metagaming. It makes the repeal illegal. It is legal by it's passage. Focus your argument on other things.
FOUTH AND FINALLY, the resolution also states irrelevant information concerning the original date of submission.
See #2. Maybe you could have one short style clause.