NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the resolution that recently reached quorum:

Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #11
Proposed by: Larry is still God

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:

NOTING that environmental hazards are a primary concern in our interconnected,

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” identifies too narrow of a subject area, and should be broadened to support environmental concerns in other areas,

CONSIDERING that the support of well-written, comprehensive resolutions is fundamental to the longevity of the United Nations,

CONCERNED that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” is poorly written and ineffectual in that it defines a finite subject area and does not expand beyond it,

ALSO CONSIDERING that, as the United Nations has constantly shown, poor and ineffectual resolutions can be replaced with more effective ones,

SUPPORTING the replacement of Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” with a proposal both effective and broad in scope in its support of environmental protections,

REPEALS Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers.”

Co-authored by Dankism

We see absolutely no reason to repeal this resolution. If the author of the repeal believes additional, broader measures are needed, a proposal requiring them could easily be written without conflicting with this one.

The argument that the resolution should be repealed because "it defines a finite subject area and does not expand beyond it" seems to us like saying, "We have to repeal this law against murder because it doesn't outlaw fraud."

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites agrees with Mr. Olembe completely.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Norderia is falling in line with the good members Olembe and Flibble.

Tommo the Stout
Norderian Rep.

We see absolutely no reason to repeal this resolution. If the author of the repeal believes additional, broader measures are needed, a proposal requiring them could easily be written without conflicting with this one.


My thoughts exactly.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The argument that the resolution should be repealed because "it defines a finite subject area and does not expand beyond it" seems to us like saying, "We have to repeal this law against murder because it doesn't outlaw fraud."

Indeed.

I understand the resolution and it makes sense. There is no reason to repeal this resolution.

We see absolutely no reason to repeal this resolution. If the author of the repeal believes additional, broader measures are needed, a proposal requiring them could easily be written without conflicting with this one.

The argument that the resolution should be repealed because "it defines a finite subject area and does not expand beyond it" seems to us like saying, "We have to repeal this law against murder because it doesn't outlaw fraud."

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

yep

this is actually a good resolution no reason to kill it

The Holy Republic of Superfudge agrees with the previous representatives that this Resolution does not need to be repealed for any reason.

1.) Resolution #11 is not ambiguous
2.) the resolution is well written and defines clearly the heretos and whyfores.
3.) If the resolution needs ammending, it does not require a repeal.



The honorable J. Blandizzle
Most Worthy representative of the republic of Superfudge

3.) If the resolution needs ammending, it does not require a repeal.May we first join the ever-growing group of delegates who see little reason to repeal Resolution #11.

We suspect the Superfudge representative merely misspoke and knows that resolutions cannot be amended. Rather, what has been suggested by other delegates are additional, focused resolutions to address any situations not covered by #11.

We also ponder the paradox of TG campaigns the request a response if one is not going to support a proposal to quorum, and yet do not themselves respond to any questions or concerns included in such responses. Such pondering does postpone the discovery of the empty toilet paper roll.

Jim Jones
Rubina
NSUN Mouthpiece, User Friendlia

What the various above representatives said.

Stephanie Fulton
UN Consul for Enn

This is the resolution that recently reached quorum:

Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #11
Proposed by: Larry is still God

Another unknown who slipped one in.

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

*sighs*. I think the Ausserland delegation was correct in their statements

Argument:

NOTING that environmental hazards are a primary concern in our interconnected,

interconnected what? You can't seriously expect me to support a proposal that fails to finish all of its sentences.

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” identifies too narrow of a subject area, and should be broadened to support environmental concerns in other areas,

And this means that Resolution 11 should be repealed because? UNCoESB dealt with much broader topics than dolphins and whales in its dealing with the environmental concern of endangered animals, and it was permitted to go ahead despite the still standing resolutions on Dolphins and Whales (the latter of which still stands today).

CONSIDERING that the support of well-written, comprehensive resolutions is fundamental to the longevity of the United Nations,

Not necessarily. There was a recent resolution that passed with an excellent margin, was not very comprehensive but it did its job extremely well and was generally supported as being a quality resolution. Off the top of my head, I can't remember the name. In fact, it was 5 lines long.

CONCERNED that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” is poorly written and ineffectual in that it defines a finite subject area and does not expand beyond it,

Poorly written? The resolution has maybe one grammatical error, no spelling errors, is one paragraph and makes its statement. It might not be stylized the same way we write resolutions these days, but it is well written AND while it deals with a smaller subject, it deals with that subject EXTREMELY WELL - therefore proving that it is effective.

On a side not, considering that a resolution on the environment is limited to, well, the environment, wouldn't that make its focus finite?

ALSO CONSIDERING that, as the United Nations has constantly shown, poor and ineffectual resolutions can be replaced with more effective ones,

Indeed

SUPPORTING the replacement of Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” with a proposal both effective and broad in scope in its support of environmental protections,

.....um....ok

REPEALS Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers.”

Why?

Co-authored by Dankism

Ah. *Stops self from uttering a few choice words*

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

Seriously, why the heck are we voting on this? All you do by tossing this in is you make it so we now have MORE documents to look over. That's right, when a repeal AND a replacement passes, that means that we still get to look at the original resolution, the repeal, AND the replacement. Certainly, we don't have to worry about its effect, but that is besides the point. What are you doing here? You're saying that the effect of the original resolution is good, so let's repeal it! Why do we have to repeal it? It makes no sense.

interconnected what? You can't seriously expect me to support a proposal that fails to finish all of its sentences.

I couldn't believe this reached quorum. I stopped reading the thing shortly after that sentence. Imagine my surprise when I saw it again here, more so that it reached quorum.

I couldn't believe this reached quorum. I stopped reading the thing shortly after that sentence. Imagine my surprise when I saw it again here, more so that it reached quorum.

I remember it seeing the original thread and saying "yeah right", thus ignoring it until I saw the title this time and went "what sort of sick world are we living in?"

All about the stats. I'm sure interest in tossing an enviro Resolution was what got it most of those votes.

All about the stats. I'm sure interest in tossing an enviro Resolution was what got it most of those votes.

Maybe. When it come to the voting I'll be in favor of the repeal because I like getting rid of useless and ill-conceived resolutions. But now that you mention it, I won't mind resultant the stat change.

There is not many good reasons to get rid of this. It is not a major burden on the economy but does help the enviroment alot I do not support this repeal. Also next time post the thing you are getting rid of when you want to repeal something.

Against.

~Lori "Would People Stop Submitting Fucking Stupid Repeals Of Resolutions Where There Are Plenty Of Actual Arguments To Be Used Instead And In Doing So Neatly Killing Others' Chances Of Repealing The Damn Things" Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

Against.

A) I think it's a meaningful and well done resolution. As FL said, maybe not stylized as the ones now tend to be, but it makes it's point and works.

B) The arguement in the repeal is laughable.

Poorly written? The resolution has maybe one grammatical error, no spelling errors, is one paragraph and makes its statement. It might not be stylized the same way we write resolutions these days, but it is well written AND while it deals with a smaller subject, it deals with that subject EXTREMELY WELL - therefore proving that it is effective.
You left out the RL reference, but it predates the rules so that doesn't count anyway.


Maybe. When it come to the voting I'll be in favor of the repeal because I like getting rid of useless and ill-conceived resolutions. But now that you mention it, I won't mind resultant the stat change.Statwanker!!!!:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You left out the RL reference, but it predates the rules so that doesn't count anyway.

Hey, that was back in the days when the UN couldn't differentiate between Game Mechanics, metagaming, and roleplay. What do you expect? It's still well written, even if all of the information isn't exactly pertinent to the NSUN.

Hey, that was back in the days when the UN couldn't differentiate between Game Mechanics, metagaming, and roleplay. What do you expect? It's still well written, even if all of the information isn't exactly pertinent to the NSUN.
What are you complaining about, I said that it predates the rules so the RL reference doesn't count, I was just mentioning that you forgot to mention it, besides I'm on record (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11181150&postcount=3)as being opposed to the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

An OOC comment:
NOTING that environmental hazards are a primary concern in our interconnected,
Our interconnected what? Our interconnected typo? Our interconnected "I can't copy and paste"?

The first line really sets out the stall for what's to come.

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” identifies too narrow of a subject area, and should be broadened to support environmental concerns in other areas,
Wow, we've seem some pretty dumb arguments over time, but this is jostling at the top of the pile. Presumably "Outlaw Pedophilia" should also have set hygiene standards for frozen foods? How about that "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act" - why didn't it have something on the problem of AIDS in the developing world. And we made sure to vote against "The Sex Education Act" because it didn't establish an international court.

CONSIDERING that the support of well-written, comprehensive resolutions is fundamental to the longevity of the United Nations,
[standard snark]Yup: which is why this one will hopefully crash and burn.

[moreconstructively]Not really. Support of fucking stupid proposals, on the other hand, is certainly not conducive to longevity.

(Ok, so it wasn't much more constructive.)

CONCERNED that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” is poorly written and ineffectual in that it defines a finite subject area and does not expand beyond it,
Lol, I say, lol. Defining a finite subject area is bad? What a lot of bullshit. Yeah, let's bring on vapid dribbles of proposals that don't define what they're dealing with and amble around problems and solutions using lots of jargon and pop-psych mush. That'll really solve international problems.

Utter shit.

And "poorly written"? Is that all you guys can come up with now, that it doesn't use the caps style? Please.

ALSO CONSIDERING that, as the United Nations has constantly shown, poor and ineffectual resolutions can be replaced with more effective ones,
Not really. BECAUSE THERE ALREADY IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THIS ONE. Resolution #58, SPCC Regulation Act. Which is shit. So I wouldn't hold out hopes for an effective replacement, because a) this resolution does its job just fine and so a replacement would be, you know, the exact same resolution, and b) when the UN did try to replace this, it fucked up. With shit like this making quorum, not seeing why things are anymore conducive to a good quality proposal now.

SUPPORTING the replacement of Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” with a proposal both effective and broad in scope in its support of environmental protections,
I'd be more inclined not to piss myself with laughter at crap like this if I saw a replacement, but on the evidence of this proposal, it'd make my eyes bleed, so maybe not.

BSHT is effective in what it does. If you want something broad, write - oh, no, it can't be! - a new proposal. Shock! Horror!

REPEALS Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers.”
I've tried to repeal this one in the past, and so if you find the hissy swearing annoying, skip to this bit, and you'll see my position summed up in a neat: no.

The peopl of Airatum agree with the above delegates that this repeal is not worthy of support.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

~Lori "Would People Stop Submitting Fucking Stupid Repeals Of Resolutions Where There Are Plenty Of Actual Arguments To Be Used Instead And In Doing So Neatly Killing Others' Chances Of Repealing The Damn Things" Jiffjeff

:D

The peopl of Airatum agree with the above delegates that this repeal is not worthy of support.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The Dhāna representative must humbly agree with the honored ambassador of Airatum. This repeal lacks coherency and, though written in what has become the more prevalent style of proposals, utilizes an argument unworthy of such honorable personages as have chosen to transcribe this "resolution". Dhānas vote will be against.


Natwar Kuṅchen
Dhāna Representative
NSUN

Does anyone know off-hand what was the most trounced proposal to hit the GA floor?

Cuz I'm willing to make a bet here that this at least comes close.

Does anyone know off-hand what was the most trounced proposal to hit the GA floor?

Cuz I'm willing to make a bet here that this at least comes close.
UN Security Act I snatched that record from Forced Banishment Ban.

I would jump in with any number of arguments against this repeal attempt ranging from the sublime to the inane, but somehow I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that this even made it anywhere near quorum.

Ahhhh well. I'll just be over here with my carrots....

UN Security Act I snatched that record from Forced Banishment Ban.

Ooooh, recent. 26% is low...

I bet this one trumps it. Takers? A case of Norderian Vodka, and a few pounds of chocolates from the neighboring states in the North Sea if it doesn't score lower than UNSA1.

I'm going 60% chance it passes

Yes, I have tons of faith in the GA to deal proper verdicts on resolutions</sarcasm>

Ooooh, recent. 26% is low...

I bet this one trumps it. Takers? A case of Norderian Vodka, and a few pounds of chocolates from the neighboring states in the North Sea if it doesn't score lower than UNSA1.

I disagree. It should be voted down, but there is a great chance it won't be. UNSA1 failed by such a great margin in part because of the horrid title. Repealing a resolution titled Ban Single-Hulled Tankers isn't going to attract many against votes. I expect many to vote for the repeal because BS-HT sounds like an ambiguous resolution. I expect the repeal to pass.

On a side note, any chance of implementing repeal-repeals? ;)

I disagree. It should be voted down, but there is a great chance it won't be. UNSA1 failed by such a great margin in part because of the horrid title. Repealing a resolution titled Ban Single-Hulled Tankers isn't going to attract many against votes. I expect many to vote for the repeal because BS-HT sounds like an ambiguous resolution. I expect the repeal to pass.

On a side note, any chance of implementing repeal-repeals? ;)

I amend my bet. It loses not by a greater number of votes than UNSA1, but gets a greater percentage of the total votes as nays. I think it's possible.

I was wondering about the repeal of repeals. The especially awful ones stay on the books permanantly otherwise...

Tsk.

UN Security Act I snatched that record from Forced Banishment Ban.

and as the author of Forced Banishment Ban, I'm very thankful it did :p.

As for this repeal, like those above me I can't see any rhyme or reason to remove that resolution, and certainly don't agree with the arguements in the repeal text, so will be voting against when it hits the floor.

This delegate concurs with the honorable delegates who have noticed the utter lack of justification that the author of the Repeal of Resolution #11 has provided to this honored body for the passage of this Repeal. This delegate would suggest that the author of the aforementioned Repeal carefully analyze the suggestions given and re-submit this Repeal at a later date.

Ser Mychel Redfort
Lord of the Redfort and High Steward of the Vale
Ambassador to the United Nations

The seas do not belong to any nation, we must be stuards of the environment and take action to stop pollution. If this is repealed, I fear it will be replaced with one that puts money-hungry copporations in charge. We must uphold this resolution and continue to fight pollution.

I disagree. It should be voted down, but there is a great chance it won't be. UNSA1 failed by such a great margin in part because of the horrid title. Repealing a resolution titled Ban Single-Hulled Tankers isn't going to attract many against votes. I expect many to vote for the repeal because BS-HT sounds like an ambiguous resolution. I expect the repeal to pass.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, remember that it's a repeal of an environmental resolution which will not be earning the repeal any votes from the fluffies.

Bob Flibble

Like most others here, I will be against this repel; Resolution #11 must stay in place! However, recalling that another environmental resolution (Replanting Trees) was recently repelled, I am not sure if pro-environment nations will be able to defeat this repel.

Ooooh, recent. 26% is low...

I bet this one trumps it. Takers? A case of Norderian Vodka, and a few pounds of chocolates from the neighboring states in the North Sea if it doesn't score lower than UNSA1.

For sport's sake, Ambassador Zyryanov - who happens to like chocolates, like any normal person - will take you up on that. And offers five cases of Ariddian grapefruit vodka if it does score lower.

For sport's sake, Ambassador Zyryanov - who happens to like chocolates, like any normal person - will take you up on that. And offers five cases of Ariddian grapefruit vodka if it does score lower.

You've got yourself a bet.

I trust you won't be voting for this just to try to ruin the deal, will you?

Actually, that makes me wonder... Will any UN gnomes be on my case for betting on legislation in such a public venue? Or are the stakes low and playful enough not to matter? I don't want to influence votes by the betting. Norderian vodka is rather valuable. :p

It appears that voting has begun. I want to tell people that voting against this repeal is a good idea. The argument in the repeal is that it does not reach broadly enough.

.....

Well how much broader can "Ban single-hulled tankers" get? Let's see what we can do here.

Ban single-hulled tankers? Ok.
Prevent deforestation? Well... Gee, that'd be nice, but that doesn't really have anything to do with banning single-hulled tankers does it?

R11 doesn't need to be repealed. Vote to reflect that.

Hirota had the honour of being the first nation to ballot against this proposal. The reasons have already been presented by other members.

The government of Telidia concurs with many of our esteemed colleagues. We can see no reason at all to repeal this resolution.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I do not see the point why the repeal should pass, too.

But I fear that it does...:headbang:

I hereby concur with all of those honourable members who voted NO!

But I am distressed to note that at the time of posting this that more people are voting "Yes"...what a pity!:upyours:

King of Barlovia

But it seems like those who are voting for it do not have much to say. :mad:

Yes, unfortunately they don't...we should debate resolutions up for vote before voting them...we should have a mandatory debating period before resolutions are put to vote!

His Most Excellent Majesty's government concurs with the honorable representatives, and will vote against the resolution at hand.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Great Star Empire of Allech-Atreus

The Government of Sujereska, as well as the Region of Irensaga, supports the original resolution. Its intentions are clear, its effects well known, and targeting a narrow, specific issue is a better strategy for the United Nations than the broad, sweeping proposals that often conflict with national sovereignty.

We intend to vote against, and trust others shall do the same.

Respectfully,
Mark Sujereska
President, Republic of Sukereska
Delegate, Region of Irensaga

We flipped a coin, and voted in favor.

Although we really should have abstained.

We flipped a coin, and voted in favor.

Although we really should have abstained.Seems like many coins are flipped today, and they all show the same side.:mad:

Resolution #11 cannot be clearer in contrast to the Repeal which seems to be vague. I particularly don't like the phrase "should be broadened to support environmental concerns in other areas"

The author of this charade does not specify which areas. Furthermore, questions a well-written resolution voted by more than 19,000 UN members

This repeal is brought before the UN members and personally speaking, although I know many members share the same feelings, I think this is a joke to see the light of publicity.

But it seems like those who are voting for it do not have much to say. :mad:

What is there to debate?

The people of Airatum support the original resolution, and have registered their vote AGAINST this repeal.

We see no reason to repeal "Single Hulled Tankers". If the author of this repeal would like to see more environmental legislation across a wider scope of topics, then we encourage them to submit that legislation. "Single Hulled Tankers" does not prohibit further legislation on other environmental topics.

We strongly urge those who have voted in favor of this repeal to reconsider and vote AGAINST it, or at least answer the general assembly as to why they feel it necessary to repeal "Single Hulled Tankers" so that their concerns can be answered by those who are against this repeal.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

What is there to debate?
They could tell us what makes them feel like they should vote for it.

I can't see clear reasons.

They could tell us what makes them feel like they should vote for it.

I can't see clear reasons.

Exactly.

If there is only one side to the issue, then there isn't a debate. It's just someone who decided to post a proposal, campaign for it, then disappear and let the world take its course.

They could tell us what makes them feel like they should vote for it.

I can't see clear reasons.Dude, I already told you; I flipped a coin. What more do you want?

Dude, I already told you; I flipped a coin. What more do you want?

Well you could have made it a double-headed coin and called against for heads. ;)

Dude, I already told you; I flipped a coin. What more do you want?
How about actually thinking about your vote instead of being an idiot.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

As of the current time, the votes stand as follows:

1089 in favor
691 against

Natwar Kuṅchen
Dhāna Ambassador
NSUN

You've got yourself a bet.

I trust you won't be voting for this just to try to ruin the deal, will you?


No chance of that. Ariddia has cast its vote against. But so far, it seems a lot of UN nations want to see Ambassador Zyryanov get her chocolates...

The Holy Empire of Greater Osea finds that there is nothing wrong with the original resolution passed. Why change something that isn't broken? Instead create a new resolution that would EXPAND the original's scope, not repeal it because it is not written well. In fact, rewriting this resolution would only add confusion to those unfamiliar with diplomatic language i.e. the world populace at large. The original states its aim in clear terms and the Holy Empire of Osea finds no fault in it.

Fernando Castillio y Torres de Bourbon y Pascua
Minister-General of Foreign Affairs
The Holy Empire of Greater Osea

How about actually thinking about your vote instead of being an idiot.Well, let's see ... I tried to weigh the merits of a really stupid resolution versus the merits of a really stupid repeal, but I couldn't, so I flipped a coin. This is only a game; I never realized I was required to think about anything. And I'm sure all the people who voted against the last proposal at vote just because it was sponsored by LAE would have to agree. ;)

Dude, I already told you; I flipped a coin. What more do you want?
I understood your reasons. No problem, do as you like.

But maybe someone else had a different method of deciding and would like to tell us about it...

Well, let's see ... I tried to weigh the merits of a really stupid resolution versus the merits of a really stupid repeal, but I couldn't, so I flipped a coin. This is only a game; I never realized I was required to think about anything. And I'm sure all the people who voted against the last proposal at vote just because it was sponsored by LAE would have to agree. ;)
Lol.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

I would like to see at least a draft of the 'broader, more effective' resolution that should replace this one before I repeal a perfectly decent resolution.
I'm voting against.

Ambassador of Caramellunacy

i agree, this resolution is a waste of time. it is poorly written, doesn't finish its sentences, requires unnecessary work, and is overall stupid. why not just revise all the other U.N. resolutions that aren't specific enough to cover all aspects of a problem with a worse one, while your at it? wouldn't it be better to just add on to the previous resolution instead of replacing it?
Larry is still God :mp5: , :mp5: , and double :mp5:

i agree, this resolution is a waste of time. it is poorly written, doesn't finish its sentences, requires unnecessary work, and is overall stupid.

Especially when compared with your perfect English and flawless reasoning, genius. *snicker*

I would like to see at least a draft of the 'broader, more effective' resolution that should replace this one before I repeal a perfectly decent resolution.
I'm voting against.

Ambassador of Caramellunacy

The Dominion of Kashmia agrees with The Grand Duchy of Caramellunacy. I am also voting against the repeal of #11.

The ayes are pulling ahead- I defy any person who voted "yes" to come forward with a logical expalanation!

and chaos reigns as those who are voting "no" seem to have the courage to actually say they are and why!

As of the current time, the votes stand as follows:

1089 in favor
691 against

Unfortunately, this includes my honored regional delegate. We fear we will need to withdraw our endorsement.

Natwar Kuṅchen
Dhāna Ambassador
NSUN

Tell your delegate to rethink his or her position. If he or she doesn't, go ahead and weaken their vote by withdrawing your endorsement.

The vote count is appalling. Forgottenlord might make me eat my own words...

By the way, Powderland, good to see you in forum. Welcome.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ban it becuase it only does one thing, even though it seems to do that one thing very well? What were these people thinking? There's nothing wrong with that resolution. This is just a waste of everyones time.

A tremendous waste of time. There are two or three worthy proposals in queue that will have to wait another week.

(By the way, Nagapura, it's spelled "Shakespeare")

The people of Airatum would like to ask that, should this repeal succeed, a delegate step up to the plate and submit a rewrite of "Ban Single Hulled Tankers". With a removal of its RL reference, perhaps adoption of the current style standards for resolutions, and a catchier title like "Oil Spill Prevention Initiative".

Yoah Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The people of Airatum would like to ask that, should this repeal succeed, a delegate step up to the plate and submit a rewrite of "Ban Single Hulled Tankers". With a removal of its RL reference, perhaps adoption of the current style standards for resolutions, and a catchier title like "Oil Spill Prevention Initiative".

Yoah Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Gladly. I could turn out a passable one in one draft in ten minutes. I'll do that if I lose my bet in a substantially unforeseen way.

Gladly. I could turn out a passable one in one draft in ten minutes. I'll do that if I lose my bet in a substantially unforeseen way.
Really? How will you avoid contradiction/duplication of Resolution #58?

Really? How will you avoid contradiction/duplication of Resolution #58?

Easily. All R58 says about double-hulled tankers is that they should be endorsed. My replacement would simply say that Single-hulled tankers are banned, which R58 does not do.

Easily. All R58 says about double-hulled tankers is that they should be endorsed. My replacement would simply say that Single-hulled tankers are banned, which R58 does not do.
Which is, you know, just what this Resolution does.

Gladly. I could turn out a passable one in one draft in ten minutes. I'll do that if I lose my bet in a substantially unforeseen way.
[...]
By the way, Powderland, good to see you in forum. Welcome.
Yeah I would assist you in this project as proposed for the PRA.

And, by the way, Norderia, good to see you in forum.:)
I read here just occasionally as I am engaged in another forum and do not want to spend too much of my time debating. ;)

Which is, you know, just what this Resolution does.

If R11 gets repealed, it won't matter, will it?

Hmm. Well, this repeal looks like it may pass, although the voting's tightened up a lot thanks to The North Pacific, so I suppose contingency plans aren't unwise.

But I question whether banning single-hulls would be effective anyway. The repeal of "The Law of the Sea" means that there is no longer a prohibition on UN nations running flags of convenience. Furthermore, a simple ban on single-hulls doesn't seem to me to have enough bang for its buck to warrant its inevitable Environmental, All Businesses status. Perhaps something on cleaning up slicks, responding to spillages, the appointment of legal tribunals to decide blame in such cases, that sort of thing, could feature?

Although, I still have no idea how the authors of this repeal intended the replacement to be "broader". Their active participation in this thread has helped in this regard.

Hmm. Well, this repeal looks like it may pass, although the voting's tightened up a lot thanks to The North Pacific, so I suppose contingency plans aren't unwise.

But I question whether banning single-hulls would be effective anyway. The repeal of "The Law of the Sea" means that there is no longer a prohibition on UN nations running flags of convenience. Furthermore, a simple ban on single-hulls doesn't seem to me to have enough bang for its buck to warrant its inevitable Environmental, All Businesses status. Perhaps something on cleaning up slicks, responding to spillages, the appointment of legal tribunals to decide blame in such cases, that sort of thing, could feature?

Although, I still have no idea how the authors of this repeal intended the replacement to be "broader". Their active participation in this thread has helped in this regard.

Would not it qualify under "automobile manufacturing" or is that specifically cars, trucks, and analogues of that type?

I think that a resolution about oil cleanup would be a good one, but I don't know if there's any reason not to ban single-hulled tankers as well. Oil cleanup is just so after-the-fact.

My thoughts:

Net effect: meh.
Quality: poor but passable
Arguments: worthy of UNSA1

My thoughts:

Net effect: meh.
Quality: poor but passable
Arguments: worthy of UNSA1

And your vote? Or needn't I ask?

I think that a resolution about oil cleanup would be a good one, but I don't know if there's any reason not to ban single-hulled tankers as well. Oil cleanup is just so after-the-fact.

Yes, but I think adding oil cleanup to a new resolution would qualify as exactly the kind of 'broader' resolution that the repealers are claiming to want to instate.

Yes, but I think adding oil cleanup to a new resolution would qualify as exactly the kind of 'broader' resolution that the repealers are claiming to want to instate.

There wouldn't be any need at all to remove R11 though. The oil cleanup resolution could stand alone, as could a ban on single-hulled tankers.

If this does get repealed, ironically enough, I imagine that the ban on single-hulled tankers would be included in a cleanup resolution. This repeal really is just a wrench in the works, slowing the whole thing down.

Actually, we're in complete agreement. I see no reason for #11 to be banned. I just meant that should the repeal pass, a resolution including cleanup AND banning single-hulled tankers would be the kind of broader resolution they seem to be so intent upon.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ban it becuase it only does one thing, even though it seems to do that one thing very well? What were these people thinking? There's nothing wrong with that resolution. This is just a waste of everyones time.We are sick of all these arguments that UNR #11 "does something," that it does something "very well," that it's "well-written," that it is in any way a good proposal, or that there couldn't possibly be a good reason for voting it out.

Read it. Go ahead, read the original resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=10). It does nothing. Ridding ourselves of this waste will not be a bad thing for this body. Sure, the repeal argument is crap, but this is hardly the sort of issue for which we think the bar for a repeal argument should be set so high.

Kenny UN Mission

Read it. Go ahead, read the original resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=10). It does nothing. Ridding ourselves of this waste will not be a bad thing for this body. Sure, the repeal argument is crap, but this is hardly the sort of issue for which we think the bar for a repeal argument should be set so high.

Kenny UN Mission


I've read it, and while the resolution does not expressly ban single-hulled tankers, it seems pretty clear that that was exactly what it intended. Furthermore, as I've said before, if the reasoning behind this repeal is that Resolution 11 is ineffective and needs to be replaced, I would like to see some form of a replacement draft before repealing existing legislation.

And why shouldn't the repeal argument be expected to make some sense? Especially if, as you seem to point out, there is a good case to be made that the resolution SHOULD be repealed?

I've read it, and while the resolution does not expressly ban single-hulled tankers, it seems pretty clear that that was exactly what it intended."While the raid on Tora Bora did not expressly result in Osama bin Laden's death or capture, it seems pretty clear that that was exactly what it intended."

Oh, OK. I guess I can rest easy now. Good will come so long as the intentions are good.

Furthermore, as I've said before, if the reasoning behind this repeal is that Resolution 11 is ineffective and needs to be replaced, I would like to see some form of a replacement draft before repealing existing legislation.Why? You've already admitted the existing legislation doesn't do anything. What purpose would keeping it serve?

And why shouldn't the repeal argument be expected to make some sense? Especially if, as you seem to point out, there is a good case to be made that the resolution SHOULD be repealed?The case ain't so good. It's simply because UNR #11 sucks. I would expect a damn good argument for repealing, say, existing conventions on genocide, climate change, free trade, major social issues, etc., etc. But single-hulled tankers just isn't an issue that keeps me awake nights. Just junk it.

Chill. My point was simply that because the resolution was most likely drafted before all of the rules were implemented, the legislation should be interpreted as actually banning single-hulled tankers. Just like the title says it does. Which would, in fact, make it effective.

INTENT of a resolution is a poor argument to vote for or against a resolution.
There are those nations out htere that would vote for a bill based solely on the fact that it can see loopholes, fallacies, and other ways to exploit the resolution for its own personal gain,a nd not for the betterment of the world body.

Aloyisuis Savio
The Most Worthy representative of Superfudge

Chill. My point was simply that because the resolution was most likely drafted before all of the rules were implemented, the legislation should be interpreted as actually banning single-hulled tankers. Just like the title says it does. Which would, in fact, make it effective."Chill"? Was I being at all intemperate?

You have restated your argument, but strengthened it not. Why should pre-Hackian ordinances be interpreted according to their intent, and not their actual effect? Lawyers read those bills just the same way as they read post-Hackian laws. If the text cannot stand alone I hardly see how the title would rescue it. Banning the use of Landmines doesn't ban a single landmine. Elimination of Bio Weapons didn't eliminate a single bioweapon. Sexual Freedom goes far beyond its title's mandate. And the resolution we're considering repealing does not ban single-hulled tankers.

Besides, you want to replace UNR #11. Well, you can't replace without repealing first, so, if you are of the mind that this law is an effectual ban on single-hulled tankers that does exactly as its title declares, why even repeal it?

I never said I wanted to replace it. I was simply making suggestions as to a replacement should it be repealed, an event which seems likely.
Additionally, I am well aware that a resolution has to be repealed before it can be replaced, but that does not change the fact that I would appreciate seeing a draft with actual suggestions as to how to make the bill more effective before I vote to repeal the existing resolution.

And to me, at least, the references to Osama bin Laden seemed a little extreme. This last post seemed much more to the point and a lot less hostile.
Thanks.

Okay, first off, everyone calm down please. Secondly, why don't we just add some more resolutions to support #11? The repeal seems excessive and will allow single hulled tankers for a short period of time. This is getting a no from me.

The Holy republic of Superfudge deems adding more resolutions to support the problems being brought forth with this resolution #11 a worthy argument. We do not support the repeal of this resolution for any amount of time, pending legislation or not. Introduce a new resolution first, THEN repeal #11 when it becomes obsolete.

Aloysius Savio
Most Worthy representative of Superfudge

Sure, the repeal argument is crap, but this is hardly the sort of issue for which we think the bar for a repeal argument should be set so high.Well, that's the rub, ain't it? The Repeal is arguing that the original is "too narrow", not that the original is crap, or that the original is superfluous.

Didn't we just go through this whole form vs. function debate with the Euthanasia Repeal?

As the duly appointed representative of the people and government of Cor Iesu Sacratissimum, I would like to inform my fellow UN members that the common (in fact, nearly unanimous) sentiment of CIS is that this repeal is moronic. This is for a number of reasons:

1. The fact that a resolution is limited in scope is not a good enough reason to repeal it. This is a good thing, people. I had absolutely no problem understanding what was proposed by Resolution 11 and why. This is a rarity in the UN and should be cherished rather than disowned. Besides, Resolution 11 does good work, as even the repeal's advocates admit. Isn't that what resolutions should do?

2. The repeal seems to point to a future, general resolution which is in reality unrealistic. Apart from the fact that Resolution 11 doesn't actually stand in the way of such a resolution, it seems (to CIS at least) that the subject matter of that resolution, i.e. environmental sensitivity, would lend itself very poorly to any type of general resolution. Or, at least, any type that would actually have teeth to it.

3. This repeal is the last in a list of repeals that are all recent - a list which is far too long already. It seems that we as a UN body have become rabidly iconoclastic, and can only repeal old bills or vote down new ones. We need to be constructive, not dismantle the body of laws we still have. And certainly not for such an idiotic reason as "it doesn't cover everything I want it to cover."

As the representative of CIS, I have cast my vote against this repeal. I hope my reasoning is sufficient to convince my fellow UN members to do the same.

Regards,
Cor Iesu Sacratissimum

The Federation of Methusela will be voting against this appeal.

Bilrow
Prime Minister of the Federation of Methusela

3. This repeal is the last in a list of repeals that are all recent - a list which is far too long already. It seems that we as a UN body have become rabidly iconoclastic, and can only repeal old bills or vote down new ones. We need to be constructive, not dismantle the body of laws we still have.

The bad repeal attempts aside, oftentimes a repeal is more constructive than a new resolution simply because of the subject it may be repealing. Such is the case with the PRA, and the repeal I've written for that (and the subsequent replacement which has been drafted elsewhere). [/self-serving advertisement]

Besides, Resolution 11 does good work, as even the repeal's advocates admit. Isn't that what resolutions should do?No, it doesn't do good work. Read it. It does absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't contain any language that actually requires us to ban single-hulled tankers.

This repeal is the last in a list of repeals that are all recent - a list which is far too long already. It seems that we as a UN body have become rabidly iconoclastic, and can only repeal old bills or vote down new ones. We need to be constructive, not dismantle the body of laws we still have. And certainly not for such an idiotic reason as "it doesn't cover everything I want it to cover."The number of repeals this body has considered of late is immaterial to this repeal. I'm not saying I necessarily buy this repeal's arguments; I'm saying I weighed the overall shittiness of the original resolution against the overall shittiness of the repeal -- and you know what? The fact that we have a chance to rid ourselves of dead weight far outweighs this repeal's deficits. Just get rid of this law. Lob off its head. Lob off its head, and watch it die.

The number of repeals this body has considered of late is immaterial to this repeal. I'm not saying I necessarily buy this repeal's arguments; I'm saying I weighed the overall shittiness of the original resolution against the overall shittiness of the repeal -- and you know what? The fact that we have a chance to rid ourselves of dead weight far outweighs this repeal's deficits. Just get rid of this law. Lob off its head. Lob off its head, and watch it die.

Insert same thing I said in the repeal R43 debate.

The Armed Republic of Athanian does not support this repeal.

1) The initial resolution is clear to almost everybody in meaning, if not in actual words. "We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers..." is rather vague, but any mildly intelligent person can take this resolution how it's meant, not how it sounds.

2) The repeal itself is poor in construction. It's faults have been defined by members of the UN already, and do not need repeating. As it stands, #11 can be expanded without repealing it, and if a replacement is made, it may very well end up being too broad for someone.

Finally, I wish to emphasize that few people in support of this repeal have stepped forward to give their reasons.

Matt Stephenson,
Ambassadorial Office

Seems like the attitude is changing.

But we should not stop the campaign against this Repeal until it is voted down!

Contact your Delegates and fellow UN members and explain the situation to them so they can make a well-considered decision.;)

CONSIDERING that the original resolution "Ban Single Hulled Tankers" plays an important role in protecting our Earth's splendid environment;

ALSO CONSIDERING that accepting the proposed motion would lead to a more polluted world

ALSO CONSIDERING that the proposed motion is poorly written

BELIEVING that the United Nations should attempt to produce less red tape

The Emirate of Asian Dawn takes issue and votes against this motion

On behalf of the Emir of Asian Dawn,

Qing Qianduo
Envoy to the United Nations of the Emirate of Asian Dawn

The Wolfish Emissary, representing the glorious region of Libertarian, has voted in favour of repealing Resolution 11.

However, we would like to state, for the record, that Resolution #11 is properly written, and is an example of a concise, precise resolution.

Our vote merely represents our region's position that freedom and liberty trump regulation...and that there are better means to protect the environment.

Margo Brinkman
Wolfish Emissary to the NSUN

Insert same thing I said in the repeal R43 debate.Refresh my memory.

The initial resolution is clear to almost everybody in meaning, if not in actual words. "We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers..." is rather vague, but any mildly intelligent person can take this resolution how it's meant, not how it sounds.Anyone who doesn't want to abolish single-hulled tankers doesn't have to. So it isn't really a "ban," now is it?

The repeal itself is poor in construction. It's faults have been defined by members of the UN already, and do not need repeating.Funny. The repeal, unlike the original resolution, does exactly what it intends to do. It repeals Resolution #11.

As it stands, #11 can be expanded without repealing it, ...Doesn't change the fact that #11 does nothing, so why keep it?

Finally, I wish to emphasize that few people in support of this repeal have stepped forward to give their reasons.Your mindless repetition of anti-repeal talking points does impress me much. :)

I cast my vote against the resolution at hand.

As a free-market libertarian, I believe that the public understands the nature if the debate. The populace and the companies should be accountable for their actions and choices. Government regulation breeds dead-weight loss and innefficiency.

Jon The Free
UN Delegate for the Autoblender Region and Raging Capitalist.

Funny. The repeal, unlike the original resolution, does exactly what it intends to do. It repeals Resolution #11.No, it doesn't. It does not justify why it should be repealled. It's crouched in rhetoric. Maybe #11 is as well, but it's title "Ban single hull tankers" is pretty clear what it does.

I think saying the repeal of #11 is so much better is a very flawed statement, because the repeal does not effecively state why #11 is worthy of repeal, without some very fundamental errors being noticed in the text of the repeal, both in the grammar, and the content.

It's fairest to say that neither are better than the other. Just like the repeal is poorly written, so is it's intended victim. I happen to vote on the strength of the repeals arguements. In this case, the arguements are poor, so I vote against.

No, it doesn't. It does not justify why it should be repealled. It's crouched in rhetoric.I was referring to this part of the repeal: "Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers shall be struck out and rendered null and void."

Pretty damn clear to me. :p

Maybe #11 is as well, but it's title "Ban single hull tankers" is pretty clear what it does.As is the title of the repeal ...

I think saying the repeal of #11 is so much better is a very flawed statement, ...I didn't say the repeal was much better; I said the repeal actually does what it says it intends to do, unlike the original resolution.

It's fairest to say that neither are better than the other. Just like the repeal is poorly written, so is it's intended victim.Good. That's exactly what I've been saying. Lucky me, the coin tells me what to do.

This repealing resolution also criticizes the layout of #11, saying it is not in the correct form, and is not well-written and comprehensive. Why should we vote for somebodies resolution criticizing somebody else's layout, when this repealing resoultion isn't in a correct layout either! At east the #11 resolution didn't state the same thing over and over again in the first five sentences!


I also agree with all the above statements.

The Republic of Nahy

As a free libertarian nation, Central-Dogma supports the act of repealing Resolution #11.

Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

As a free libertarian nation, Central-Dogma supports the act of repealing Resolution #11.

Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

As a free libertarian nation, Jey opposes the act of repealing Resolution #11.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Ambassador

Funny. The repeal, unlike the original resolution, does exactly what it intends to do. It repeals Resolution #11.

Ok, "poor construction" may not have been the best term to use to get my point across. First off is the glaring grammatical error in the first sentence that many people have pointed out. Next, the repeal suggests R11 should be repealed because it "identifies too narrow of a subject area." Since when has that become bad? And the repeal repeats this point again a few lines later.

Then it goes on to talk about how the UN can repeal ineffectual resolutions. No, R11 is not completely clear, but I'm sure there are other resolutions that are worse, or we could even be making new resolutions.

Anyway, the repeal DOES come out and say it's repealing R11 and does what it's supposed to do. However, the argument given is none too strong.

Matt Stephenson,
Ambassadorial Office

I think the recent trend of repealing progressive legislation is gross. When I first joined Nationstates years ago with a nation that no longer exists, almost every resolution that was passed, and even almost every proposal to reach quorum was liberal and promoted the public good. I am not sure if more conservatives have joined the UN, or if maybe the glamor of having introduced a proposal that was accepted and ratified has caused people to go in search of resolutions that they think could be repealed.

Refresh my memory.

Means to an end. I'll not be Machiavellian in my voting. I don't at all agree with anything said in the repeal, so I'm not going to vote for it. The net effect doesn't justify the means that are getting that effect. Repeals stay on the books forever, there is no repealing a repeal, and we already have that crap one for R43, there's no reason to put another one on.

If the case is such that the text of the repeal doesn't matter, then why don't people approve of repeals without ANY text? Or with absolutely horrid text?

The ends don't justify the means.

I believe that this should not be repealed, especially on the idea that the resolution's focus is too narrow.

I see no merit to the argument that Resolution #11 needs to be repealed. Being from an environmentally friendly nation, and believing in the positive powers of government to blunt the effect of corporate largesse on society in general; I believe that the original resolution is of the right spirit, if flawed. Surely the authors of this proposition, as a better use of their time and ours, could propose amendments to the original resolution, instead of asking for a complete repeal and then another proposition along the same lines. Then let us vote upon the merits of their amendments, instead.

I respectfully vote AGAINST the current proposition.

UN Ambassador from the Federation of Tauran States

I see no merit to the argument that Resolution #11 needs to be repealed. Being from an environmentally friendly nation, and believing in the positive powers of government to blunt the effect of corporate largesse on society in general; I believe that the original resolution is of the right spirit, if flawed. Surely the authors of this proposition, as a better use of their time and ours, could propose amendments to the original resolution, instead of asking for a complete repeal and then another proposition along the same lines. Then let us vote upon the merits of their amendments, instead.

I respectfully vote AGAINST the current proposition.

UN Ambassador from the Federation of Tauran States

Can't make amendments.

But it still goes to show that the argument behind a repeal is even more necessary. This repeal's argument is, for lack of more pompous term, teh suck.

If the case is such that the text of the repeal doesn't matter, then why don't people approve of repeals without ANY text? Or with absolutely horrid text?Oh, I would expect a good repeal argument -- if this were an important issue for the UN's consideration. But it isn't, so just toss it. It won't be missed.

Come on people! This is rediculous! Resolution #11 seems fine, so instead of nit-picking why don't we try do something constructive. Can't we leave this resolution standing, and add a few more resolutions to completely cover the subject? It seems lately we've been focusing on tearing down old resolutions just because they don't seem to fit the form. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you?

Come on people! This is rediculous! Resolution #11 seems fine, so instead of nit-picking why don't we try do something constructive. Can't we leave this resolution standing, and add a few more resolutions to completely cover the subject? It seems lately we've been focusing on tearing down old resolutions just because they don't seem to fit the form. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you?

I agree. Instead of repealing Resolution #11, we should come up with other resolutions that follow the idea of this resolution. For example, maybe their should be a resolution that tells all manufacturers to build double hulled tankers.

I agree. Instead of repealing Resolution #11, we should come up with other resolutions that follow the idea of this resolution. For example, maybe their should be a resolution that tells all manufacturers to build double hulled tankers.

No matter what happens to the repeal, the subject has been brought up, and this issue will continue to be legislated on. A mandate on new construction tankers being double-hulled is a nice idea. I'd also throw in a mandate that prevents the downgrade of a double-hulled tanker to a single-hulled tanker, post production, for any reason.

But that's another matter for another day. We'll see what happens with this repeal first.

Unless the "nays" pick it up, it looks like I'll be paying Representative Zyryanov a case of vodka and box chocolates...

Oh, I would expect a good repeal argument -- if this were an important issue for the UN's consideration. But it isn't, so just toss it. It won't be missed.

The quality or impact of the UN Resolution doesn't change my mind about the quality of the repeal. Unless a truly damaging Resolution finds its way onto the books, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Come on people! This is rediculous! Resolution #11 seems fine, so instead of nit-picking why don't we try do something constructive. Can't we leave this resolution standing, and add a few more resolutions to completely cover the subject?You can pass all the resolutions you like; won't change the fact that this resolution does nothing. Perhaps you'd like to point out where in the text of UNR #11 it actually bans single-hulled tankers?

It seems lately we've been focusing on tearing down old resolutions just because they don't seem to fit the form. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you?No.

You can pass all the resolutions you like; won't change the fact that this resolution does nothing. Perhaps you'd like to point out where in the text of UNR #11 it actually bans single-hulled tankers?

No.:eek: :gundge: I think you are right because Larry didn't put anything that said it would actually ban them.Im changing my vote.

You can pass all the resolutions you like; won't change the fact that this resolution does nothing. Perhaps you'd like to point out where in the text of UNR #11 it actually bans single-hulled tankers?

No.

Actually the resolution does say that all nations should ban single hulled tankers, and use double hulled instead. I took this excerpt from Resolution #11

"We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers."

It is obvious the law was idiotic in the first place, I see no point in it. So it is better to repeal it.

--
Thomas Disk
U.N. Representative

Actually the resolution does say that all nations should ban single hulled tankers, and use double hulled instead. I took this excerpt from Resolution #11

"We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers."So I suppose there must also be some legally binding language in the resolution that actually requires nations to ban single-hulled tankers? Oh, wait. There isn't. Just empty rhetoric about how we should ban them.

It is obvious the law was idiotic in the first place, I see no point in it. So it is better to repeal it.

--
Thomas Disk
U.N. Representative

With an equally idiotic repeal? We think not.

Sad to see yet again we have an author unwilling to defend their proposal on the forum. Fortunately, it's failing.

:headbang: why why why oh why do so many nations have to be all lovie dovie?:confused: it makes me sick. oh save the sea ban single hulled takers well lets see here if we repeal this act we could boost our economies

I have one thing to say to those of who are trying to destroy this repeal:upyours:!!!!!!


to send hate mail to me send it to razputine74003@hotmail.com no seriously send some I'd like to reply to them... seriously!

I didn't say the repeal was much better; I said the repeal actually does what it says it intends to do, unlike the original resolution.

okay this guy actually said what I was trying to say:p

okay this guy actually said what I was trying to say:p

Some of us maintain a certain standard of quality for proposals and repeals that is needed to get our FOR vote. The current resolution would not have gotten my vote, sure, but this repeal isn't good either. Two againsts don't make a for. I'm against the repeal based on its quality. Is that not understandable?

Jey is absolutely right. Kenny is wrong. Again.

The quality of the repeal matters, no matter how weak or impotent or unimportant the resolution being repealed is.







Yes, we hate you Kenny. Rot somewhere.

Seriously.

(Not really)

This is the resolution that recently reached quorum:

Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #11
Proposed by: Larry is still God

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:

NOTING that environmental hazards are a primary concern in our interconnected,

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” identifies too narrow of a subject area, and should be broadened to support environmental concerns in other areas,

CONSIDERING that the support of well-written, comprehensive resolutions is fundamental to the longevity of the United Nations,

CONCERNED that Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” is poorly written and ineffectual in that it defines a finite subject area and does not expand beyond it,

ALSO CONSIDERING that, as the United Nations has constantly shown, poor and ineffectual resolutions can be replaced with more effective ones,

SUPPORTING the replacement of Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers,” with a proposal both effective and broad in scope in its support of environmental protections,

REPEALS Resolution #11, “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers.”

Co-authored by Dankism

Send me all the ships that are single hull. I will pay $400 million

Send me all the ships that are single hull. I will pay $400 million

Lydia thought it wise to take the Cena465 representative aside.

“You may not want to shout too loudly about buying illegal goods. The resolution is still law at the moment and well you wouldn’t want the gnomes to come knocking at your office door! They can be quite scary you know.”

Leaving she noticed a somewhat bemused expression on their faces. She only hoped they knew who the gnomes were.

Leave the resolution in place. The environment is too delecate to risk it. We have to think of our future. Tell the big corp. to dig deeper, cause we can't afford to destroy the environment any more! :sniper:

The Armed Republic

:mp5:

Leave the resolution in place. The environment is too delecate to risk it. We have to think of our future. Tell the big corp. to dig deeper, cause we can't afford to destroy the environment any more! :sniper:

The Armed Republic

:mp5:

I agree, leave the resolution. If changes need to be made then another resolution should be drawn up.

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs

The original resolution is weak, and not very well written. However, we do not think it makes any harm, and it should be easy work around it to strengthen environmental protection.
We vote against the repeal.

We concur, the repeal wording is somewhat confusing and we don't see any need to place the environment in jeopardy through repealing this resolution.

Against.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We concur, the repeal wording is somewhat confusing and we don't see any need to place the environment in jeopardy through repealing this resolution.Sigh ... these arguments tire me. How can removing this resolution jeapordize the environment, when it's doing nothing to protect the environment in the first place?!

The original resolution is weak, and not very well written. However, we do not think it makes any harm, and it should be easy work around it to strengthen environmental protection.
We vote against the repeal.
true that it will protect the wnviroment, but not our economy. Im sure gas prices are high enough!!
Without single hulled tankers we would probbably force our citizens to pay even higher taxes.
I think we should make every Tanker companywith high crash rates have double or more hulled tankers.:sniper:

Greetings from Caribis Kalne.
It seems to me that if those who oppose repealing this decision truly believe in it's ideal,they'd vote in favor of removing it and replacing it with a stronger proposal.
All that those whom are supporting the repeal are saying is that they believe that a stronger,more effective law be put in place,whether they are in favor of preserving our environment or not.
Either way,we cannot be asking this assembly to continue to take their valuable time by debating and passing laws,only o have them over turned in the near future.
I support repealing the present law and replacing it with a stronger one that one would be hard pressed to over turn.

Respectfully,
AKASA,of Caribis Kalne

Greetings from Caribis Kalne.
It seems to me that if those who oppose repealing this decision truly believe in it's ideal,they'd vote in favor of removing it and replacing it with a stronger proposal.
All that those whom are supporting the repeal are saying is that they believe that a stronger,more effective law be put in place,whether they are in favor of preserving our environment or not.
Either way,we cannot be asking this assembly to continue to take their valuable time by debating and passing laws,only o have them over turned in the near future.
I support repealing the present law and replacing it with a stronger one that one would be hard pressed to over turn.

Respectfully,
AKASA,of Caribis Kalne

Now that makes sense, I agree with what you are saying. This resolution should be repealed so that a more effective one could be drafted. Even if this is not repealed, we should draft a new resolution that would support what this resolution is trying to accomplish.

wouldn't it be better to just add on to the previous resolution instead of replacing it?
don't we just add some more resolutions to support #11?

This has been mentioned several times throughout the thread, and it seems that the senior members (save Norderia) have neglected to mention the rules for ammending proposals. Unless the rules were changed in my absence (they weren't) then you can NOT "fix", "build on", or "rewrite" anything from the original resolution (BS-HT) without a REPEAL first.

From the thread "Rules For UN Proposals" http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465
Amendments
You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

House of Cards
A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones.

Saying we don't need to repeal the resolution because we can write another one on top of it, to ammend it, or to cover any loopholes, is FALSE. May I mention also, that Resolution #58 "SPCC Regulation Act" already proposes to "endorse the use of double-hulled pipelines and storage/transport vehicles".

I don't like the wording of the repeal, but if you want a replacement of resolution #11 with stronger wording, you must repeal the original. If there is significant interest in implementing more effective legislation, it should start with this repeal.

I don't like the wording of the repeal, but if you want a replacement of resolution #11 with stronger wording, you must repeal the original. If there is significant interest in implementing more effective legislation, it should start with this repeal.

Not this repeal, one that wouldn't look like a pimple in the UN books. Beyond that, even if a repeal of BS-HT were never to pass, it would not at all be difficult to arrange for a resolution that mandates that all new tankers are to be double-hulled, and perhaps even demand that double-hulled tankers be the only ones allowed at sea. A nice neat little loophole that effectively bans single-hulled tankers without being an addition to R11 or a house of cards.

But Norderia stands against the repeal nonetheless, because we will not support a piece of trash proposal.

Sigh ... these arguments tire me. How can removing this resolution jeapordize the environment, when it's doing nothing to protect the environment in the first place?!

That's somewhat unfair, it does ban single-hulled tankers and endorses double-hulled ones, so to call it doing nothing is inaccurate.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Some of us maintain a certain standard of quality for proposals and repeals that is needed to get our FOR vote. The current resolution would not have gotten my vote, sure, but this repeal isn't good either. Two againsts don't make a for. I'm against the repeal based on its quality. Is that not understandable?Amusing thing about this is Jey is the delegate of the region which "Larry is Still God" is a member of. I mean, if even your own delegate thinks this it's rubbish, then you don't have much hope do you?

It's like when even your mother thinks you are an ugly baby, it does not bode well!Sigh....these arguements tire me. How can removing this resolution jeapodize the enviroment when it's doing nothing to protect the enviroment in the first place?!That's incorrect. For a start, when this resolution was passed, there was a distinct and clear impact on member states expenditure on enviroment.

Secondly, the title alone does everything the resolution sets out to do. It bans single hull tankers. The body of the text might be weaker, but the title alone does the job.

Not this repeal, one that wouldn't look like a pimple in the UN books. Beyond that, even if a repeal of BS-HT were never to pass, it would not at all be difficult to arrange for a resolution that mandates that all new tankers are to be double-hulled, and perhaps even demand that double-hulled tankers be the only ones allowed at sea. A nice neat little loophole that effectively bans single-hulled tankers without being an addition to R11 or a house of cards.
(...)

I have to agree there but it is still questionable whether such a resolution would not be seen as an addition. This is also why I would suggest to go even a step further and to demand that all cargo ships, tankers included, that transport ecologically hazardous material must be equiped with adequate damage control systems that will help to reduce the risk of an ecological catastrophe.

Double hulls are a must there of course, but one should also include adequate fire control systems, high quality containers for non liquid goods, security systems that make sure that cargo/containers cannot be easily washed overboard if the ship comes into a heavy storm, etc.. I am sure that there are still other ecologically sensible systems and measures that have to be mentioned, but it is a start.

Last but not least I would like to point out that the great nation of New Arpad is fully aware of the fact that such measures will kick up the costs for oversea commerce but New Arpad does not see a general contradiction between capitalism and measures that protect the environment. Nature is a treasure after all and these measures will help to protect it so that a) future costs that come with ecological catastrophes can be reduced if not even be avoided and b) to make sure that it is profitable for companies to invest their money into projects that depend upon a healthy environment.

Amusing thing about this is Jey is the delegate of the region which "Larry is Still God" is a member of. I mean, if even your own delegate thinks this it's rubbish, then you don't have much hope do you?

It's like when even your mother thinks you are an ugly baby, it does not bode well!That's incorrect. For a start, when this resolution was passed, there was a distinct and clear impact on member states expenditure on enviroment.

Secondly, the title alone does everything the resolution sets out to do. It bans single hull tankers. The body of the text might be weaker, but the title alone does the job.

The title of a resolution has no legally-binding effect...
... otherwise 'Individual Self-Determination' would effectively free individuals from all laws, including earlier resolutions, and would therefore presumably be struck down as illegal. ;)

The title of a resolution has no legally-binding effect...
... otherwise 'Individual Self-Determination' would effectively free individuals from all laws, including earlier resolutions, and would therefore presumably be struck down as illegal. ;)Not neccessarily, because it doesn't say anything about it. If #11 just said "single hull tankers" we wouldn't know what it was going to say about it. since it says the oh so crucial word "ban" it does not require a genius to guess what it is about, before we even get to the body of the text.

ISD's title does not make such a pronouncement either way.

Not neccessarily, because it doesn't say anything about it. If #11 just said "single hull tankers" we wouldn't know what it was going to say about it. since it says the oh so crucial word "ban" it does not require a genius to guess what it is about, before we even get to the body of the text.

ISD's title does not make such a pronouncement either way.

That point's fair enough, I suppose... as long as ISD's category wouldn't be taken into effect as well...
But I'm still fairly sure that titles aren't considered binding, so that #11's title still wouldn't be enough to make up for the wording of the main text...

That's somewhat unfair, it does ban single-hulled tankers and endorses double-hulled ones, so to call it doing nothing is inaccurate.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11214032#post11214032

It's like when even your mother thinks you are an ugly baby, it does not bode well!That's incorrect. For a start, when this resolution was passed, there was a distinct and clear impact on member states expenditure on enviroment.That's Gameplay; not RP.

Secondly, the title alone does everything the resolution sets out to do. It bans single hull tankers. The body of the text might be weaker, but the title alone does the job.Right, and the resolution entitled "Sexual Freedom" only protects sexual freedoms. I'd ask your Nogger friends if they agreed with GMC's latest ruling to that effect. :rolleyes:

That's Gameplay; not RP.Yup. One of them is tangable and measurable. The other is insubstantial.Right, and the resolution entitled "Sexual Freedom" only protects sexual freedoms. I'd ask your Nogger friends if they agreed with GMC's latest ruling to that effect. :rolleyes:Like I said about ISD a couple of posts ago, (but now applying it to a different resolution), "Sexual freedom" as a title in isolation means nothing. It doesn't say it's banning or protecting or doing anything about sexual freedom. "Ban single-hulled tankers" does say what the resolution intends to do. Sexual Freedom tells you it's about sexual freedom - to know any more you need to read the resolution, as the title in isolation doesn't provide any sign of intent.But I'm still fairly sure that titles aren't considered binding, so that #11's title still wouldn't be enough to make up for the wording of the main text...I don't know. Ask a mod.

The People's Republic of Junk Siam is of one mind on the issue. Single-hulled tankers must not be allowed in the oceans. They pose a danger both to the environment and, because of our beach-based tourism, to our economy.

The People's Republic of Junk Siam is of one mind on the issue. Single-hulled tankers must not be allowed in the oceans. They pose a danger both to the environment and, because of our beach-based tourism, to our economy.
Yet some companies dont crash, and a lot of countries dont have beaches, at least not ones that could be effected by tankers and spills.Oceans.
True that the tankers are dangerous, but our economy would also crumble if all companies would wouldnt have single hulled tankers. I think we should wait some time for those corrupt countries to catch up. Although we're running out of time we should not think of repeal #11 as the only way to resolve enviromental issues
:sniper:

Right, and the resolution entitled "Sexual Freedom" only protects sexual freedoms. I'd ask your Nogger friends if they agreed with GMC's latest ruling to that effect. :rolleyes:

Whether we agreed with the ruling or not is immaterial. It was a moderator ruling and set precedent, namely, that the title of a resolution could and would be used as a factor in resolving ambiguity in the text.

In the instant case, the only argument for ineffectiveness of the resolution is the ambiguity of the word "must" -- which can be hortatory (an urging) or directive (a command). Following the precedent and examining the title of the resolution, it is clear that "must" is directive and the resolution requires nations to ban single-hulled tankers.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As the representitive of the Styledatol Empire I vote AGAINST this repeal. The resolution seems to be clear enough as it deals with single hulled tankers ONLY. The proposal suggests to expand the resolution into one that will include a bigger circle of envoirmental risks, for that, a new resolution can be written, without cencelling the old one.
The latter delegate would be able to gain more support if he would actually formally write his proposal for the new resolution (Include it in his repeal).

Whether we agreed with the ruling or not is immaterial. It was a moderator ruling and set precedent, namely, that the title of a resolution could and would be used as a factor in resolving ambiguity in the text.

In the instant case, the only argument for ineffectiveness of the resolution is the ambiguity of the word "must" -- which can be hortatory (an urging) or directive (a command). Following the precedent and examining the title of the resolution, it is clear that "must" is directive and the resolution requires nations to ban single-hulled tankers.I've heard nothing to indicate GMC's ruling is a precedent; moreover, his ruling cannot be used to declare that all nations need to interpret resolutions (and the effect of their titles) the same way. GMC only ruled that interpreting a resolution to mean more than the title infers cannot be used as a valid basis for repeal, something that does not apply here -- and something to which moderators have issued no clarification as to whether it applies to the actual rules for repeals.

The language "We must unite to ban yadda yadda yadda," to anyone with an understanding of English, is an urging, not a mandate.

Like I said about ISD a couple of posts ago, (but now applying it to a different resolution), "Sexual freedom" as a title in isolation means nothing. It doesn't say it's banning or protecting or doing anything about sexual freedom. "Ban single-hulled tankers" does say what the resolution intends to do. Sexual Freedom tells you it's about sexual freedom - to know any more you need to read the resolution, as the title in isolation doesn't provide any sign of intent.And what are the terms of this "ban"? Must we only abandon their usage, or also their manufacture or commission? What about selling tankers to other nations? How does it affect that? Does the "ban" mean we must immediately dismantle all existing single-hulled tankers, or can we transfer them to other nations? Must we blow up all existing tankers, drift them out to sea, or sink them into the harbor? Clearly the title intends to ban these ships, but the text says nothing about what this "ban" would actually mean, and without such clarification in the actual text, it is impossible to enforce, and hence this "ban" does nothing. There's no getting around that.

I've heard nothing to indicate GMC's ruling is a precedent; moreover, his ruling cannot be used to declare that all nations need to interpret resolutions (and the effect of their titles) the same way.

Hmm......I recall this argument being used during the compliance debate.

Hmm......I recall you being the one saying that mods can't change how we interpret resolution.

Hmm......I recall there being a conclusion that a dichotomy exist in how we address compliance and the solution to discrepencies was.....let me check my notes here....."ignore one another"

Hmm......I recall this argument being used during the compliance debate.

Hmm......I recall you being the one saying that mods can't change how we interpret resolution.

Hmm......I recall there being a conclusion that a dichotomy exist in how we address compliance and the solution to discrepencies was.....let me check my notes here....."ignore one another"Hmm......What's your point?

Hmm......I don't understand what you mean.

Hmm......How is this relevant?

My point is that the question of its effectiveness has boiled down to whether the title counts and that boils down to whether mod law on resolutions applies to interpretation of the laws which boils down to differences in opinion on what is the "letter of the law". Neither side is going to win this battle, twapping around a big stick saying "I'm right, you're wrong"

(Or was that not your point when you went after me triggering the compliance debate)

Some think the title makes the resolution effective

Some don't

You've all cast your votes on the matter, the resolution is about to be defeated.

And there are certainly other areas that can be debated where the disagreement is resolvable.

You quote: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread....2#post11214032

I quote:

Secondly, the title alone does everything the resolution sets out to do. It bans single hull tankers. The body of the text might be weaker, but the title alone does the job.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I've heard nothing to indicate GMC's ruling is a precedent; moreover, his ruling cannot be used to declare that all nations need to interpret resolutions (and the effect of their titles) the same way. GMC only ruled that interpreting a resolution to mean more than the title infers cannot be used as a valid basis for repeal, something that does not apply here -- and something to which moderators have issued no clarification as to whether it applies to the actual rules for repeals.

The language "We must unite to ban yadda yadda yadda," to anyone with an understanding of English, is an urging, not a mandate.


We've never heard that someone has to say, "And, oh... this is a precedent," in order for a precedent to be established. And whether this established precedent applies here is a matter of opinion. You're entitled to yours. We stand on ours.

And -- your snide little sneer notwithstanding -- we have a perfectly good understanding of English. And we'd suggest the representative try checking a dictionary or two to see if "must" has both a directive and a hortatory meaning. We'll just quote the definition from Dictionary.com for his convenience:

To be obliged or required by morality, law, or custom: Citizens must register in order to vote.
To be compelled, as by a physical necessity or requirement: Plants must have oxygen in order to live.
Used to express a command or admonition: You must not go there alone. You simply must be careful.
To be determined to; have as a fixed resolve: If you must leave, do it quietly.

Used to indicate inevitability or certainty: We all must die.
Used to indicate logical probability or presumptive certainty: If the lights were on, they must have been at home.

The text of the resolution is unfortunately ambiguous. The ambiguity can be easily resolved by considering the relevant portion in the context of the whole -- including the title.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I quote:

Secondly, the title alone does everything the resolution sets out to do. It bans single hull tankers. The body of the text might be weaker, but the title alone does the job.I quote:

And what are the terms of this "ban"? Must we only abandon their usage, or also their manufacture or commission? What about selling tankers to other nations? How does it affect that? Does the "ban" mean we must immediately dismantle all existing single-hulled tankers, or can we transfer them to other nations? Must we blow up all existing tankers, drift them out to sea, or sink them into the harbor? Clearly the title intends to ban these ships, but the text says nothing about what this "ban" would actually mean, and without such clarification in the actual text, it is impossible to enforce, and hence this "ban" does nothing. There's no getting around that.Easily applied to all here who have elected to gang up on me. This resolution doesn't really enforce a ban on member states -- and the overall ineptness of this repeal does not increase the original resolution's value.

I defintely agree with Ausserland.
You do not need to repeal 'Ban Single Hulled Tankers" but propose amend it.

I defintely agree with Ausserland.
You do not need to repeal 'Ban Single Hulled Tankers" but propose amend it.
You don't agree with Ausserland - because that's not what he was saying. Amendments are illegal.

If the resolution needs ammending, it does not require a repeal

If the resolution needs ammending, it does not require a repeal
Yes it does, because AMENDMENTS ARE ILLEGAL.

Could someone send a link to the actual statement that ammendments are illegal? I've never seen that statement in the FAQ, did I miss it?
If they are legal, can we hop to it and start ammending? It'd really speed up the process, and we could get a lot more done.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465
Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.
Have a nice day.

I defintely agree with Ausserland.
You do not need to repeal 'Ban Single Hulled Tankers" but propose amend it.

Just so there's no confusion here.... You can't amend a resolution. That's against the rules. Our point was that the resolution does one thing: bans single-hulled tankers. If someone wanted to put other marine ecology protections in place, they could easily write a proposal to do it. There's absolutely no need to repeal this resolution to do that. As long as you didn't put something in that banned single-hulled tankers, you wouldn't be duplicating this one.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Yes it does, because AMENDMENTS ARE ILLEGAL.


Sadly for this body.

I really hope this will be the next NSUN feature available

Does anyone know any nation in the world where amendments are illegal?

Sadly for this body.

I really hope this will be the next NSUN feature available

Does anyone know any nation in the world where amendments are illegal?
I would really oppose the introduction of amendments.

1. It would be unclear what stat effects would be.
2. We'd spend even more time rehashing tired old debates, instead of covering new material.
3. It would be unfair on authors who submitted their resolutions with the knowledge they could not be amended.
4. It's good that it requires some effort to change law. Once it's been voted in by the UN, it should be hard to amend.

I would really oppose the introduction of amendments.

1. It would be unclear what stat effects would be.

There are several options possible, it's pretty easy:
- full replacement
- one/several clause replacement (for example clause 1 and 5)

It doesn't seems to be a problem in any nations in Rl

2. We'd spend even more time rehashing tired old debates, instead of covering new material.

It seems to me we'd spend less time: proposal+repeal+replacement is 1 debate more than proposal+amendmant (in case of single repeal, nothing change)

3. It would be unfair on authors who submitted their resolutions with the knowledge they could not be amended.

I really don't care (even while being (co-)author of several proposals), I think good and regularly improved and updated legislation is on a very far level from national pride for resolution authorship (How many voted NSUS legislation is 100% original? the answer is obviously 0)

4. It's good that it requires some effort to change law. Once it's been voted in by the UN, it should be hard to amend.

Why should it be harder to amend than repeal? I really think proposal reapeal and amendment have to get the same %. (resolutions are just laws, not constitution, if some text has to become a constitution one day, I would then favour 66% (or 75) for the amendmant, as for the original vote)

There are several options possible, it's pretty easy:
- full replacement
- one/several clause replacement (for example clause 1 and 5)
For a full replacement, just do a repeal and replace.

As for the latter, how about amending clause 1 of ALC? Bet you'd like that. And the way I'm thinking you'd do it, it would swing the resolution from Moral Decency, Mild, to Human Rights, Strong. So, who would be affected - and how?

It seems to me we'd spend less time: proposal+repeal+replacement is 1 debate more than proposal+amendmant (in case of single repeal, nothing change)
No. Think about this. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. Fun isn't it! The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC.

I really don't care (even while being (co-)author of several proposals), I think good and regularly improved and updated legislation is on a very far level from national pride for resolution authorship
I agree; others don't. That's their prerogative. Some people do care about authorship, and don't want their resolutions edited - especially as it wouldn't take long for malicious amendments to be tabled.

Why should it be harder to amend than repeal? I really think proposal reapeal and amendment have to get the same %.
Don't know what this bit means.

And what are the terms of this "ban"? Must we only abandon their usage, or also their manufacture or commission? What about selling tankers to other nations? How does it affect that? Does the "ban" mean we must immediately dismantle all existing single-hulled tankers, or can we transfer them to other nations? Must we blow up all existing tankers, drift them out to sea, or sink them into the harbor? Clearly the title intends to ban these ships, but the text says nothing about what this "ban" would actually mean, and without such clarification in the actual text, it is impossible to enforce, and hence this "ban" does nothing. There's no getting around that.


Look, a ban is a ban. I expect a nation would equivocate about the exact terms of any national ban, but they would still be obliged to ban single-hulled tankers (which can be reasonably assumed to halt their usage) and endorse (which is more vague admittedly, but can still be reasonably assumed to carry a weight of expectation that the nation will reform its naval practices to that effect). As for the sale to extra-U.N. nations, well the U.N. has limited power to halt that for most things, which makes it difficult to regulate.

I'm not arguing that this is by any means a good resolution, I'm just saying the repeal wording and the overall spirit of it mean that I'm unwilling to repeal it, unless you can clearly show that actual damage is being inflicted to the environment by it, which I remain to be convinced of.

I can understand your frustration, but I'm afraid we'll have to differ on our interpretation of the wording and effect.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

For a full replacement, just do a repeal and replace.


Yes but, as you said

2. We'd spend even more time rehashing tired old debates, instead of covering new material.

;)

As for the latter, how about amending clause 1 of ALC? Bet you'd like that. And the way I'm thinking you'd do it, it would swing the resolution from Moral Decency, Mild, to Human Rights, Strong. So, who would be affected - and how?


No. Think about this. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. Fun isn't it! The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC. The pro-choice movement amend clause 1 of ALC. Their opponents amend clause 1 of ALC.

Nothing different here than the succession of repeals and opposite replacements.

With replacement, the debate may be (as the discretion of the author of the proposed amendment, as he will have the choice between an amendment or a reapeal) more constructive, as focused on 1 or 2 clauses, instead of the full topic each time.





I agree; others don't. That's their prerogative. Some people do care about authorship, and don't want their resolutions edited - especially as it wouldn't take long for malicious amendments to be tabled.

It may be their """authorship""", but it's not their original idea, nothing in NSUN legislation is new stuff from RL. I really don't think that pride about resolution is more important than good legislation.



Don't know what this bit means.

Sorry if I was confuse, will try to express it better:

You said:

4. It's good that it requires some effort to change law. Once it's been voted in by the UN, it should be hard to amend.

To repeal law which had required some efforts, one need 50%, and you don't seem worried about that.
There is no reason to ask for more (or less) % for an ammendment of one of several clause(s) than for a full repeal.

To repeal law which had required some efforts, one need 50%, and you don't seem worried about that.
There is no reason to ask for more (or less) % for an ammendment of one of several clause(s) than for a full repeal.
Right, but, repeal/replace takes 2 votes. One on the repeal, one on the replacement. Amendments would require only one. Hence, the former is more resistant to change.

Right, but, repeal/replace takes 2 votes. One on the repeal, one on the replacement. Amendments would require only one. Hence, the former is more resistant to change.

You mean, more resistant to improvement, I suppose? not change as it can be fully changed with a single repeal anyway.

You mean, more resistant to improvement, I suppose? not change as it can be fully changed with a single repeal anyway.
An amendment does not necessarily mean improvement. Besides which, an assessment of improvement is subjective.

I mean resistant to change, which is why I said that.

Anyway, this all probably by the by, as it doesn't appear they will implement amendments anytime soon.

An amendment does not necessarily mean improvement. Besides which, an assessment of improvement is subjective.

A resolution does not necessarily mean more or less improvement than nothing.

A passed reapeal does not necessarily mean more or less improvement than the resolution to be repealed.

So if you don't care that a proposal is voted or a proposal is changed by a repeal, there is no more reason to care that a proposal could be changed by an amendment. Is there any problems with amendments in the RL nation you live in?

Drop it, please.

So if you don't care that a proposal is voted or a proposal is changed by a repeal, there is no more reason to care that a proposal could be changed by an amendment.
Yes, there is. If repeal/replace changes a resolution, it strikes it first.

Look at an example. I don't want the UN to set mandatory recycling targets. If someone amended "UN Recycling Commission" to make it do that, I would be pissed, because it would have Gruenberg listed as author, of something I disagreed with.

But if they repeal/replace it, fine. My old resolution is struck, and the new one is clearly different.

I like the system as it is and hope ammendments are never introduced to the game. When a proposal is submitted, the author wants that law introduced as they wrote it, usually because it is something he/she believes in. If we let other people edit that work, then I see it as an insult to the author and the effort they put in to get it written up and passed.

I like the system as it is and hope ammendments are never introduced to the game. When a proposal is submitted, the author wants that law introduced as they wrote it, usually because it is something he/she believes in. If we let other people edit that work, then I see it as an insult to the author and the effort they put in to get it written up and passed.
This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Thank you, Witchcliff.

Yes, there is. If repeal/replace changes a resolution, it strikes it first.

Look at an example. I don't want the UN to set mandatory recycling targets. If someone amended "UN Recycling Commission" to make it do that, I would be pissed, because it would have Gruenberg listed as author, of something I disagreed with.

But if they repeal/replace it, fine. My old resolution is struck, and the new one is clearly different.

I like the system as it is and hope ammendments are never introduced to the game. When a proposal is submitted, the author wants that law introduced as they wrote it, usually because it is something he/she believes in. If we let other people edit that work, then I see it as an insult to the author and the effort they put in to get it written up and passed.


I don't really understand you attachment to your "authorship"; Is the goal of the UN to be "author", or is it to pass and improve legislation?

You may be the writter of a proposal, but once it's become a voted reaolution, it's a UN resolution choosen by around 50 % of the members, it's not your anymore.

If legislation clauses were pattented in RL, there would have been no NS-legislation at all

About your fear of "you authored text" to be changed, if I understand your concern is about how the text will be displayed, tehre are many possibilities, wikipedia-like or the new old text being put in archives .... is this really important?

I don't really understand you attachment to your "authorship"; Is the goal of the UN to be "author", or is it to pass and improve legislation?
Nor do I, because it's not what I fucking said. I don't care if my name goes on my proposals or not. But others do.

And there is a fundamental difference between having a resolution repealed, and one amended. With the latter, it can be very unclear where the amendments are. How would the game engine display this? What if every aspect of a resolution is repealed - whose name then appears? It's not a question of "credit", so much as accuracy. If you're suggesting all names be stripped, and no one be given credit, then I'm fine with that - but there's still a matter of intellectual honesty. If I amendment Adoption & IVF Rights to ban gay adoption, you'd be pretty annoyed, no?

About your fear of "you authored text" to be changed, I don't think it's a problem, there no problem on wikipedia or NSwiki.
Because you're submitting material to such projects through a GFDL. No such agreement is in effect in resolution submission.

LAE, it's a bloody game. The ultimate form of recognition in this game is being one of the select few in this body that passed a piece of legislation. Yes it is important to be an author. It is even more important to make sure it reflects what you believe in. If they pulled authorship from the resolutions, yeah we'd have a much different issue. But Max added authorship so now it is something important.

LAE, it's a bloody game. The ultimate form of recognition in this game is being one of the select few in this body that passed a piece of legislation. Yes it is important to be an author. It is even more important to make sure it reflects what you believe in. If they pulled authorship from the resolutions, yeah we'd have a much different issue. But Max added authorship so now it is something important.
Ok, this is not what I'm saying, at least not quite. I just don't see it as likely that they'll pull authorship, so any amendment system would be scuttled on the rocks of assorted egos.

And yes, it's a bloody game. I'm off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments

This is just an example, let's imagine if the US congress had to repeal the US constitution each time ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments

This is just an example, let's imagine if the US congress had to repeal the US constitution each time annoying smilie removed
Oh wow! They have amendments in RL! Why didn't you say so before? You instantly win the entire debate!

I'm fed up with this. You win. Go talk to the mods about it, and tell them I heartily agree with every letter you utter.

Let's imagine if we had the full freedom of drafting, stat changing, complexity, etc, etc, etc that the RL US has.

Yes, there are great arguments for amendments, but this is a different beast in a different domain. You can't just put in a new set of ideas and then ignore, absolutely, the human element. The concept of amendments ignores the human element and works completely on the argument of "it would be easier". Damn right it would be easier, more logical, and more flexible, but that doesn't deal well with the human element.

Let's imagine if we had the full freedom of drafting, stat changing, complexity, etc, etc, etc that the RL US has.

I agree about technical stuff, but it don't think it should prevent us to at least discuss this topic (this forum is only discussion anyway)

Yes, there are great arguments for amendments, but this is a different beast in a different domain. You can't just put in a new set of ideas and then ignore, absolutely, the human element. The concept of amendments ignores the human element and works completely on the argument of "it would be easier". Damn right it would be easier, more logical, and more flexible, but that doesn't deal well with the human element.

Not sure about what mean human element is (I suppose it's resolution authorship).

It seems that this element seems important for many indeed, i was just saying that for me it's meaningless.


Oh wow! They have amendments in RL! Why didn't you say so before? You instantly win the entire debate!

I'm fed up with this. You win. Go talk to the mods about it, and tell them I heartily agree with every letter you utter.

Everyone stated his/her arguments politely on this topic so far, but if you prefer flames once again i will not follow you.

I'll try and explain why I would not support the introduction of ammendments.

Civilian Rights Post War was written by me and reflects my beliefs on that subject. One of the most debated and contentious parts of the resolution was the line about no body searches of children. A lot of those who posted in the debate thread wanted that line changed or removed because they felt the children would be used to smuggle bombs ect. I strongly disagreed with that arguement and still to this day stand by my belief that no child in an occupied nation scenario should ever have to undergo a body search.

If ammendments were allowed, and someone did alter or remove that line, then my name would be on a resolution I would no longer support or believe in because would no longer reflected my beliefs on the subject, but someone elses. Even if my name was removed, it would still be a mutilated version of something I spent a lot of time putting together, and many hours telegramming to get to quorum.

The authorship is important because each and every resolution passed is the vision what the person(s) who wrote it want the UN to be, do, represent, and if you take that away by allowing anyone to just come in and edit their work to suit their own agenda, then you are destroying the vision of the person who had the idea and believed in it enough to fight to get it passed.

I'll try and explain why I would not support the introduction of ammendments.

Civilian Rights Post War was written by me and reflects my beliefs on that subject. One of the most debated and contentious parts of the resolution was the line about no body searches of children. A lot of those who posted in the debate thread wanted that line changed or removed because they felt the children would be used to smuggle bombs ect. I strongly disagreed with that arguement and still to this day stand by my belief that no child in an occupied nation scenario should ever have to undergo a body search.

If ammendments were allowed, and someone did alter or remove that line, then my name would be on a resolution I would no longer support or believe in because would no longer reflected my beliefs on the subject, but someone elses. Even if my name was removed, it would still be a mutilated version of something I spent a lot of time putting together, and many hours telegramming to get to quorum.

The authorship is important because each and every resolution passed is the vision what the person(s) who wrote it want the UN to be, do, represent, and if you take that away by allowing anyone to just come in and edit their work to suit their own agenda, then you are destroying the vision of the person who had the idea and believed in it enough to fight to get it passed.

It seems to me that the same thing may be said about wikipedia or Nswiki. But your name may not appear on the ammended text.

It seems to me that our difference in point of view come from you put the author at the very center of legislation, while i put the voted text at the very center.

In my RL nation (and in many others) thousands amendment are voted every year and there are absolutly no problem of authorship.

I have very little to do with the wiki, except for putting my nation up on the NS version recently, and very rarely use it as an encyclopedia. Most of that is because of the editing. I don't use it as an authoritive source because the information in it can be changed by anyone on a whim. That, to me, makes it little better than a giant blog full of opinions, not facts. Besides, the info in the wiki doesnt directly affect every other UN nation in the game, ammendments to resolutions would.

I have very little to do with the wiki, except for putting my nation up on the NS version recently, and very rarely use it as an encyclopedia. Most of that is because of the editing. I don't use it as an authoritive source because the information in it can be changed by anyone on a whim. That, to me, makes it little better than a giant blog full of opinions, not facts.


Witchcliff, I was not saying that everyone may edit the resolution, only when voted:)

I agree about technical stuff, but it don't think it should prevent us to at least discuss this topic (this forum is only discussion anyway)
Here's some technical stuff for ya - knock it off with the amendments hijack. It's a) rude as hell to the author of this repeal and b) never gonna happen. Yes, this forum is for discussion, but that doesn't mean you can stomp all over every thread.

Create a new topic. It ain't hard. And stop it with the hijacks, UN regulars. I mean it.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Here's some technical stuff for ya - knock it off with the amendments hijack. It's a) rude as hell to the author of this repeal and ...The author of the repeal? What, is he here?!

A RL notice:

I just received a call from Dankism in RL. He and Larry have been in Dallas (far from their homes in the Northeast USA), competing in the NFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forensic_League) (National Forensics League) national tournament.

So, if everyone has been wondering where the authors have been all this time, they've been in Texas. :p

Here's some technical stuff for ya - knock it off with the amendments hijack. It's a) rude as hell to the author of this repeal and b) never gonna happen. Yes, this forum is for discussion, but that doesn't mean you can stomp all over every thread.

Create a new topic. It ain't hard. And stop it with the hijacks, UN regulars. I mean it.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Yes, you're quiet right about that. I apologise for my part in it.

Why on earth would one want single hulled tankers, besides those wanting to cut corners? Add hulls for the saftey of the environment those who work these boats!

they've been in Texas.Holy dog shit. Texas? Nothing comes from Texas 'cept steers and... um...

Hotrodia. >_>

Holy dog shit. Texas? Nothing comes from Texas 'cept steers and... um...

Hotrodia. >_>

I love you too, Hack. :fluffle:

;)

Look, a ban is a ban. I expect a nation would equivocate about the exact terms of any national ban, but they would still be obliged to ban single-hulled tankers (which can be reasonably assumed to halt their usage) and endorse (which is more vague admittedly, but can still be reasonably assumed to carry a weight of expectation that the nation will reform its naval practices to that effect).

I'm not arguing that this is by any means a good resolution, I'm just saying the repeal wording and the overall spirit of it mean that I'm unwilling to repeal it, unless you can clearly show that actual damage is being inflicted to the environment by it, which I remain to be convinced of.So, I guess, Save the forests of the World required nations to "save forests"? Well, it must have; it's in the title! Oh, wait. We repealed (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=136) that law, arguing it did no such thing, based on the text. It didn't "damage" the environment, either, but that didn't make it a good law. Besides, I really doubt an environmental law can possibly be described as good if the best thing you can say about it is that it doesn't inflict damage on the environment.

Surely you can do better than that.

So, I guess, Save the forests of the World required nations to "save forests"? Well, it must have; it's in the title! Oh, wait. We repealed (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=136) that law, arguing it did no such thing, based on the text. It didn't "damage" the environment, either, but that didn't make it a good law. Besides, I really doubt an environmental law can possibly be described as good if the best thing you can say about it is that it doesn't inflict damage on the environment.

Surely you can do better than that.

I'mma have to agree with Kenny on this one. The title is useless. If someone made a movie called "Best Movie Evaaaaaar" well it probably wouldn't be. It's the subject matter that matters. Which is also why I'm voting against the repeal as well.

So, I guess, Save the forests of the World required nations to "save forests"? Well, it must have; it's in the title! Oh, wait. We repealed (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=136) that law, arguing it did no such thing, based on the text. It didn't "damage" the environment, either, but that didn't make it a good law. Besides, I really doubt an environmental law can possibly be described as good if the best thing you can say about it is that it doesn't inflict damage on the environment.

Surely you can do better than that.

And GMC's precedent came well after Save the Forests of the World so let's not get into Safe the Forests of the World.

Holy dog shit. Texas? Nothing comes from Texas 'cept steers and... um...

Hotrodia. >_>


and The Palentine?

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

Sorry for my part in the hijack too. Glad that the issue has been settled, though.

and The Palentine?If that was a joke, I don't get it.

Try West Virginia, funnyman.

And GMC's precedent came well after Save the Forests of the World so let's not get into Safe the Forests of the World.I'm sorry. Didn't I already explain GMC's ruling is irrelevant here?

Here's some technical stuff for ya - knock it off with the amendments hijack. It's a) rude as hell to the author of this repeal and b) never gonna happen. Yes, this forum is for discussion, but that doesn't mean you can stomp all over every thread.

Create a new topic. It ain't hard. And stop it with the hijacks, UN regulars. I mean it.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Ok, sorry for the hijack

If that was a joke, I don't get it.

Try West Virginia, funnyman.

OOC: not attempting a joke, I vaguely recalled (although apparently mistakenly) his having said so at some point...

So, I guess, Save the forests of the World required nations to "save forests"? Well, it must have; it's in the title! Oh, wait. We repealed (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=136) that law, arguing it did no such thing, based on the text. It didn't "damage" the environment, either, but that didn't make it a good law. Besides, I really doubt an environmental law can possibly be described as good if the best thing you can say about it is that it doesn't inflict damage on the environment.

Surely you can do better than that.

Look, I don't have a broad pattern of voting behaviour on these kinds of repeals. I supported repealing "Save the Forests of the World" because it did nothing in my point of view. This, whilst admittedly weak, has some kind of practical effect (re-read my argument and Hirota's), which means comparing the two is meaningless.

Regardless, I don't trust the author's motives anyway, which in the end meant I was unwilling to back this repeal, even if I wasn't convinced entirely by the subject of its repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The resolution "Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"" was defeated 6,933 votes to 4,875.

Well done guys. :D

I'm sorry. Didn't I already explain GMC's ruling is irrelevant here?

Didn't we already conclude that the opinions on the matter were divided and there are more than a few of us who base our opinion about the title's influence upon GMC's precedent. I know you don't believe that, but this time I honestly am not going to change my opinion on it and I know our differences stem from much different beliefs so it would be a damn waste of my time to try and convince you otherwise.

The resolution "Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"" was defeated 6,933 votes to 4,875.


I do believe Ambassador Tommo the Stout owes Ambassador Zyryanov a crate of Norderian vodka and "a few pounds" of chocolates. You'll find her office on the 10th floor of the UN Building. :D

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (s11.invisionfree.com/antarctic_oasis) Dept. of UN Affairs
"We will bury you."

As regional secretary for UN Affairs, I must inform you that the governance of our delegate contingent will be changing very soon, although the process for deciding the governor has met with a stalemate. Our founder's challenge (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=52&view=findpost&p=2639490) to set silly UN proposals to music seems to have our contenders stumped. Oh sure, if it's torturing puppies, slaughtering white rhinos, committing war crimes on the Gurglestanis, oppressing their own people with draconian religious edicts, overrunning foreign countries with high-paid hooker secret agents, going on a killing spree in the General Assembly, or playing "The Dating Game" with Vice President Morgan, our resident wannabes can't get it done fast enough -- but God forbid they should be asked to sing a song and it's too much for them! Such as it is in Antarctic Oasis. Meanwhile, Sen. Sulla, the ambassador from outgoing delegate nation Palentine UN Office (www.nationstates.net/palentine_UN_office), had mulled cooking up one of his bribery schemes to determine his vote on the resolution at vote (which has now been defeated), but finding no good offers, simply cast our region's eight votes AGAINST it.VICTORY IS MINE!!

I do believe Ambassador Tommo the Stout owes Ambassador Zyryanov a crate of Norderian vodka and "a few pounds" of chocolates. You'll find her office on the 10th floor of the UN Building. :D

*sigh*

Details will be in the stranger's bar...

OOC: Why can't things ever be as interesting in my region, that's what I want to know.

The resolution "Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"" was defeated 6,933 votes to 4,875.Good good.

Good good.Let's hope you're still saying that once I launch a real repeal attempt against this thing.

Let's hope you're still saying that once I launch a real repeal attempt against this thing.Depends on the merits of the repeal. I'm not big on enviromentalism.