NationStates Jolt Archive

It is time to get some serious legislation out there to replace Mandatory Recycling and Stop dumping - Start cleaning.

NEW AND IMPROVED!!! ~ Approval link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant) ~ NEW AND IMPROVED!!!

Waste Disposal Covenant

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Fonzoland

Description:

APPALLED at the environmental and public health risks posed by irresponsible waste disposal,

COMMENDING all efforts to minimise these risks by recycling or responsible waste disposal, yet

NOTING that the economic viability of recycling is driven by demand, technology, and other national circumstances,

REGRETTING that some nations do not possess the technology or resources necessary for responsible waste disposal,

DEEPLY AWARE of the multitude of personal and industrial waste products with different chemical characteristics, and of the variety of waste disposal techniques, most of which are only suitable for specific types of waste,

CONSCIOUS that legislation detailing specific technologies or processes is likely to be made obsolete by scientific progress,

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'waste' as unwanted materials of little or no value that are generated by human activities,
- 'impact' as the negative aesthetic, public health, and environmental consequences of a certain practice,
- 'waste disposal' as the collection, transport, processing, storage, disposal, and destruction of waste with the purpose of minimising its impact,

The UN:

1. ADVISES member nations that the use of recyclable or biodegradable materials in industrial production can greatly reduce the cost and impact of waste disposal;

2. ENCOURAGES member nations to create public organisations, or to stimulate the creation of private organisations, capable of performing responsible waste disposal;

3. CREATES the UN Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), mandated to:
a) Establish, publish, and regularly update:
- a description of available waste disposal techniques (WDT), outlining their impact when applied to different waste categories,
- a list of recommended WDT for each category, taking into account technological and economic constraints, and their maximum permissible impact,
- a list of 'hazardous waste' categories, which pose serious health or environmental risks, or for which no satisfactory WDT exist,
- a list of banned WDT, deemed to pose unacceptably high risks of direct impact on other nations;
b) Officially certify the WDT of entities that request it, provided they meet said recommendations;
c) Perform regular and surprise inspections of certified entities to ensure said recommendations are strictly followed;
d) Research improved WDT with reduced impact or costs;
e) Advise upon request on the best WDT for each waste category;

4. REQUESTS that member nations contribute personnel, technology, knowledge, and funding to the WDA;

5. ENCOURAGES the use of recommended WDT;

6. INSTRUCTS member nations to:
a) Prevent the use of banned WDT;
b) Impose economic and compensatory damages on any entity in their jurisdiction whose waste disposal practices are deemed to have a direct impact on other member nations, and promptly transfer collected damages to affected nations;
c) Impose, at their discretion, punitive damages or criminal charges on entities guilty of such misconduct;

7. URGES member nations to provide similar compensation to non-member nations and national entities;

8. PROHIBITS:
a) International transfer of hazardous waste without the official consent of receiving nations;
b) International transfer of waste by non-certified entities;
c) Protectionist devices, such as tariffs, duties, or quotas, on the provision of waste disposal services by certified entities.

Any comments?

EDIT LOG:
Added pretty title and category
Wording (thanks to Ceorana)
Tentative title
Big n' flashy approval link

Yet another fine proposal brought to you by the folks at the Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank). And this time, it is not a repeal! If you like frolicking in your lush forests, make a difference: Join today!

Yet another fine proposal brought to you by the folks at the Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank). And this time, it is not a repeal! If you like frolicking in your lush forests, make a difference: Join today!

Do you fine folks hold discussions on biodiesel and ethanol fuels?

Do you fine folks hold discussions on biodiesel and ethanol fuels?
We haven't had reason to do so yet, but we are willing to discuss such topics (when I've done a little more research - I know a bit about hydrogen and ethanol, but less so about biofuels).

We fine folks would welcome a discussion on biodiesel and ethanol fuels. In fact, I am sure a title of Resident Discussant of Biodiesel and Ethanol Fuels could be arranged for you. ;)

Seriously, we debate anything environmental, we are non-fluffy, and we like replacing stupid essays with reasonable law. The "agenda" is determined solely by the drafting efforts/intentions of members.

At first glance, this looks acceptable -- and even praiseworthy -- to the government of St Edmund.


(OOC: I joined the Green Think Tank, but just haven't found the time in which to visit it yet...)

You got my thumbs up. (but not an endorcement as i am no longer a UN Deligate)

It seems that we now have a reason to incinerate Hack. Interesting... :p

A fine proposal that Wyldtree would be happy to lend it's support to. A replacement resolution concerning waste is needed and I commend Fonzoland and the Green Think Tank on their good work here. As worldwide environmental concerns are a central reason why Wyldtree came to the UN, I will be looking further into The Green Think Tank and perhaps throwing our hat in as well.

Thanks for the support.

OK, let me get this out of the way. Obviously, I think there are no legality problems with this resolution. Still, it would be great if regulars and mods could comment on the following:

7. URGES member nations to provide similar compensation to non-member nations and national entities;

Is there any chance mentioning non-members could be called on metagaming? (It is only urging actions on member nations.)

8. PROHIBITS:
c) protectionist devices, such as tariffs, duties, or quotas, on the provision of waste disposal services by certified entities.

Is there any chance mentioning protectionism devices could be called on category violation? (It is a minor part of the resolution, and it also has a clear environmental effect.)

Thanks for the support.

OK, let me get this out of the way. Obviously, I think there are no legality problems with this resolution. Still, it would be great if regulars and mods could comment on the following:



Is there any chance mentioning non-members could be called on metagaming? (It is only urging actions on member nations.)



Is there any chance mentioning protectionism devices could be called on category violation? (It is a minor part of the resolution, and it also has a clear environmental effect.)

We don't think there are any legality problems with the proposal. It places no requirements or restrictions on non-member nations. Also, many proposals and resolutions contain specific provisions that, standing alone, would fit more properly into categories other than the one appropriate for the proposal as a whole. This is clearly an environmental proposal and belongs in that category.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We consider this a fine proposal and one which we will certainly support. We have two concerns. We'll address only one of them at this point, since the response to it may invalidate the other.

We believe the term entity needs to be either defined or replaced. We found it rather confusing to try to figure out just what the proposal meant by the term.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We meant the concept of legal entity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_entity) (the term "legal person" is also used, but much more confusing). Defining it would probably bring the proposal above the character limit, do you have any suggestion for a replacement?

Do you fine folks hold discussions on biodiesel and ethanol fuels?

OOC: I tend to find my time limited, so I stick to water resources. However, the Green Think Tank is very worthwhile. I've also been working on coordinating regional ecological articles for NSWiki, and I tend to keep the Green Think Tank appraised, as it is designed to be a place to have general NS related environmental discussions.

I think it would be nice if environmental proposal authors would feel the group useful enough to post their draft proposals too, but for this to be true, the group needs more participation (myself included). :)

*26h bump*

Does this really matter? Waste is the individual countries concern, not that of the masses! Much industry comes at the expense of "enviroment," but this industry is neccesary to support the global markets. Some nations will turn into Ego-Utopias, others into Rich, Dirty, industrial powerhouses. Let the wise pick sides; but lets not bring these two inreconciable groups to a disasterous conclusion.

However, Dougotopolis would be willing to support an ammendment limiting Nuclear Waste, as it does have global ramifications, and perhaps creating a global Nuclear Waste disposal comitte.

Does this really matter? Waste is the individual countries concern, not that of the masses! Much industry comes at the expense of "enviroment," but this industry is neccesary to support the global markets. Some nations will turn into Ego-Utopias, others into Rich, Dirty, industrial powerhouses. Let the wise pick sides; but lets not bring these two inreconciable groups to a disasterous conclusion.

However, Dougotopolis would be willing to support an ammendment limiting Nuclear Waste, as it does have global ramifications, and perhaps creating a global Nuclear Waste disposal comitte.
Most waste affects other nations. Here's how:

Ceorana dumps fifty million billion gajillion kilograms of toxic waste into the ocean. It floats over to another nation and kills all their fish, therefore crippling their trout fishing-based economy. Or just hurting their environment.

In such a case, the other nation would be perfectally legalized to take this to an International Claims court, and provoke an international incident because "foriegn" trash entered their sea territory. In addition, one has ones self to look after, and if that requires the hurting of another nations enviroment, than that is neccesary. In addition, the enviroment has been shown to adapt to enviromental damage, thus lessening the effect.

We meant the concept of legal entity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_entity) (the term "legal person" is also used, but much more confusing). Defining it would probably bring the proposal above the character limit, do you have any suggestion for a replacement?

If we had a worthwhile suggestion, we'd have made it. If we have a sudden flash of inspiration, we'll let you know. ;)

Moving on to our other concern (since we're clueless about how to handle the first)...

Clause 8b prohibits:

b) International transfer of waste by non-certified entities;

We suggest changing this to "to or from non-certified entities". We're concerned that, as it stands now, nations would be able to ship off their trash to non-certified entities in environmentally lackadaisical nations as a cheaper alternative to using environmentally safe disposal means.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Does this really matter? Waste is the individual countries concern, not that of the masses! Much industry comes at the expense of "enviroment," but this industry is neccesary to support the global markets. Some nations will turn into Ego-Utopias, others into Rich, Dirty, industrial powerhouses. Let the wise pick sides; but lets not bring these two inreconciable groups to a disasterous conclusion.

However, Dougotopolis would be willing to support an ammendment limiting Nuclear Waste, as it does have global ramifications, and perhaps creating a global Nuclear Waste disposal comitte.

We cannot agree with the representative from Dougotopolis. Air pollution does not stop at national borders. Dumping in oceans and other bodies of water affects all nations they touch. We believe this proposal addresses an issue which is quite proper for the NSUN to consider.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

But will the actions described help? Pollution is a fact of life; in fact, our way of life demands it! It is neccesary for some nations to be clean, and others to be dirty; some nations to be free, others to be powerful, some nations to be socialist, others industrial. In addition, these "clean air" treaties would simply destroy the industry of the UN nations, leaving the non-UN nations, who comprise most of the world, to continue polluting.

But will the actions described help? Pollution is a fact of life; in fact, our way of life demands it! It is neccesary for some nations to be clean, and others to be dirty; some nations to be free, others to be powerful, some nations to be socialist, others industrial. In addition, these "clean air" treaties would simply destroy the industry of the UN nations, leaving the non-UN nations, who comprise most of the world, to continue polluting.

Pollution is a fact of life. On that we can agree. Can we eliminate it? We doubt it. But that doesn't mean we can't take reasonable steps to try to reduce it. As far as we're concerned, that's what this proposal does.

And we'd respectfully suggest that the representative of Dougotopolis give the proposal another careful reading. We don't see how it could be characterized as a "clean air treaty".

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

But will the actions described help? Pollution is a fact of life; in fact, our way of life demands it! It is neccesary for some nations to be clean, and others to be dirty; some nations to be free, others to be powerful, some nations to be socialist, others industrial.

We ask the honorable representative from Dougtopolis exactly how he derived these conclusions. To us from the Ceoranan delegation, we do not see them to be self-evident
In addition, these "clean air" treaties would simply destroy the industry of the UN nations, leaving the non-UN nations, who comprise most of the world, to continue polluting.
Although the game administrators don't seem to think so, industry and the environment can co-exist. And perhaps some non-UN nations will follow our example and reduce their pollution as well. If we stifle our environment just because it will hurt our industry slightly, how can we hope to progress?

But will the actions described help? Pollution is a fact of life; in fact, our way of life demands it! It is neccesary for some nations to be clean, and others to be dirty; some nations to be free, others to be powerful, some nations to be socialist, others industrial. In addition, these "clean air" treaties would simply destroy the industry of the UN nations, leaving the non-UN nations, who comprise most of the world, to continue polluting.

Please. Read. The. Text.
When you do, perhaps you can mention which specific clauses you disagree with, and give reasons. Right now, you are making general comments based on title and category, yet you act clueless about the specific impact of the proposal. And that makes you a troll.

For those disturbed by the idiocy of the honourable Dougotopolian delegate: This proposal is only mandatory when regulating actions with international impact. In addition, it encourages safe practices within borders, but it was written with deep awareness of different technological and economic constraints faced by nations.

If we had a worthwhile suggestion, we'd have made it. If we have a sudden flash of inspiration, we'll let you know. ;)

Moving on to our other concern (since we're clueless about how to handle the first)...

Clause 8b prohibits:

b) International transfer of waste by non-certified entities;

We suggest changing this to "to or from non-certified entities". We're concerned that, as it stands now, nations would be able to ship off their trash to non-certified entities in environmentally lackadaisical nations as a cheaper alternative to using environmentally safe disposal means.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

First of all, I do not wish to remove the possibility of non-certified entities to hand over waste to certified entities. In fact, I encourage it. Most industrial companies would be non-certified, for instance, and they would hire the services of a waste disposal company.

My idea here was also regulating the transport of waste itself. Note that I defined 'waste disposal' as the collection, transport, processing, storage, disposal, and destruction of waste with the purpose of minimising its impact. It includes transport among other things. Note also that a 'certified entity' must perform waste disposal using UN approved techniques.

As an example, we start with waste in the hands of a non-certified entity. This entity is not allowed to use banned WDT, or to transport waste across borders. It has two options:

1. Dispose of the waste locally, using any non-banned WDT, without affecting other nations.
2. Hire a (national or foreign) certified entity to take care of the waste disposal.

The first option is a matter for national governments to regulate. If the second option is chosen, the waste is now in the capable hands of a certified entity. This entity is allowed to carry waste across borders (needing official consent in case of hazardous materials), and to dispose of it wherever it sees fit. However, it is bound by its commitement to the WDA to only use recommended WDT. Therefore, it cannot dump the waste in the ocean, or transfer the waste back to the non-specialists, or use irresponsible transportation methods: it must perform whatever the UN recommends to minimise the impact of the waste it receives.

The tiny nation of Dougotopolis is almost completely supported by industry. Therefore, our society is at stake.

Waste Disposal Thingy

Industry Affected: All Businesses

As is clearly shown here, the ammendment will reach the lowest and most humble inhabitents of this planet. The industry will be crippled by this; to pretend it won't be defies simple logic. And as more nations are using industry as a ladder to pull themselves out of Third-World status, we must help them. Destroying industry will destory them, and their billions in population.

1. ADVISES member nations that the use of recyclable or biodegradable materials in industrial production can greatly reduce the cost and impact of waste disposal;

2. ENCOURAGES member nations to create public organisations, or to stimulate the creation of private organisations, capable of performing responsible waste disposal;

I have no problem with this, but these two clauses should be rewritten to prevent allow the UN from enforce them.

3. CREATES the UN Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), mandated to:
a) Establish, publish, and regularly update:
- a description of available waste disposal techniques (WDT), outlining their impact when applied to different waste categories,
- a list of recommended WDT for each category, taking into account technological and economic constraints, and their maximum permissible impact,
- a list of 'hazardous waste' categories, which pose serious health or environmental risks, or for which no satisfactory WDT exist,
- a list of banned WDT, deemed to pose unacceptably high risks of direct impact on other nations;
b) Officially certify the WDT of entities that request it, provided they meet said recommendations;
c) Perform regular and surprise inspections of certified entities to ensure said recommendations are strictly followed;
d) Research improved WDT with reduced impact or costs;
e) Advise upon request on the best WDT for each waste category;

Such a task would be expensive and undesirable, as well as most likely ineffective. Most hazerdous waste transfer is safe, and unsafe transfer is generally illegal. Since the UN does not have the power to enforce the actual law of nations, only to enforce the law abiding citiznes, this will do nothing but destroy already established industry.

4. INVITES member nations to contribute personnel, technology, knowledge, and funding to the WDA;

This to is safe, as long as it remains an "invitation." If this becomes forced scientific surrender, then one infringes on the rights of patants that are held in high esteem by the Free World.

5. ENCOURAGES the use of recommended WDT;

No problems exist in this statement, as long as it continues to be only an encouragement.

6. INSTRUCTS member nations to:
a) Prevent the use of banned WDT;
b) Impose economic and compensatory damages on any entity in their jurisdiction whose waste disposal practices are deemed to have a direct impact on other member nations, and promptly transfer collected damages to affected nations;
c) Impose, at their discretion, punitive damages or criminal charges on entities guilty of such misconduct;

This is logical, and Dougotopolis agrees with this requirement.

7. URGES member nations to provide similar compensation to non-member nations and national entities;

Illogical, since many developing nations are not in the United Nations.

8. PROHIBITS:
a) International transfer of hazardous waste without the official consent of receiving nations;
b) International transfer of waste by non-certified entities;
c) Protectionist devices, such as tariffs, duties, or quotas, on the provision of waste disposal services by certified entities.

a) is logical. However, b) is not logical; this creates monopolies of waste-transfer services, and will drive many private consumers out of buisness. The waste transfer industry is a highly productive industry, and this will weaken it beyond repair. c) These are logical, but should be mandated by the nation itself, not by the United Nations.

That is my explination for the shortcomings of the proposed proposal.

It's a bit toothless, isn't it? It advises, which is all nice and natsov, but by kindly asking we're not getting anywhere.

Toothless is good. If it is toothless, it cannot do harm, whereas some nations might agree to take part in it. At any rate, if any forms of industrial limiting are decided, I must say that the Empire of Dougotopolis will not take part, even if this means resigning our Delegate post.

It's a bit toothless, isn't it? It advises, which is all nice and natsov, but by kindly asking we're not getting anywhere.

Teeth:
- Bans techniques with direct impact on other nations;
- Forces member nations to compensate for international effects;
- Regulates international transfers of waste.

As is clearly shown here, the ammendment will reach the lowest and most humble inhabitents of this planet. The industry will be crippled by this; to pretend it won't be defies simple logic. And as more nations are using industry as a ladder to pull themselves out of Third-World status, we must help them. Destroying industry will destory them, and their billions in population.

You are arguing against the category? Be serious. That makes no sense, unless you are a stat-wanker. You are not a stat-wanker, are you?

I have no problem with this, but these two clauses should be rewritten to prevent allow the UN from enforce them.

Right. All your base are belong to us.

Such a task would be expensive and undesirable, as well as most likely ineffective.

Which particular task is expensive, undesirable and ineffective? There is a list of 5 sub-clauses. Is making a list too expensive? Is advising on best practices undesirable? Is research ineffective?

Most hazerdous waste transfer is safe, and unsafe transfer is generally illegal.

Illegal where? This proposal is making it illegal. There is no other law preventing Fonzoland from dumping hazardous waste on Dougotopolis.

Since the UN does not have the power to enforce the actual law of nations, only to enforce the law abiding citiznes, this will do nothing but destroy already established industry.

Learn to read, please. This text instructs nations to enforce certain clauses of the law. I cannot make it any simpler for the likes of you. I will ignore the idea of responsible waste disposal destroying industry.

Illogical, since many developing nations are not in the United Nations.

Sigh. I am urging member nations to pay if they damage non-member nations. You may disagree, in which case you don't pay. Fine. But there is nothing wrong with the logic of the bloody clause. The logic of the clause could pick you up, climb the stairs to the roof, drop you off the building, and race back in time for lunch. All of this without breaking a sweat.

b) is not logical; this creates monopolies of waste-transfer services, and will drive many private consumers out of buisness. The waste transfer industry is a highly productive industry, and this will weaken it beyond repair.

1. It does not create monopolies. You probably don't even know what a monopoly is.
2. Driving private consumers out of business is just, well, an amusing statement.
3. The waste transfer industry does not suffer, as long as they use responsible techniques, as certified by the WDA.

c) These are logical, but should be mandated by the nation itself, not by the United Nations.

Free Trade 101: It is an international concern, with international effects. Free Trade 201: It requires coordination.

That is my explination for the shortcomings of the proposed proposal.

Whatever.

You are arguing against the category? Be serious. That makes no sense, unless you are a stat-wanker. You are not a stat-wanker, are you?

Where did it say that I was arguing againt the catagory? I said specifically that the catagory was correct, and that is a problem. Global buisness will get effected.

Right. All your base are belong to us.

I type fast. Get over it.

Which particular task is expensive, undesirable and ineffective? There is a list of 5 sub-clauses. Is making a list too expensive? Is advising on best practices undesirable? Is research ineffective?

All the sub classes cost money. You can't deny that; people have to do the research, people have to do the disposal, people have to do the inspecting - and who is going to pay for this?

Illegal where? This proposal is making it illegal. There is no other law preventing Fonzoland from dumping hazardous waste on Dougotopolis.

I could give you a list of US chemical safety regulations, but I would get deleted. The law preventing Fronzoland from dumping hazardous waste on Dougotopolis is that this would mean an act of war because waste can be considered enemy combatants.

Learn to read, please. This text instructs nations to enforce certain clauses of the law. I cannot make it any simpler for the likes of you. I will ignore the idea of responsible waste disposal destroying industry.

The UN cannot establish a police force in nations, correct? Therefore the UN cannot enforce the law in these particular nations. I don't understand whats so complicated about that.

Sigh. I am urging member nations to pay if they damage non-member nations. You may disagree, in which case you don't pay. Fine. But there is nothing wrong with the logic of the bloody clause. The logic of the clause could pick you up, climb the stairs to the roof, drop you off the building, and race back in time for lunch. All of this without breaking a sweat.

The logic? Developing nations are dirty. Paying them won't help. Keeping the money and spending on more important things will.

1. It does not create monopolies. You probably don't even know what a monopoly is.
2. Driving private consumers out of business is just, well, an amusing statement.
3. The waste transfer industry does not suffer, as long as they use responsible techniques, as certified by the WDA.

I can see you have never owned a private buisness. When there are regulations, some companies cannot afford to take the time and work out the gritty details with the inspectors. Inspections are hell for small buisniesses, and many times the fees for the inspection will fall on the company itself, weather directly or indirectly. Second, you don't understand the capitalist system: by "private consumers" I meant just that. People who use their privately gained wealth to consume other products. The law of Supply and Demand.

Free Trade 101: It is an international concern, with international effects. Free Trade 201: It requires coordination.

That was the stupidist thing I have ever heard. Have you read Adam Smith? Adam Smith invented capitalism, and he clearly adressed this issue. According to Adam Smith, the government should stay out of ALL ASPECTS of the economy, and this includes foreign trade.

Where did it say that I was arguing againt the catagory? I said specifically that the catagory was correct, and that is a problem. Global buisness will get effected.
Fonzoland meant that you are saying what you are saying, not that it is in the wrong category.

All the sub classes cost money. You can't deny that; people have to do the research, people have to do the disposal, people have to do the inspecting - and who is going to pay for this?
The UN, which gets its money from nations.


I could give you a list of US chemical safety regulations, but I would get deleted. The law preventing Fronzoland from dumping hazardous waste on Dougotopolis is that this would mean an act of war because waste can be considered enemy combatants.
So we don't want war, so we enact this to keep it from happening.

The UN cannot establish a police force in nations, correct? Therefore the UN cannot enforce the law in these particular nations. I don't understand whats so complicated about that.
The UN can enforce laws anywhere. Compliance is automatic. The Gnomes will rewrite your laws so you comply.

I can see you have never owned a private buisness. When there are regulations, some companies cannot afford to take the time and work out the gritty details with the inspectors. Inspections are hell for small buisniesses, and many times the fees for the inspection will fall on the company itself, weather directly or indirectly. Second, you don't understand the capitalist system: by "private consumers" I meant just that. People who use their privately gained wealth to consume other products. The law of Supply and Demand.
Capitalism is good, but if we let it run unchecked, it will destroy our natural resources.

That was the stupidist thing I have ever heard. Have you read Adam Smith? Adam Smith invented capitalism, and he clearly adressed this issue. According to Adam Smith, the government should stay out of ALL ASPECTS of the economy, and this includes foreign trade.
Wasn't capitalism invented by people, like, trading with each other, and was developed independently in many different areas of the world? Mr. Smith may have some opinions, that doesn't mean they're right.

Teeth:
- Bans techniques with direct impact on other nations;

Okay, true. I was fooled by the soft clauses in the beginning so I read past the "instructs" too quickly. Then again, isn't "direct impact" too narrow?

- Forces member nations to compensate for international effects;
- Regulates international transfers of waste.

But it does so rather bureaucratically. Not less waste, just differently organized.

It's a nice start though, but I'd like to see (perhaps in other resolutions) something about reducing waste too.

Where did it say that I was arguing againt the catagory? I said specifically that the catagory was correct, and that is a problem. Global buisness will get effected.
You also said that it would "cripple" and "destroy" industry. I fail to see how it would "destroy" industry. Maybe it would hamper, yes, but this doesn't remove industry all together. I assume you are refering to the costs of implementing such programs and inspections. It's really not that hard; the most affected will be the heaviest polluters, who are generally the largest industry anyway, with enough money to cover this.

No wait, I see your wheels turning. "Developing countries need to use industry which causes more pollution to develop, because it is less expensive". This is a common counter argument to pollution controls. However, as technology advances, more environmentally friendly technologies are available for lower and lower prices. The WDA itself would be an excellent source for information on these new technologies.

All the sub classes cost money. You can't deny that; people have to do the research, people have to do the disposal, people have to do the inspecting - and who is going to pay for this?

Clause 4 specifically invites member funding. You don't like it, don't fund it.

I could give you a list of US chemical safety regulations, but I would get deleted. The law preventing Fronzoland from dumping hazardous waste on Dougotopolis is that this would mean an act of war because waste can be considered enemy combatants.
This resolution would create international coordination on such regulations. While individual states may have regulations on these materials, this resolution would create an international understanding. And an act of war? Isn't that a little extreme?

The logic? Developing nations are dirty. Paying them won't help. Keeping the money and spending on more important things will.
Developing nations wouldn't be paid for cleaning up. They would be paid for recompense if an entity from a member-country dumped on their territory. This might even help them develop...

Second, you don't understand the capitalist system: by "private consumers" I meant just that. People who use their privately gained wealth to consume other products. The law of Supply and Demand.
I assume that by "private consumers" you actually meant "private companies" that would be involved with the waste transfer; you can't drive a consumer out of business. Anyway, this wouldn't drive the companies out of business or create a monopoly; anyone can become certified so long as they meet the criteria. They aren't exactly hard criteria to meet... just don't dump toxic waste in the river.

That was the stupidist thing I have ever heard. Have you read Adam Smith? Adam Smith invented capitalism, and he clearly adressed this issue. According to Adam Smith, the government should stay out of ALL ASPECTS of the economy, and this includes foreign trade.
To say that any one man "invented" capitalism is ludicrous. Besides, Adam Smith didn't know everything about the economic system. The so-called "Invisible Hand" doesn't work. It drives towards monopolies (Microsoft, or Standard Oil, anyone?). Weren't you just railing against monopolies earlier. Governments must be involved in some parts of the economy. To quote Adam Smith and expect that his capitalism is perfect is like quoting Marx or Lenin and expecting their systems to work perfectly.

Edit: I see Ceorana beat me to the punch on this one.

Pollution is not a fact of life. It is possible to build a strong economy without much of it. It just requires ruthless idealism. We are willing to use genetic engineering to clean up toxics as well as renewable energies. It is not impossible.

My great grandfather made a factory back in the 1800's. That factory is going out of buisnss, mainly because of Unions and Enviromentalism.

And you are correct: devoloping nations cannot afford enviromental controls. Nor can they afford the technology to clean it up. So this ammendment would pretty much get rid of developing nations, and divide the world into rich, prosperous, utopian, clean heavens, and the rest and majority of the world being an overpopulated (but suprisingly clean!) bed of starvation.

An act of war may be extreme in the cases described, but it gets the job done - more often then not, the nations will turn to diplomacy. And if they do not use diplomacy, they have such an attidute of each other that war was most likely inevitable anyway.

I understand what you are saying about the consumer. My point about the consumer is that the company is the consumer; everybody in a capitalist society are consumers, and it is neccesary to make sure the consumers have money to spend.

Standard Oil also created millions of jobs, and turned the oil industry into what it is today. To say that Rockerfeller's Empire was pure evil is complete idiocy, because with this wealth that Rockerfeller gained he managed to pump money back into the country. Same with Andrew Carnagie. Do you seriously think that our nation would be what it is today without Carnagie, Rockerfeller, Mellon, Vanderbilt? No. And in the 20's, another capitalist heaven, the average wage rose by over 50%.

The UN will get the money from nations. And these nations also need the money. So they will raise taxes, and then the economy will go to hell. Communism, anyone?

Perhaps what you say to eliminate war would be a good thing; however, I don't think we need an overall judiciary system running it, and that the individual countries should settle their differences without outside help.

And for the last time: when I said the UN can't enforce laws in countries, I did not mean that the UN had no control of what laws were in countries. I simply meant that the UN cannot send in a police force to make sure that the laws in countries are enforced.

While we're at it, lets just drop the whole "quoting" buisness. We all know what we wrote, and it takes up space and time.

Edit: I see Ceorana beat me to the punch on this one.
You did a better job of it though.

Where did it say that I was arguing againt the catagory? I said specifically that the catagory was correct, and that is a problem. Global buisness will get effected.

Yes, you are a stat-wanker after all. Therefore I will shorten my arguments, as they do not make any difference.

I type fast. Get over it.

You type rubbish. That makes you look ridiculous and trollish.

All the sub classes cost money. You can't deny that; people have to do the research, people have to do the disposal, people have to do the inspecting - and who is going to pay for this?

The WDA costs money; it is money well spent. The WDA does not perform any disposal; maybe you also "read" fast, and I should get over it? Nations voluntarily contribute the funding; member nations pay for this, as they pay for every other international organisation created by the UN.

I could give you a list of US chemical safety regulations, but I would get deleted.

Nah, you would just look even more ridiculous and trollish. NS =/= RL.

The law preventing Fronzoland from dumping hazardous waste on Dougotopolis is that this would mean an act of war because waste can be considered enemy combatants.

Idiotic bit highlighted for ease of reference.



The UN cannot establish a police force in nations, correct? Therefore the UN cannot enforce the law in these particular nations. I don't understand whats so complicated about that.

The complicated part is reasoning with you. Compliance is automatic; your grasp of the rules is staggering. As in non-existent. In slow motion: Nations automatically legislate to bring the mandated changes into force. Nations enforce the rule of the law as they see fit.

The logic? Developing nations are dirty. Paying them won't help. Keeping the money and spending on more important things will.

If you cause damage to other nations, it becomes an international issue. You are forced to compensate for the damage you caused. Spending on more important things is not an option, unless you want to spend it on nice defensive weaponry, to defend against the military strike of a pissed off non-member nation.

I can see you have never owned a private buisness. When there are regulations, some companies cannot afford to take the time and work out the gritty details with the inspectors. Inspections are hell for small buisniesses, and many times the fees for the inspection will fall on the company itself, weather directly or indirectly. Second, you don't understand the capitalist system: by "private consumers" I meant just that. People who use their privately gained wealth to consume other products. The law of Supply and Demand.

That was the stupidist thing I have ever heard. Have you read Adam Smith? Adam Smith invented capitalism, and he clearly adressed this issue. According to Adam Smith, the government should stay out of ALL ASPECTS of the economy, and this includes foreign trade.

Whatever. I am sure everyone is amazed with your knowledge of English and Economics. Now, why don't you go out and play with the other kids?

OOC: Maybe we could exchange business cards someday. If you can take off some time from work, that is; I hear CEOs are very busy people.

Like I said before: I know what I wrote. You don't have to quote me.

So you say I'm a stat-wanker because I don't agree with you. I guess in your narrow strip of cerebellum that makes sense. But thats only because your Hypothalimus does all your thinking. It seems all you ever do is call people "idiots" and then go off and pretend you have some idea of what you are talking about.

As to the UN rules: let my try to make this as simple as possible. The UN can make laws in nations, right? So, if Law "A" is passed in a resolution, then the nation that recieves it must follow Law "A," right? Good. Now, those people in the nation say "Screw this law. I'm gonna do my own thing," and the nation happens to be in Anarchy. So the law doesn't get enforced by the nations police force. Still with me? Its really simple. Its this thing called "crime." Have you heard of it before? Good. Okay. Now the UN cannot enforce the law in the country, because the UN doesn't have either police arm or millitary, right? So the law goes unenforced and remains innefective.

You don't understand war, do you. Any foreign object that enters a nation without authorization can be considered part of the enemies millitary, regardless of whether or not this is so. Its called "diplomacy."

And about your last comment - if it's so "childish" perhaps you could explain why? You fail to give any support for any of your claims.

Oh, with all the troll control activity around here, I almost forgot to comment on the relevant posts! :eek:

Okay, true. I was fooled by the soft clauses in the beginning so I read past the "instructs" too quickly.

You can't blame me for putting beautiful kissable lips around the teeth, can you? ;) This is the game of politics...

Then again, isn't "direct impact" too narrow?

Hmmm, strikes directly endangering citizens? :p

I believe direct impact is the only thing you should realistically include. If you include indirect impact, any country that experiences acid rain will be able to sue every single air polluting company and citizen in the UN. Consequences would be disastrous. "Direct" forces the claimant to establish a clear cause and effect relationship from the particular waste disposal activity to the environmental damage.

But it does so rather bureaucratically. Not less waste, just differently organized.

The "less waste" part comes from banning the worse WDT, and creating a strong incentive (international trade) for waste disposal entities to use the recommended best practices. Like it or not, most of the effect is likely to come from the relatively harmless "research and advise" function, coupled with technological dissemination.

We steered clear of legislating on activities with impact strictly within the borders of a sovereign state. If you want to destroy your own environment, as long as you don't harm your neighbours, it is your business.

Anyway, I challenge the idea of excessive bureaucracy. The damage payments are decided on a court of law, as any other civil/criminal issue requiring damage compensation.

The more bureaucratic part is certification of waste disposal entities; that is on par with any system of environmental control in the world. You check the processes in the begining, certify if they are acceptable, then inspect regularly. How else would you impose limits on eg the river polution of a given waste disposal entity? Note that factories do not need to be certified. The WDA would certify entities involved specifically on waste disposal.

Once entities are certified, the bureaucracy is minimal. You can only transport waste if you are certified by the WDA. It is similar to requiring passports for international travel.

It's a nice start though, but I'd like to see (perhaps in other resolutions) something about reducing waste too.

I would leave that for the recycling text that Gruenberg and Forgottenlands will submit soon. One step at a time. ;)

Like I said before: I know what I wrote. You don't have to quote me.
It helps the rest of us, though, so we do it anyway.

*snip flame*
Can we debate the draft, not Fonzoland's mental ability?

As to the UN rules: let my try to make this as simple as possible. The UN can make laws in nations, right? So, if Law "A" is passed in a resolution, then the nation that recieves it must follow Law "A," right? Good. Now, those people in the nation say "Screw this law. I'm gonna do my own thing," and the nation happens to be in Anarchy. So the law doesn't get enforced by the nations police force. Still with me? Its really simple. Its this thing called "crime." Have you heard of it before? Good. Okay. Now the UN cannot enforce the law in the country, because the UN doesn't have either police arm or millitary, right? So the law goes unenforced and remains innefective.
No, because the nation is compelled to enforce the law (I think). So the nation must stop being a complete anarchy and enforce the law. (Either that, or compliance is automatic for citizens as well. I think it's my first idea, though)

You don't understand war, do you. Any foreign object that enters a nation without authorization can be considered part of the enemies millitary, regardless of whether or not this is so. Its called "diplomacy."
Wait. War is called diplomacy?

And could you provide a source for that? I'm interested in reading about it, seeing as I've never heard of it before.

First of all, I do not wish to remove the possibility of non-certified entities to hand over waste to certified entities. In fact, I encourage it. Most industrial companies would be non-certified, for instance, and they would hire the services of a waste disposal company.

My idea here was also regulating the transport of waste itself. Note that I defined 'waste disposal' as the collection, transport, processing, storage, disposal, and destruction of waste with the purpose of minimising its impact. It includes transport among other things. Note also that a 'certified entity' must perform waste disposal using UN approved techniques.

As an example, we start with waste in the hands of a non-certified entity. This entity is not allowed to use banned WDT, or to transport waste across borders. It has two options:

1. Dispose of the waste locally, using any non-banned WDT, without affecting other nations.
2. Hire a (national or foreign) certified entity to take care of the waste disposal.

The first option is a matter for national governments to regulate. If the second option is chosen, the waste is now in the capable hands of a certified entity. This entity is allowed to carry waste across borders (needing official consent in case of hazardous materials), and to dispose of it wherever it sees fit. However, it is bound by its commitement to the WDA to only use recommended WDT. Therefore, it cannot dump the waste in the ocean, or transfer the waste back to the non-specialists, or use irresponsible transportation methods: it must perform whatever the UN recommends to minimise the impact of the waste it receives.

We hadn't considered the transportation element of the definition. We get the point now. Suggestion withdrawn. It's time for a nap. ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

My great grandfather made a factory back in the 1800's. That factory is going out of buisnss, mainly because of Unions and Enviromentalism.

No, mainly because it's a badly run business. That's why businesses are unable to continue their business.

Bothered by unions? You're not treating your workers well enough. Bothered by environmentalism? A good environment is best for business, so be glad you're bothered.

Okay, you got me, I'm for this resolution :)

The UN cannot establish a police force in nations, correct? Therefore the UN cannot enforce the law in these particular nations. I don't understand whats so complicated about that.

The rules of the NSUN include one saying that all member-nations must (using their own police forces, if necessary) enforce all UN resolutions within their own territories: If your nation is a UN member then you can not avoid this obligation, although evading parts of it by finding loopholes in the wording of specific resolutions can be (fun, and ) possible...

Didn't anyone tell him about the gnomes?

Like I said before: I know what I wrote. You don't have to quote me.

Good for you. Unfortunately, I don't always know what other people are referencing, so it helps to have the quotes.

As to the UN rules: let my try to make this as simple as possible. The UN can make laws in nations, right? So, if Law "A" is passed in a resolution, then the nation that recieves it must follow Law "A," right? Good. Now, those people in the nation say "Screw this law. I'm gonna do my own thing," and the nation happens to be in Anarchy. So the law doesn't get enforced by the nations police force. Still with me? Its really simple. Its this thing called "crime." Have you heard of it before? Good. Okay. Now the UN cannot enforce the law in the country, because the UN doesn't have either police arm or millitary, right? So the law goes unenforced and remains innefective.

In the RL UN, yes. In the NSUN, no. Don't you ever get those telegrams saying that your legislation has been brought in line with "X" proposal. If you are part of the NSUN, you have no choice.

You don't understand war, do you. Any foreign object that enters a nation without authorization can be considered part of the enemies millitary, regardless of whether or not this is so.

So if a bird that is native to my country flies into yours, it's an act of war? If a child near our border accidentally hits a ball into your country, it's an act of war? Wow... I don't want to live near you.

And about your last comment - if it's so "childish" perhaps you could explain why? You fail to give any support for any of your claims.

You don't really have an understanding of what happens when the government backs completely out of the economy, do you? Again: monopolies, foreign control, misery. Some government control is necessary to keep the economy on track. Just like repairs are needed to rail lines so that trains don't go off the track.

That does it for your response to Fonzoland, now for your response to me:

Standard Oil also created millions of jobs, and turned the oil industry into what it is today. To say that Rockerfeller's Empire was pure evil is complete idiocy, because with this wealth that Rockerfeller gained he managed to pump money back into the country. Same with Andrew Carnagie. Do you seriously think that our nation would be what it is today without Carnagie, Rockerfeller, Mellon, Vanderbilt? No. And in the 20's, another capitalist heaven, the average wage rose by over 50%.


I don't know what your nation would be like... don't forget that we aren't all from the USA. But more to the point: Standard Oil did much of this before it became a monopoly. Such benefits never would have lasted had it not been hit with all these antitrust suits. And I'm not debating capitalism with you, but the viabilities of monopolies, which do not work, but can be created through Adam Smith's system.

I'd also suggest that, if you like Adam Smith so much, you do more reading about him. His ideas weren't as cut and dried as you seem to believe. A good place to start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith. A highlight from that article: "Adam Smith was trying to illustrate the complicated economy with two simple dimensions[, morality and wealth]. It was the people who, due to historical limitations, emphasized the "wealth" part

The UN will get the money from nations. And these nations also need the money. So they will raise taxes, and then the economy will go to hell. Communism, anyone?

The UN already gets money from nations. They aren't raising taxes for it now. And I reiterate: much of the WDA funding is voluntary under this resolution. You don't like it, don't contribute to it.

My great grandfather made a factory back in the 1800's. That factory is going out of buisnss, mainly because of Unions and Enviromentalism.
Then I feel sorry for your great-grandfather. Unfortunately, if the factory couldn't change to keep up with the time, that is the fault of the management. It's not as if all of this is new; it's been coming for a long time.
Also, how much of it is due to better business decisions by competitors.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not attacking your family. I'm just suggesting that there are multiple sides to every issue like this.

I am leaning towards calling this a Covenant.

I want something exotic, that has not been used before in the NSUN. Other options are Concordat and (rather surprisingly) Treaty. Pact has also not been used, but I would rather leave that for something more military.

Comments? I might give it a go soon, to see how much support it gathers.

I am leaning towards calling this a Covenant.

This is good. A covenant is a binding agreement or contract. That defines pretty much all UN law, but especially those such as this which mandates certain responses.

I also like the religious conotations... ;)

I have submitted this proposal for a test run. If you like it, please endorse it (or lobby your delegate).

In the Name of The People's Republic of Nove Inferni di Baator i agree:fluffle: :) :cool: ;)

Oh, by the way, I added this to the first post:

NEW AND IMPROVED!!! ~ Approval link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant) ~ NEW AND IMPROVED!!!

(hint hint) :cool:

*post-crash bump*

NEW AND IMPROVED!!! ~ Approval link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant) ~ NEW AND IMPROVED!!!

I have re-submitted the Waste Disposal Covenant, this time with a TG campaign. Please endorse it, lobby for it, smile while reading it, or in general create any sort of positive karma for it. Thanks in advance. (endorsements preferred)

*decides to start a bumping war with Gruen*

As much as I hate environmental resolution, and am scanning this one to find something to have against, I cannot find anything. Damn. I'll have to support it...

*muzzer muzzer*

As much as I hate environmental resolution, and am scanning this one to find something to have against, I cannot find anything. Damn. I'll have to support it...

*muzzer muzzer*

:D It is always heart-warming to convert a hardened capitalist. Thanks.

As much as I hate environmental resolution, and am scanning this one to find something to have against, I cannot find anything. Damn. I'll have to support it...

*muzzer muzzer*


I know, its horrible, I tells ya, horrible!!!!*takes swig of Wild Turkey(TM) straight from the bottle.*
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Approvals: 66 (Darpatia, The Black New World, Great Britain---, Jey, The Rising Ghetto, Trajasistan, Concordare, Arendias, Triple R, AnimeTheme, Faerie-Sprite, Aldoony, Ronrovia, Gateborg, Yeldan UN Mission, Quentanis, Allied Alien Planets, The Mystic Mountain, Gaiah, Darth Mall, Isis Rakael, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Benjination, Wyldtree, The Beltway, Greater Tirana, Palentine UN Office, Great White North Eh, Kirisubo, Cobainistic Freedom, Lalf, Aakron, Sushi Shovelers, Orgasmica Land, Scotts and Lyon, Tajiri_san, Ingrism, Antrium, Belarum, The Flaming Fhqwhgads, Richard2008, The Well Off Communist, Laimindacoconut, Neo Ozia, CAOAPO, Roisoin, Eve the First, Hayden Island, Wolfhawk, Jewiton, Werebobs, The Kazoo Peoples, Sparwolf, The Jews of God, Psychology Majors2006, Firebert, Zaibatsu0, Ecosia, Love and esterel, Mihkrit, Equal Distributionists, Wickedly evil people, Xarvinia--Wurtemburg, Elghinn, Marry Jane, Quaon)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 57 more approvals)

Thanks to all that already approved, shame on those who haven't! Please support this here. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant)

* Brings a couple of million in unmarked bills from a different thread, and splits it into 57 stacks... *

Only 42 stacks of unmarked bills remaining, do not miss this unique opportunity! It is tax-free, it is corrupt, it is everything you ever dreamed of. Approve the WDC now!

Brilliant, UN Mitigates Pollution.

NEW AND IMPROVED!!! ~ Approval link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant) ~ NEW AND IMPROVED!!!

We need 22 more approvals to reach quorum. So please, if you are a delegate who hasn't approved this, please follow the above link and help out. It only takes 5 seconds of your time (more if you actually want to read it). ;)

I wonder if 5 posts in a row earn me a cookie or a spam-ban. Anyway, 15 to go, please keep 'em coming!

Oh, and feel free to make some comments on this thread. I don't mind. Honest. Even if you discuss Tom Waits. Well, unless you make sacrilegious unflattering comments about him.

I wonder if 5 posts in a row earn me a cookie or a spam-ban. Anyway, 15 to go, please keep 'em coming!


I vote for spam-ban. :p

I vote for spam-ban. :p

And what are the poor starving Fonzolandian kids going to eat? For the love of God, think of the children!!!

And what are the poor starving Fonzolandian kids going to eat? For the love of God, think of the children!!!

http://www.thescallywags.com/treet.jpg

While this measure talks about the disposal of waste it fails in a couple of aspects.

1) We have high intensity recycling research. There should be encouragement to improve recycling technologies to make them cheaper and more efficient.

2) It makes no provisions for constructing waste energy systems-- biomass and other systems for human sewage. Waste to energy can be fairly efficient if done right.

3) It should include a provision for landfill reclamation for industries-- processing waste into useful products. Solar furnaces for smelting, biovats for breaking down biological plastics, diamond saw metal shredders, glass recycling, etc.

4) It does not provide for examples of ecologically sound waste remediation systems watershed pollution prevention, bioshelter sewage plants, or oil pollution eating bacteria, etc.

Include a bit on advanced waste recycling and reclamation. It would help. Plus people like neat tech toys and these are fairly interesting.

*snip*

This is not a proposal on recycling. It is a proposal on waste disposal. I happen to know that a proposal on recycling will be submitted in a while. Even if I didn't, you are arguing that I didn't cram enough details on the 3500 allowed characters to solve all the world's environmental problems. I agree. So?

I could argue that all the systems you mention are waste disposal techniques, and that if they are efficient they will become recommended by the WDA. I could argue that your listing of tech toys would have to leave dozens of other tech toys out. I could argue that this is not RL, and that there are nations with different levels of technology. I could argue that a political body as the UN is not qualified to decide on which techniques to use. Instead, I will quote the proposal:

DEEPLY AWARE of the multitude of personal and industrial waste products with different chemical characteristics, and of the variety of waste disposal techniques, most of which are only suitable for specific types of waste,

CONSCIOUS that legislation detailing specific technologies or processes is likely to be made obsolete by scientific progress,

NEW AND IMPROVED!!! ~ Approval link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant) ~ NEW AND IMPROVED!!!

Hello. I wish to address a few words to the eleven delegates who will soon help this proposal reach quorum, and yet have failed to cast their approvals up to now.

Please, please, PLEASE follow the link above. Then press the clicky clicky thing that says "yes, I love this proposal, I wonder why I haven't approved it yet?" Then come back to this forum, to do whatever you were doing before, knowing that you are not responsible for giving the Fonzolandian delegation a collective heart attack.

Thank you for your attention.

EDIT (countdown to disposal)
... TEN ... NINE ... EIGHT ... SEVEN ... SIX ...

... FIVE ...

... FOUR ...

Did not make quorum this time, by 7 votes, having been 4 before delegate changes. Sad; but do not despair, friends and supporters. It shall come back with a vengeance!

Pre-submission bump.

NEW AND IMPROVED!!! ~ Approval link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant) ~ NEW AND IMPROVED!!!

*snip*

Yet another fine proposal brought to you by the folks at the Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank). And this time, it is not a repeal! If you like frolicking in your lush forests, make a difference: Join today!

Resubmitted, please approve. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant) :)

Approved.

Thanks for approval number one. Have a cookie. :)

Thanks for approval number one. Have a cookie. :)

Mmmm, cookies... :)

Gave my endorsement. Don't want a cookie though. Got any beer? I'm fresh out.:D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Approved once again

I pay a round of 41 beers to all my friends. There are still 83 left in the fridge.

Want a beer? Click me! :) (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant)

I pay a round of 41 beers to all my friends. There are still 83 left in the fridge.

Want a beer? Click me! :) (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant)

If I were a delegate, I'd be all over that right now. :cool:

As of now, 104 beers have been distributed, there are only 20 more in the fridge. Unfortunately, beer is reserved for delegates, but I managed to dig up a bottle of whisky for Cluich.

Oh, yeah, this is a plug and a bump. Click me, click me! (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1/match=covenant)

Quorum. :) Number 5 in the queue though; the UN has been busy lately...

Quorum. :)

Congratulations.

Quorum. :) Number 5 in the queue though; the UN has been busy lately...

Yes we have.

Congrats.

Quorum. :) Number 5 in the queue though; the UN has been busy lately...
No kidding, we've had proposals up for vote nonstop since the year started.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Clean heart, clean body, clean soul, clean life, clean land.

The people of Zav will support this motion when the time comes to vote. it is a worthy motion.

This is the right way, the spiritual way.

Son of Zav.

Caratia will wholeheartedly support this proposal when it comes to vote.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Bah. Too fluffy.

Bah. Too fluffy.

Wow. You are right, I hadn't thought of that. Oh well, then I guess I will give up. You totally destroyed me with that argument, it's not fair.

Wow. You are right, I hadn't thought of that. Oh well, then I guess I will give up. You totally destroyed me with that argument, it's not fair.Perhaps I should just be a pretentious jackass instead?

Oh, I know!

I'll do a long series of quote boxes chopping everything you say into five word blocks and then yammer on endlessly! Because, clearly, burying people under hundreds of words is the same as proper debate! Utter brilliance!

Perhaps I should just be a pretentious jackass instead?

Oh, I know!

I'll do a long series of quote boxes chopping everything you say into five word blocks and then yammer on endlessly! Because, clearly, burying people under hundreds of words is the same as proper debate! Utter brilliance!
If you have such contempt for the UN forum, why do you bother posting in it?

EDIT:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10276900&postcount=2
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10277848&postcount=5

If you have such contempt for the UN forum, why do you bother posting in it?Yes, circle the wagons. Can't have anybody dare to contradict the forum royalty. After all, who the Hell am I to think that I'm allowed to voice my opinions on this forums? Christ, you people are worse than General.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10276900&postcount=2
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10277848&postcount=5Oh boy! Posts by me! Let's see... relevence? Hmm... nope. None whatsoever.

Oh, what? You thought you were hitting me for hypocrisy? Pfft. Try again, son. Go trawl through Fonzo's post history and look at some of his grand treatises that go on and on and on and on, well past the endurance of mortal men. My monitor is set to 1280 x 1024, and he still manages to fill three or four screens. That's not debating: that's trying to throw enough shit that nobody's going to bother reading it, let alone replying.

Face it, you're all just pissy because a few days ago a mod smacked you down, and now someone like me has decided that your attitudes suck and am calling you on it. Sure, my post above was hardly the paragon of legal discourse, but Fonzo's reply was just plain pissy; the kind of thing I'd expect from my 3 year old cousin, not from a forum with such a high opinion of itself.

At least the DemonLordEnigma / Mikitivity fights made the forum entertaining. Now, it's more of a circle jerk.

Oh, and as for your question, the reason I spend time in this forum is because I'm a member of the UN. Shocking, I know. A UN member posting in the UN forum. Such audacity on my part.

Yes, circle the wagons. Can't have anybody dare to contradict the forum royalty. After all, who the Hell am I to think that I'm allowed to voice my opinions on this forums? Christ, you people are worse than General.
Except I wasn't saying you couldn't criticise posters, at all. In fact, if you think some sort of "forum royalty" has grown up, then surely all criticism is wholly good. I just meant that you generally seem to regard us as pedantic, stupid, rules-lawyerish, arrogant, and so on. I understand you're probably not allowed to ignore us with your mod account, but with your others, I don't see not. If Fonzo's posts offend you so much, you can always not read them. In general, if I don't like the posters on a forum, I don't post on it. I assumed that was a reasonably universal trend; apparently not.

Oh boy! Posts by me! Let's see... relevence? Hmm... nope. None whatsoever.
It employs the same style you deride (and yes, that I'm using here). In your next paragraph, you go on to talk about Fonzo's "grand treatises". Fine. But in the original post of yours, it seemed more like you were criticising the specific ping-pong style, than him in particular. Obviously I was mistaken: I retract that bit.

Oh, what? You thought you were hitting me for hypocrisy? Pfft. Try again, son. Go trawl through Fonzo's post history and look at some of his grand treatises that go on and on and on and on, well past the endurance of mortal men. My monitor is set to 1280 x 1024, and he still manages to fill three or four screens. That's not debating: that's trying to throw enough shit that nobody's going to bother reading it, let alone replying.
I don't mind reading long posts if they're interesting; I'm averse to reading one-liners that are boring. In general, I try to judge what people by...what they say, not how long they take to say it. Sure, being concise is often handy, and there's no point filling a post with extraneous guff. But in general, I haven't found Fonzo more prone to waffling than anyone else, in particular. As I said earlier, though, I didn't realize you were specifically getting pissy about him as an individual, rather than the general style of posting.

Face it, you're all just pissy because a few days ago a mod smacked you down, and now someone like me has decided that your attitudes suck and am calling you on it.
That mod was you. And how exactly did you "smack us down"? By locking the thread? Ooh, score!

Sure, my post above was hardly the paragon of legal discourse, but Fonzo's reply was just plain pissy; the kind of thing I'd expect from my 3 year old cousin, not from a forum with such a high opinion of itself.
I wasn't defending his post. I was taking issue with yours. I actually agree with you here that Fonzo's reply was needlessly snippy.

At least the DemonLordEnigma / Mikitivity fights made the forum entertaining. Now, it's more of a circle jerk.
Couldn't comment; I'm too new. But I agree it's a bit stale here, for a number reasons - my attitude, Fonzo's, yours, a whole host of factors.

Oh, and as for your question, the reason I spend time in this forum is because I'm a member of the UN. Shocking, I know. A UN member posting in the UN forum. Such audacity on my part.
I think you're misinterpreting what I said. Sorry: I'll try to expand. I wasn't saying you "couldn't" post here. After all, you're a mod, I'm a player; I'm hardly one to tell you where you can and can't post. I was wondering why you bothered, when the experience was so clearly so tortuous for you. When I find the forums aren't fun, I tend to log off (yes, it does happen occasionally).

I understand you're probably not allowed to ignore us with your mod accountExcuse me?

That mod was you. And how exactly did you "smack us down"? By locking the thread? Ooh, score!Again, excuse me? You seem to have your wires crossed.

Excuse me?

Again, excuse me? You seem to have your wires crossed.
Ok. I thought you were The Most Glorious Hack. Obviously I'm mistaken. Apologies.

*flaming*

Whatever. (Is this better?)

Oh, and as for your question, the reason I spend time in this forum is because I'm a member of the UN. Shocking, I know. A UN member posting in the UN forum. Such audacity on my part.

Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 14

Funny, you have a rather amazing knowledge of the characters here and, particularly, characters who have rather major roles on the UN forums, yet you only have 14 posts. Whether you are Hack or not, Gruen's comment stands. You have clearly shown little interest in participating in the forums before now and so for someone who seems so frustrated, to come out and vent like this in a semi-flamish manner is dubious. You either have no issues lurking and feeling the frustration of what we do build up without speaking or participating in any meaningful way, or you're puppetwanking in which case this is just sickening. If you have an issue with Fonzo and are indeed puppet wanking, stop hiding behind your puppet and actually explain your grievances. If you are Hack or any other moderator, obviously you're trying to get more freedom in what you say but it's still pretty freaking out of line. If you're just a lurker who's enjoyed reading our stuff for so long but is growing irritated with the path its taken, I fail to see why you would continue to read this stuff and don't move on with your life - especially since you're rather dubiously sitting in Lazurus and are quite clearly not a UN delegate, why don't you just move on with your life?

DLE's gone. Mik has faded to the background and seems to be focusing on documentation. The UN has changed and moved on, perhaps it's time you did too.

OOC: In case someone cares... I am certain that Elric of Melnibone is a puppet. I am certain it was brought back to flame me (and eventually other players,we will see). And I am certain that this is by far the most despicable and cowardly behaviour I ever saw in this game.

I do not know if it is Hack, and I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt. I do not know whether the intention was baiting me into action leading to deletion, or just retribution for unspecified grudges. I do not know whether this post will be deleted for repeating some of the points made by Gruen and FL.

Of course, I am just a stupid, irrational rule-lawyering nitpicker; a pretentious jackass who buries people under hundreds of words and throws shit instead of properly debating; all to hide the fact that I have the intelligence of a 3 year old. Therefore, I may be wrong, and if so I will be smacked down accordingly.

But since a redundant post is valid reason for deletion, I will find it ironic if this sort of off-topic personal attacks and trolling go unnoticed.

(Ooops, too long.)

Perhaps I should just be a pretentious jackass instead?
You already are. And stop hiding behind a puppet, whoever you are. It makes you look foolish.

Returning to the thread's original topic _

I've received a telegram from a nation called 'The TFE Vice President of Teropolis', who's trying to get delegates to remove their approval from this proposal...

Ecopoeia vote for this when it hits the floor. We like fluffy.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Funny, you have a rather amazing knowledge of the characters here and, particularly, characters who have rather major roles on the UN forums, yet you only have 14 posts.Yeah, because nobody ever lurks on an internet forum. How could a lurker possibly have any idea about people who play "major roles?"

Whatever. You want to call me a puppet? Fine, go right ahead. I dont care anymore. You win. I'm going back to the Lazarus forums.

Yeah, because nobody ever lurks on an internet forum. How could a lurker possibly have any idea about people who play "major roles?"

Whatever. You want to call me a puppet? Fine, go right ahead. I dont care anymore. You win. I'm going back to the Lazarus forums.

Apparently you're also unable to read more than a few lines before you start responding with criticism

You either have no issues lurking and feeling the frustration of what we do build up without speaking or participating in any meaningful way,....If you're just a lurker who's enjoyed reading our stuff for so long but is growing irritated with the path its taken, I fail to see why you would continue to read this stuff and don't move on with your life

Whatever. You want to call me a puppet? Fine, go right ahead. I dont care anymore. You win. I'm going back to the Lazarus forums.
As for my current low levels of activity, that's more because of time and opportunity. Time, in that I don't have as much free time, so I haven't been hitting the spam and general-type forums. Opportunity, in that since the Mandate requires I give up the name of my primary nation (which I won't do), there's not too much I can do.
I realise that I have refused to give out my puppetmaster, and I will continue that policy; however, if you want to push me over the top, I will be most inoffensive until things can get set up properly.

Can I call you a puppet now?

EDIT: Link. (http://s13.invisionfree.com/lazarus/index.php?showtopic=57) Added this one (http://s13.invisionfree.com/lazarus/index.php?showtopic=189) as well.