NationStates Jolt Archive

I didn't see a thread for this, so I'm going to post it here. If there already is a thread for it (although I don't think ACCEL posts here), a mod can close or delete this one.


A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #24
Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #24: Metric System (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

APPRECIATING the scientific advantages and the simplistic nature of the metric system,

NOTING that the resolution imposes the costs of converting to the metric system onto all nations, regardless of economic conditions, upon their entry into the United Nations,

CONCERNED that the economic burden of converting to the metric system will offset the stated purpose of the original resolution, particularly in developing nations,

BELIEVING that Nations should have the right to choose their own forms of measurement,

OBSERVING that systems of measurement may be as much a part of a nation's culture as language,

FURTHER OBSERVING that some non-metric systems allow even simpler division by a broader array of integers, and may therefore be considered preferable in certain applications,

CONSIDERING that in light of these flaws there would be no direct international benefit to the forced conversion of domestic measurement units:

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #24, "Metric System".

Co-authored by the members of ACCEL

No, I am not a member of ACCEL, no, I am not the author. I'm just posting their thread here.

The original Resolution is here:

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Wortham

Description: Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement. I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard.

This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling. This would breakdown barriers in sharing of research and in the international marketplace. Tourism would also be benifited from the common standard. This proposal would mainly help countries of poor economic standing, whereas the common standard would improve their ability to compete in the international market place.

Science would also benifit from a unifide standard to taught in public schools, no conversions would need to be made.

Votes For: 8629
Votes Against: 5227
Implemented: Mon Jul 28 2003

The Kirisuban government will be casting their vote for the repeal since they believe that the imposition of the metric system is a major invasion of sovereignty.

Our diverse nations have managed for a long time without needing standardised weights and measures and they can do without the metric system unless they want to continue using it once the repeal is sucessful.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisubo UN Mission

The resolution on the metric system is one of my favorites actualy. Not because it is well written...

The metric system is a great system that in the long haul saves huge amounts of time and money for countries. There are several reasons for this. The first one is that the metric system is a great system that because of this resolution is already in all UN nations.

These countries have already payed the small price of the metric system changeover. Most will be reaping the benefits at the moment. Taking it out of the UN legislation will in effect be bad for there economy.

Now you may ask why the metric system is nessasary in the UN. The reason is that without it everyone will have a differnt form of measuring things. This herts business by making them have to be always converting numbers. This wastes time and money.

Also what about if you are driving on the road and you cross the border from nation A to nation B. In Nation A they uses the metric system so on the highway you where going 100KM an hour but in Nation B uses another system. So you get on the highway and your now told to go 320 slug years a froogle.

You have no idea how fast that is or in how much time. Because you don't know every nations system. Your driving completly wrecklessly and your now thinking. You went to slow and got rear-ended because of it. Your now paralised having killed another person on the highway. This is all because of the repeal of the resolution on the metric system.

I can give you more examples if you want. There are lots. The cost on the system on confusion would be immense I do not support this repeal in any way.

I understand people think this is against national soverignty right? But even soveigntists belive some things should be legislated on. Otherwise why would they be in the UN. The most important things to legislate on are ones of international signifcance where it can only be done with international cooperation. This is one such issue.

Anyone whose planning to visit another country or trade with one has always dealt with this so I don't see what the problem is.

I would like to remind the honourable member that some nations drive on the left and some drive on the right side of the road.

Each nation also has its own currency and this has never stopped tourism and trade. Why should the lack of a globally imposed metric system make much difference?

Nations are still free to use metric if they want to trade so if company A uses imperial and company B uses metric they can still convert weights and measures easily. they can even use metric if they want to but it is that nations choice.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisuban UN Mission

Anyone whose planning to visit another country or trade with one has always dealt with this so I don't see what the problem is.

If you sat down and tried to memorize the imperial system lets say think about how long that would take you. A good while 12 inchs in a foot 5280 feet in mille... Add that in with the conversions to another system. So if you travel commonly to differnt countries you will have extreme problems trying to memorize them all.

[qoute]
I would like to remind the honourable member that some nations drive on the left and some drive on the right side of the road.
[/quote]
Yes but that's easy to know. Just have a sign go to the left. It might feel odd but it is easy to remember. Think about 3217.8 frulps to 1000 inometers(random names).


Each nation also has its own currency and this has never stopped tourism and trade. Why should the lack of a globally imposed metric system make much difference?

I went to the US this summer right? So what I did was a traded my canadian dollers for american ones. All I did was just go to the bank. Simple I don't need to have the exchange rate of 15 differnt currencys memorized do I (there are many differnt forms of mesurment so that's why I jjust said 15)

I would also Like to add on the side that The resolution does not in any way force people to use the metric system. It says it must be on signs and stuff along with any other ones. So it does not interfeer with national soverignty that much at all.

Now that I won't be posting 3 in a row, I'll weigh in.

(Bloody crap, I just found out I have to walk to work. I don't have time to weigh in. I'll do it tonight when I get home.)

Metric System doesn't have to be repealed. Not by this one anyway. I doubt changing a measuring system will result in the economic collapse of a country, as the repeal states. Also, some nations have ridiculous measuring systems... You know, someone has a base 10, someone else has a base 6, someone else has a base 12, and a fourth has a disproportionate fraction system. Lord knows how ridiculously obnoxious that is.

Norderia's opposed. I'll give a more thorough explanation later. Especially in response to Kirisubo's points (and whatever else might arise while I'm gone).

Ausserland stands foursquare AGAINST this repeal. We'd like to specifically address the arguments advanced by the honorable representative of Kirisubo....

Anyone whose planning to visit another country or trade with one has always dealt with this so I don't see what the problem is.

Unfortunately, this is a prime example of the tried and true "we've always done it this way" argument, often advanced by those who oppose progress and improvement. And, as always, it fails the test of logic.

I would like to remind the honourable member that some nations drive on the left and some drive on the right side of the road.

We fail to see the relevance. Just because one possible problem exists doesn't mean we should ignore others.

Each nation also has its own currency and this has never stopped tourism and trade. Why should the lack of a globally imposed metric system make much difference?

The honorable representative fails to consider that systems of weights and measures have an impact far greater in scope and far more prevalent in daily life than currency. Systems of measurement, for example, impact everything from the purchase of groceries to exploration of space.

Nations are still free to use metric if they want to in trade so if company A uses imperial and company B uses metric they can still convert weights and measures easily. they can even use metric if they want to but it is that nations choice.

We fail to see how this can be true. NSUN member nations are currently required by the resolution in question (which has been in place since 2003) to use the metric system. If this repeal passes, of course, those nations would be free to reintroduce their unique systems of weights and measures. We would seriously question the competence of any government that would try to do so.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We fail to see how this can be true. NSUN member nations are currently required by the resolution in question (which has been in place since 2003) to use the metric system. If this repeal passes, of course, those nations would be free to reintroduce their unique systems of weights and measures. We would seriously question the competence of any government that would try to do so.

Well it might be done actualy because the resolution does not disallow that. Private company's can do that but it is not suggested becaue it is a waste of time an money. They are requred to put it on labels or any other related thing though.

The honorable representative fails to consider that systems of weights and measures have an impact far greater in scope and far more prevalent in daily life than currency. Systems of measurement, for example, impact everything from the purchase of groceries to exploration of space.

We fail to see how this can be true. NSUN member nations are currently required by the resolution in question (which has been in place since 2003) to use the metric system. If this repeal passes, of course, those nations would be free to reintroduce their unique systems of weights and measures. We would seriously question the competence of any government that would try to do so.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Olembe san, we fully appreciate the effects of changing from one set of measurements to another. after all we changed our road signs from Imperial to Metric when we joined the UN. in additon we instituted road signs with Miles and Kilometres on them to make life easier for everyone.

You are also right in stating that a system of weights and measures impacts everything. The old measures that Kirisubo used to use included the Koku (a hundred weight of rice) and the league (3 miles) before the imperial system was adopted two hundred years ago.

it does affect everything from getting a half litre of beer to a kilogram of tomatoes.

the nations of the NSUN would have only been using metric for 3 years so changing back wouldn't be so hard if they wanted to and its a nations sovereign right to govern so they can change back if they want to despite your views on their competance.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisuban UN Mission

the nations of the NSUN would have only been using metric for 3 years so changing back wouldn't be so hard to go back if they wanted to and its a nations sovereign right to govern so they can change back if they want to despite your views on their competance.

First the major money for gevernments is spent in the replacing of signs. So this would be a pretty fast process.

But after that there is another problem I have. Does NS time go at the same speed as RL time? I doubt there is any system at all so if it has been 3 years now It would be much longer. Like I started a mounth or two ago. I have a population of 260 million. you start at 30 million(the population of canada lol) So do you really think my population grew that fast? I doubt it.

ooc: i'm not entirely sure what the ratio of game time to real time is but i use NS years when in character. theres certainly at least two NS years to a RL year.

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to express his disapproval of this resolution. For various reasons, Costa Bravo will be voting no to this resolution, put, primarily, Regent Rudabaugh feels that the world needs more uniformity, and less chaotic needless conversion "bullshit".

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo.

ooc: i'm not entirely sure what the ratio of game time to real time is but i use NS years when in character. theres certainly at least two NS years to a RL year.

I don't think there is one.

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to express his disapproval of this resolution. For various reasons, Costa Bravo will be voting no to this resolution, put, primarily, Regent Rudabaugh feels that the world needs more uniformity, and less chaotic needless conversion "bullshit".

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo.

You mean you are Against the repeal not the resolution right?

You are not, by any means, required to use the metric system to the exclusion of all others. You are still permitted to use the metric system alongside your local system. That means that when you package up a 10oz beverage, you have to mark the 355 mL on the side of the can as well. It doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon nor the cost of an entire factory to change that on all of a company's product lines. The economic factor applies more to signs than anything (particularly, road signs), but that's a relatively minor issue and I think the UN can overlook signs not being replaced so long as you are printing metric on all of your new signs.

I think it's New Brunswick where they have their road signs marked in both KM and Miles. I think your nation can survive if it does that.

You mean you are Against the repeal not the resolution right?
Uh... yes...

Hrm.

ooc: i'm not entirely sure what the ratio of game time to real time is but i use NS years when in character. theres certainly at least two NS years to a RL year.

The relationship between NS years and RL years is one to one and onto, right? (Considering a domain and range starting after NS was created in RL, and up to the present).

I believe it is, because so many events have both an NS date, and a RL date, and I for those events there appears to be a one to one correlation.

The relationship between an NS and RL year is undefined. DLE ran with one RL day = one NS year. Aberdeen is running at around 2 NS years per RL year. I think Mikivity was suggesting 1 RL month = 1 NS year. Time is a random event in this game simply because of the nature of its existance.

I didn't see a thread for this, so I'm going to post it here. If there already is a thread for it (although I don't think ACCEL posts here), a mod can close or delete this one.

Thanks! I usually put the thread up the day before the vote, seeing as you've beat me to it I guess we can stick with this one :P

I doubt changing a measuring system will result in the economic collapse of a country, as the repeal states.

The repeal doesn't state that at all, it states that the costs are incredibly large.

I understand people think this is against national soverignty right? But even soveigntists belive some things should be legislated on. Otherwise why would they be in the UN. The most important things to legislate on are ones of international signifcance where it can only be done with international cooperation. This is one such issue.

I would say the Nat Sov faction generally agree international issues should be legislated on, and in this case there is an international aspect. What we're objecting to is the fact that everything domestically has to be put in metric, things that aren't even going to leave the country. The scales in your bathroom would have to be in metric even if you are the ones only going to use it.


Another general point to throw in: what about trading blocs who are using some other measurement than metric? What benefit do they have to switching to metric?

Before the passing of the resolution, Lydania had extremely difficult and disparate measuring systems. One was in base six; another was in base thirteen - and these are just the historically legitimate measuring systems in Lydania. Each one is attributed to a particular culture in Lydania, and up until the passing of the resolution, it was difficult to force the cultural adherents of each measuring system to interact.

After the passing of the resolution, my government seized upon the opportunity to relax the cultural dissonance and mandated base ten along with the Metric system. Since, with the majority of citizens working in one field or another, related to science or the government, the cultural strife has decreased by a large margin.

Repealing this resolution at this point, however poorly written, would be far more disruptive than could be attributed a dollar value.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Another general point to throw in: what about trading blocs who are using some other measurement than metric? What benefit do they have to switching to metric?

Simple, Speaker - they can deal with UN countries.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

What we're objecting to is the fact that everything domestically has to be put in metric, things that aren't even going to leave the country.

How much does it really cost to have a few letters written in like on highways have KM and miles

The scales in your bathroom would have to be in metric even if you are the ones only going to use it.

Actualy think about this. You may be the only one that is using it. But when it was made do you think the Manufacturer knew you where and that you liked whatever system you use. Nope he knew somebody was going to use it. If he has an international company he could write differnt labeling on each scale depending on the nation it was going to OR put the metric system on and it could be sold in many more area's. Also if there are too many made to go to lets say newfoundcanada. Then he can easily move it over to another country that also largly uses the metric system. Instead of throwing it out or putting it on a huge sale and losing money.

You are not, by any means, required to use the metric system to the exclusion of all others. You are still permitted to use the metric system alongside your local system. That means that when you package up a 10oz beverage, you have to mark the 355 mL on the side of the can as well. It doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon nor the cost of an entire factory to change that on all of a company's product lines. The economic factor applies more to signs than anything (particularly, road signs), but that's a relatively minor issue and I think the UN can overlook signs not being replaced so long as you are printing metric on all of your new signs.

I think it's New Brunswick where they have their road signs marked in both KM and Miles. I think your nation can survive if it does that.

This right here is the heart of the issue, as we understand it. The way we read the original resolution, it does require that the metric system must be used to the exclusion of all others, particularly since it makes reference at the end to teaching it in public schools "without need for conversions". Under this stance, if for no other reason than clarity, we would support the repeal of the resolution in favor of one following it that worked more in the way you describe, one that clearly says, "Use what you want internally, but have the standard conversions ready for international conversation."

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

How much does it really cost to have a few letters written in like on highways have KM and miles

You'd be surprised.

Let's take a nation the size of that mythical place called "Rhode Island". To change every speed limit sign in Rhode Island to contain the speed in both miles and kilometers would take approximately 1250 gallons of paint (at approximately $6/gallon) and over 300 man hours at a standard wage of $12/hour, for a total of over $12,000 for just that one small detail of the conversion. And that's just to paint it over on the original signs. Actually scrapping the existing signs and creating new ones, as you'd expect in a nation that values pretty presentation, would likely be more than triple the cost.

Very big price tag just to accomodate the few foreigners who might have to take a second to make the conversion in their heads.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Ehh. I reread both Resolutions.

I've decided that I really don't care that much about either of them. I'll see what my region wants.

I won't be particularly heartbroken if R24 goes. It might actually make it a lot easier on my Chemical Transportation Standards Resolution to avoid duplication for mandating SI measurements.

Until it goes to vote and until I check any opinions from the North Sea, I get to do another...

UBERMIGHTY ABSTAINING ACTION EXTREME POWER!!!

The Grand Duchy of Arggh is fully in favor of repealing the Metric System as it discriminates unfairly against nations who do not use the base ten numbering system.

Metric sucks. We support a repeal.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Repeal "Metric System "
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #24
Proposed by: Leg-ends

*sighs*

Description: UN Resolution #24: Metric System (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

Yes?

APPRECIATING the scientific advantages and the simplistic nature of the metric system,

Great

NOTING that the resolution imposes the costs of converting to the metric system onto all nations, regardless of economic conditions, upon their entry into the United Nations,

A rather minor issue and a one time expense. I fail to see it as a major deterrent and I would love to see a list of where these costs become an issue - especially since less developed nations won't really have too many problems with...y'know....my previously mentioned road signs. One must wonder if ACCEL, which keeps using this argument, thinks that mere existance of standardization, no matter how much money it might save for other purposes, is too great of a cost for it to bear. I find such short-sighted thinking nothing short of disgusting, to be honest.

CONCERNED that the economic burden of converting to the metric system will offset the stated purpose of the original resolution, particularly in developing nations,

"We can't take this one time expense hit so that we may more easily profit in the future. Our short termed strategies are unable to predict a net profit because we don't care about potential profits that we could garner in the future."

Please. How expensive, I ask you, is it to get this information converted?

BELIEVING that Nations should have the right to choose their own forms of measurement,

Why?

OBSERVING that systems of measurement may be as much a part of a nation's culture as language,

Well, we gave an Internationally standardized language kinda ingrained into the UN - or did you not notice how proposals not written in English kinda have this tendency to be shot on sight by a .45 with mod-bomb-grade explosive tips? Considering that is one cultural issue that can't be removed, one must wonder whether this argument actually supports a standardized system.

FURTHER OBSERVING that some non-metric systems allow even simpler division by a broader array of integers, and may therefore be considered preferable in certain applications,

Yes, I'm well aware of that. In fact, if we go through a fucking large list of them, we can weigh the pros and cons of each one and where they're more or less useful. For example, metric is much more useful when you're dealing with incoming information that's both big and small (for example, a 3 tonne beam that's 150 meters long needs to be moved 3.24 cm and it will have this impact on the forces for the entire structure) while Imperial is certainly much more useful for...say......cooking. However, you still have the fucked up part of a thousand different systems being used. So, we PICKED ONE. Sure, we could've picked Imperial, but I honestly don't care enough which one we picked, we picked metric, get over it.

CONSIDERING that in light of these flaws there would be no direct international benefit to the forced conversion of domestic measurement units:

Um............

OOC: Have you ever crossed the American/Canadian border? It takes you a bit to get your mind wrapped around the fact that the speed limits are in a different system and that the 200 till the next city won't take you 2hrs because it's in miles. Oh look, promotion of tourism. We could add the ease of which it would be to gauge sizes/etc when discussing sales and you're a business person that deals with a lot of countries. Yet another reason why a bunch of countries adopted the Euro.

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #24, "Metric System".

Zero arguments for the repeal, 1 against the repeal......I'm saying no

Co-authored by the members of ACCEL

Meh

To be fair, Metric system is a crap resolution. There are many reasons to repeal it and I think it's one that could use a severe touch up and clarification.

Metric System
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Wortham

First of all, I have a hard time believing it's worthy of Strong, but perhaps it is a bit more deserving since it took so much heat.

Description: Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement. I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard.

1) The use of the term far superior is a rather arrogant away to approach the matter. There are, indeed, many advantages, but the resolution is inaccurate to suggest that it is far superior to all systems, or even the system is superior to certain systems in all cases. I believe that was an argument in the repeal.
2) coverted-> converted
3) "I propose" loophole. At no point is it dealt with.

This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling.

Those were the only things I could really think of as being capable of incuring costs, and again, I'm not convinced they are big costs.

This would breakdown barriers in sharing of research and in the international marketplace.

Absolutely. Especially since we could be operating with as many as 30,000 systems. With a standard system, my scientists will at least be able to look at a research paper out of Gruenberg and without having to read whatever god aweful system Wena had dictated to them, they'll still be able to understand it because there will be numbers in metric on these papers as well. Useful for both documents that are shared and those that are stolen

Er....I shouldn't've said that.

Tourism would also be benifited from the common standard.

I already argued that

This proposal would mainly help countries of poor economic standing,

I actually disagree with this argument. It would help companies with International holdings, it would help tourists, it would help salesmen who work on the International scale, it would help science discoveries. All of these are areas where the Industrialized nations have the most to gain. Will it benefit those lesser developed nations? Absolutely. If an undeveloped nation gets a hold of scientific data from an industrialized nation, it will be much faster for them to put it to use. Sure, they could learn the nation's system, but if you'd never been exposed to the Base 6 Ugenemics system employed in the Cortez Straight, you're going to be making a heck of a lot of mistakes and you'll be spending more time looking at your calculator than you would be looking at your results.

Ooo. Another area. Meeting building codes, especially for International companies. Let's say that to get your design approved by an Engineer, the boiler room must be X distance away from the storage room because some idiot put a few propane canisters in a storage room in a factory 300 miles west of you and this was the Government's solution. You are an architect working for Johnston Inc in.....say....Leg-ends and you need it approved by an Engineer consultant who's employed in, say, Forgottenlands UN and you need to have someone who's been certified by Forgottenlands UN government to approve designs for projects in Forgottenlands UN. It would be so much easier for him to approve your design and calculate it all out if he only had to worry about the metric system. Good Engineers can look at the final figure and go "that looks off". Much harder if the final answer is in a different system you've never used before.

whereas the common standard would improve their ability to compete in the international market place.

.....debatable.

Science would also benifit from a unifide standard to taught in public schools, no conversions would need to be made.

The "no conversions would need to be made" line relates to how science benefits, not the education of children. If a scientist can look at a paper and see the metric figure, they have an answer they can understand since they took that system in school. NEXT.

Votes For: 8629
Votes Against: 5227
Implemented: Mon Jul 28 2003

As I said, there are many things that you can do to get around some of the sore spots in the resolution. It might deserve updating, but it isn't a bad idea. I cannot support any repeal that fails to understand why this is a good idea

Metric sucks. We support a repeal.Yup. That about sums up our take on this.

Yup. That about sums up our take on this.

As it does ours. However, we will not be invading any nations voting against this one.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ah, but will you add them to the World Heritage List?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The Kirisuban government will be casting their vote for the repeal since they believe that the imposition of the metric system is a major invasion of sovereignty.

Our diverse nations have managed for a long time without needing standardised weights and measures and they can do without the metric system unless they want to continue using it once the repeal is sucessful.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisubo UN Mission

Like Ms. Uehara, I'm of the opinion that the imposition of the metric system on all member nations would be a major blow to the sovereignty of all our nations, though I ain't in agreement that the resolution facing a repeal attempt (which by the way sounds like it was a class essay written by a below-average HotRodian child of ten years) is effective at either imposing the metric system or doing anything of significance to impair the sovereignty of any nation.

I also agree with Ms. Uehara that if nations want to use the metric standard or any other standard to improve the ease of international commerce and travel, they are perfectly free to do so. If some nations believe that such a move is the best thing for them, they'll do it. They hardly need a UN resolution telling them how to do something they're already going to do because it's in their interest, and if some other nations decide that it ain't in their interest to make international tourism and trade easier, whether for security purposes or cultural reasons, I'm all for them making that reasonable choice.

I'll be casting my nation's vote FOR the repeal of the aforementioned poorly-constructed and ineffective resolution on something better left to national discretion anyway.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Metric sucks. We support a repeal.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites concurs.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Y'all are invited to a "Metric Sucks" party in the HotRodian UN office. Bring some gallon jugs of liquor, a few pints of beer, and some ladies, please. I'll provide the tequila that makes their clothes come off, so y'all don't worry about that.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

WHOOOOO!!!! Party in Dioce's office! I'll bring the Arrogant Bastard Ale!!

[Cups her melons]

Time to slather these in some whipped cream, baby!! FUCK metrics!!! WHOOOO!!!!!

[Makes obnoxious faces at the camera]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/jessie.jpg
Jessie McArthur
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Our nations supports the metric system.

We also support this repeal, and will be voting for.

Reason is simple, we just plain don't care what sort of convaluted and/or old fashioned and/or mixed up and/or backward and/or just plain weird measuring system other nations want to use. I mean, the imperial system for instance is so last century. If others want to make things hard on themselves, that is their choice I suppose.

The subject of measuring systems is really so trivial that the UN doesn't need to waste its time on it, so the original resolution needs to go. At least then, our representatives will stop yawning like mad every time it is mentioned.

Kirin
The Reformers

Panyer
The Preservers

Witchcliff joint representatives to the UN.

Isn't it interesting how an issue that has been given multiple arguments as to why it is International in scope and why it is worthy of being up held continues to be blasted by the sovereigntists - some claiming sovereignty, others merely "I don't like the one that the UN picked because it wasn't my own, wah wah wah".

I think the sovereigntist and, even moreso, the economic arguments fail in the face of many of the arguments made so far. However, I wish to reraise my point about the building codes argument I made earlier. I reraise it not because I think it is a necessarily imperitive argument but it proves that the areas of economic impact are much greater and not even somewhat limited to just the fields listed in the original resolution (ie: the research and tourism industries). Every aspect of our life can be affected and hindered if we do not bring in a standard

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

I'm well aware of the concerns about trading blocks that carry their own standard, I'm well aware of many problems that do exist, however, this concept is too important to ignore and it doesn't matter whether we picked Imperial, Metric, or the 12-Tom system, toes would be stepped on and we had to pick one. You might not like it, but after two years of using metric, deciding "we picked the wrong system, let's pick a different one" would incur a cost for no real benefit other than appeasing some while angering others, and removing the system does nothing to help address the issues that have been raised as to why this issue is worthy of International consideration. We will only support a repeal under the opinion that the resolution is worthy of improvement, and we are disgusted by the short-sighted views of the members of ACCEL, NSO and sovereigntists-at-large.

It is amazing that in the face of great reasons to adopt a common system, they will still balk at the idea because it might mean they aren't in their comfort zone. Disgraceful, IMO.

The Senate of Krioval has repeatedly found that membership in the United Nations tends to abridge a nation's sovereignty without much assistance from outside. The Senate of Krioval has also found, after some research into the matter, that membership in the United Nations is entirely voluntary. Thus, the Senate of Krioval is surprised that the primary argument against implementing the metric system in UN member states is that of sovereignty.

The fact of the matter is that a standardized system of measure throughout UN member states would improve trade - knowing the quantity of goods being sent and received without need for conversion should hasten shipments and keep confidence between trading partners strong. In short, it is a tremendous boon to know what one is buying, and a standard of measure facilitates this.

If a nation is worried that its ancestral methods of measurement are to be legislated away, that may be a legitimate complaint, though the Senate of Krioval does not interpret the original resolution in a way that banishes cultural artifacts, in the Republic of Krioval or elsewhere. If the goal is to use a simpler set of measurements universally, that would be another admirable goal, though the Senate of Krioval is skeptical that such a system would have greater appeal among a majority of UN member states. At the end of the day, however, the Senate of Krioval cannot endorse a resolution that would reduce the capacity of international trade on the basis that a universal system of measure infringes on national sovereignty.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
City of Neo Tyros
Republic of Krioval

Isn't it interesting how an issue that has been given multiple arguments as to why it is International in scope and why it is worthy of being up held continues to be blasted by the sovereigntists - some claiming sovereignty, others merely "I don't like the one that the UN picked because it wasn't my own, wah wah wah".I would like to point out to the Fussbudget States of Forgottenlands that I never made any claim to sovereignty or to the quality of the Resolution in question. I just don't much care for the Metric system. At least I was being honest about things.

The world managed to continue spinning, and buildings didn't randomly collapse before this nonsense was passed, I see no reason to assume this will change should it be Repealed. I mean, seriously. You're arguing based on building codes? Aside from the fact that nowhere in international law do you find building code guidelines, I don't see the Gibson Tower collapsing because we say it's 10500 feet tall as opposed to 3200 meters. Or metres. Or however the hell you spell it.

Market forces are more than enough to push forward uniform standards where they are needed. When we were figuring out how much work space we were going to have in the ISS, we used meters because that's what the administrative nations where using. When we built the Arkbird, we used Imperial. Nobody uses it but us, so we can use our own damn methods. We could have used rods for all it matters (incidentally, the Gibson Tower is 636.3636 rods tall; fun fact!).

Much of the scientific community already uses the metric system. And, frankly, it's a royal pain in the ass. Every time I'm reading an article, I need a goddamned calculator so I can convert metric into something that means something.

Quite simply, there is no need for this Resolution. Any sector that would benefit from a common measuring system will do so of its own accord. It doesn't need the UN holding its hand. All this does is force a standard into places where it generates no benefit, and potentially causes damage (typically, economic).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The Senate of Krioval has repeatedly found that membership in the United Nations tends to abridge a nation's sovereignty without much assistance from outside. The Senate of Krioval has also found, after some research into the matter, that membership in the United Nations is entirely voluntary. Thus, the Senate of Krioval is surprised that the primary argument against implementing the metric system in UN member states is that of sovereignty.

Hell, I ain't surprised at all. Nations tend to like to be able to do what they want.

The fact of the matter is that a standardized system of measure throughout UN member states would improve trade - knowing the quantity of goods being sent and received without need for conversion should hasten shipments and keep confidence between trading partners strong. In short, it is a tremendous boon to know what one is buying, and a standard of measure facilitates this.

I agree that a standardized stystem of measure would help with trade, but I disagree that it would be helpful for the UN to impose it on all member nations without regard for their individual circustances, which is what you seem to be all in favor of. Some nations may have security or cultural reasons for not wanting to facilitate trade with other nations, or they may have milateral or multilateral trade agreements with neighboring nations that is contingent on a non-metric system of measure. Why fool with all that?

If some nations want to use a common system to help move things along, that's fine and dandy. But trying to tell every nation that they have to use it just seems like a waste of time and effort to me.

If a nation is worried that its ancestral methods of measurement are to be legislated away, that may be a legitimate complaint, though the Senate of Krioval does not interpret the original resolution in a way that banishes cultural artifacts, in the Republic of Krioval or elsewhere. If the goal is to use a simpler set of measurements universally, that would be another admirable goal, though the Senate of Krioval is skeptical that such a system would have greater appeal among a majority of UN member states. At the end of the day, however, the Senate of Krioval cannot endorse a resolution that would reduce the capacity of international trade on the basis that a universal system of measure infringes on national sovereignty.

At the end of my day, given the lack of effectiveness in that little crappy essay resolution, I'm thinking a reduction in the capacity of international trade ain't exactly forthcoming. Repealing this sucker won't change much.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'm not longer going to abstain. I try to maintain high standards for repeals, and as is my little saying, I don't simply go for means to an end. Even if Metric System needs to be repealed, I don't like the reasons given in this Repeal.

Norderia is against, but maintains as little passion as earlier about the subject.

You'd be surprised.

Let's take a nation the size of that mythical place called "Rhode Island". To change every speed limit sign in Rhode Island to contain the speed in both miles and kilometers would take approximately 1250 gallons of paint (at approximately $6/gallon) and over 300 man hours at a standard wage of $12/hour, for a total of over $12,000 for just that one small detail of the conversion. And that's just to paint it over on the original signs. Actually scrapping the existing signs and creating new ones, as you'd expect in a nation that values pretty presentation, would likely be more than triple the cost.

Very big price tag just to accomodate the few foreigners who might have to take a second to make the conversion in their heads.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."


That's miniscule assuming we're talking about the same mythical place. Does there exist a UN resolution that would cost said mythical place less?

The only "costs" a repeal would save would be for new UN nations, existing UN nations have already paid this price. Since existing UN nations already use the metric system, they would save money when trading with new UN nations if they didn't have to convert to another system. As such the UN as a whole saves much more money then the costs you have just described.

I would like to point out to the Fussbudget States of Forgottenlands that I never made any claim to sovereignty or to the quality of the Resolution in question. I just don't much care for the Metric system. At least I was being honest about things.

The world managed to continue spinning, and buildings didn't randomly collapse before this nonsense was passed, I see no reason to assume this will change should it be Repealed. I mean, seriously. You're arguing based on building codes? Aside from the fact that nowhere in international law do you find building code guidelines, I don't see the Gibson Tower collapsing because we say it's 10500 feet tall as opposed to 3200 meters. Or metres. Or however the hell you spell it.

Market forces are more than enough to push forward uniform standards where they are needed. When we were figuring out how much work space we were going to have in the ISS, we used meters because that's what the administrative nations where using. When we built the Arkbird, we used Imperial. Nobody uses it but us, so we can use our own damn methods. We could have used rods for all it matters (incidentally, the Gibson Tower is 636.3636 rods tall; fun fact!).

Much of the scientific community already uses the metric system. And, frankly, it's a royal pain in the ass. Every time I'm reading an article, I need a goddamned calculator so I can convert metric into something that means something.

Quite simply, there is no need for this Resolution. Any sector that would benefit from a common measuring system will do so of its own accord. It doesn't need the UN holding its hand. All this does is force a standard into places where it generates no benefit, and potentially causes damage (typically, economic).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

This would seem to a problem that only affects your generation, I'm suprised you haven't already adopted the metric system yourself.

Some people are interpreting the original resolution as preventing other systems of measurement from being used, is their any merit in that argument? If not, how can one support the repeal?

I'm suprised you haven't already adopted the metric system yourself.Why would I waste my time learning a system not used in my nation? The Federation uses the Imperial system.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Why would I waste my time learning a system not used in my nation? The Federation uses the Imperial system.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

To do science, to read something written by a member of a UN nation, because learning is never a waste of time. Why wouldn't you learn the metric system? What advantage does the Imperial system have for you besides the fact you and your countrymen know it already?

To do science, to read something written by a member of a UN nation, because learning is never a waste of time. Why wouldn't you learn the metric system? What advantage does the Imperial system have for you besides the fact you and your countrymen know it already?I'm a psychiatrist. Perhaps your nation uses phrenology or some such nonsense that requires the metric system, but we don't waste time with such psuedoscience. I can keep up with the latest advances in my field just fine regardless of the system we use.

Furthermore, my "further learning" is in the field of psychophramacology. I know chemical bonds inside and out, and, again, the metric system would be of limited use.

The better question is: what advantage does the metric system offer me? Oh boy, I know how many kilometers per hour my car is going. Whee.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The metric system is a very easy to use system of mesurement, in part due to its consistency of using a base of 10. Not using a standardized system of measurement just complicates matters such as international trade.

Here in Kedalfax, we have always put both imperial and metric lables on our products. We still use the imperial system as our main system. All of our road signs are in imperial measurements. Projects are still underway to add metric signage in rural areas. Unfortunately, due to bureaucratic nonsense, the Federal DoT was not able to change signage on any non-federal roads. Laws were enacted aobut a year ago when we joined the UN to force the provinces to update the signage. All major cities and towns have finished the signs, but in rural areas where funding is short and there are many signs spread across large areas, some signage has yet to be changed. By current estimations, all of the signage will be completed by June, 2007.


I agree with the concept of the metric system, but being an American I don't really want to learn it. I definately think that pushing it on people quickly is the wrong way to do it. Gradually phasing it in is better. I think that the US should start teaching the metric system earlier, so that kids can know it, and make it easier for them to understand it later on.

We at Jacobic have already converted to the Metric System since our entry to the UN just a mere month ago. Now if this passes what happens, nothing.

Leave the untiy of the metric system in place and go forward to new and better things. Let us not continue with this debate. Surely there is something more important to discuss then math.


Prime Minister of Jacobic
UN Member

We see no reason for the UN to impose the metric system on States, as the economics of trade will do so anyway.

We at Jacobic have already converted to the Metric System since our entry to the UN just a mere month ago. Now if this passes what happens, nothing.

Leave the untiy of the metric system in place and go forward to new and better things. Let us not continue with this debate. Surely there is something more important to discuss then math.


Prime Minister of Jacobic
UN Member

with respect to the Jacobician Prime Minister I would like to remind him and the other NSUN members present here that if the repeal does pass they will have a choice about how to apply the metric system. so something will happen despite what he thinks.

They may want to keep it which is fair enough, use it in parallel with their own system of measurements or drop it completely.

A sucessful repeal will give NSUN nations the choice and enable them to compete with Non-UN nations in terms of trade under their terms.

The NSUN has issues that everyone can agree that are truely international. our last two votes have proved that but imposing a metric base 10 system onto everyday life in your nation isn't one of them.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Acting Deputy Ambassador, Kirisuban UN Mission

It makes no sense to repeal a resolution which does nothing more than state which standard of measurement will be the officially recognized standard of the UN. The use of the metric system by the UN in this manner is no different than the use of Greenwich Mean Time (aka Universal Time) for purposes of coordination over multiple time zones.

As a new member nation of the UN we've not yet come under compliance on the metric issue. Considering the cost involved along with the other more intangible difficulties, we place our vote to repeal the metric system.

I'm a psychiatrist. Perhaps your nation uses phrenology or some such nonsense that requires the metric system, but we don't waste time with such psuedoscience. I can keep up with the latest advances in my field just fine regardless of the system we use.

Furthermore, my "further learning" is in the field of psychophramacology. I know chemical bonds inside and out, and, again, the metric system would be of limited use.

The better question is: what advantage does the metric system offer me? Oh boy, I know how many kilometers per hour my car is going. Whee.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Well when you publish your work, do you use your provincial imperial system, or do you use the international scientific standard? We've found it better to publish scientific papers writing to the world audience.

Surely there is something more important to discuss then math.

Prime Minister of Jacobic
UN Member

The only thing more important then math is art. Perhaps you were joking?




I agree with the concept of the metric system, but being an American I don't really want to learn it. I definately think that pushing it on people quickly is the wrong way to do it. Gradually phasing it in is better. I think that the US should start teaching the metric system earlier, so that kids can know it, and make it easier for them to understand it later on.


(IC response to OOC comments, don't boot me plz :) )
During our conversion process we switched to teaching the metric system in science classes first. It took longer to convert from our provincial system system on street signs, foods, etc.. Our Engineering professors did not want to switch, it took longer to convince the people teaching Shop, Drafting classes, etc. Largely because they didn't want to buy different tools :) However since we import so many cars, they had to buy a metric set eventually.

The Senate of Krioval has repeatedly found that membership in the United Nations tends to abridge a nation's sovereignty without much assistance from outside. The Senate of Krioval has also found, after some research into the matter, that membership in the United Nations is entirely voluntary. Thus, the Senate of Krioval is surprised that the primary argument against implementing the metric system in UN member states is that of sovereignty.First off, I'm surprised the Senate of Krioval does so much meddling in Krioval's foreign affairs.

Second off, the mere fact that UN membership is voluntary is no grounds for the international community to retain bad law, especially that which professes to instruct nations on such trivial matters as the system of measurements they ought to use. And you know something? It occurs to me that citizenship of Krioval is likewise voluntary; Kriovalians are always free to move to another nation if they don't like their nation's laws. Is this what the Senate of Krioval tells citizens who have the unmitigated gall to protest a domestic law: "You surrendered your sovereignty when you decided to stay here; if you don't like it, leave"?

Of course, I should remember who I'm talking to: Didn't Krioval Proper resign from the United Nations some time ago, on the grounds of ... the grounds of ... what was it? "Sovereignty"? Ah, well.

The fact of the matter is that a standardized system of measure throughout UN member states would improve trade - knowing the quantity of goods being sent and received without need for conversion should hasten shipments and keep confidence between trading partners strong. In short, it is a tremendous boon to know what one is buying, and a standard of measure facilitates this.Oh! Trade! That's why we should keep a resolution that purports to convert nations to the metric system but in fact does nothing.

Oh, wait a second. We already do business with dozens of nations who are not in the United Nations and are thus not required to use metrics (not to mention the dozens of UN nations who recognize that this resolution is just a silly essay written by a fifth-grader and it doesn't actually require nations to do anything).

Many of these nations **horrified gasp** may not use the metric system, and hence, Kennyite customs officials still have to know how to convert. I really can't get over this fantasy that converting measurements is some terribly difficult task; it's something kids learn in middle school, for Christ's sake. Just pull out a calculator, and do the math, dumbie! And you don't even need to do that; they have metric converters on the Internet now! There ya go (http://www.worldwidemetric.com/metcal.htm[/url). I'm sure Kriovalian customs officials will be pleased.

Barring that, you know there is a hell of a lot of cargo coming into Paradise City that is not labeled in English; some of it might be in French or something -- I can't process these packages, 'cause me no spekie ze French -- so that means that they're gonna need a translator or two just to get their work done. Where's the argument that we all must convert to the same language? I'm quite fond of English; why not mandate that all UN members adopt it offically?

And you know something else? There are plenty of nations out there that don't use the same calendar that we do, meaning that if Jevian officials give us a timeline for imports and exports, and it's all in those ridiculously far-off dates that they use (I believe their emperor was born in 3675 or something), we might need to convert! Where's the argument that we must mandate the Gregorian calendar in all states? Better yet, why not use metric time? Quoth Principal Skinner: "Remember this moment, people: 80 past 2 on April 47th! The dawn of an enlightened Springfield!"

At the end of the day, however, the Senate of Krioval cannot endorse a resolution that would reduce the capacity of international trade on the basis that a universal system of measure infringes on national sovereignty.This is the gut of your argument, which I find terminally weak: "membership is voluntary," and "this affects trade." If trade is the heart of the matter, Ambassador, why need we also require metrics in "all official research" or "roadways"? Those are intrinsically national standards, are they not? They don't affect trade! How does printing miles on road signs in OMGTKK affect Krioval? Kriovalians traveling in OMGTKK might not know how fast they're going? Of course they do! Unless they're stupid enough to pay the exorbitantly large fee of ferrying their cars all the way to Antarctica, Kriovalian tourists are driving rentals, all of which are specially equipped with MPH odometers; and the signs on the road have the Maximum Speed Limit printed right on them! What about scientific research conducted in OMGTKK? Kriovalian scientists might like to read up on Kennyite research from time to time, you say? Well, if you don't speak English in Krioval, you're still going to need someone to convert the language those scientific papers are printed in, so why is it such a big deal to convert the measurements as well?

I'm gonna let you in a little secret, though: Kennyite scientists already use the metric system, as do Kennyite customs officials. It's just easier that way -- which of course makes Doctor Leary's argument all the stronger: any sector that finds it easier to do things all the same way is eventually going to do so on its own. The scientific community is a prime example of that. But there is no fucking reason on Earth why what's good for scientists, or what's good for customs officials, must also be good for the people at large. What's that? Kennyite schoolchildren who want to be scientists have to learn the metric system anyway? Don't worry about them. They're already learning the metric system. And (beyond this resolution's "mandate"!) they're also learning Imperial. And they're learning to convert between the two. Which means: Kennyite schoolkids > Kriovalian schoolkids.

You don't know how proud it makes me, as the representative of the nation with some of the dumbest people on Earth, to point that out.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm a psychiatrist. Perhaps your nation uses phrenology or some such nonsense that requires the metric system, but we don't waste time with such psuedoscience. I can keep up with the latest advances in my field just fine regardless of the system we use.

Furthermore, my "further learning" is in the field of psychophramacology. I know chemical bonds inside and out, and, again, the metric system would be of limited use.

The better question is: what advantage does the metric system offer me? Oh boy, I know how many kilometers per hour my car is going. Whee.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Granted the metric system would be of limited use in psychiatry. In psychopharmacology, though, ignorance of the metric system would seem to be a bit limiting, since dosages are widely discussed in terms of cubic centimeters and most chemical reactants are described in terms of grams.

And, of course, Doctor Leary would find an understanding of kilometers useless unless he drives a car in any of the approximately 30,000 NSUN nations which post speed limits and distance signs in metric or any of the non-member nations which have had the good sense to adopt the metric system.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Rogue Nation of Razat supports the repeal. The conversion to metric would be very expensive for a nation that's relatively new to the UN and hasn't yet done the conversion. It also provides no benefit for the Razatians who don't travel abroad, and the ones who do might still have to learn the odd systems used by non-UN nations. Also, there's the Nat Sov issue. It's possible that we might, in due course, use the metric system if we have significant trade with nations that do, but we don't want to be pressured into it.

Sam Linden, UN Ambassador.

/snip/

I'm gonna let you in a little secret, though: Kennyite scientists already use the metric system, as do Kennyite customs officials. It's just easier that way -- which of course makes Doctor Leary's argument all the stronger: any sector that finds it easier to do things all the same way is eventually going to do so on its own. The scientific community is a prime example of that. But there is no fucking reason on Earth why what's good for scientists, or what's good for customs officials, must also be good for the people at large. What's that? Kennyite schoolchildren who want to be scientists have to learn the metric system anyway? Don't worry about them. They're already learning the metric system. And (beyond this resolution's "mandate"!) they're also learning Imperial. And they're learning to convert between the two. Which means: Kennyite schoolkids > Kriovalian schoolkids.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

It seems to us that the honorable Ambassador Faisano is either unaware of or chooses to ignore basic principles of performance technology.

Stripped of the jargon, one of these is that simplifying a task increases the probability of proper performance. If we eliminate the need for converting from one measurement system to another, we eliminate the possibility of error in doing so.

A second principle is that people are more likely to attempt performance of an easy task than a harder one, given the same level of motivating factors. So if I make a task easier, say by eliminating the need to deal with varied systems of measurement, I increase the probability of people doing it and require less in the way of motivation. And we note that the Ambassador seems to admit that using the metric system is "easier".

The third principle is that simplifying tasks reduces the cost of training to do them; eliminating the task eliminates the need to train it. Surely the educators of Omigodtheykilledkenny would be able to find some worthwhile way to use the classroom time saved by eliminating the need to teach two systems of measurement. And training-to-recall in the metric system is far more efficient than doing so for the Imperial or most other systems.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

AGAINST the repeal.

My nation shares a border with a non-UN Imperial Units nation, and we are one another's biggest trading partners. They have beer cans for export that say:

16oz.
473 mL

...and we have beer cans for export that say:

500mL
16.91oz.

Where's the problem? If they join the UN, they've already stated that they'll put new distances on road signs and switch over all volume indications on all goods, local and export, to the dual label. This is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

The math is easier with metric without need of a calculator:

Mt. Tahoma is 24,410 feet tall. How many miles? 4.62 via calcuator, long division or at least a decent estimate.
Mt. Tahoma is 7440 meters tall. How many kilometers? 7.44, no calculator or long division, or even estimation.

One litre of water weighs one kilogram (easy volume-weight cross conversion).
One gallon of water weighs 8.36 pounds (not quite as easy).

We've had metric for three years. Keep it.

Stripped of the jargon, one of these is that simplifying a task increases the probability of proper performance. If we eliminate the need for converting from one measurement system to another, we eliminate the possibility of error in doing so.

A second principle is that people are more likely to attempt performance of an easy task than a harder one, given the same level of motivating factors. So if I make a task easier, say by eliminating the need to deal with varied systems of measurement, I increase the probability of people doing it and require less in the way of motivation. And we note that the Ambassador seems to admit that using the metric system is "easier".Neither of these principles necessitates a UN mandate. If scientists and engineers and customs officials find it easier to use metrics, they're going to do it anyway. One. Two, even if it did necessitate a mandate, the childish essay we're debating today mandates nothing. Three, what happens when we have to deal with nations not under UN mandates (or nations that are, but don't see this resolution as a "mandate")? We'll still have to convert anyway, and our children will still have to learn both systems. Which brings me to your third principle: teaching school kids only one system may be "simpler," but it ignores reality. The UN can pass all ther mandates it likes; it doesn't mean the 78% of the world not covered by UN dictates is automatically going to follow suit. We as our nation's leaders are still going to have to do business with nations that don't use metrics (and in the future our children may have to do so as well), so it's just "simpler" to know how to convert. So we teach it in our schools. Besides, it increases basic knowledge of the way the world works, and isn't that why we have schools in the first place?

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

The math is easier with metric without need of a calculator:


Tell you what, how many nations do not teach base 10 arithmetic? How many have large amounts of citizens without 10 fingers? Is there any system better then the metric system anyone is putting forward?

I believe the metric system should be repealed because the nations have the right to choose their own form of measurement and should not be forced to use something they didn't want in the first place. It's choice. I think that all nations who want the metric system should have it and all who don't not have it. It's not up to us to decide if everyone uses it or no one does.

I believe the metric system should be repealed because the nations have the right to choose their own form of measurement and should not be forced to use something they didn't want in the first place. It's choice. I think that all nations who want the metric system should have it and all who don't not have it. It's not up to us to decide if everyone uses it or no one does.

A national sovereignty argument?

The original resolution makes no direct mention to the abolition of other measurement systems - it only adopts a global standard of measurement, which we support. The metric system is very simple to use and it's quantitative qualities are rooted in scientific and mathematical truths, which makes the system more universal. We do not think of the metric system as a "superior" method of measurement and calculation, but as far as implementation, it is far easier to convert and use in basic construction projects and scientific analyses.

Since the original resolution does not say to abolish other systems of measurement [it only says that metric system should be the standard, as it is in scientific applications], we see no reason to repeal the metric system as the global standard of measurement. Whereas it would be more complicated to implement a secondary system of measurement [such as the Imperial system], there is no provision that states it is impermissible [again, it only says that conversions would be deemed unnecessary].

And we are well certain that the economic cost for the implementation of the metric system in UN member states would certainly not match the numerous advantages in its use. Perhaps the cost would be greater if the states adopted a secondary measurement system, but nonetheless, the metric system is a well-accepted [except apparently for some other nations] standard and we wish to see it hold. We therefore must vote against its repeal.

The original resolution makes no direct mention to the abolition of other measurement systems - it only adopts a global standard of measurement, which we support. The metric system is very simple to use and it's quantitative qualities are rooted in scientific and mathematical truths, which makes the system more universal. We do not think of the metric system as a "superior" method of measurement and calculation, but as far as implementation, it is far easier to convert and use in basic construction projects and scientific analyses.

Since the original resolution does not say to abolish other systems of measurement [it only says that metric system should be the standard, as it is in scientific applications], we see no reason to repeal the metric system as the global standard of measurement. Whereas it would be more complicated to implement a secondary system of measurement [such as the Imperial system], there is no provision that states it is impermissible [again, it only says that conversions would be deemed unnecessary].

And we are well certain that the economic cost for the implementation of the metric system in UN member states would certainly not match the numerous advantages in its use. Perhaps the cost would be greater if the states adopted a secondary measurement system, but nonetheless, the metric system is a well-accepted [except apparently for some other nations] standard and we wish to see it hold. We therefore must vote against its repeal.


YOu make some good points and have actually swayed my opinion. It makes more sence to have the metric system because it's something we can all use and still have our own measurements

the mere fact that UN membership is voluntary is no grounds for the international community to retain bad law, especially that which professes to instruct nations on such trivial matters as the system of measurements they ought to use. And you know something? It occurs to me that citizenship of Krioval is likewise voluntary; Kriovalians are always free to move to another nation if they don't like their nation's laws. Is this what the Senate of Krioval tells citizens who have the unmitigated gall to protest a domestic law: "You surrendered your sovereignty when you decided to stay here; if you don't like it, leave"?

Your Excellency raises an interesting, but flawed, point of debate. Membership in the United Nations can be acquired or lost without needing to physically relocate oneself (or one's nation). National citizenship is more difficult to alter, especially if one has significant tangible assets in one's home nation.

Didn't Krioval Proper resign from the United Nations some time ago, on the grounds of ... the grounds of ... what was it? "Sovereignty"? Ah, well.

That is correct. Rather than argue that the national sovereignty of the Republic was endangered with every resolution that met with national disapproval, the Republic opted to put its words into practice. Individual cities and districts within the Republic are allowed to choose United Nations membership.

Kennyite customs officials still have to know how to convert.

As do ours - I must presume that any nation engaging in international trade is capable of dealing with such things. However, the need to convert introduces the possibility for errors and delays. Thus, the Senate believes that an international standard would be best for maximizing the Republic's trade potential.

Kennyite schoolchildren who want to be scientists have to learn the metric system anyway? Don't worry about them. They're already learning the metric system. And (beyond this resolution's "mandate"!) they're also learning Imperial. And they're learning to convert between the two. Which means: Kennyite schoolkids > Kriovalian schoolkids.

An intriguing argument, Your Excellency, but also flawed. As His Excellency the Ambassador from Ausserland has pointed out, the matter is one of efficiency. Children from the Republic are perfectly capable of performing intracate conversions, but why should such trivia be emphasized when they are both unnecessary and inefficient? Ultimately, the Republic chooses to emphasize an education based on critical reasoning, though it may make our students a bit deficient in converting between useful and archaic modes of measurement.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
City of Neo Tyros
Republic of Krioval

The original resolution makes no direct mention to the abolition of other measurement systems - it only adopts a global standard of measurement, which we support. The metric system is very simple to use and it's quantitative qualities are rooted in scientific and mathematical truths, which makes the system more universal. We do not think of the metric system as a "superior" method of measurement and calculation, but as far as implementation, it is far easier to convert and use in basic construction projects and scientific analyses.

Since the original resolution does not say to abolish other systems of measurement [it only says that metric system should be the standard, as it is in scientific applications], we see no reason to repeal the metric system as the global standard of measurement. Whereas it would be more complicated to implement a secondary system of measurement [such as the Imperial system], there is no provision that states it is impermissible [again, it only says that conversions would be deemed unnecessary].

And we are well certain that the economic cost for the implementation of the metric system in UN member states would certainly not match the numerous advantages in its use. Perhaps the cost would be greater if the states adopted a secondary measurement system, but nonetheless, the metric system is a well-accepted [except apparently for some other nations] standard and we wish to see it hold. We therefore must vote against its repeal.


I have been talking with my region and they tell me that The original resolution says that all nations must come under the metric system for measurements which would also abolish your own nations measurements. I vote against the resolution being repealled because it would make things a lot easier. YOu wouldn't have to convert measurements everytime you travelled. It would also cost the government a lot to hold two different types of measurements in the same nation.

Your Excellency raises an interesting, but flawed, point of debate. Membership in the United Nations can be acquired or lost without needing to physically relocate oneself (or one's nation). National citizenship is more difficult to alter, especially if one has significant tangible assets in one's home nation.



While UN membership is easier to gain or lose than moving to other country, it's still not always fully voluntary. Razat originally joined the UN because of regional obligations, and we were recently forced to resign because of commitments to some allied nations. Neither event was fully under our control, though you could argue that our rejoining the UN was.

I have been talking with my region and they tell me that The original resolution says that all nations must come under the metric system for measurements which would also abolish your own nations measurements.
That's not true. If'n you interpret the word "convert" to mean "remove your national system and make it metric" then it's still not true, as you could simple "add" your national system in again.

Your Excellency raises an interesting, but flawed, point of debate."Mr. Faisano," "Amb. Faisano" or just plain "Ambassador" is fine. Outside formal debate, you may call me Sammy.

Membership in the United Nations can be acquired or lost without needing to physically relocate oneself (or one's nation). National citizenship is more difficult to alter, especially if one has significant tangible assets in one's home nation.So? You keep towing the tired line that "membership is voluntary," as though it's some sort of excuse for bad law. Is it?

(Not that I want to get into the whole "sovereignty" thing. That's probably best reserved for another discussion.)

As do ours - I must presume that any nation engaging in international trade is capable of dealing with such things. However, the need to convert introduces the possibility for errors and delays. Thus, the Senate believes that an international standard would be best for maximizing the Republic's trade potential.And the Federal Republic holds that since alternate systems of measurement never ceased to exist upon the enactment of this article, and we still need to deal with them, an "international" standard applicable only to UN nations is a waste of time and energy.

An intriguing argument, Your Excellency, but also flawed. As His Excellency the Ambassador from Ausserland has pointed out, the matter is one of efficiency. Children from the Republic are perfectly capable of performing intracate conversions, but why should such trivia be emphasized when they are both unnecessary and inefficient? Ultimately, the Republic chooses to emphasize an education based on critical reasoning, though it may make our students a bit deficient in converting between useful and archaic modes of measurement.People like the Ausserlander gentleman may like to pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist, Ambassador, but we hold a more realistic view of things. Resolution #24 never meant that alternate systems of measurement would never be used again; consequently, knowledge of such systems is necessary, and since Imperial measurements are used in the Federal Republic, we find it only useful that our children be expected to learn both systems. You may continue to revel in your snobbery over Imperial measurements being "archaic" or "trivial," but dismissing a method out of hand neither nullifies nor invalidates it. Imperials are still widely used in the NS world, despite Resolution #24, and it gives our children a necessary advantage to learn them alongside more "useful" methods.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

NASA

Does anyone recall the Genesis project, the three year/$2,000,000,000 project that crashed into the Earth lat year, because its parachute opened too late? Does anyone recall why that parachute opened too late? It was, because one person assumed the numbers and measurements were being done in one system (either Imperial or Metric) while they were really being done in the other. It was a simple mixup involving unit conversion (It was an international project, after all.) that cost the world the knowledge of the sun (not to mention three two billion dollars and years of labor).

Ah, but will you add them to the World Heritage List?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Most likely. :p

This is bollocks! My country wants to use the standard system that has been in our culture for years! Why should it be illegal to use anything besides the metric system? I believe that this violates international law- you can't tell me how to measure my temperature!


besides, space exploration is a waste of lives and tax dollars. we should focus on trying to feed our poor and take care of our people instead of doing pointless things like walking on the moon.

NASA

Does anyone recall the Genesis project, the three year/$2,000,000,000 project that crashed into the Earth lat year, because its parachute opened too late? Does anyone recall why that parachute opened too late? It was, because one person assumed the numbers and measurements were being done in one system (either Imperial or Metric) while they were really being done in the other. It was a simple mixup involving unit conversion (It was an international project, after all.) that cost the world the knowledge of the sun (not to mention three two billion dollars and years of labor).

Actually I think you are confusing the Genesis project with the Mars Climate Orbiter mission (which cost $125 million). The Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft had the notorious mismatch of unit systems in its navigational system causing the spacecraft to plow through Mars' atmosphere before veering off into orbit around the sun (assuming the spacecraft didn't burn up in the process).

The reason for the Genesis parachute failure appears to have been due to a design flaw having nothing to do with metric vs. imperial units.

Just for the record,

Chalcidice

A national sovereignty argument?

That's more of a right to self-determination argument, which may or may not be used to support a national sovereignty perspective.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Well when you publish your work, do you use your provincial imperial system, or do you use the international scientific standard? We've found it better to publish scientific papers writing to the world audience.Neither. The "Shut The Fuck Up" method requires no measurements at all. Believe it or not, not everything requires measuring.


Granted the metric system would be of limited use in psychiatry. In psychopharmacology, though, ignorance of the metric system would seem to be a bit limiting, since dosages are widely discussed in terms of cubic centimeters and most chemical reactants are described in terms of grams.I would first like to mention that I never really expected to find myself on opposite ends of a debate with you, Ambassador. Still, here we are.

Yes, I was afraid somebody might mention dosing. I would like to mention, however, that psychopharmacology is something of a hobby-horse of mine, so I can afford to focus a bit more tightly than someone working in the field. Regardless, my interest is more on molecular interaction. While doses are important here, I'm more looking at a theoretical level. However, since everything in this field is in metric, it's less of an issue. I don't need to do conversions as since everything is in metric, it's straight memorization. The doses could be measured in barn-megaparsecs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strange_units_of_measurement#Barn-megaparsec) for all it matters to me. [OOC: kinda like how medicine is metric in America even though we use Imperial. I just suck at getting that out IC]

And, of course, Doctor Leary would find an understanding of kilometers useless unless he drives a car in any of the approximately 30,000 NSUN nations which post speed limits and distance signs in metric or any of the non-member nations which have had the good sense to adopt the metric system.Well, as I have a smart car, it's useless regardless of where I am. By and large, I have no need for metric.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Being an Aussie-*Cough* Moocownian, using the metric system is what we do. The metric system is simple but not to the point of being childish, and is easy to use.

I think we should all have the same system since I am sure tourists from Moocowniana will not want to learn a new system during their holidays.

Making the world a more homoginized place is not what the UN is for. I vote yes, repeal it now. Let tradition reign.

It's exactly what it's there for. I say we shouldn't go back the old, un-thought out systems which are archiac and lead to disasters spawned from simple calculation errors and keep our universal system that makes sense.

I voted against this repeal. Anything with ACCEL involved gets instant opposition from Hirota.

VOTE NO!

An unitary Metric System is the key for a global economy! :)

I voted against this repeal. Anything with ACCEL involved gets instant opposition from Hirota.

Well, that's certainly a brilliant, thoughtful method for deciding how to vote... :rolleyes:

Manager4Life']VOTE NO!

An unitary Metric System is the key for a global economy! :)

Oh really? Care to explain how?

The Dominion of Miriana have cast their vote against this repeal for the simple reason that the repeal does not serve to make the world in any way better. We do agree that joining nations should be assisted financhially with the change, however the change is benifitial to every nation. It aids in all aspects of trade and tourism and in the end the change is greatly worth the effort and a great boost to economy.

Sincearly
Freetha Jones
UN Ambassador
The Dominion of Miriana

The Dominion of Miriana have cast their vote against this repeal for the simple reason that the repeal does not serve to make the world in any way better. We do agree that joining nations should be assisted financhially with the change, however the change is benifitial to every nation. It aids in all aspects of trade and tourism and in the end the change is greatly worth the effort and a great boost to economy.

Sincearly
Freetha Jones
UN Ambassador
The Dominion of Miriana

People keep saying that converting to the metric system helps/boosts/benefits the economy, but no one has yet to explain how.

People keep saying that converting to the metric system helps/boosts/benefits the economy, but no one has yet to explain how.

The metric system is the simplest most logical measurament system there is.

Conversion of measuraments back and forth take time and in commerce, time IS money. So each time a company is forced to calculate the measuraments for each shipment of a product to a neighbouring country it costs both of them money.
Allso. Tourism is boosted with using the same measurament system as it makes the country visited more attractive for it is easyer to understand the systems they use. The sizes of items, the top speeds and the weight of an item. It gives the individual a far greater understanding of the value for money even if the currency is still different.

All OOC:

The metric system is the simplest most logical measurament system there is.

First, I agree.

Conversion of measuraments back and forth take time and in commerce, time IS money. So each time a company is forced to calculate the measuraments for each shipment of a product to a neighbouring country it costs both of them money.

It takes no time at all really.

Allso. Tourism is boosted with using the same measurament system as it makes the country visited more attractive for it is easyer to understand the systems they use. The sizes of items, the top speeds and the weight of an item. It gives the individual a far greater understanding of the value for money even if the currency is still different.

Yeah, and the fact that most of Europe uses the metric system really dissuades millions of of us here in the US from visiting there every year. Frankly, currency conversions are more of a pain in the arse, cuz they fluctuate. An inch, on the other hand, will always be 2.54 cm.

The metric system is the simplest most logical measurament system there is.

...(explaination)....

I add my general agreement with the points listed above. A further point to make is that most countries claim to have the same measuring system with the same names yet actually have different values, further adding to confusion and bewilderment to multinational trading in all forms.

People keep saying that converting to the metric system helps/boosts/benefits the economy, but no one has yet to explain how.

I believe someone has already made these points, but it doesn't hurt to repeat them.

Many countries require you to clearly label some specification about a product you wish to sell in their country. You may have to list the volume, mass of fat in food, expected pressure in tires, etc.

When a common system of measurement is used then less versions of the product packaging need to be designed. It is also much less likely a mistake will be made (you skip a conversion step, which often introduces errors).

Anyone whose planning to visit another country or trade with one has always dealt with this so I don't see what the problem is.
Not really. Everyone who already went through difficult things, merely because he was forced to, is unlikely to ... like that. And will find ways to avoid the difficulties. One way of avoiding them is: keep out of these (non-UN) countries with their complicatd systems.
The "problem" with different measurements etc is, that it is a recurring problem: having to switch back and forth.
(sorry for introducing an outside-world example: next paragraph isn't all inside NationStates terminology)

So if I go to ... england (the United Kingdom of ...) people will show me things measured in "inches", will have speed limits in "miles per hour". The hour is the same measure as what most of the world uses for time measurement, though it's a weird multiple of the unit-time "second". The mile though, is another multiple of another unit-length, which I believe is the yard.
Up to this point: no problem: miles per hour or kilometers per hour (kilometer is a multiple of unit length meter) ... that's not too important.
But going to USA, I'll find ... "miles per hour" that may or may not use the same miles. Same thing for pints, ounces, thumbs (or is that called inches, in one or both of these RW countries?) And pounds (measuring mass or weight) : are they the same "british" pounds everywhere, or are british pounds lighter than american, heavier than chinese ... ? The names won't tell. Only the metric system, apparently imported from RW to NationStates, seems to be the same wherever you go.

I would like to remind the honourable member that some nations drive on the left and some drive on the right side of the road.
So what? Our monorail trains will either go under or above the rail. That's just installing full-duplex transportation on a communication track. The possibilities are scarce enough and it's a small adaptation. Of course, if you'd ant to drive a vehicle yourself across the borders of countries using different standards, that may be difficult. But if you rent a local vehicle, it will be adapted to the local road system (so: your rented monorail wagon has windows above and/or below, your (RW example) combustion-driven-fourwheeler will have a drivers' seat at the left or right side of the vehicle. (sorry, didn't check wether that kind of thing exists in NS. Renssignol had an issue banning cars some time so if the same word is used, it may be the same thing)

Each nation also has its own currency and this has never stopped tourism and trade. Why should the lack of a globally imposed metric system make much difference?
The differing currencies in (RW) Europe didn't exactly stop trade and tourism, but they sure handicapped both. Why are new member states so angry if the "monetary council" decides that they "are not ready for the unified currency" ? Because it gives them a disadvantage in commerce. (Same argument for the big EU-nations who have financial problems: they don't *want* to abandon the unified currency, even if it's crystal clear that they don't meet the criterium any more)

Nations are still free to use metric if they want to trade so if company A uses imperial and company B uses metric they can still convert weights and measures easily. they can even use metric if they want to but it is that nations choice.
Non-members of the UN have the freedom to use anything they want.
All NSUN-members have already "converted" and thus paid the cost of the conversion. Today, they can start enjoying the benefits of it.
Why convert back?

If there's no cost involved, the main argument against the "metric system" is gone. But spending that money twice "to go back to tradition" is silly.
Non-members may feel a "cost", but don't forget that only a few non-members are using local systems. And not all have a unified system within their borders either.
One clan will measure length in Colts, laying pistols one after another, others will count carats, measuring with diamonds. Just because they're easier to get to than meters. Once the meter is affordable, people will start using them instead: no more accidents with triggering the colt, no more theft -in border areas- of measuring units "because the foreigners py many fish for a three carat diamond"


For Renssignol, the metric system is allowed to stay.

i think this metric plan id a good idea plus it seems to be a waste of time to repeal it is simpler to just let it stand

Can somebody please tell me what "the" metric system is we are talking about?

In science, the most common metric system used nowadays is the SI-system. This system is based on metres, grams, seconds (and a few others) as base units.

In this system, the speed on roadways cannot (just) be expressed in miles per hour, or kilometres per hour, but must (also) be expressed in metres (or kilometres) PER SECOND!!

And if we are not talking about the SI-system, what exactly is the system we are discussing??

First the major money for gevernments is spent in the replacing of signs. So this would be a pretty fast process.




Who said you had to replace signs? Leave the old ones up and replace as they get old. You have to replace them eventually anyway.

Fiscal Heights is opposed to this legislation, mostly, because it appears to be superfluous.

FH

Egoistically, I'm prone to vote FOR this resolution because Ghaladhia's already adopted the discussed measurement system, perhaps I think others country should not take this proposal too hard-faced. Noone here is attempting to someone's national identity, but advantages of this resolution are easy to understand. I'll be FOR also on voting for another kind of standard.

I have voted AGAINST this resolution because the metric system is far superior, and it doesn't just measure weight, distance and capacity, but it also has units for electricity and energy usage.

Tell you what, how many nations do not teach base 10 arithmetic? How many have large amounts of citizens without 10 fingers? Is there any system better then the metric system anyone is putting forward?

Well, for a start, there's this nation (http://www.nationstates.net/happy_hexadactyls) in our home region: Admittedly they aren't in the UN yet, but mandating the use of base-10 mathematics is not going to encourage them to join...

Being an Aussie-*Cough* Moocownian, using the metric system is what we do. The metric system is simple but not to the point of being childish, and is easy to use.

I think we should all have the same system since I am sure tourists from Moocowniana will not want to learn a new system during their holidays.

So your tourists won't be visiting any of the many nations that aren't in the UN? How about nations that use different languages to yours, and/or different (possibly non-decimal) currencies?

For Renssignol, the metric system is allowed to stay.

Repealing resolution #24 wouldn't force you to stop using it internally...

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic (speaking on behalf of the government of St Edmund itself...) thinks that Resolution #24 should be repealed for the following reasons _

1/. It's just rhetoric, and functionally useless. The term 'Metric System' is simply a slightly fancier way of saying 'System of Measurement', and this proposal gives no clue as to just which system of weights & measures it thinks all UN nations should be converted to... It doesn't identify this by naming either its inventor[s] or any nations where it was already in use (which I think would have been legal in those pre-Ennodian days), it doesn't define any of the units involved, it doesn't even name any of the units involved... And even if we take it as meaning the system that many of the nations represented here admittedly have adopted as their common one, which was apparently imported from the mythical world of 'RL', it specifes no deadline for the conversion so that nations who want to keep their traditional systems instead can postpone the changeover for as long as they want...

2/. It's also unclear about how much of a changeover it would actually require: On the one hand there's the word "convert", which we would take as meaning a total change (as is normally the case when converting between religions, for example), and on the other hand it gives a quite short list of examples...

3/. Almost all of our trade, most of our joint research projects, and all of our borders, are with (non-UN) nations that do not use the RL 'Metric System' and that have no intention of adopting it, so that a forced changeover to that system (if the UN somehow ruled that that was what Resolution #24 required) would be more hindrance than help to us.

4/. The traditional Godwinnian system that we & our main partners use is in base-12, which is mathematically superior to base-10. If an international standard must be adopted then we would suggest this as a preferable alternative to the RL' Metric' one. Most of our students find this easy to learn, but then most of our students can do calculations without having to count on their fingers...

5/. (Usual NatSov arguments...)

1/. It's just rhetoric, and functionally useless. The term 'Metric System' is simply a slightly fancier way of saying 'System of Measurement', and this proposal gives no clue as to just which system of weights & measures it thinks all UN nations should be converted to... It doesn't identify this by naming either its inventor[s] or any nations where it was already in use (which I think would have been legal in those pre-Ennodian days), it doesn't define any of the units involved, it doesn't even name any of the units involved... And even if we take it as meaning the system that many of the nations represented here admittedly have adopted as their common one, which was apparently imported from the mythical world of 'RL', it specifes no deadline for the conversion so that nations who want to keep their traditional systems instead can postpone the changeover for as long as they want...

As you well know at that time RL refrences did not exsit so his refrence to the metric system was ok. So this is functional. Also this kind of reason is for mods to decide and even then it would be deleted instead of repealed.

5/. (Usual NatSov arguments...)

So let's see if it's "rhetoric, and functionally useless"(which I don't think it is) then it's a blocker. When was a blocker ever infringe naitonal soverginty.

Contrary to language, which is related with emotions, literature and creativity, measurements are related to maths and logics.

It's why when it comes to measurements Love and esterel really favor a logical system, instead of frivolous miles, yards, pounds or ounces. And it's also why we think one commun measurements system provides more efficency and improves international trade without dammaging any cultures.

[A "bouncing under-sedated teenie-bopper" enters the chamber, making sure to flash a few ireverrent faces at the camera as she bounds down the aisle; she takes a seat at the Kennyites' table and seizes the microphone:]

As deputy ambassador for the Federal Republic, I'd like to add a few words on this resolution, if y'all don't mind ...

[Her superior begins to utter something at her.]

Shut up, Sammy!

Now, I've looked over this metric resolution (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/match=23) y'all seem so pissed over, and I for one really like it. It seems to be written for Kennyites, it reads like it was written by a Kennyite, and the people who have been speaking out for it -- you know the trade and tourism czars, or whoever -- seem to think everyone on the planet is as dumb as a Kennyite. You gotta love something that was specially designed with you in mind. Do you know how hard it is for the average person when we don't force everyone to do things the same way? Last night I went to that awesome Strangers' Bar you guys have upstairs, and I tried to order a 12-oz. Pepsi, only to find out they didn't have 12-oz. cans! They use "milliliters" or something crazy like that! If everyone was coerced into using the same system, I wouldn't have to inconvenience myself and actually ask the bartender what sizes they have! It's so much easier, especially for dumbasses like us!

But why stop there?

I was supposed to dance at some football halftime show here in town today, but when I got to the stadium, all the players were actually using their feet to kick the ball, and it was an actual ball they were kicking! Not that kind of football, dummy!! So I asked where they played the other kind of football, and they told me they didn't; not around these parts! (Then I learned that there was no football game, and my illustrious boss ... [glares at Sammy] ... was only trying to distract me, because I "embarrass" him or some shit like that!) And that's not the only thing: yesterday I was trying to find our delegation's office, and the Cluichstani guy told me it was upstairs, and I had to use "the lift." I searched high and low for this forklift, but I couldn't find one! How was I supposed to know he meant "elevator"? Later on I was trying to get my UNHQ security pass, and some lady at the counter told me I had filled out my application wrong, and I had to correct it and "rejoin the queue." At first, I was very flattered that the General Assembly was going to vote on me, but then I found out she actually meant "get in back of the line." Why couldn't she just say that? So I'd like to know, if we all need to use the same measurement system (because people are apparently incapable of figuring out different ways of doing things on their own), why don't we force everyone to talk the same way too?

And what's with the floors here? I was looking for the GA chamber a little earlier, and someone told me it was on the first floor. You don't know how hard I searched that lobby, and no Assembly floor in sight! Then they told me the first floor was actually the floor above the lobby! So why don't we make everyone use the same style floor plan for buildings as well? ... Ow!

[She grasps her shoulder. "What's wrong?" Sammy asks her.]

Oh, it's this damn bra. I bought it at the Nordstrom they have upstairs, and now these straps are killing me. It's just so fucking tight on me; I think their cup sizes are smaller in the stores here. Oh, I know! Why don't we force all clothing makers to use the same cup sizes?!

Also, stop signs. I think everyone should make them red and octagon-shaped.

[Sammy whispers something to her.]

What's that? Wrap it up? OK, then. ... Before I came to UN Headquarters, I thought Kennyites were the only stupid ones, but from the commentary from the pro-metric people I've heard today, everyone must be stupid! So clearly this resolution is worthwhile, and we should vote it in.

I do have one question, though: what the hell does "repeal" mean?!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/jessie.jpg
Jessie McArthur
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm for this. I wish the real UN would force the metric system.

This Resolution makes all the sense in the world. It requires every nation to continue using the metric system. That doesnt change. What changes is that now nations are also allowed to use another system alongside that. Its not that difficult and it makes complete sense.

Im PRO

"Mr. Faisano," "Amb. Faisano" or just plain "Ambassador" is fine. Outside formal debate, you may call me Sammy.

I will attempt to remember this in our future interactions, Ambassador.

So? You keep towing the tired line that "membership is voluntary," as though it's some sort of excuse for bad law. Is it?

Of course not. But then, our definitions of "bad law" are quite different, are they not? The Republic feels that any legislation that attempts to increase the ease of international transactions, even if only constrained to a set number of nations, is beneficial. If your Federal Republic has determined otherwise, then I suppose that our positions have become difficult to reconcile.

Imperials are still widely used in the NS world, despite Resolution #24, and it gives our children a necessary advantage to learn them alongside more "useful" methods.

And we accept that, though we have limited the amount of time spent teaching conversion. The Republic tends to rely on more automated methods of performing conversions, when necessary, though we have noted that some trades are delayed as a result. We have also found that teaching other measurements does not appreciably accelerate the process - the computers are almost universally faster.

This is why the Republic believes that standardizing measurements among UN member states is a step in the right direction, even if it is far from binding on those outside this organization.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
City of Neo Tyros
Republic of Krioval

Metric System Implenetation Is Impractical.

(An article by the AUTHORITY of everything inarguable & infallible)... You can't arue with the following statements, because you'll be wrong! Booya!
:fluffle: = Metric Lovers
:fluffle: :sniper:

I am an American Chemical Engineer. I can tell you from first hand experience, after implenting the SAP ERP system that:
1)The Germans got it all wrong.
2)Converting to Metric is not only illogical from an economic standpoint
3)It's impossible to enforce... Are you meaning to tell me if this repeal doesn't pass that some UN officials would be inclined to waste their time & money to come into an operations plant to check if the control system's main unit of measure was in kilos, and not lbs? Give me an Elmer Fudding Break! The money they spend enforcing this asinine law would be better spent on huminatrian aid. No?



To all the metro freaks out there -- get over it. There's something much easier that's worked for a century now in industry, and it's called the magical "conversion factor"...... ooooooooooo what a concept!

What makes metric so special anyway? And why do the Brits measure their weights in Stone? WTF is that?!

Ya know, Cavemen used to measure things in "oogas".... perhaps we should really be considering the most primal unit of measure, the "ooga", as the worldwide standard. It precedes the metric system and it makes as about as much sense to convert to it.

METRIC SYSTEM.... BLEH!
:upyours:

BOOOYA!

Metric System Implenetation Is Impractical.

(An article by the AUTHORITY of everything inarguable & infallible)... You can't arue with the following statements, because you'll be wrong! Booya!

I am an American Chemical Engineer. I can tell you from first hand experience, after implenting the SAP ERP system that:
1)The Germans got it all wrong.
2)Converting to Metric is not only illogical from an economic standpoint
3)It's impossible to enforce... Are you meaning to tell me if this repeal doesn't pass that some UN officials would be inclined to waste their time & money to come into an operations plant to check if the control system's main unit of measure was in kilos, and not lbs? Give me an Elmer Fudding Break! The money they spend enforcing this asinine law would be better spent on huminatrian aid. No?

To all the metro freaks out there -- get over it. There's something much easier that's worked for a century now in industry, and it's called the magical "conversion factor"...... ooooooooooo what a concept!

What makes metric so special anyway? And why do the Brits measure their weights in Stone? WTF is that?!

Ya know, Cavemen used to measure things in "oogas".... perhaps we should really be considering the most primal unit of measure, the "ooga", as the worldwide standard. It precedes the metric system and it makes as about as much sense to convert to it.

METRIC SYSTEM.... BLEH!

BOOOYA!


*snip the unnecessary smileys*

To the Esteemed Delegate from Greedandmoria:

Ignoring, for the moment, the rather juvenile manner in which you address this forum, I ask -- have you actually read the resolution or the repeal for that matter? You've just posted a rambling tirade on metrics. It's very clear you don't like the system, and that's fine, but do you seriously think that metric has been "enforced" in the invasive manner that you suggest for the last three years?

If the repeal fails, nothing changes. Nobody comes in to your country and does anything. The only thing you'll need to ensure is that whatever you sell or trade or distribute on the open, international market has, in addition to your nation's units on their labels, metric units as well. This is a fairly common practice known as "labelling for export" or "labelling for international sale."

As you've been a UN member for a short while, you've already been doing it if you've been following the laws of the UN. In short, there's no problem, this repeal is unnecessary, and shall be defeated. ANd I don't even have to be an "AUTHORITY of everything inarguable & infallible" to know that.

ooc: just tag it and ignore - it's not going to help...

ic:

We iterate our earlier comments, concerning the "revocation" versus the "adoption" of a global standard. It is important to realize that the metric system, as a standard, has been almost universally adopted among UN member states. There are some nations that refuse to do so because there is concern that it violates their national sovereignty. On the contrary, the original resolution does no great harm to national sovereignty - it only mandates the adoption of the metric system as the global standard.

It would be similar to the implementation to a global language standard - whereas it would be too much to dictate that a nation abandon their native language, it would not be much to mandate a common language in which to conduct global business and affairs, since all it does is mandates that a common language be used in addition to any other languages that are present.

Even there is no resolution currently mandating a global language standard, it would be something similar to the adoption of the metric standard. We don't mean to say that the world will fall into utter collapse if we repeal the resolution, but the point of the resolution itself is to ease the constraints of working with different measurement standards - as much as it would be difficult to translate words - from country to country. (ooc: there's a reason why the real UN mandates English and French as the languages of business and diplomacy in its halls...).

We hope that this offers a more enlightening perspective of the resolution in question, and that people will vote to support the metric system as the global standard.


And an afterthought - if this resolution does fail, we will still be using the metric system as our standard of measurement, so it will do you well to know how to use it still (as much it would be for us to learn whatever standard that your nation would be using as its standard).

The metric system is the simplest most logical measurament system there is.

Conversion of measuraments back and forth take time and in commerce, time IS money. So each time a company is forced to calculate the measuraments for each shipment of a product to a neighbouring country it costs both of them money.
Allso. Tourism is boosted with using the same measurament system as it makes the country visited more attractive for it is easyer to understand the systems they use. The sizes of items, the top speeds and the weight of an item. It gives the individual a far greater understanding of the value for money even if the currency is still different.

It's not the fact of doing conversions that makes any non-global standard difficult - it's more the knowing. It's like reading two different languages at the same time. First, you must know how to convert, then you must understand the basic components of that conversion (what's a "meter" opposed to a "pound"?), and perhaps it would help to know how much of what made what (how many "centimeters" in a "meter"?). By implementing this resolution, it mandates a bilingual standard at the minimum - or a complete monolingual standard at the most extreme. That's how I would look at it, at least.

English is the language for business within the halls of the UN. Considering that official language/universal language proposals have a tendency to get deleted, I think it would be fair to claim that English is the Universal language of the UN - though its teaching nor extensive use outside of these halls isn't really mandatory.

The government of Lorien7 would also like to point out various safety concerns: conversion errors between metric and other measurement systems can be fatal, and destroy any global efforts.
We vote no to this repeal.

Also this kind of reason is for mods to decide and even then it would be deleted instead of repealed.Except, you know, we can't do that.

the thing i don't understand is how in hell this piece of excrement even passed in the first place. anyone that votes for against this repeal needs to have their limbs tied in knotts, stuffed into a 1x1 (and that is in meters) box, then barried underground in the middle of Antartica so there's no chance of anyone finding the body for atleast 5,000 years. it is such a disgrace that the UN has lowered themselves so much that they think they need to tell me how to measure my penis. (it's 3 inches 7.6 centimeters incase you were woundering)

Firstly, I would like to make it absolutely clear that I believe metrication to be eminently sensible and worthy of encouragement.

However, I see need for the United Nations to force member states to undergo metrication (or, indeed, decimalisation) on a domestic level. The original resolution would have benefited greatly from restricting its remit to international trade, etc.

Consequently, I have decided - despite qualms about some aspects of the repeal - to place my nation's vote in favour of removing the resolution in question from the UN statute books.

Benedictions to you all,

As a citizen of my country, I have had the privilege of driving into neighboring countries. The posting of road signs in meters (which is not my nations primary system) and their own historic system, allows me to have an easy frame of reference. Since I may be visiting for only a day or 2. What would be the point be in learning their system? So I can use it for a day or two? I would be much better off enhancing my knowledge of their trade needs or at the least keeping up with the latest politics in our region. The same goes for ordering supplies from their general store ( for instance, the uranium in WJClinton is very reasonably priced).

Another example, In other countries I have been able to read the road signs, even though they use a different writing system from TJEFFERSON. I can still navigate their streets because all major signs are also in english.

I was reading a science fiction novel about a great country in RL called the "USA" where they were so influential (as was their predecessor, who's system the "USA" now uses) that their systems tended to dominate, even without formal standards you would see their weights and measure system in many places and you would see their language often. These people would of course travel and if they came to a nation that used only their own historic national system the people from the USA could become very confused and would get irritated (as is natural) because they couldn't figure out how to get what they wanted/needed.

I suggest to those members of this body who feel a common system is a waste of time that they leave the familiar and travel to a SET of countries that do not use your systems. Try a vacation where you stay 3 or 4 days and then travel to the next country (with a DIFFERENT system) with no pause. See if learning all the things you need to know about their language and weights and measures is still "no big deal", while I might add, you also deal with different customs. This may give you some insight into the benefits of a common system for trade also.

Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of TJEFFERSON
located deep in the redwoods of Jefferson State.

The metric system SHOULD NOT be repealed, because a universal system would make it where people would not have to know multiple systems in order to understand things.

we are againist this for the pure reason that nuts, which is our currency rate and number system, does not transpose over easily.

we are againist this for the pure reason that nuts, which is our currency rate and number system, does not transpose over easily.
huh?? do you think the metric system has anything to do with your number system and currency?

huh?? do you think the metric system has anything to do with your number system and currency?

Why not? I repeat my question: what is this metric system we are discussing?
Is it allowed to qoute a 'real life' source, like Wikipedia?

"The metric system is a decimalisedsystem of measurement based on the metre and the gram. It exists in several variations, with different choices of base units, though these do not affect its day-to-day use. Over the last two centuries, different variants have been considered the metric system. Since the 1960s the International System of Units (SI) ("Système International d'Unités" in French, hence "SI") is the internationally recognised standard metric system." (etc.)

So, yes, the metric system has to do with the number system used.
And again: according to the SI system, speed should be expressed in metres per second, not in (kilo)metres per hour.

I would like also to answer to anyone in this forum who tryed a parrallel between "one language" and "one mesurement system":

Every language in the world use only a part of the range of audible sounds.
When someone learn a new language, his/her brain associate many stuff to those new sounds and then create many new connections between his/her neurons.

Imperials are still widely used in the NS world, despite Resolution #24, and it gives our children a necessary advantage to learn them alongside more "useful" methods.

An advantage over children who may be taught nothing during the time kennytes children learn Imperials, maybe.

But there are so much maths to learn, so many languages to practice, the LAE national education minister would rather not make children to loose their time by learning such frivolous logics.

When it comes to the one UN language i think thats is outrageous how dare you try change to the worlds culture and tell them how to think and speak.

but when it comes to the issue at hand measurement, it is not a cultural thing it will help conversion problems and will unify the world

were talking about 2 totally different subjects

The analogy between language and measurement standards is more commplex than on surface, but the point is to stress that if there is one standard, it is much easier to propogate and understand if everyone at least understands the system involved. In the same way, it is much easier to understand a person speaking if everyone at least understands the language.

By no means do I endorse any resolution to employ a global language standard - I only mean to make an analogy - one that was unfortunately too simplistic to be interpreted in one way.

the thing i don't understand is how in hell this piece of excrement even passed in the first place. anyone that votes for against this repeal needs to have their limbs tied in knotts, stuffed into a 1x1 (and that is in meters) box, then barried underground in the middle of Antartica so there's no chance of anyone finding the body for atleast 5,000 years. it is such a disgrace that the UN has lowered themselves so much that they think they need to tell me how to measure my penis. (it's 3 inches 7.6 centimeters incase you were woundering)

The UN does not distinguish how you should measure bodily elements - it only mandates that the standard employed in general circumstances be metric. And the language is somewhat inflammatory for the purposes of this discussion.

When it comes to the one UN language i think thats is outrageous how dare you try change to the worlds culture and tell them how to think and speak.

but when it comes to the issue at hand measurement, it is not a cultural thing it will help conversion problems and will unify the world

were talking about 2 totally different subjects

This discussion, right here, is happening in 1 language. It's not "outrageous" to suggest that there can be international standards for the exchange of views and information. There is a conversion that will happen either in your own mind or in the mind of the translator but no matter WHAT there will be a conversion. Personally I would prefer that, as much as possible, the conversion happens in my mind and in the mind of the person(s) I'm exchanging information with.

As for telling your country how to think... while it is of course your countries right to be a backwater hill-billy nation; it does not seem to further your nations humanity, to be ignorant on purpose. Learning another language expands the mind beyond it's familiar boundries. And by working in a common language you can further the goals of your nation.

Your nation has choosen to join an international body and you seem to have choosen (or at least agreed) to converse in 1 language. And yet you rail against a common language for international communications?

Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of TJEFFERSON
located deep in the redwoods of Jefferson State.

As ambassador to the Democratic States of Maridova, the Queen, Godess, and Dictator, her Majesty CaLinda, would like me to express our possition against this proposal. Maridova's position on this matter is mainly due to the fact that the United States of America is really the only country in the world that does not use the Metric System. Why should we repeal the main system of the world?

Thank you

Why should we repeal use of the metric system, I'll tell you why. Everyone one wants diversity. The world thinks that everyone is unique and should be treated as such. If someone goes to your nation you expect them to abide by your rules. You expect them to speak your language. Then you have the audacity to go to another country and expect them to cater to you. My country, my rules. If you want to use the metric system that's fine. If others want to use it, more power to them, but don't sit there and pretend to respect differences (like you all do) and then try and force your crappy units of measurment on the world.

Down with the metric system!

... If you want to use the metric system that's fine. If others want to use it, more power to them, but don't sit there and pretend to respect differences (like you all do) and then try and force your crappy units of measurment on the world.

Down with the metric system!

I must be having an ignorance attack... help me understand your position, please. It seems to me that you don't want to have the UN vote; since the minorities "differences" are going to be ignored and have "crappy" rules forced down their throats? Is this an accurate representation of your views?

To All NationStates Users,


Repealing the Metric system is something that should be done. Anyone who thinks that it shouldn't be done should be shot.:sniper:

I would prefer half a dozen metric systems any day of a 100 day year... ::D :

Having been informed that the new ambassador to Kenny was participating in the debate, I have left the relative safety of the UN Starbucks to come in here and express my rarely humble opinion on the matter. Never has such a poorly written practically do nothing resolution spawned as much complaint about what it apparently does, in the eyes of some deligates who obviously can't read in the first place, including, I should add, the writers of the repeal.

The resolution as written does not abolish any existing systems of measurements in new nationstates, only that they must convert to metric under a minimum of listed circumstances.

So, if you go to any of our excellent pubs in Tzorsland, we still will have all glasses based on the bizzare UK Pint (which is the only place where we use this measurement all other areas using the US Pint) and we give informational literature to tourists that this is equal to slightly over 568 1/4 cubic centimeters. (or milliliters or whatever you want to call it) The standard size for bottles of booze is 750 ml, which would probably be 1 liter in a true metric nationstate. (This resolution never required nationstates to use rounded metric measurements by the way.) And we still measure our booze in Proof. (Not that we would ever waste good booze by pouring it on gunpowder and seeing if it would catch fire, as was the original test for proof.)

Given all of this, I see no reason why all nations can't have clearly posted speed limit signs in metric. Granted in Tzorsland, no one pays any attention to those signs in the first place. The average posted speed on the Garden City / Eyesore road is 45 with one place at 50, but drivers routinely travel at over 100 whenever they think they can get away with it.

As the founders of my nation once said, (well they used to say a lot of things, that's why we just got rid of them) you need to sing from the same hymnal. In the global economy global standards are vital.

Of course, it's a shame that the metric calendar and the metric clock never cought on.

To All NationStates Users,


Repealing the Metric system is something that should be done. Anyone who thinks that it shouldn't be done should be shot.:sniper:


OOC: Brilliant first post. :rolleyes:

As you well know at that time RL refrences did not exsit so his refrence to the metric system was ok. So this is functional. Also this kind of reason is for mods to decide and even then it would be deleted instead of repealed.

OOC: The fact that RL references were okay at the time means that the proposal couldn't have been called illegal for including one, but does it really mean that we must now regard the RL 'Metric System' as an intrinsic part of the NS universe when -- as I've already said -- that resolution didn't actually specify that it meant the RL system (by naming its country of origin or anywhere that it was already in use, defining any units or even naming any units) and several other early resolutions were so vaguely worded that whilst I assume that that was what the author meant I don't see how we can be 100% sure of the fact now?
If it does, would that mean that any other RL references that might have occurred in early resolutions are now to be counted as part of the 'NSiverse' and could "legally" be mentioned in new resolutions too?

So let's see if it's "rhetoric, and functionally useless"(which I don't think it is) then it's a blocker. When was a blocker ever infringe naitonal soverginty.
If we take it as binding rather than just as "rhetoric, and functionally useless", as not only you but several of the other IntFed-oriented nations have claimed we should do, then my NatSov objections come into play...

There are some nations that refuse to do so because there is concern that it violates their national sovereignty. On the contrary, the original resolution does no great harm to national sovereignty - it only mandates the adoption of the metric system as the global standard.

Reminder #1: It isn't global, because a majority of the NSiverse's nations aren't in the UN.
Reminder #2: Some of the nations within the UN conduct most of their external trade with non-UN nations that don't use this 'metric system' about which some people here are enthusing, and consequently find having to label all of their exports to those nations in metric units a hindrance rather than a help...
Reminder #3: Resolution #24 says that nations must be "converted" to the metric system, and by our understanding of the English language "converted" means "completely changed" not "required to use this new system alongside any older ones that we wish to retain... (But fortunately there's no timetable or deadline given, so that even if we did accept some nation's arguments about which set of weights & measures the vague expression 'metric system' referred to we could delay that conversion indefinitely...)

if this resolution does fail, we will still be using the metric system as our standard of measurement, so it will do you well to know how to use it still (as much it would be for us to learn whatever standard that your nation would be using as its standard).

How much trade, if any, do we do with you?

the thing i don't understand is how in hell this piece of excrement even passed in the first place. anyone that votes for against this repeal needs to have their limbs tied in knotts, stuffed into a 1x1 (and that is in meters) box, then barried underground in the middle of Antartica

*Ahem!* Several of the nations represented here are actually located in Antarctica. Some of their governments might object to having foreign diplomats and politicians buried like that in their territories... (Then again, some of them might volunteer help with the process... ;) )

I suggest to those members of this body who feel a common system is a waste of time that they leave the familiar and travel to a SET of countries that do not use your systems. Try a vacation where you stay 3 or 4 days and then travel to the next country (with a DIFFERENT system) with no pause. See if learning all the things you need to know about their language and weights and measures is still "no big deal", while I might add, you also deal with different customs. This may give you some insight into the benefits of a common system for trade also.

As I have already explained to several other nations' representatives, my nation conducts most of its external trade (and its citizens conduct most of their foreign travel) within a set of countries that already uses a common system of weights and measures... and that system isn't the "metric" one, and those other countries (none of which is in the UN) aren't going to adopt the "metric" one, so forcing us to adopt the "metric" one would hinder rather than help us...

This discussion, right here, is happening in 1 language. It's not "outrageous" to suggest that there can be international standards for the exchange of views and information. There is a conversion that will happen either in your own mind or in the mind of the translator but no matter WHAT there will be a conversion. Personally I would prefer that, as much as possible, the conversion happens in my mind and in the mind of the person(s) I'm exchanging information with.

As for telling your country how to think... while it is of course your countries right to be a backwater hill-billy nation; it does not seem to further your nations humanity, to be ignorant on purpose. Learning another language expands the mind beyond it's familiar boundries. And by working in a common language you can further the goals of your nation.

Your nation has choosen to join an international body and you seem to have choosen (or at least agreed) to converse in 1 language. And yet you rail against a common language for international communications?

Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of TJEFFERSON
located deep in the redwoods of Jefferson State.

We use one single language for discussions & debates within the processes of the UN itself: This does not mean that all of our nations use the same single language for all everyday purposes within our own territories too. Had resolution #24 simply specified the use of the "metric" system for trade between UN member-nations, instead of [apparently] trying to force it on all of the member-nations for all everyday purposes within their own territories too, there would be rather less opposition to its continued existence...

Maridova']Maridova's position on this matter is mainly due to the fact that the United States of America is really the only country in the world that does not use the Metric System. Why should we repeal the main system of the world?

We aren't in the same world... :headbang:

Reminder #1: It isn't global, because a majority of the NSiverse's nations aren't in the UN.

True but It is huge international orgainization that covers about 30% of the nations. Also the larger nations are much more likly to be in the UN. (not saying at all that they have to be but that they are MORE LIKLY)

Reminder #2: Some of the nations within the UN conduct most of their external trade with non-UN nations that don't use this 'metric system' about which some people here are enthusing, and consequently find having to label all of their exports to those nations in metric units a hindrance rather than a help...

I am sure such a huge hinderence is a complete disaster to those nations economy.;) Having to print a few letters on a label. :p

Reminder #3: Resolution #24 says that nations must be "converted" to the metric system, and by our understanding of the English language "converted" means "completely changed" not "required to use this new system alongside any older ones that we wish to retain... (But fortunately there's no timetable or deadline given, so that even if we did accept some nation's arguments about which set of weights & measures the vague expression 'metric system' referred to we could delay that conversion indefinitely...)

Actualy converted does not mean you take out the old one. When you convert m-cm(example) you do not destroy the amount of metres but you know also know how many cm it is.

How much trade, if any, do we do with you?
I don't think he would be the only one. Many nations would have because they already put the metric system into there system keep it in there.

I'm sorry; I've been sitting here listening to this debate, and I have yet to hear one good argument for retaining this resolution; you know, aside from the fact that its proponents seem to think everyone is dumb as shit and don't know how to convert. Oh, and they don't want children learning "trivial" things in school. Could I get just one good reason for keeping this law? Just one? Someone ... anyone?

Otherwise, we may as well be "debating" the Gay Rights repeal again.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

When I am not away on diplomatic missions for the country of Kethland, I spend my time as an engineer. I can say, from a knowledgeable stand point, that most of you have no idea what you’re talking about.

1) The “Metric system” consists of Meters, Liters, and Grams. That’s it. What most of you consider the metric system is actually the SI system. Therefore, the only units that will be changed will be the units for length, volume, and mass. Technicaly you could even keep pounds if you like for it is a force not a mass.

2) Although I do like the Metric system, many other units are available and can be more useful in certain occasions. I have personally done problems in units such as BTU $ per insulation per life span. None of which are SI units. Sometimes a problem in leach-aid hippies per fish fortnights can be fun.

3) Most of you don’t seem to be very mathematically minded. The only difference this makes to you is your speed limit signs and the label on your Mountain Dew. The people that are really suffering from this, the scientists and engineers, really don’t have much problem with units.

Repeal.

Actualy converted does not mean you take out the old one. When you convert m-cm(example) you do not destroy the amount of metres but you know also know how many cm it is.

It generally does when talking about religions, forms of governments, languages, and several other possibilities that seemed applicable parallels given that this resolution talked about converting nations rather than just indivdual measurements...

I'm sorry; I've been sitting here listening to this debate, and I have yet to hear one good argument for retaining this resolution; you know, aside from the fact that its proponents seem to think everyone is dumb as shit and don't know how to convert. Oh, and they don't want children learning "trivial" things in school. Could I get just one good reason for keeping this law? Just one? Someone ... anyone?

Otherwise, we may as well be "debating" the Gay Rights repeal again.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

And we have yet to hear a single logical argument for repealing it. And, as far as we're concerned, the onus of argument lies on the proponents of the repeal.

We don't think everyone is dumb as fecal matter. We do think that promoting use of the metric system is nothing more than common sense. You don't have to be an educational technologist to understand that teaching children to remember "10" is simpler and costs less in time and effort than teaching them to remember "12, 3, 5280, 32, 16, etc., etc., etc." And you don't have to be a performance technologist to understand that having a task include division by 10 introduces less chance of error than division by any of that long string of numbers.

Is the resolution perfect? No. Does it do something worthwhile? Yes. Is there a sound reason for repealing it? No. At least, we haven't heard one yet.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Quoted from resolution #24 (spelling errors included)

“Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement.”
(not true, in fact very far from true)

“I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard. This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling.”
(Roadways and labeling, fine. That would make things easier for everyone in the long run. But “official research” NO! If you want your results in Meters and Kg fine, but I will do the research in whatever unit I deem necessary.)

“Science would also benifit from a unifide standard to taught in public schools, no conversions would need to be made.”
(There will always be conversions. Whenever time or money or most any other unit other than the simple length, volume, mass is used there are conversions. Learn to use them or stay blue collar. Sure, converting from centimeters to meters is easy but describing the distance to the Sun in Gigameters is impractical. I’d rather say 1AU.)

There is a simple argument for the repeal based on the impractical nature of the resolution not political conjecture over international commerce.

May I also reiterate that I do like the metric system. When I work in English units I prefer Kilopounds to Tons but, I want to have that choice.

“Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement.”
(not true, in fact very far from true)

Why do you say it is far from true. I have never heard any person in a professional(professional of something in which this comes under the jurisdiction) positon challenge that. It's not far from true at all.

“I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard. This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling.”
(Roadways and labeling, fine. That would make things easier for everyone in the long run. But “official research” NO! If you want your results in Meters and Kg fine, but I will do the research in whatever unit I deem necessary.)

official research can easily be brought over easily. If someone takes there work at all seriously it is very little effort. This helps also because it makes it easier for the international community to check your work and see if it is valid.


There is a simple argument for the repeal based on the impractical nature of the resolution not political conjecture over international commerce.

May I also reiterate that I do like the metric system. When I work in English units I prefer Kilopounds to Tons but, I want to have that choice.

You do have that choice. Just if you are writing up a label or something you have to write it in metric and have the option to write any other stuff too.

Reminder #3: Resolution #24 says that nations must be "converted" to the metric system, and by our understanding of the English language "converted" means "completely changed"

If that is true, then why is there a sentence after the one that describes three specific areas where metric is to be used. If the notion of converted is "complete" then why specify any areas, because then everything must be covered. One can only come to the logical conclusion that the term does not mean complete and exclusive conversion.

Could I get just one good reason for keeping this law? Just one? Someone ... anyone?

Why of course Sammy, the the reason is clear ... what I mean is ... well frankly it's ... well I always liked mille bournes, yes the card came, with all it's metric speed limits and stuff and ... ok that's not a good reason is it?

Actually I see this as helping the tourist and the textbook writer. Tourism is a clear example of where uniform measurements can be very helpful. It's bad enough going from one currency system to another, but when you have to compare US Dollars/Gallon against UK Pounds/Litre it can get massively confusing. The textbook writing is not all that obvious, but someone has to pay for the expense of converting the units from one system to another.

Bear in mind that the bulk of the nations in the UN, that is all of the nations already in the UN have been there and already done that. It costs them NOTHING, because it already costed them to do this conversion, and they have nothing to gain by its repeal. New nations (well let's not go there ... honestly it's just the role playing tooth fairy and she can't change your nation's budget no matter how hard she waves her wand). So really the best argument for keeping this resolution is that ... well if you start scratching at it, you might get it infected.

As I have already explained to several other nations' representatives, my nation conducts most of its external trade (and its citizens conduct most of their foreign travel) within a set of countries that already uses a common system of weights and measures... and that system isn't the "metric" one, and those other countries (none of which is in the UN) aren't going to adopt the "metric" one, so forcing us to adopt the "metric" one would hinder rather than help us...


So you understand the need for a common system, but since the common system you use ( that btw, it seems, another group forces you to use) isn't the one represented here, you don't want the UN forcing you to use another common system. That makes sense to us.

If the system used was the one your trading partners used would you then have no problem with the UN declaring that common system?

Why do you say it is far from true. I have never heard any person in a professional(professional of something in which this comes under the jurisdiction) positon challenge that. It's not far from true at all.

I consider myself of high enough authority on the subject. As I said earlier, when I’m not representing the nation of Kethland, I work as a Civil Engineer. And yes, I do and have participated in scientific research. Hydrology and soils, to be specific. I have also been involved in other research outside of my field. The initial statement in the original resolution is false. If the initial argument is false, no matter how nice the rest sounds, it can not be true. That alone is enough for a repeal.

BTW your statement was obviously just conjecture. For your argument to stand, it had better have some support next time.

We use one single language for discussions & debates within the processes of the UN itself: This does not mean that all of our nations use the same single language for all everyday purposes within our own territories too. Had resolution #24 simply specified the use of the "metric" system for trade between UN member-nations, instead of [apparently] trying to force it on all of the member-nations for all everyday purposes within their own territories too, there would be rather less opposition to its continued existence...

And this argument also we agree with. The resolution has significant problems in it's wording. But we can't endorse repealing it without something there to take it's place.

Therefore we propose that those who feel that this resolution is so poorly worded that it must be repealed, adopt a new resolution. A resolution that fixes these errors and supercedes the current resolution. We would be more then happy to assist in this endevor. However being such a new member to this body, we do not feel we have the knowledge to write it ourselves.

Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of TJEFFERSON
located deep in the redwoods of Jefferson State.

Quoted from resolution #24 (spelling errors included)

...
(There will always be conversions. Whenever time or money or most any other unit other than the simple length, volume, mass is used there are conversions. Learn to use them or stay blue collar. Sure, converting from centimeters to meters is easy but describing the distance to the Sun in Gigameters is impractical. I’d rather say 1AU.)

There is a simple argument for the repeal based on the impractical nature of the resolution not political conjecture over international commerce.
...


You raise another good point.

exempting the "I hate metric" argument...

It seems to me that what this body is really arguing is "do we remove a toothless resolution or do we leave it to be changed later"?

We have spent days arguing about removing a rule. Wouldn't it have been better to spend those days arguing on what a new resolution, that better represents the ideas of this body, should say?

Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of TJEFFERSON
located deep in the redwoods of Jefferson State.

We have spent days arguing about removing a rule. Wouldn't it have been better to spend those days arguing on what a new resolution, that better represents the ideas of this body, should say?

Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of TJEFFERSON
located deep in the redwoods of Jefferson State.
Not a bad idea, except for the fact that for a new resolution on this subject to be submitted, this one currently on the books must be repealed first.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We understand and agree that there are very good reasons to repeal #24. However under current UN rules and with the very real possiblity of not having a better version of #24, we have to continue to disagree with the repeal.

This appears, to us, to be a breakdown in the UN system :headbang: . We will begin working to fix this situation (as we see it) in the appropriate way.

The government of Agita likes the metric system, and therefore will continue to use it as its standard of measurement when formulating law.

The government of Agita despises anti-sovereigntism, and therefore votes in favor of repealing this resolution, fully expecting the anti-sovereignty nations of the world to win yet again.

official research can easily be brought over easily. If someone takes there work at all seriously it is very little effort. This helps also because it makes it easier for the international community to check your work and see if it is valid.
I find it almost comical that you believe that scientific research is found valid by checking what units someone uses. (Velocity head is velocity head whether its metric or not.)

You do have that choice. Just if you are writing up a label or something you have to write it in metric and have the option to write any other stuff too.
According to the original resolution, I don’t get that choice.

(See post #142 for original argument)

Originally Posted by Newfoundcanada
official research can easily be brought over easily. If someone takes there work at all seriously it is very little effort. This helps also because it makes it easier for the international community to check your work and see if it is valid.

I find it almost comical that you believe that scientific research is found valid by checking what units someone uses. (Velocity head is velocity head whether its metric or not.)

Your snide comment shows that you've misunderstood the honorable representative's point. Perhaps a reading comprehension course in your engineering curriculum would have helped. He did not say the scientific community should use units of measurement as a criterion for evaluating research. The point he clearly made was that, with a standard system of measurements in use, such evaluation would be facilitated.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

why does the UN think it is their resposiblity to choose the standardized system. they have no right to tell me what system to use. i use the metric system because i think it is a better system. i also think that a universal system would be a good idea. but the UN needs to stop being nazis. they are not voice of the world. they are a bunch of old fat old people who are not even elected but rather appointed by their countries ruling body. stop tring to force pusy ass resolutions down our throughts. grow some testicals and make a resolution that is worth something.

why does the UN think it is their resposiblity to choose the standardized system. they have no right to tell me what system to use.

Your nation joined the UN. No one forced them/you (in fact no one is forcing you to stay, you do so by choice), if you looked it was said that you had to follow the rules laid down by this body. So in point of fact, yes, they do have that right. Your country, of it's own free will, gave them that power, and continues too.

...
but the UN needs to stop being nazis. they are not voice of the world. they are a bunch of old fat old people who are not even elected but rather appointed by their countries ruling body. stop tring to force pusy ass resolutions down our throughts. grow some testicals and make a resolution that is worth something.

Then you cuss and whine about it? To use your language... maybe when your testicals drop, you'll understand.

Your nation joined the UN. No one forced them/you (in fact no one is forcing you to stay, you do so by choice), if you looked it was said that you had to follow the rules laid down by this body. So in point of fact, yes, they do have that right. Your country, of it's own free will, gave them that power, and continues too.Er, would the honorable ambassador then conclude that by virtue of our voluntary membership in this organization, we are enjoined against speaking against any resolution that comes before this body, or only the ones with which he finds favor?

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Er, would the honorable ambassador then conclude that by virtue of our voluntary membership in this organization, we are enjoined against speaking against any resolution that comes before this body, or only the ones with which he finds favor?

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

If in any way my words implied that any honorable of this body should be "enjoined" from speaking, please know that that was in no way my intent. I'm embarrassed that my words were so poorly spoken as to even hint at that.

If I may attempt to clarify my position. Ambassador Kajikku said the following things, that I took issue with:
why does the UN think it is their resposiblity to choose the standardized system. they have no right to tell me what system to use.
but the UN needs to stop being nazis
they are not voice of the world. they are a bunch of old fat old people who are not even elected but rather appointed by their countries ruling body. stop tring to force pusy ass resolutions down our throughts. grow some testicals and make a resolution that is worth something.

Now I took special exception to the implication that I have "old fat" on my person, I work very hard to lose "old fat" and replace it with new fat! This may have clouded my thoughts when I last spoke, again I am sorry for not being clearer.

That being the case, I understood the honorable ambassador to have said that the UN was not the place to choose a system. Furthermore the UN has no right to "force" something down his nations "throught" (I'm assuming here that the ambassador meant ALL nations, but of course, I could be wrong). This seems plainly wrong, to me, and I tried to point that out. Maybe this is where my words so utterly failed me. I took "why does the UN think it is their responsibility to choose the standardized system." to be a rhetorical question, aimed at pointing out that the UN is wrong for thinking it can make rules governing it's member nations. I disagree with that assessment. Also my country feels that all ambassadors have a responsibility to point out laws that should not be made... but to say that the UN "...have no right to tell me what system to use" is, in our opinion, flatly wrong (as long as the honorable's nation is a part of this body).

The ambassador also made reference to a portion of the male anatomy. I need to add here that the honorable seems to have used a phrase that is very sexist, implying that we did not HAVE said testicals and implying that we needed them to "make a resolution that is worth something." Now I interpreted that to be a colloquialism of the honorable's region. But I'm sure that also weighed on my viewing of the honorable's position. In any case the general sentiment seemed very juvenile and so I made reference to his own anatomy. Implying that maybe he was too young to understand the rules, that the honorable is/was laboring under. Now I have made an assumption that the honorable is male and that could very well be false. But, I must confess, that the honorable's words would be even more confusing to me in that light.

Hopefully this has clarified my statements. And again I'm sorry for embarrissing my country and wasting this body's time, with my poor word smithing.

but to say that the UN "...have no right to tell me what system to use" is, in our opinion, flatly wrong (as long as the honorable's nation is a part of this body).

in the early 1900s, women in the US were not alowed to vote. were they wrong in their opinion that they should be alowed to vote becuase they were part of a nation that wouldn't let them? It' s obvious that you detest everything i said, but because you were civil i will attempt to be civil back. i joined the UN because i dissagree with everything it stands for. the UN can be great, but they have their priorities messed up. instead of fighting over whats printed on my ruler, we should be focusing on international relations. what we in Kajikku do in Kajikku is our buisness. the UN shouldonly be concerned with how i deal with TJEFFERSON. we are called ambassadors not emperors.

As I recall, and has most eloquently been pointed out by Ambassadors from other nations, membership in the UN is voluntary. In addition, you agreed to abide by all previously enacted UN resolutions the moment you took the UN oath on behalf of your nation and became a signatory of the UN Charter. If I am mistaken, then I pray that someone will correct me here.

As to this repeal, it has been said by many that they cannot use other system in addition to the metric in their nation because of R24. If this is their concern, and not the imposition of a trade / economic standard of measurement, then this repeal is unnecessary and the wrong approach to take. Instead, we should be writing a new resolution that is clearer than R24 and supercedes that resolution. By repealing it, we invite chaos.

As such, the Dominion of Ktarland will be voting against this repeal.

Signed,

Ambassador of Ktarland

Ktarland']

As to this repeal, it has been said by many that they cannot use other system in addition to the metric in their nation because of R24. If this is their concern, and not the imposition of a trade / economic standard of measurement, then this repeal is unnecessary and the wrong approach to take. Instead, we should be writing a new resolution that is clearer than R24 and supercedes that resolution. By repealing it, we invite chaos.

Ambassador of Ktarland

With all due respect Ambassador, the way UN works requires the old bill to be repealed before we can make a new and better one.

Now if the point of this repeal was based on its need to be improved and clarified then I would be voting in favour of the repeal. However having already paid for the signs and finding that trading with a standard measurement is very useful, I am going to vote against, despite the compelling arguments on both sides.

Sun Loyalds, Cuation Ambassador.

And we have yet to hear a single logical argument for repealing it. And, as far as we're concerned, the onus of argument lies on the proponents of the repeal.

We don't think everyone is dumb as fecal matter. We do think that promoting use of the metric system is nothing more than common sense. You don't have to be an educational technologist to understand that teaching children to remember "10" is simpler and costs less in time and effort than teaching them to remember "12, 3, 5280, 32, 16, etc., etc., etc."

But then using more complicated systems probably encourages a greater understanding of numeracy than just using base-10 (or base-12, as we mainly do, or any other single base) all the way through the system would do...

If that is true, then why is there a sentence after the one that describes three specific areas where metric is to be used. If the notion of converted is "complete" then why specify any areas, because then everything must be covered. One can only come to the logical conclusion that the term does not mean complete and exclusive conversion.

Or that that resolution, like several of the other early ones, was badly written...

So you understand the need for a common system, but since the common system you use ( that btw, it seems, another group forces you to use) isn't the one represented here, you don't want the UN forcing you to use another common system. That makes sense to us.

If the system used was the one your trading partners used would you then have no problem with the UN declaring that common system?

The 'St Edmundan Antarctic' is a much newer nation than the other members of the Godwinnian Commonwealth, and is actually still a protectorate of one of them ('St Edmund'), so that it using their established system of weights & measures is a matter of common sense rather than "force".
Yes, we would have a problem with the UN trying to force all of its members to use our system instead of the "metric" one: Because our system differs from the other main ones around and we want to keep this we can see that other nations might well want to keep the systems to which they are accustomed too... and the St Edmundan view of the UN has consistently been that (with a few exceptions for the most basic 'sapient rights') it shouldn't try to legislate about what happens within its member-nations. However we could tolerate a resolution requiring the use of one single standard system in international trade between UN nations (except where that trade is within blocks of states that have already agreed on another standard) and requiring the inclusion of values in that system's units (alongside any others used) in published research, encouraging the teaching of that system and suggesting that nations consider adopting it for internal purposes too... and in fact I've already started drafting such a proposal, for use as a potential replacement for #24 if another attempt to repeal that one gets to quorum...

As I recall, and has most eloquently been pointed out by Ambassadors from other nations, membership in the UN is voluntary. In addition, you agreed to abide by all previously enacted UN resolutions the moment you took the UN oath on behalf of your nation and became a signatory of the UN Charter. If I am mistaken, then I pray that someone will correct me here.

why can't people argue rationally. i never said i don't follow UN rules or that i never will. read the whole post. don't just read till you see something that pisses you off cus then you look like an imbecile. in case you still need some clarification, i'm saying that the UN has no right to make these rules or inforce them, not that they arn't and can't do it. i'm tring to change the system not defy it.

Or that that resolution, like several of the other early ones, was badly written...

Well that goes without saying. :p

I suppose the question, and thus the point I was trying to make, is "what is the standard that we need to apply to the anchient resolutions?" Does the word "convert" demand a total abandonment of the previous system? Does it require an absulute conversion in all sectors? I would suggest, in a very un-humble manner, that you would have to be an anal nearsighted lawyer in order to even consider making such assumptions from the vague one word "convert."

In fact, you have to get to the third definition of convert (according to webster) to even get a word that fits in the context, "to exchange for an equivalent." There is no implication that convert demands a one way, never look back approach, and there is no indication that any attempts in the real world were ever this way.

I'll go back to an old argument of mine. It is not sufficient that a resultion is bad; in order to have a good argument for repeal the resultion must be outright horrid, dangerous even. There are still a plethora of resolutions out there that are far more dangeous, and horrid than this one.

This resolution, in my opinion is "Mostly Harmelss" and as such I don't think it needs repealing. Wouldn't pass it for all the money in the UN, but I won't repeal it either.

why does the UN think it is their resposiblity to choose the standardized system. they have no right to tell me what system to use. i use the metric system because i think it is a better system. i also think that a universal system would be a good idea. but the UN needs to stop being nazis. they are not voice of the world. they are a bunch of old fat old people who are not even elected but rather appointed by their countries ruling body. stop tring to force pusy ass resolutions down our throughts. grow some testicals and make a resolution that is worth something.

OOC: Goodwin wins again!

aye mateys, i says the metric system is all well and good for ye ivory tower egg heads with ten fingers and toes, but who here hasn't lost a digit or two in a brothel knife fight, sumo accident or salvo of chain shot? i say repeal the sissy system as it gives people the idea that stayin' home and not havin' violence is good.
pirate beerbelly (cptn.)

The Community of His Fordians believe strongly in our Ford and his teachings. And one of his basic teaching is efficiency, as demonstrated with the construction of the T-Model (makes a T symbol over his chest).

As such, we will oppose this proposal. The Metric system must be preserved and stay adopted for all Nations. Stability. This is important! We cannot let every little country in the world have different systems!

This resolution, in my opinion is "Mostly Harmelss" and as such I don't think it needs repealing. Wouldn't pass it for all the money in the UN, but I won't repeal it either.I can see this as a reason to not write a Repeal, or to not vote it into quorum as a Delegate, but since it's already on the floor, why not get rid of it? You admit it's crap, so why not chuck it on the trash-heap with other garbage? You know, like "Safe The Forests Of The World".

But then using more complicated systems probably encourages a greater understanding of numeracy than just using base-10 (or base-12, as we mainly do, or any other single base) all the way through the system would do...

The honorable Ambassador is quite correct. But this raises the issue.... Is the purpose of a system of measurement meant to be a learning experience? Or is it something that is a tool to be used for practical purposes in daily life? If the second is the case, which we believe it is, then using the simplest practicable system, based on the most widely used numerical system, saves educational resources and reduces probability of error.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The honorable Ambassador is quite correct. But this raises the issue.... Is the purpose of a system of measurement meant to be a learning experience? Or is it something that is a tool to be used for practical purposes in daily life? If the second is the case, which we believe it is, then using the simplest practicable system, based on the most widely used numerical system, saves educational resources and reduces probability of error.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

How about we replace the metric system with something in base 2 4 8 or 16?

Simple. 10 is a simpler number. It is easier to calculate. You just move the decimals. This is, after all, why the UN voted to implement the metric system everywhere in the first place.

I can see this as a reason to not write a Repeal, or to not vote it into quorum as a Delegate, but since it's already on the floor, why not get rid of it? You admit it's crap, so why not chuck it on the trash-heap with other garbage? You know, like "Safe The Forests Of The World".

OOC: Not that it matters. It's losing pretty handily. Hooray for continental Europe.

How about we replace the metric system with something in base 2 4 8 or 16?
wow I hope you are joking or sarcastic those numbers are terrible.
2,4: can you imagine how many differnt forms of measuring there would be. You would have to remember way to many and it would be just silly.
8: do you really think multiplying by 8 is anywhere near as easy as 10? 10 you just add a zero 8 you have to the multiplication out normaly. lets see if you had 176 of something and you wanted to change it to make it a bit smaller number. What you have to do is divide it by 8. I'm sure you'd find that easy.
16: is too little steps AND hard to do multiplication of. 294/16 is so easy I am sure.

wow I hope you are joking or sarcastic those numbers are terrible.
2,4: can you imagine how many differnt forms of measuring there would be. You would have to remember way to many and it would be just silly.
8: do you really think multiplying by 8 is anywhere near as easy as 10? 10 you just add a zero 8 you have to the multiplication out normaly. lets see if you had 176 of something and you wanted to change it to make it a bit smaller number. What you have to do is divide it by 8. I'm sure you'd find that easy.
16: is too little steps AND hard to do multiplication of. 294/16 is so easy I am sure.

You're serious? I agree on bases 2 and 4 are too impractical to use, but base 8 and 16 are just as easy to use as base 10 when your brain has been trained to use it. 294/16 uses the same parts of your brain as 126/10 in hexadecimal, only you spent your schooling going over the base 10 multiplication tables. If you spent your schooling going over base 16 multiplication tables, you wouldn't have any difficulties.

Arguments for doing it? Computing, electronics, etc. Base 2 ends up being fairly natural for computing simply because true/false is so easy to figure out. Therefore, the powers of 2 end up being heavily used in the computing world making Hex and binary my second and third best bases to work with.

Arguments against? There are much fewer nations that work from those bases plus it's easier to guess that they've split across 3 of those 4 bases mentioned. On the other hand, I think it would be a fairly safe assumption to say that more of the UN is using Base 10 than anything else. Bases are much harder to convert than measuring systems.

Off topic: First I would like to apologize to the representative of Newfoundcanada. In the future I will remember to leave the whiskey at home when arguing, unless of course we both have a few glasses.

On topic:
official research can easily be brought over easily. If someone takes there work at all seriously it is very little effort. This helps also because it makes it easier for the international community to check your work and see if it is valid.

Just for clarity, we are assuming the country has already implemented the metric system and does not need to convert.
The point I was trying to make is that REQUIRING a person to use the metric system for their scientific research (which is what the resolution states) is more of a hindrance than an advantage. Like I stated earlier, using Gigameters to describe the distance to the sun is, well… retarded, when AUs are much more convenient. Likewise, using inches in microbiology, when milli- and micrometers are more convenient isn’t bright. The point is that trying to restrict a person’s research, making it more difficult, so that someone can have an easier time with units is ludicrous. Anyone reviewing the research should be familiar enough with the topic that units won’t matter anyway. Sure, posting your results in multiple units is all grand and good, but don’t refuse me the option of using whichever units I deem necessary.

OOC: Not that it matters. It's losing pretty handily. Hooray for continental Europe.Hey! You like Europeans! You even spell like them! :p

Hey! You like Europeans! You even spell like them! :p

Only to attract the Euro hotties. :p

I can see this as a reason to not write a Repeal, or to not vote it into quorum as a Delegate, but since it's already on the floor, why not get rid of it? You admit it's crap, so why not chuck it on the trash-heap with other garbage? You know, like "Safe The Forests Of The World".

Because in the case of "Safe The Forests Of The World" the resolution does damage on a day in and day out basis. In the case of "Metric System" the reslution has startup damage but that's it. Any problems with the resolution can be easily removed by reason and common sense. It's not like the World Heritage List where any nation in the UN can suddenly place your reserves on a prohibited list. It could be reworded, but I actually like the idea, and considering that IRL I come from a non-metric country, that's saying something I think.

Meawhile, on to something more base. The biggest problem in numbers is repeating decimals. They annoy me. They will occur whenever a number is not divisable by the prime numbers that form the base of the number system you are working in. The only prime numbers that divide 10, for example is 2 and 5. Thus 1/3, 1/7, 1/11 etc are all repeating decimals.

Base 2 is even worse, because it doesn't include 5.

Base 6 would allow 2 & 3
Base 30 would allow 2,3 & 5
Base 210 would allow 2,3,5 & 7

I propose Base 210. :p

1 minute ago: The resolution "Repeal "Metric System "" was defeated 8,581 votes to 5,149.

in the early 1900s, women in the US were not alowed to vote. were they wrong in their opinion that they should be alowed to vote becuase they were part of a nation that wouldn't let them? It' s obvious that you detest everything i said, but because you were civil i will attempt to be civil back. i joined the UN because i dissagree with everything it stands for. the UN can be great, but they have their priorities messed up. instead of fighting over whats printed on my ruler, we should be focusing on international relations. what we in Kajikku do in Kajikku is our buisness. the UN shouldonly be concerned with how i deal with TJEFFERSON. we are called ambassadors not emperors.

My nation has no problem with the honorable ambassador's goal of trying to change the system from the inside. We took exception with statements that , to us, seemed to imply the UN wasn't allowed to dictate to member nations. Currently, as I'm sure the honorable is well aware, the rules state that member nations must abide by certain rules set down by this body. But, once again, if the honorable's nation feels the priorities, goals or even how the UN operates is misguided, by all means work to change them. You might even find my nation supporting the honorable from time to time, for the record, we ALMOST support you on this very issue.

We also took exception to , what I deemed to be, insulting statements. But since these were not part of the current discussion, I see no need to go further into them. I mention them because I, personally, felt it was important to acknowledge that they were a part of my response.

Again, I hope these words clarify what the poor use of words, the last time I spoke, hide.

1 minute ago: The resolution "Repeal "Metric System "" was defeated 8,581 votes to 5,149.The Federal Republic and the State Department condemn the retention of this wholly trivial and comically drafted "resolution." That is all.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

...and in fact I've already started drafting such a proposal, for use as a potential replacement for #24 if another attempt to repeal that one gets to quorum...
If the nation of TJefferson can be of any help in this area please let us know. We whole heartedly back the items you outlined. And with a resolution like this in the "pipeline" we would feel much better about repealing the current resolution.

Thank you for informing us of your plans and for taking the time to draft such a resolution

Meawhile, on to something more base. The biggest problem in numbers is repeating decimals. They annoy me. They will occur whenever a number is not divisable by the prime numbers that form the base of the number system you are working in. The only prime numbers that divide 10, for example is 2 and 5. Thus 1/3, 1/7, 1/11 etc are all repeating decimals.

Base 2 is even worse, because it doesn't include 5.

Base 6 would allow 2 & 3
Base 30 would allow 2,3 & 5
Base 210 would allow 2,3,5 & 7

I propose Base 210. :p

Base 12: 2, 3, 4 and 6... Not bad.

1 minute ago: The resolution "Repeal "Metric System "" was defeated 8,581 votes to 5,149.
Good.

Good.I'll be sure to remind of this the next time you grouse about the NSUN's "Americentrism." :rolleyes:

1 minute ago: The resolution "Repeal "Metric System "" was defeated 8,581 votes to 5,149.

Good, people have brains!

UN Delegate
Alliance of Socialist States

Good, people have brains!
Yes. Because clearly all those wanting to repeal this crock were stoooopid. Thanks for once again demonstrating the arrogance of the insufferable jackasses who trumpet this sort of moral superiority shit.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Good.
Well, I wouldn't be too pleased -- a 5:3 ratio victory isn't that resounding.

Well, I wouldn't be too pleased -- a 5:3 ratio victory isn't that resounding.
Not to resounding but it is pretty stable.

Not to resounding but it is pretty stable.

Oh well.

"stable"?
*Refrains from comment about equine anatomy*

Good, people have brains!



no, people want control every aspect of our lives