NationStates Jolt Archive

The repeal can be found here:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=metric (Link temporarily disabled until proposal is thoroughly debated and re-posted)

General Assembly of the United Nations,

REALIZING the benefits of an international standard for weights and measures,

COMMENDING the efforts of Wortham for attempting to bring about these means,

REALIZING that the metric system is a widely ineffective system of weights and measurements for some things, such as nautical and astronomical distances,

FURTHER REALIZING that Resolution #24 is an early resolution, and like many earlier resolutions passed in the UN is poorly constructed, badly written, and generally ineffective and vague in implementation, causing adverse effects in many UN member nations,

OBSERVING that the conversion of all UN nations to the metric system would not effect free trade to the extent outlined by Resolution #24, thereby making it misleading, flawed, and needlessly damaging to the economies of many developed nations,

DISTURBED by Resolution #24’s insensitivity towards many nations who prefer their own system of weights and measures, especially those which may hold cultural significance, thereby impugning national sovereignty and/or national cultures,

OBSERVING that because of this, many UN member nations which are forced by international law to convert to the metric system harbor feelings of discontent and resentment towards the UN body itself for impugning national sovereignty and culture,

NOTING that non UN member nations outnumber UN member nations about three to one, therefore more than seven out of every ten nations remain totally unaffected by Resolution #24 and use their own system of weights and measures in matters of international trade anyway,

FURTHER NOTING that the fields of science and education would remain unaffected with or without Resolution #24 in place, as the metric system is already the standard system of weights and measures in both science and education,

ENCOURAGING the drafting of a better written, more effective proposal which would outline the use of an international system of weights and measures which does not impugn the cultures of the world or national sovereignty and clearly defines the implementation and effects the proposal will have on UN nations,

REPEALS Resolution #24: Metric System.

Co-authored by Cobdenia and St Edmunds.

FURTHER OBSERVING that an international system of weights and measures would have little to do with the tourism industry,
Further, it could actually harm it - how are we supposed to make money from the grockles if they know what they're paying for?

DISTURBED by UNR #24’s insensitivity towards many nations who prefer their own system of weights and measures which may hold cultural significance, thereby impugning many national cultures,

*snip*

ENCOURAGING the drafting of a better, more effective proposal which would outline the use of an international system of weights and measures which neither impugns the cultures of the world or national sovereignty,

REPEALS Resolution #24: Metric System[/I]

"Impugns the cultures of the world"? What kind of politically correct swill are you trying to feed us? Is there seriously anyone who has ever complained about the metric system "impugning" national cultures in any way? If your culture buys products from a company in a country that uses metric, are you therefore impugning your own culture? And how will you use your "culturally correct" tools on said products?

Please consider deleting this argument from your proposal, 'cause otherwise I fear it will be laughed out of contention. Surely there are better (worse?) resolutions in more meed of repeal than this one.

Well, my number one reason for repeal of the resolution is that it simply doesn't belong under "Free trade, Strong". It wouldn't have the weight that the resolution paints it as having. If anything, it's mild free trade.

I stuck the impugning cultures bit in for some lefty votes, hoping it'd pay off. Any input you guys can give me would be much appreciated, as any improvements that can be made I'll make since it probably won't make it the first time around.

OBSERVING that the conversion of all UN nations to the metric system would not affect free trade to the extent outlined by UNR #24, thereby making it a misleading and possibly damaging to the economies of many nations, It creates an easily accessible common system that allows for easy conversion across marketplaces. It couldn't hurt their economies...

FURTHER OBSERVING that an international system of weights and measures would have little to do with the tourism industry, Actually, it does. It makes it easier for a person to travel to another location and adjust to the system there. It means persons would not be cheated by not knowing the local standards. It would thereby facilitate travel from those who do not want to do months of intensive research on a potential vacation spot.

DISTURBED by UNR #24’s insensitivity towards many nations who prefer their own system of weights and measures which may hold cultural significance, thereby impugning many national cultures, Slavery also holds a lot of cultural significance. So does the hunting of endangered species. These are banned by UN resolutions. What's wrong with standardizing weights and measures towards the same end?

NOTING that only approximately 27% of all nations belong to the UN, therefore more than seven out of every ten nations remain totally unaffected by UNR #24 and may use their own system of weights and measures in matters of international trade, Does this mean the UN shouldn't get involved? Under this reasoning, most UN resolutions have no point.

FURTHER NOTING that the fields of science and education would remain unaffected with or without UNR #24 in place, Standard systems of weights and measures allow for easier replication of results and adaptations of theories in different countries. This helps science and education by making the results of one countries work more accessible to all.

I really don't think you are arguing this well. In the end, it all comes down to NatSov (according to the last clause), which is just not an adequate argument for an appeal anymore.

While I agree that it should be repealed, I don't agree with the reasoning given here. The reasons it should be repealed is vagueness and the fact that a metric system is inappropriate for everything (metric and SI are not the same). For example, measuring nautical distances in km is a far dafter way to do it then using nautical miles; similar goes for astronomical distances (light years or km?)

I really don't think you are arguing this well. In the end, it all comes down to NatSov (according to the last clause), which is just not an adequate argument for an appeal anymore.

Then now would be a super-swell time to submit some points as to how to spin this effectively. :)

A light year under the metric system can be defined as slightly under 9 1/2 petameters. Aside from one decimal place of percision difference petameters could just as easily be a valid for for astronomical measurements.

Then now would be a super-swell time to submit some points as to how to spin this effectively. :)

Not my area... unfortunately for you, I don't mind this resolution. I'd look at Cob's points, though, and anything anyone else has to say on it... Cob's actually almost swaying me. :P

Also (a bit metagaming, actually, so don't put it in the resolution itself), the law is so vague that UN doesn't follow this law anyway.

Look at Maritime Safety Standards Act. Long Tons? Nautical Miles...

:p

Well, my number one reason for repeal of the resolution is that it simply doesn't belong under "Free trade, Strong". It wouldn't have the weight that the resolution paints it as having. If anything, it's mild free trade.

It'd be significant

Mild: suggests but no mandate
Significant: Mandate but doesn't really deviate from norms
Strong: Mandate something that brings a much different position than normal. A resolution banning abortion, for example.

Category is a weak reason to repeal a resolution. "Being shit" is an excellent reason to repeal a resolution, which applies fully in this case. And I don't think the fact that systems of measure do have some cultural values associatedx should be dismissed, but I wouldn't prioritise it in a repeal.

A resolution banning abortion, for example.
Yay!

As far as Xanthal is concerned, this issue is long past dead. Any objection we might have had (and we support the original resolution) to Metric System on grounds of harming cultures, being too costly, confusing people, or what have you disappeared after the first year. As far as we're concerned, the U.N. nations that wish to comply already have, and those that aren't oughtn't be worrying about it anyway. Trying to go back to old measuring systems following a repeal would be a monumental hassle, worth the trouble for only the most fanatical of opposition leaders.

Nevertheless, if anyone would like to add their suggestions, correct, or edit parts of the proposal I drafted please feel free, I'll give you kudos when I re-submit the proposal.

A light year under the metric system can be defined as slightly under 9 1/2 petameters. Aside from one decimal place of percision difference petameters could just as easily be a valid for for astronomical measurements.

Yes, but it is very hard to measure a petametre compared to a light year; you'd actually have to work it out in light years and convert; as it is the use of light which is used to determine distances.

The same goes for nautical miles; one nM is the equivalent to (if memory serves) one degree of longitude, thus making it very easy to work out your exact position using basic charts and simple maths. In order for to use km, you'd actually have to work it out in Nautical miles, and then convert. Which is just a lot of hassel, when there is a perfectly good system already!

For both of these, they are used for much the same reason that we don't use digital dates; the only sensible way to do it would be to shorten a year to 100 days, which would defy nature.

The vagueness of the resolution means that whole thing is optional, as well. This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling

Seeing as it only lists these three things, does that mean that anything else can be in imperial or other measurements? Speed in mph, but roadsigns in km? beer being sold in pint glasses, but being labeled as 568ml? All rather ludicrous really!

Anyway, I can still piss off tourist by having non-decimal currency!

The Forgotten Territories indicate their opposition to any repeal of UNR #24. Due to the fact that we still cross operate in both miles and kilometers and find ourselves remaining within the boundaries of the resolution, we see no reason to remove it.

OOC: I approved this proposal, because I personally object to compulsory metrication, and this proposal might have a few flaws but it's still considerably better-written than any of the earlier attempts at this [by various nations] that I can remember having seen. The government of St Edmund would object to compulsory standardisation of weights & measures too (partly, as I've explained in an older thread, because most of its foreign trade & cooperative research is with non-UN nations who use the same traditional 'Godwinnian' system as the St Edmundans anyway), but...

The government of St Edmund,
SEEING that the term 'metric system' is actually just another way of saying 'system of measurement';
SEEING that there is no system of measurement used in any of the Earths where St Edmund has its territories that is known simply as 'the metric system';
SEEING that Resolution #24 did not actually identify the precise system that its author wishes to be adopted, either by naming its inventor[s] or any nations where it was already in use or by defining (or even listing) any of the units involved;
CONCLUDES that Resolution #24 is simply a "fluffy" wish for the UN's member-nations to adopt a common system of weights & measures, which does not actually mandate any particular system for that role, and that any appearance of it meaning otherwise is simply because it -- like several others of the early Resolutions --was badly written.
FEELS free, therefore, to continue mandating use of the traditional Godwinnian system of weights & measures within its territories.

;)

NOTING that only approximately 27% of all nations belong to the UN, therefore more than seven out of every ten nations remain totally unaffected by UNR #24 and may use their own system of weights and measures in matters of international trade,
I really don't think this bit is legal. I'm not sure, but it's just a strong feeling of unease. I think it falls under metagaming, as it refers to game statistics. No doubt I will be corrected by someone with a better understanding of the Most Glorious Protocols, I still tend to think in terms of the Enodian.

Regardless, I would suggest removing this, as it makes you look like you are grasping at straws. More of a style thing than actual legality, but style can make all the difference with the delegates.

I really don't think this bit is legal. I'm not sure, but it's just a strong feeling of unease. I think it falls under metagaming, as it refers to game statistics. No doubt I will be corrected by someone with a better understanding of the Most Glorious Protocols, I still tend to think in terms of the Enodian.
I don't think it's illegal. Both "Nuclear Armaments" and "Repeal 'The Law of the Sea'" referred to the fact that UN members are outnumbered 3 to 1 by non-members. Perhaps putting it in those terms, rather than "27%", would make it more pallatable.

Regardless, I would suggest removing this, as it makes you look like you are grasping at straws. More of a style thing than actual legality, but style can make all the difference with the delegates.
This I agree with.

Yes, but it is very hard to measure a petametre compared to a light year; you'd actually have to work it out in light years and convert; as it is the use of light which is used to determine distances.

I was under the impression that short astronomical distances were determined by paralax and long astronomical distances were determined by doppler shift so in either case there is a formula to convert from one measurement system to another that has to involve a constant of some sort.

Anyway, I can still piss off tourist by having non-decimal currency!

As long as your currency follows the fundamental rule for the use of the "greedy algorithm" then Tzorsland would have no objections and would in fact be quite supportative.

Note: The Greedy algorithm says in order to make change you start off with the highest unit of currency and keep going until you end off with units. This would provide you with the least number of bills/coins for the change providing that all units are multiples of the lowest non unitary coin/bill.

Example: Suppose that your coinage was in units of 15, 6, 3 and 1.
You need to make change of 25.
Use a 15 coin 25-15 = 10
Use a 6 coin 10-4 = 6
Use a 3 coin 6-3 = 1
Finally use a 1 coin, resulting in the use of 4 coins which is the smallest number of coins you can use to make change in this system.

I was under the impression that short astronomical distances were determined by paralax and long astronomical distances were determined by doppler shift so in either case there is a formula to convert from one measurement system to another that has to involve a constant of some sort.

Maybe, not really my line! I'll stick to, whatchamacallits, big floaty boaty thingies. :p

As long as your currency follows the fundamental rule for the use of the "greedy algorithm" then Tzorsland would have no objections and would in fact be quite supportative.

Erm; not sure I understand that! :confused:

Well, in Cobdenia we use the following system:

Three currency thingies: Pounds (£), shillings (s or /), and pence (d)
There are 20 shillings in the pound, twelve pence in a shilling.
Denominations of notes are:

£5, £1 and 10/-

Coins are:
Farthing: ¼d

Half-penny (pronounced hape-ny): ½d

Penny: 1d

Three-penny (pronounced thruppunce or thrupny): 3d

Sixpence (pronounced sixpunce) aka Tanner: 6d

Shilling: 1/-

Florin: 2/-

Half-crown: 2/6d

Crown: 5/-

Guinea: 21/- or £1 1/-

Guniea's and crowns are rare; you are very unlikely to have them in your pocket

Greedy algorithm applied to currency systems?

Or are you saying making the currency system so that the greedy algorithm will work on it?

Maybe, not really my line! I'll stick to, whatchamacallits, big floaty boaty thingies. :p



Erm; not sure I understand that! :confused:

Well, in Cobdenia we use the following system:

Three currency thingies: Pounds (£), shillings (s or /), and pence (d)
There are 20 shillings in the pound, twelve pence in a shilling.
Denominations of notes are:

£5, £1 and 10/-

Coins are:
Farthing: ¼d

Half-penny (pronounced hape-ny): ½d

Penny: 1d

Three-penny (pronounced thruppunce or thrupny): 3d

Sixpence (pronounced sixpunce) aka Tanner: 6d

Shilling: 1/-

Florin: 2/-

Half-crown: 2/6d

Crown: 5/-

Guinea: 21/- or £1 1/-

Guniea's and crowns are rare; you are very unlikely to have them in your pocket

Yeah, this should be in a seperate thread.

@St. Edmunds: Thanks for those bits, I'll incorporate them in the next draft and give you credit. :)

General Assembly of the United Nations,

REALIZING the benefits of an international standard for weights and measures,

COMMENDING the efforts of Wortham for attempting to bring about these means,

REALIZING that the metric system is a widely ineffective system of weights and measurements for some things, such as nautical and astronomical distances,

FURTHER REALIZING that Resolution #24 is an early resolution, and like many earlier resolutions passed in the UN is poorly constructed, badly written, and generally ineffective and vague in implementation, causing adverse effects in many UN member nations,

OBSERVING that the conversion of all UN nations to the metric system would not effect free trade to the extent outlined by Resolution #24, thereby making it misleading, flawed, and needlessly damaging to the economies of many developed nations,

DISTURBED by Resolution #24’s insensitivity towards many nations who prefer their own system of weights and measures, especially those which may hold cultural significance, thereby impugning national sovereignty and/or national cultures,

OBSERVING that because of this, many UN member nations which are forced by international law to convert to the metric system harbor feelings of discontent and resentment towards the UN body itself for impugning national sovereignty and culture,

NOTING that non UN member nations outnumber UN member nations about three to one, therefore more than seven out of every ten nations remain totally unaffected by Resolution #24 and use their own system of weights and measures in matters of international trade anyway,

FURTHER NOTING that the fields of science and education would remain unaffected with or without Resolution #24 in place, as the metric system is already the standard system of weights and measures in both science and education,

ENCOURAGING the drafting of a better written, more effective proposal which would outline the use of an international system of weights and measures which does not impugn the cultures of the world or national sovereignty and clearly defines the implementation and effects the proposal will have on UN nations,

REPEALS Resolution #24: Metric System.

Kudos to Cobdenia and St Edmunds for their help on this resolution.

Please feel free to commend, correct, and criticize the first draft of my revised repeal of the Metric System.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10742560#post10742560

For those interested in the first draft of the revised repeal.

@MODS: sorry if this should be one topic, I should probably know better. :confused:

In future, please keep your drafts in the same thread. At most, you should have 3 threads:
1) Drafting thread
2) Submission campaigning thread
3) Voting thread

Most will have just one thread for all 3 stages.

Our recommendation is to keep the first post on your drafting thread up to date with the latest draft so that people can look at it and know which one they're debating. Then just leave a post saying "updated" or something, and people can look back to see what you've changed and comment on the changes.

I think it falls under metagaming, as it refers to game statistics. No doubt I will be corrected by someone with a better understanding of the Most Glorious ProtocolsWell... not really; certainly not enough to warrent outright deletion. While it does refer to game statistics, it refers to statistics that an in character nation would "know". Just like in the real world, a nation leader can say, "Hey, ya know... Iran isn't a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

In contrast, something along the lines of "Well, there's a daily issue that lets nations decide if they allow prostitution or not," would be a violation. Issues exist wholly as a game element.

I still tend to think in terms of the Enodian.In all honesty, much of the current ruleset was taken from the work Enodia did. I expanded on some of the rules a little bit, but the majority of it is the same.

Edit: Merged.

You can only co-author one nation...

Thankfully, seeing as I like seeing my nation's name in lights, I created this (http://www.nationstates.net/cobdenia_and_st_edmund) as a cunning way around it :p

I would move to strike out the ENCOURAGING clause...I don't really want another one of these resolutions :headbang:

You can only co-author one nation...

I think, that with the amount of proposals that could potentially have 2 co-authors, this rule may need to be slightly altered. (After all, just look at Resolution 139)

The rule isn't altered, it was just "waived" on UNR #139

Yes, but due to my cunningness and all round fantasticness, it technically lists only one nation :p

Yeah, this should be in a seperate thread.Erm, this is a Sound and Fury board; roleplaying is rather expected here.

Updated the front page, so I'm bumping this. Please, any constructive comments positive and negative are very much appreaciated.

Thankfully, seeing as I like seeing my nation's name in lights, I created this (http://www.nationstates.net/cobdenia_and_st_edmund) as a cunning way around it :p...

I...

You...

...

GAH!