NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING the good intentions of the resolution "Free Education."

CONCERNED that this resolution is very vague. For example, it does not note who must pay for the education. By certain interpretations, parents would be forced to pay for their child's education because that is technically "free” for the child.

NOTING WITH REGRET that this resolution does not define what an acceptable education is.

CONSIDERING that with the recent inclusion of new proposal categories, this resolution is in the wrong category.

AFFIRMING that the right of Free Education should still be upheld.

TO THIS END, Resolution 28 should be repealed and replaced with a more specific resolution.

HEREBY repeals the resolution Free Education.

Located Here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=free%20education

What do you think?

Category is a metagaming issue - remove it.

ACKNOWLEDGING that duplications and ammendments are illegal

NOTING that we can still expand on the area of funding for education and guaranteed quality

ARGUING that the resolution does little harm and doesn't block the UN's ability to legislate in a variety of areas

BELIEVING that there is little purpose to repeal this resolution

OPPOSES a repeal of Free Education

The Consular Confederation of Jonquiere-Tadoussac

NOTING that "amendments" is spelled with one "m",

BELIEVING Resolution 28 is poorly defined,

ASPIRING to improve the standard of education regulation,

ACKNOWLEDGING that Resolution 28 does not preclude the addition of further legislation, except that which limits the right to free education,

REGRETTING the last two clauses of this repeal repeating one another,

URGING the resolution's author not to refer to the proposal structure by mentioning the category,

BELIEVING human rights is not an unsuitable category,

ADDS its opposition to this repeal to that of the Forgottenlands delegation.

Ow. Stop using UN-speak when critiquing resolutions except when offering a new draft version. It hurts the delegation from Krioval and makes less resilient ambassadors cry. It also kills kittens. Please think of the kittens.

NOTING the good intentions of the resolution "Free Education."

Fine.

CONCERNED that this resolution is very vague. For example, it does not note who must pay for the education. By certain interpretations, parents would be forced to pay for their child's education because that is technically "free” for the child.

Good point. Consider tightening the language slightly by removing "for example" and "by certain interpretations". That those interpretations are being mentioned should be demonstrative enough of their existence (at least for me - it's a stylistic point).

NOTING WITH REGRET that this resolution does not define what an acceptable education is.

Good.

CONSIDERING that with the recent inclusion of new proposal categories, this resolution is in the wrong category.

FL already got to this. It's metagaming, and a likely proposal killer (by the mods).

AFFIRMING that the right of Free Education should still be upheld.

Fine.

TO THIS END, Resolution 28 should be repealed and replaced with a more specific resolution.

Already implied, isn't this?

HEREBY repeals the resolution Free Education.

Fine.

***********

Is there a draft of a replacement proposal underway yet?

Ow. Stop using UN-speak when critiquing resolutions except when offering a new draft version. It hurts the delegation from Krioval and makes less resilient ambassadors cry. It also kills kittens. Please think of the kittens.Sorry, it was a jab at FL on my part :P Besides, the Kriovalian delegation should grow a thicker skin...

OK, so I've already made my opposition clear, but as I like to help out as much as I can...

NOTING the good intentions of the resolution "Free Education",

CONCERNED with the vagueness of this resolution, as well as the lack of clarity on sources of payment for the education system,

NOTING WITH REGRET that this resolution does not define an acceptable education,

AFFIRMING the right of Free Education,

REPEALS Resolution #28.


You may want to expand on this (or not), this is just your current text rewritten into a legal and clearer format.

Looks good. I'm not particularly in favor or opposed to this repeal (both IC and OOC). Still, if it's going to be repealed, the repeal might as well be as solid as possible.

No kittens were harmed in the course of this thread - thus far.

Is it worth mentioning the point that the age of 18 (mentioned in the resolution concerned) may not be an appropriate threshold value for all of the sapient species that have members living in UN member-nations?


(OOC: posting as 'Godwinnia' because I'm having trouble logging on as 'St Edmund' today...)

NOTING the good intentions of the resolution "Free Education."
So if the intent is good why mess with it. As to repeal this without something to replace it would only put us backwards toward free eduction. As one can not be certain that a worse one would come up and get passed.
CONCERNED that this resolution is very vague. For example, it does not note who must pay for the education. By certain interpretations, parents would be forced to pay for their child's education because that is technically "free” for the child.
Thus it leaves it up to each nation to decide how to pay for this so called 'FREE' education and they are the ones that in the end will end up doing just that if they want educated citizens in their nation. I don't see it making anyone pay for 'FREE' education in any way nor does it say how much this free education should cost. Which is good as again leaves up to each nation to decide what they are willing to pay to have educated citizens.
NOTING WITH REGRET that this resolution does not define what an acceptable education is.
Again it doesn't need to as each nation knows well enough what it's citizens need to know to be productive citizens in that nation. Why would one nation teach say about building/reparing cars when that nation has no cars? A new resolution could set standards of what could and could not be taught that might not work in individual nations. As say I want religion taught in schools then others don't... so it leaves it up to each nation to decide what is proper and not proper for it's citizens to learn.
CONSIDERING that with the recent inclusion of new proposal categories, this resolution is in the wrong category.
So does that keep it from doing what it is suppose to do as far as 'FREE' education. The resolution is still effective and anyone who knows the history of the UN will understand why it may be in the wrong category and that it still does what it was intended to do from the start.
AFFIRMING that the right of Free Education should still be upheld.
Who's program of education is going to be upheld? As each nation must provide what they think is right for their young to be citizens if they want to be a productive nation. Thus leave them that right and don't come along with some UN idea on what they need to teach or not teach them.
TO THIS END, Resolution 28 should be repealed and replaced with a more specific resolution.
To much specification would only take down established education systems in nations that have very effective 'FREE' education thus leave this resolution in place and let them move forward not backward. Get those nations in line that don't have so called 'FREE' education in line before you start with messing with those already in line.

The Repeal should not go forward as this one is good as it stands...

CONSIDERING that with the recent inclusion of new proposal categories, this resolution is in the wrong category.Metagaming. Deleted.

So if the intent is good why mess with it.
Remember that good intentions do not always equal a good proposal, just remember "Promotion of Solar Panels. However in our opnion the vagueness of this resolution is one of it greatest strengths as it allows nations to setup their educational systems to meet their needs.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Metagaming. Deleted.
Sorry. I wasn't sure if categories was a meta-game. Can I resubmit it without the offending clause?

Certainly. However, since it's been deleted, and is being debated here, might as well see if there are any more revisions you'd like to make.

Certainly. However, since it's been deleted, and is being debated here, might as well see if there are any more revisions you'd like to make.

His Glorious Hackness makes a good point. Revise here for a bit before submitting again. Discussion here can sometimes mean the difference between reaching quorum and having your proposal deleted (or ending up in the Silly Proposals thread ;) ).

Ok, so any more critique?

OOC: The link to resolution 8 isn't working, just takes you to the search.

Although strong supporters of free-education and other social services, the Dancing Bananalandian delegates must agree that resolution 8 is both too vague and poorly written, and thus in need of removal for the imminent replacement by a better proposal. However, given the noted risk of a proposalm acheiving the opposite being implaced in the interim, we support this proposal only if a better one replacing it is already drafted, submitted, and ready to go right behind this repeal.

OOC: The link to resolution 8 isn't working, just takes you to the search.

Although strong supporters of free-education and other social services, the Dancing Bananalandian delegates must agree that resolution 8 is both too vague and poorly written, and thus in need of removal for the imminent replacement by a better proposal. However, given the noted risk of a proposalm acheiving the opposite being implaced in the interim, we support this proposal only if a better one replacing it is already drafted, submitted, and ready to go right behind this repeal.

A replacement cannot be submitted until the repeal goes through. Read the rules.

I agree! Brilliant idea.
I am in favour of the repeal!

What I meant was ready to be submitted the second the repeal passes, sorry.

Understandable, but that doesn't ensure anything. Aside from the fact that it would take at least three days to come up to vote (longer if there's anything in the queue ahead of it), there's also the possibility that it won't reach quorum or fail on the floor.

At times, I think the near-constant insistance on a replacement waiting in the wings before a Repeal goes through is unfortunate and, well, silly.

At times, I think the near-constant insistance on a replacement waiting in the wings before a Repeal goes through is unfortunate and, well, silly.
For this one especially.

Complaining #28 is "vague" is silly. It's perfectly clear: there is a right to a free education. In a resolution enshrining a right to abortion, do you expect a description of the surgical procedure? For a right to free speech, an annex containing all known permissible knock-knock jokes? It is saying there is a right. Furthermore, its existence hasn't blocked UNEC, The Sex Education Act, IT Education Act, and others. Precisely because this resolution is so succinct, it doesn't get in the way of much.

There is no need to 'replace' this: it does what it sets out to do perfectly. The reason we favour a repeal is not because it's vague, but because there's no such thing as free and relatively un-bloodied lunch in Gruenberg.

For a right to free speech, an annex containing all known permissible knock-knock jokes?Yes. Yes I do. This will be added to the rules.

For this one especially.

Complaining #28 is "vague" is silly. It's perfectly clear: there is a right to a free education. In a resolution enshrining a right to abortion, do you expect a description of the surgical procedure? For a right to free speech, an annex containing all known permissible knock-knock jokes? It is saying there is a right. Furthermore, its existence hasn't blocked UNEC, The Sex Education Act, IT Education Act, and others. Precisely because this resolution is so succinct, it doesn't get in the way of much.

Hence why the Forgotten Territories strongly opposes this repeal

There is no need to 'replace' this: it does what it sets out to do perfectly. The reason we favour a repeal is not because it's vague, but because there's no such thing as free and relatively un-bloodied lunch in Gruenberg.

*wonders what would happen if she sent a plane dropping various cooked meals wrapped up for the peasants' delight over Gruenberg - would they steal all the food or would they allow the free lunch to exist?

*wonders what would happen if she sent a plane dropping various cooked meals wrapped up for the peasants' delight over Gruenberg - would they steal all the food or would they allow the free lunch to exist?

Wouldn't they shoot the plane down?

Wouldn't they shoot the plane down?

Let's assume the meals get dropped out of the plane first

Sure, you can do that if you want. Because it's not free, is it - you're paying for it.