NationStates Jolt Archive

**NEW** DRAFT

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

United Nation Resolution #15 is highly imprecise and has a definite chance at becoming a crippling tool of the corrupt Compliance Ministry. Pose a hypothetical situation: the dilapidated “Central Bridge” that connects two vital sections of a nation’s territory together is in desperate need of renovation; however, the Compliance Ministry has not allowed the nation to repair this piece of infrastructure, for it says that the bridge is a “historical site” as stated in Resolution #15. Bottlenecks at this one-lane wooden bridge are a constant difficulty that could be remedied by simply widening the bridge, stimulating the nation’s economy and solving the nation’s large traffic problem.

Obviously Resolution #15 is in much need of amending, but many people would say, “I would rather have a flawed resolution on the books than to repeal the resolution and hope that someone files a replacement.” This is a meritable doctrine; however, in this case it need not apply. In Resolution #15, the threat of originally not passing the resolution was: “Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income” (UN Resolution #15). Alas, one must realize that National Sovereignty creates a situation where no country wants to deprive itself of income and will probably choose its own best candidates for popular tourist attractions in order to gain economic power without a UN officer to dictate what is and is not a “historical site” and must be preserved.

I hope many understand the direness to rid the world of the power of the Compliance Ministry. Repeal United Nations Resolution #15.



That's the Proposal that is not yet submitted. Please critique all you might wish.

I forgot to post the original resolution........

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #15
Protect Historical Sites

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: X-tonia

Description: We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place. Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income.
We must preserve our cultures to keep this world a fascinating place to travel in.

Votes For: 15,515
Votes Against: 4,317

Implemented: Fri May 23 2003

I’m not sure but I believe that you can’t put individual country or region names in a proposal. If that is true, just reword:


FEARING that many countries have had similar problems with UN inspectors as has The Dominion of Arctan,


and you will have the support of the nation of Kethland. Quite a good choice for repeal I believe.

yeah, i've seen the names of countries before--though i'll double-check the rules just to be sure

btw, i am planning on having the story in the proposal too. if you think it shouldnt be there, then tell me please

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

The Dominion of Arctan has had numerous problems with UN inspectors. For example, the dilapidated Bridge of San Luis Rey that connects two vital sections of our territory together is in desperate need of renovation; however, our UN inspector has not allowed us to repair this piece of infrastructure. Bottlenecks at this one-lane wooden bridge are a constant difficulty that could be remedied by simply widening the bridge, stimulating our economy, and solving our large traffic problem. Please help us by repealing this outdated resolution!

Is this part of the repeal? If so, I'd strongly recommend removing it, as its a) illegal for branding, b) wrong, as the "UN inspectors" would not disallow renovation (i'll get to that later), and c) doesn't belong in a repeal, as repeals (and all proposals, for that matter) should only contain clauses describing what they are doing and why, not a paragraph of rhetoric.

Edit Just saw your newest post, yeah, remove it.


RESPECTING the fact that some historical sites must be protected,


Ok. Not bad, I'd reword it to "RESPECTING the fact that many historical sites should be protected from damage due to their many significances,


ENCOURAGING a law to fund protection of historical sites,


Meh, this is probably already covered by your first clause.


BELIEVING that many countries could profit from tourist attractions made from historical sites,


Part of the reasoning behind the original resolution was to increase tourism.


ALSO BELIEVING that each country should decide what are the most profitable of historical sites to preserve,


The original resolution never took this right away from countries.


FEARING that many countries have had similar problems with UN inspectors as has The Dominion of Arctan,


Illegal, branding, and also doesn't belong in a repeal.


HEREBY be it enacted "UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #15: Protect Historical Sites" be repealed from International Law.

Change this to HEREBY repeals Resolution #15: "Protect Historical Sites"

Ok, I'll give you a redrafting. The big problems with resolution #15 are: 1) It doesn't actually do anything, and 2) there's absolutely no descrption of what a "historical site" is. My house could be considered a historical site..why? Well because I live in it. :p

Redraft

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the many significances that historical sites present to a country,

THUS AWARE of the need to protect these sites through law,

HOWEVER CONSIDERING that Resolution #15 fails to adequately bring about it's intent to the United Nations by providing no declarations to its members in order to actually protect historical sites,

ALSO CONSIDERING that no reference is made in Resolution #15 as to what actually qualifies a "Historical Site" and is thus worthy of legal protection from damage, leading to confusion amongst the members of the United Nations

ENCOURAGING the passing of a replacement that brings about the protection of the United Nations member's historical sites,

REPEALS Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites

yeah, i've seen the names of countries before--though i'll double-check the rules just to be sure

The rules have changed since the times when countries were allowed to put their names into proposals. It is now illegal, called "branding".

HOWEVER CONSIDERING that Resolution #15 fails to adequately bring about it's intent to the United Nations by providing no declarations to its members in order to actually protect historical sites,

That should be "its intent", not "it's intent"... and you've got two split infinitives in there, as well...

hey! i want you all to look over the NEW version that is at the top of this thread thanks

It's good that you removed the Branding violations, but this would still be deleted. We don't allow you to post stories / essays in the UN proposals. Read Nation States United Nations Policymaking (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681196&postcount=3) and have another go at it.

As it happens, your total argument is fallacious. There's absolutely no Operations arm built into this proposal, which throws the declaration of Historical Sites and enforcement of the resolution to member nations. If you didn't declare your bridge a Historical Site, it isn't one. I have no idea what you think is corrupt about the Compliance Ministry, but I'd surely leave that out of any law you attempt to pass in this body.

It's a lousy resolution, and it's worth some effort to repeal it. This one ain't gonna fly, though. Start from scratch.

Apparently you need to be pointed to the threads that sit permanently at the top of this forum. Start with Sticky: Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). Then read The Great Big Consolidated United Nations Sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412468).

Finally, STOP answering posts in THIS thread by cross-posting to ANOTHER thread. The "Comments on the Rules Sticky" thread is NOT the place to discuss whether your proposal is legal or not. ESPECIALLY since I already told you it wasn't.

Alright, the biggest problem you seem to be having is interpreting the passed resolution. Let's go over it for a second.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #15
Protect Historical Sites

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses


Though it would now be in a different category, the category is accurate for the net effect of the resolution. However, there is a small problem. The category is accurate, but the category has a much greater effect upon the UN members than the actual resolution makes. It's a real shame, really. What do I mean about the actual effect of the resolution? Well, keep reading.

Proposed by: X-tonia

Description: We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place. Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income.

1) False argument. Some of my favorite museums are not historical sites, nor are most of the major landmarks in many locations officially declared as such. Normally, you give "historical site" to something that has little significance in terms of "what would be exciting" but a fair bit of history to it. The Eiffel tower, while old, wouldn't really be considered a historical site. 47 Picadilly Road which was built 15 centuries ago by the founder of your nation, on the other hand, is more likely to pick up the classification. Add on that newer art museums (along with many other types of museums) and even just things that turn into landmarks (eg: airports, really tall buildings, space centers, etc) can give quite a tourist income - not to mention the actual wilderness of many nations.
2) They made an economics argument to promote a resolution that would, in the end, hinder income because it sets regulations on other industries. STUPID!

We must preserve our cultures to keep this world a fascinating place to travel in.

Lack of implementation method. Lack of teeth.

The resolution sums up to three sentences
-We shouldn't destroy old buildings
-Destroying old buildings hinders tourism
-We should preserve our culture

There is no implementation method, no mandates, not even a statement of what is a historical site. In other words, it's a pointless resolution and should be repealed because it is a waste of space.

Umm, wheres the link to the repeal?

Aside from that I would fully support a repeal of historical sites, if it where well written. At this point (without a link) I can't provide any criticism or advice. Please post your repeal in the thread.

The first post is his draft.

ok! i've submitted the proposal! i believe it follows all the rules! it's there! please endorse it. thanks for eveyone's help!

btw, this is the final version, up for quorum:


Description: UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the many significances that historical sites present to a country,

THUS AWARE of the need to protect these sites through law,

HOWEVER CONSIDERING that Resolution #15 fails to adequately bring about it's intent to the United Nations by providing no declarations to its members in order to actually protect historical sites,

ALSO CONSIDERING that no reference is made in Resolution #15 as to what actually qualifies a "Historical Site" and is thus worthy of legal protection from damage, leading to confusion amongst the members of the United Nations

NOTING FURTHER that the resolution makes an economic argument to promote a resolution that would, in the end, hinder income because it sets regulations on other industries and affects “all businesses”

ENCOURAGING the passing of a replacement that brings about the protection of the United Nations member's historical sites,

REPEALS Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites



co-author: Jey

Fris, just so you can understand why i was getting ticked-- it was because i didnt understand the difference between threads and forums (i get it now) you say "post your proposal on this forum" and i think you mean that thread. if your going to get angry at someone, first figure out if your volcab is getting through to them!!!

First, stop carrying on about it. Second, it's vocab. Third, it isn't Fris's fault if you don't understand. If you didn't understand, then he'll forgive you, so don't go snapping at him. Fourth, stop carrying on about it.

co-author: Jey
If Jey didn't give you permission to list his name in the co-authorship, either ask him, or request that your proposal be deleted, and get it resubmitted without his name on it.

oh ok...though i think he'd be more mad if it wasnt there since he wrote the vast majority--the only part that is mine is the idea

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #43:

A child was sat at his mother's bedside when she was unable to breathe for herself and was under constant care. All the child knew was that the dignity of this once strong woman was slowly being drained away, hour by hour, day by day. The child's mother once told him that if she were ever in this situation, that he should do the right thing and put her out of her misery. He decided that he would obey his mother's wishes, and was jailed for 'killing' his mother.

I ask you where is the justice in this? That someone has no right to end suffering?

I propose that euthanasia should be legalised. Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice. After this document is signed, it must only be used in the situations stated.

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.
Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?

And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think that whoever you believe in would rather see the person happy in paradise, rather than suffering?

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?
------------


how is this not an example of a story/essay in a proposal? how was this not struck down? (just trying to understand this rule that was described to me)

how is this not an example of a story/essay in a proposal?
The ruleset didn't spring into being instantly, fully mature and with no loopholes. No, it has evolved over the 3+ years this game has been in existence. The proposal quoted is one of the reasons this rule was instituted, but it predates the actual rule.

You'll also note that the resolution in question has now been repealed.....

Ok, the repeal looks pretty good, and I did write most of it, so I authorized my name for co-authorship (but only after he submitted it).

If it fails to reach quorum, theres afew nit-picking edits I'd make, but it seems pretty good:

Description: UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the many significances that historical sites present to a country,

THUS AWARE of the need to protect these sites through law,

HOWEVER CONSIDERING that Resolution #15 fails to adequately bring about it's intent to the United Nations by providing no declarations to its members in order to actually protect historical sites,

ALSO CONSIDERING that no reference is made in Resolution #15 as to what actually qualifies a "Historical Site" and is thus worthy of legal protection from damage, leading to confusion amongst the members of the United Nations,

NOTING FURTHER that the resolution makes an economic argument to promote a resolution that would, in the end, hinder income because it sets regulations on other industries and affects “all businesses”,

ENCOURAGING the passing of a replacement that brings about the protection of the United Nations member's historical sites,

REPEALS Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites.

Co-Authored by: Jey

OOC: Don't repeal this yet. Let Cluich have a crack at "World Heritage List". The two are similar, so it's possible the UN would baulk at voting down 2 resolutions of the same type, and WHL is the more pressing.