NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess I should start a thread for this, since it seems to have reached quorum, and should be coming up to vote soon.

The United Nations

COMMENDING the effort of UNR#37 (The World Heritage List) to protect the global environment;

DISMAYED that UNR#37 fails to stipulate how to classify locations as being of environmental significance;

DISTRAUGHT that there is no system by which the World Heritage List is to be maintained;

CONCERNED that UNR#37 does not specify what protective measures are to be taken, and by whom;

LAMENTS that UNR#37, despite its mention environmentally damaging activities, is narrowly targetted at only the woodchipping industry;

SEEKING an opportunity to pass more effective legislation in replacement;

HEREBY REPEALS UNR#37 The World Heritage List.

There is a discussion thread for a possible replacement here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386). Any and all comments, suggestions, or criticisms of the replacement are more than welcome in the discussion thread for the replacement.

As many of you know, Cluichstan has been trying to get a repeal of this particular piece of rubbish to the floor for some time now. We applaud the efforts and success of our Kivistan friends in getting this one to quorum. The WHL needs to go.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Official PDSRA seal of approval (http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9581/pdsrasealrh1.gif).

I shall vote for this.

LAMENTS that UNR#37, despite its mention environmentally damaging activities, is narrowly targetted at only the woodchipping industry;Mention of category/area of effect is Metagaming, no?

Mention of category/area of effect is Metagaming, no?

I don't believe so. I believe that we can discuss such things IC. I seem to recall doing so in the past.

At this point, I'm praying that I'm right. I'd hate to think that this got all the way to quorum just to find out it's illegal, but my thinking is that we would classify our resolutions in such a way in character for ease of reference later on. That way if a character wnated to go looking through passed resolutions to see what the UN had in the past decided about, say, International Security, they could simply ask the UN Secretariat for any IntSec resolutions on the books.

As my last act as Ambassador (actually as acting ambassador, I was relieved at midnight), I announce Ceorana's wholehearted support for the repeal of this horrible, horrible resolution.

Kingsley Thomas
Acting Ambassador to the United Nations
Ambassador to the United Nations, Ret.

I don't believe so. I believe that we can discuss such things IC. I seem to recall doing so in the past.You can discuss such things IC; you can even discuss RL things IC; you just can't put them in resolutions. However, I doubt the mods will go out of their way to delete this.

You can discuss such things IC; you can even discuss RL things IC; you just can't put them in resolutions. However, I doubt the mods will go out of their way to delete this.

*crosses fingers*

You can discuss such things IC; you can even discuss RL things IC; you just can't put them in resolutions. However, I doubt the mods will go out of their way to delete this.

I actually think it's fine, since the original resolution does focus mostly on woodchipping (and mining), so it could be saying that we should concentrate on all industries.

Drae Nei will vote in favor of this repeal.

The Dominion of Steweystan sees no difficulties in this repeal

Wolfgang's holographic doppleganger rises. "The Great Commonwealth of the Wolf Guardians supports this repeal. Good luck."

You have the full support of the Queendom. Good luck.


Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

This resolution is like a freaking cockroach! It just doesn't want to die! Half the UN, and most all of the long-standing members, have been beating this thing with repeal after repeal after repeal! And it
JUST
WON'T
DIE!
How is it still here? It must be the most hated resolution in history!

Van dieman land isn't even around anymore, but I award him or her the UN Special Achievement Award for Most Infamous Resolution.

I second that motion.

It's kinda-sorta borderline, but I wouldn't nuke over it.

How is it still here? It must be the most hated resolution in history!
I don't know about most hated, but it definatly qualifies as the most abused.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

I don't know about most hated, but it definatly qualifies as the most abused.You're only saying that for personal reasons... ;)

Thank the gods.

Let's repeal this filth once and for all.

Hey, since it doesn't really make any difference to us¹, we decided to add everybody to the list (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List).

Don't thank us all at once.
__________________________

¹We're already on the list anyway, and we chose the “back to the trees” environmental option long before that, anyway.²

²Yes, this means we already have dibs on all the best branches.

You're only saying that for personal reasons... ;)

Well yeah, why do you think I added the line "WHL Victim" after my title? And then there's the fact the The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites qualifies for about half a dozen of the entries.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

Well yeah, why do you think I added the line "WHL Victim" after my title?Sure, Bob, but do you really want “logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities” on your ... <ahem>?

In a way, it's kinda sad. Having a Wiki list of real protected sites would be nice.

Sure, Bob, but do you really want “logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities” on your ... <ahem>?
I had to fend off a lawsuit that claimed that taking advantage of CPESL's services was an "environmentally-damaging activity," thankfully the Supreme Court of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites ruled in my favor on that case.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

I had to fend off a lawsuit that claimed that taking advantage of CPESL's services was an "environmentally-damaging activity," thankfully the Supreme Court of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites ruled in my favor on that case.D_mn_d lawyers! Everyone knows that CPESL is 100% “eco-friendly”.

I suppose that'll be just one more piece of ammo for the tart ... er, tort reform faction...

Anyway, back to the WHL. Everybody's on it. I guess that means that if folks don't like that, they'll have to vote to repeal.

Norderia supports this repeal. There isn't much the author could do to mess this one up.

The Republic of Krioval will support this repeal. While we agree that the intentions of the World Heritage List were honorable, the execution leaves much to be desired. Perhaps a group of interested nations could craft a resolution that works to protect environmentally sensitive areas while minimizing abuse in the future.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

Voted for. I can't wait to hear the arguments of those who are against this.

My first official act as representative for the Klingon nation of Kolothland is to vote proudly for this repeal.

Didn't need to check for my employers opinion on this one either. It is well known they despise this paticular peice of drivel and will be glad to see it off the UN books.

Now, to go see what sort of state those crazy witches left my new office in.

Wally Mossop
Kolothland representative to the UN

Subjects concerning Environmental and Cultural Heritage are considered by our Government strictly internal.
Further, the currently in-force Resolution is out of date and of questionable use so far.
We vote FOR.
:)
The Republic of Gerontas
UN Representation

The Goverment of Kurtrier sees the shortcomings of the current resolution No. 37, but believes that this resolution is still better than no regulation at all. Threrefore Kurtrier decied to vote angainst the Repeal of Resolution No. 37.

If a proposal would come to vote, which replaces the current Resolution No. 37 with something more substantial, Kurtrier will certainly be to be more sympathetic.

If a proposal would come to vote, which replaces the current Resolution No. 37 with something more substantial, Kurtrier will certainly be to be more sympathetic.
Since (by the rules of the game) replacement proposals cannot even be considered until the current proposal is repealed, perhaps you should consider aiding the process by clearing the way.

Sirat votes for the repeal.

Me too, as soon as the UN accepts me

Barren Trevor Bolt the official representitive of the Republic of 4stringopia stretched as he wakes from a particularly revitalising nap in the back of the room.

'What are we voting on?'

Someone, whispers into Barren's ear and he shakes his head.

'Your kidding, when is a real proposal going to come in... 4stringopia fully supports this repeal, wake me when something worth debating pops in...'

Barren then turns over and goes back to sleep...

I had to fend off a lawsuit that claimed that taking advantage of CPESL's services was an "environmentally-damaging activity," thankfully the Supreme Court of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites ruled in my favor on that case.

There needn't have been a suit if only you'd been a little more discreet about it. I mean, really...jackhammering one of our servicewomen on the front lawn of the UN building? A bit brazen, don't you think?

D_mn_d lawyers! Everyone knows that CPESL is 100% “eco-friendly”.

And we're even more friendly if you pay us enough...

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21)'s Vice President of Marketing and Public Relations
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The GPRG will vote for this repeal. We hope that the replacing resolution quickly reaches the UN-floor.

Glenn-Kenneth Goth

UN-Office
GPRG

Norderia supports this repeal. There isn't much the author could do to mess this one up.

Well, I'm sure I could manage something, but that would be a little silly, I suppose.

I'd like to thank everyone for their overwhelming show of support at this early stage of voting. Here's hoping that the trend continues through the entire debate.

Tzorsland would vote for the repeal, but we just left the UN so we can't. :(

We do know a former puppet who would gladly vote for the repeal. I can't officially speak for them, and apparently he's still going through security clearances so he can't come to the chambers at this time.

OOC: I finally manged to get to post something on the account only to be told that I was on "moderated status" and that my post had to be approved by the moderator. So once my post goes through on meet the reps 2.5 then he might become more active around these parts.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/smiley-linie-006.gif

Voted for. I can't wait to hear the arguments of those who are against this.Well, since I just added...Every member nation within the United Nations, including all of their terrestrial, undersea, and extraterrestrial territories, along with all of their national waters, airspace, and claimed regions of extraterrestrial void...to the list, the best argument would be that the lot of us should go “back to the trees”. But at least we're not being hypocritical, like the Saints in David Weber and John Ringo's “Prince Roger (http://www.amazon.com/gp/series/90779?ie=UTF8&edition=mass_market)” series: we headed back when we became a new nation over a year ago.

You have to admit that if you're unalterably opposed to all industry, it's not a bad argument. If you're not, well, it thoroughly reeks.

OOC: Since we added everybody to the list to force everybody's hand, our government is now divided between the pragmatists and idealists; the former want a repeal, the latter are opposed. But this is NationStates, where unintended consequences rule... ;)

And - on that note - if someone goes in and deletes my entry again, then I will TG against this repeal on the grounds that the list can indeed be managed, and that the only reason Bob Flibble's “genetic jackhammer” or “The entire Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg” are on the WHL is because the nations in question want them there.

You can delete them later, if the repeal fails (fat chance!). But - in case you're too slow to get it - I put them there to prove a point: due to the way the Resolution works, sooner or later everybody in the U.N. will end up on the WHL anyway.

The Goverment of Kurtrier sees the shortcomings of the current resolution No. 37, but believes that this resolution is still better than no regulation at all. Threrefore Kurtrier decied to vote angainst the Repeal of Resolution No. 37.

If a proposal would come to vote, which replaces the current Resolution No. 37 with something more substantial, Kurtrier will certainly be to be more sympathetic.

*Bob runs over to the rep. from Kurtier and quickly defenestrates them.

Anyone else voting against?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

And - on that note - if someone goes in and deletes my entry again, then I will TG against this repeal on the grounds that the list can indeed be managed, and that the only reason Bob Flibble's “genetic jackhammer” or “The entire Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg” are on the WHL is because the nations in question want them there.


Please keep in mind that it may be getting removed by one of the supporters of this repeal. It may be getting done by someone who wishes to try and force your hand.

There have been arguments made in the past that the wiki list is not an official one anyways, but I'd like to avoid that line of argument. That is why there is no mention of that kind of abuse in the text of the repeal, focussing instead on some of the other flaws.

We are proud of the Commonalitarianism's fine cultural and environmental heritage, repealing this act would do much to damage our lead in creating meaningless World Heritage sites. As part of this legislation we wish to add all of Cluichstan's underwear to the World Heritage List so he may breathe easier forevermore.

We are proud of the Commonalitarianism's fine cultural and environmental heritage, repealing this act would do much to damage our lead in creating meaningless World Heritage sites. As part of this legislation we wish to add all of Cluichstan's underwear to the World Heritage List so he may breathe easier forevermore.

But I don't wear underwear.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

But I don't wear underwear.No, apparently he wears cute little soccer shorts (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=272&view=findpost&p=6053973) 'neath them frilly robes.

Not sure I wanted to know that...

Not sure I wanted to know that...

Not sure Nadnerb wanted you to know that, either.:p

Grand Utoy Stewey looks at the Kivisto Ambassador, eyebrow raised, a rather dead panned look on his face.

"Makes me glad Steweystan has a very strict Pants & Undergarments Law..."

Not sure I wanted to know that...

Awww, but look at the sweet little sheik in his soccer panties (http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/338/nadnerbfootieto9.jpg)! Isn't he adorable!

OOC: I know I'll be booed as a spoilsport, but as a former sysop on NSwiki I thought I'd suggest laying off the page now. The joke has been done to death, pretty much every conceivable variant on "everyone" has been put on and, whilst I do still find some of the entries amusing, I don't think there'll be much value in spending another 5 days plugging away at it.

Not an order - I have no authority to give that, and wouldn't even if I did. But maybe the repeal could be taken as a signal to let it go.

OOC: I finally manged to get to post something on the account only to be told that I was on "moderated status" and that my post had to be approved by the moderator.

OOC: That just started happening, apparently at random, and we don't know why. Please post details about what happened in the Moderation forum so we can check it out with Jolt. Thanks.

OOC: I know I'll be booed as a spoilsport, but as a former sysop on NSwiki I thought I'd suggest laying off the page now. The joke has been done to death, pretty much every conceivable variant on "everyone" has been put on and, whilst I do still find some of the entries amusing, I don't think there'll be much value in spending another 5 days plugging away at it.

Not an order - I have no authority to give that, and wouldn't even if I did. But maybe the repeal could be taken as a signal to let it go.

OOC: As a current sysop, I've been watching the brewing edit war on that article, and if it goes any further I do intend to step in. And if that's not enough I can always protect the page until things have calmed down.

Awww, but look at the sweet little sheik in his soccer panties (http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/338/nadnerbfootieto9.jpg)! Isn't he adorable!

Looking at the Arridian Ambassador, I shake my head...

"Something tells me I should go have a drink right about now...

Grand Utoy Stewey leaves to have a drink in the bar...

Ellelt Fully Supports the repeal of the despicable WHL. Further we are actively campaigning in our region to push the rest of our comrades to vote in favor of the repeal.

Further the Elleltian Supreme Soviet has passed a law requiring public flogging for any Elleltian Citizen who disagrees with the government's position on repealing the WHL.

Now if you don't mind...I need to get back to directing the construction crew that is remodeling my new office on the 40th floor. We will be having the grand opening in a few days after the paint is dry, and the Portraits of The Great Leader and Teacher of the Elleltian Peoples Comrade Serpov arrive.

*turns to his aide* "Dimitri quit staring at the Sheik's football shorts...thats rude."

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian UN Ambassador

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! The World Heritage List is briliant! Not in helping save the enviroment, but in producing a beautiful way to destroy your enemies.

Ok, now look at this, "All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities."

Are you seeing this? Ok, I now list all of the Allied Communist States' nations as sites of enviromental significance. The logging industries and mining industries have now been destroyed. Along with anything that damages the enviroment, i.e. transporting goods in fossilfuel burning vehicles, and factories that produce any waste what so ever. Their economies will now fail, and they will be left destitute. Works well right? Well, I don't want to be a victim of this. So I say, repeal the hell out of this one.

This repeal has my vote.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! The World Heritage List is briliant! Not in helping save the enviroment, but in producing a beautiful way to destroy your enemies.

Ok, now look at this, "All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities."

Are you seeing this? Ok, I now list all of the Allied Communist States' nations as sites of enviromental significance. The logging industries and mining industries have now been destroyed. Along with anything that damages the enviroment, i.e. transporting goods in fossilfuel burning vehicles, and factories that produce any waste what so ever. Their economies will now fail, and they will be left destitute. Works well right? Well, I don't want to be a victim of this. So I say, repeal the hell out of this one.

Actually that is the main reason we are for the repeal of the travesty of legislation known as the WHL...but I believe we have already been added to that list by someone else.

However, please come to the grand opening of our new UN office, just don't try to eat the paint...it contains lead. Oh and don't try to get the guards to smile either...they won't smile, but they do have nice pointy bayonets on their AK-47's. Nothing quite as sexy as an AK-47 with a bayonet affixed to it.


Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

Will you be sending out a formal invite to us Delegates?

I've already voted in favour of this repeal.

Actually that is the main reason we are for the repeal of the travesty of legislation known as the WHL...but I believe we have already been added to that list by someone else.

However, please come to the grand opening of our new UN office, just don't try to eat the paint...it contains lead. Oh and don't try to get the guards to smile either...they won't smile, but they do have nice pointy bayonets on their AK-47's. Nothing quite as sexy as an AK-47 with a bayonet affixed to it.


Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

I am glad our two regions are in agreement on something here. Count us in on the grand opening.

Yes, they are at the printing office now.

Nothing quite as sexy as an AK-47 with a bayonet affixed to it.

I don't know. I'm stll fond of an M1 Carbine with bayonet, or a bolt action Springfield M1903 in terms of "sexy."

You can't out sexify the Short Magazine Lee Enfield Number One Mark Three with the P-1907 17" Quillon bayonet.

Looking back and forth between the two Ambassadors, Grand Utoy Stewey, raises an eyebrow.

Sooooo... I'm gathering we're all agreed that his repeal has a very good chance of going through?

well I cant fathom a reason to oppose this repeal. The WHL is a really terrible law.

stilll...543 people still believe that the WHL is good???

Mavenu votes for the repeal to go through

The Empire wishes to announce that it supports the repeal. As a piece of legislation, the World Heritage List was always poor; it never produced anything useful or tangible for the nations of the world. We would hope that the replacement piece of legislation is far better in this regard.

John Smith
United Nations Ambassador from the Empire of Alexandrian Ptolemais

Retired Werepenguins supports this repeal. :D

Ceorana wholeheartedly supports this repeal with a great deal of wholeheartedness.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: As a current sysop, I've been watching the brewing edit war on that article, and if it goes any further I do intend to step in. And if that's not enough I can always protect the page until things have calmed down.<Sigh>

O.K., well, we reserve the right to add the entire U.N. to the WHL if the repeal fails. Save the whales! Save the snails! Save the world! Back to the trees!

In the meantime, we have satisfied ourselves with the following: The entire nation of any U.N. ambassador who mentions Community Property on the floor of the General Assembly

The entire nation of any U.N. ambassador who uses the character "_" or footnotes on the floor of the General Assemblystilll...543 people still believe that the WHL is good???Our government is still deadlocked. The idealists see this as a possible “fast track” to eliminating all industry everywhere. Think of the children!

The pragmatists are tearing their hair out.

From the original resolution: "All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities."

How in the world did something this flawed ever pass in the first place? Altanar will very happily vote for its repeal.

<Sigh>


<OOC & NSwiki sysop hat>
Just so I'm perfectly clear on this point, my comment wasn't to criticise you specifically, or Cluichstan specifically, or anyone else. What I'm saying is that when there's a disagreement over the content of an article, and that disagreement devolves into an "edit war", it's normal for the article to be protected, and for the disagreement to be resolved elsewhere - for example, on its talk page.
</sysop hat>

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity has been disappointed in the abuse that has frequently targeted the list itself, but remains firm in our believe that a World Heritage List is important. We vote against this repeal.

OOC:
I'm still disappointed that only a small handful of us ever tried to do anything positive with this. I am honestly of the opinion that many active UN players get more enjoyment out of deconstructing nations than building them. I'm marking this as a sad day for NationStates.

I'm still disappointed that only a small handful of us ever tried to do anything positive with this. I am honestly of the opinion that many active UN players get more enjoyment out of deconstructing nations than building them. I'm marking this as a sad day for NationStates.The editing of the WHL has raised an interesting point: if a nation can simply remove itself from the list any time it pleases (and obviously it can), then what in fact is the problem with the WHL?

All OOC...

No, apparently he wears cute little soccer shorts (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=272&view=findpost&p=6053973) 'neath them frilly robes.

Awww, but look at the sweet little sheik in his soccer panties (http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/338/nadnerbfootieto9.jpg)! Isn't he adorable!

Y'all are really starting to frighten me...

OOC: As a current sysop, I've been watching the brewing edit war on that article, and if it goes any further I do intend to step in. And if that's not enough I can always protect the page until things have calmed down.

For the record, I've not recently added anything to the list, as I'm sure you know, but have only deleted stupid shite like "everything on the planet, plus stuff 5 km above and below sea level." The other stuff, the more specific stuff, is funny, and I haven't touched it.

May we put the new UN Statue on that list... the "My Time With the Feral Babies" one that's being brought in?

OOC:


Y'all are really starting to frighten me...


Good, good. :D


For the record, I've not recently added anything to the list, as I'm sure you know, but have only deleted stupid shite like "everything on the planet, plus stuff 5 km above and below sea level." The other stuff, the more specific stuff, is funny, and I haven't touched it.

Yes, I know exactly what your edits have been. ;) As I said, there's nothing wrong with them. It's simply that, when an edit war starts brewing, the disagreement needs to be resolved rather than people continue to make edits and counter-edits. I wasn't implying criticism of what any specific person has done.

In any case, it seems to be quiet again now...

The editing of the WHL has raised an interesting point: if a nation can simply remove itself from the list any time it pleases (and obviously it can), then what in fact is the problem with the WHL?

It is my understand that it is not the removal of entries from the WHL, but rather the addition that has been the focus of the argument in favor of repealing the existing resolution / list. But in fact, the list was maintained literally for years without vanadalism. It was not until the advent of repeals that non-serious additions started appearing on the list.

My nation's reservation has been that we feel there has not been near enough discussion on the merit of the idea itself (something that we feel would have manifested in a viable unilateral replacement proposal prior to repeal reaching the floor).

-Howie Katzman

All OOC...
Y'all are really starting to frighten me...

What? You don't want anyone seeing your cute little pink panties? :p

IC:

I have to say that I'm quite surprised by the vote. I figured it would do well, but not a well as it's doing. Good job!

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

The editing of the WHL has raised an interesting point: if a nation can simply remove itself from the list any time it pleases (and obviously it can), then what in fact is the problem with the WHL?
Actually, you can only take yourself off of the NSWiki List, which is unofficial to begin with. The resolution has no provisions to have yourself taken off of the list.

Plus there are tons of other flaws. For instance, I can define "environmentally damaging activities" as the growing and sale of marijuana, and all I have to stop on parts of my nation on the WHL is the growing and sale of marijuana. In fact, that's what I do. And it helps when the hippies wanting weed try to have it legalized. "Sorry, the UN has my hands tied!"

Well Ellelt will not vote in favor of a replacement to the WHL. Areas of ecological, cultural, historical significance are not the business of the UN in our view, and legislation regarding the topic have shown themselves prone to abuse.

We would be better off without the WHL or any replacement for it, unless of course that legislation would only cover areas defined by the nation which contains the area of ecological/historical/cultural significance and could be removed by that nation at any time; which would in our opinion result in a useless (perhaps even illegal) resolution, as the nations may already do so without a resolution saying that they can.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity has been disappointed in the abuse that has frequently targeted the list itself, but remains firm in our believe that a World Heritage List is important. We vote against this repeal.

I think it's worth mentioning that the text of the repeal makes no mention of real, potential, or implied abuse. There are other aspects to the WHL that are inherently flawed. You are arguing points that are not entirely relevant to the matter at hand. There is something to be said for maintaining sites of significance, but the WHL fails to do so in an adequate fashion

The editing of the WHL has raised an interesting point: if a nation can simply remove itself from the list any time it pleases (and obviously it can), then what in fact is the problem with the WHL?

One of the easiest responses to both this and Mik's concern is covered by Kedalfax's statement in whole or part.

Actually, you can only take yourself off of the NSWiki List, which is unofficial to begin with. The resolution has no provisions to have yourself taken off of the list.

And I would also return to the fact that such abuses of the WHL, whether valid or not, are not targetted by this repeal. While I understand, and to a degree support, such concerns, they are not strictly pertinent to this discussion.

I think it's worth mentioning that the text of the repeal makes no mention of real, potential, or implied abuse. There are other aspects to the WHL that are inherently flawed. You are arguing points that are not entirely relevant to the matter at hand. There is something to be said for maintaining sites of significance, but the WHL fails to do so in an adequate fashion.

My apologies. You are completely correct that the well written repeal does not make any mention of that aspect.

However, my government still feels there must be some support shown for maintaining a list of protected sites of cultural significance.

My apologies. You are completely correct that the well written repeal does not make any mention of that aspect.

However, my government still feels there must be some support shown for maintaining a list of protected sites of cultural significance.

Ceorana strongly supports these comments, and hopes for a replacement. Our history and culture must be preserved for future generations.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

Those sentiments I can appreciate. Perhaps you might be interested in contributing to the drafting process that is already underway not to far from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386). Your input would be greatly appreciated, and I'm sure that we can manage to put something together that we could all be proud of. It is currently targetted at environmental sites, but some expansion is possible, I'm sure.

I, as the voice of the people of the Dominion of Quasi-Libertines, do hereby pledge my support for the appeal of the WHL. I agree with the aforementioned notions that the legislation as it exists is flawed and leaves too many things unsaid... or said in such a way as to bring distinct harm or disadvantage to some nations.

We are a fledgling nation, but I am of the mind to assume that if the proposal has come under attack repeatedly in the past, there must be major flaws in the legislation - and therefore, I can see no reason to leave it on the books now, when it is causing such a headache. For these reasons, the most expedient route is to repeal it.

A re-written version that better details the points left obscure or includes more information than that which is now enacted, but I worry that we will not be able to write a perfected version that will avoid the complications we are running into with the current resolution. Perhaps it would be best for everyone if we simply repealed this resolution and let the idea die. However, I could be wrong; it could be quite easy to re-write this in a way that would make its intentions crystal clear and give simple-to-follow guidelines on what should be considered "protected" and who is allowed to designate areas as worthy of such protection.

Lady Lib
Benevolent Figurehead
Dominion of Quasi-Libertines

The mighty yet apathetic people of Hackonia don't really care what you do, it probably won't affect our daily lives. The government, on the other hand, has decided to cast thier vote with the ayes.

Nimsakharō Kunchī's government supports this resolution in full. It is time for the United Nations to strike from the books those resolutions which serve no evident purpose and/or have shown themselves to be prone to abuse.

Natwarō Kunchenī
Ambassador to the United Nations
Dhāna

And - on that note - if someone goes in and deletes my entry again, then I will TG against this repeal on the grounds that the list can indeed be managed, and that the only reason Bob Flibble's “genetic jackhammer” or “The entire Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg” are on the WHL is because the nations in question want them there.OOC: And here's where an interesting division come into play, In Character Bob hates that his "genetic jackhammer" is on the list, however I as a player find it's being on the list to be absolutly hilarious.

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity has been disappointed in the abuse that has frequently targeted the list itself, but remains firm in our believe that a World Heritage List is important. We vote against this repeal.IC: You know Mr. Katzman, I hate to have to do this, but I decided that anyone who I find out voted against this repeal will be defenestrated. I suggest you roll when you land.
*Bob picks up Howie Katzman and throws him out the window.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

You know Mr. Katzman, I hate to have to do this, but I decided that anyone who I find out voted against this repeal will be defenestrated.We're still divided; does that mean we get thrown out halfway?

Seems I made a wise choice to vote for the repeal...

We're still divided; does that mean we get thrown out halfway?
You will be dangled out the window by your heels until you arrive at a sensible decision.

You will be dangled out the window by your heels until you arrive at a sensible decision.Well, that's annoying. If we knew what a sensible decision was, we could arrive there. :p

I think it's the one that keeps you from going splut on the pavement...

We will happily vote for any proposal or repeal that uses this word.

Sincerely

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

OK this is a nice and cute plan.Save the trees! Hug the enviroment! I take that none in the supporting realms do not use wood , iron , copper , petroil , gold , plastic , mineral water , or any other product deriving from the nature. I WILL vote against if the members of UN do not provide alternatives. I will be happy to provide my universities research to find some of the possible alternatives such as the currently in developement :

1.Plastic instead of wood (plants still need petroil , electricity )

2. Hydrogen engines insted of Internal Combustion engines (plants still need petroil , electricity )

3.Solar / wind electricity (plants still need petroil , electricity )

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen in this august chamber and all you delegates and representatives, on behalf of the Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins I would like to rise in support of this resolution’s repeal. (Hey this is fun!) (Yes madam secretary that’s Flash Blonde, B L O N D E, from Retired Werepenguins, W E R … ok you got it … I’m sure the paperwork will arrive at your desk shortly, we’ve only just been approved recently you know.)

Yes I support this repeal. The WHL is a nice well meaning idea but it is not a good idea for a United Nations resolution. The repeal authors have already spelled out their reasons in simple and elegant language that even a Blonde like me can understand. I would like to break down the question in simpler terms. What is the purpose of the WHL in the first place? If the purpose is to allow nations to protect their own resources, then one does not need the UN to do this. Any nation, even those nations not in the UN can choose to protect their own resources. They only have to do it.

If, on the other hand, the WHL is a tool to allow nations to protect others resources, then this is by its very nature flawed notion, open to massive abuse. After all, membership in the UN is voluntary. If you are not a member you don’t have to abide by the resolutions of the UN, including the WHL. Yes it’s a strange game when the only winning strategy is not to play, but that’s life.

So let’s put this resolution in the circular file of well meaning but dumb ideas. Thank you for your time and can someone do something about these vile paper eating bunnies that are all around the place? They are really starting to freak me out.

What is the purpose of the WHL in the first place? If the purpose is to allow nations to protect their own resources, then one does not need the UN to do this. Any nation, even those nations not in the UN can choose to protect their own resources. They only have to do it.

I agree with my tourist-munching colleague. And perhaps the List could be retained in a non-official sense, so that nations may voluntarily add sites that are within their own borders.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

To the beloved member nations of the UN,

I have been asked by the people of The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA to make the following statement in regards to the UN Resolution to Repeal the World Heritage List.

Let us not be fooled by rhetoric that encourages us to only see the trees and not the forest. Every environmental protections-based resolution is potentially a threat to industry and the world's corporations, hence the Evironmental category description, "A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry."

When considering a repeal of this legislation, one must look at the larger picture of world environmental protection legislation and recognize the current trends and or strategic moves by industry to "clear cut" this legislation. See the wording for UN Resolution #137, Repeal "Save the forests of the World", implemented on Sat Dec 31 2005 as an example. In this particular repeal, it states, "ACKNOWLEDGING the clear overlap between the assumed intentions of its author and the mandate of Resolution #23, “Replanting Trees”." One of the arguments at the time of this proposed repeal was that it overlapped with another piece of legislation. This idea of saving the forests of the world has now been replaced by anti-woodchipping and anti-deforestation legislation.

This was followed by Resolution #140 Repeal "Mandatory Recycling" on Tue Jan 10 2006 and Resolution #143 Repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning" on Wed Jan 25 2006. Mandatory Recycling was replaced with a resolution that almost makes recycling mandatory, Resolution #159 "UN Recycling Commission" as it states, "4. REQUIRES member nations to ... - make every reasonable effort to separate recyclable waste materials from others, in order to facilitate efficient recycling practices." Then, on Fri Jun 9 2006, Resolution #162 Repeal "Replanting Trees" was passed. So one of the arguments for repealing the "Save the forests of the World" resolution is no longer valid and the protection of the world's forests dwindles even further.

The repeal of the World Heritage List is now the beginning of legislative repeals of anti-woodchipping and anti-deforestation legislation. This can be seen by looking at the proposal currently being discussed in order to replace the World Heritage List. This draft proposal (viewed here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386)) is written in such a way that makes it almost impossible to support. Not only is it weak and possibly more damaging to environmental protection than the UN Recycling Commission resolution, but it seeks to create even more distrust in the UN legislative process.

And this is but one example of the continual attack on the world's environment. Yes, the reasons for repealing the World Heritage List are genuine (as were the reasons for the former repeals) and do make sense **if we only look at this one resolution as if it existed apart from all others**. But, once the World Herigate List is gone, we no longer have protection for historical and/or environmentally sensitive areas throughout the world and the eventual repeal of other environmentally protective legislation becomes even more viable to Industry supporters.

Obviously, individual nations or regions may legislate environmental protections within their borders, but this does not stop environmental damage from happening on the land, water, or in the air just outside their borders.

We agree with the following nations sentiments of the seemingly obvious disregard for true environmental protection legislation:

If a proposal would come to vote, which replaces the current Resolution No. 37 with something more substantial, Kurtrier will certainly be to be more sympathetic.

My nation's reservation has been that we feel there has not been near enough discussion on the merit of the idea itself (something that we feel would have manifested in a viable unilateral replacement proposal prior to repeal reaching the floor). -Howie Katzman

I WILL vote against if the members of UN do not provide alternatives.

The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA will be opposing this repeal as we have not yet seen an effective proposed replacement. We encourage all UN member nations to re-evaluate their support for this repeal until a viable and effective replacement has been fully drafted and discussed.

Thank you all for your time,

Tumil Orno III
USA NA United Nations Lead Advisor

The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA will be opposing this repeal as we have not yet seen an effective proposed replacement. We encourage all UN member nations to re-evaluate their support for this repeal until a viable and effective replacement has been fully drafted and discussed.

Thank you all for your time,

Tumil Orno III
USA NA United Nations Lead Advisor

I think you should pay better attention to what's going on around you. You haven't seen anything being drafted and discussed for a replacement? You're either blind or just not looking hard enough.

Go here. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386)

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Hello good members, this is the humble Fifedom of Freemarsh representing the new, socially-conscious region of terraboardistan.

While we understand our position is not one of great influence and we shall always humbly defer to the majority we do feel compelled to inform this great collection of nations why we have voted against this repeal.

The main argument for the repeal seems to be that the wording of the original resolution is vague. To us the vagueness of the wording empowers individual nation states to manage their own historical lands however they wish and we consider this the key strength, not weakness, of the resolution.

In our brief history we, as a region, have been quite pleased that the resolution does not go so far as to introduce specific policies that would require rigid complaince. Even within our simple region of 11 nations we have vast geographic differences between our member nations so a blanket ruling would not be sensible. We too cannot see how a proposed but undelivered, more-specific alternative will do anything except increase bureaucracy, something we have absolutely no interest in. The reality is that without a non-pervasive alternative we simply get more deregulation so we felt we had no choice but to vote against the repeal at this time.

The articulate and astute Lead Advisor to the UN from The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA summed this up comprehensively earlier today and we wholeheartedly agree with him in an attempt to reverse momentum for a repeal that seems to have no point. We cannot see how anyone with a conscience could, in good faith, vote for repeal, especially and to beat a dead cow, without a viable alternative.

The original resolution has been serving the nation states just fine until now despite its unwarranted unpopularity and hopefully shall continue to do so into the future.

Hopefully when this repeal is defeated on Monday, and even if it is not, terraboardistan would like to volunteer its services to the drafting of new language that considers both the beauty of natural treasures and the competing demands of big business without stripping nation states of their discretion.

Fifedom of Freemarsh - UN Delegate from terraboardistan

I think you should pay better attention to what's going on around you. You haven't seen anything being drafted and discussed for a replacement? You're either blind or just not looking hard enough.

Go here. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386)

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of KarmicariaHe said viable and effective replacement. Perhaps Representative Petrov should "pay better attention."
The Confederated City States of Mikitivity has been disappointed in the abuse that has frequently targeted the list itself, but remains firm in our believe that a World Heritage List is important. We vote against this repeal.

OOC:
I'm still disappointed that only a small handful of us ever tried to do anything positive with this. I am honestly of the opinion that many active UN players get more enjoyment out of deconstructing nations than building them. I'm marking this as a sad day for NationStates.We must echo the disappointment of Mr. Katzman. It seems wrong for those who abused the list in order to prove it worthless to reap the rewards of their abuse.

There is and always has been a good intention behind the World Heritage List. (We are quite aware of the relationship between good intentions and hell--we areThe Confederated Hells after all.) In some very real ways, the ecological and historical treasures of the world belong to no one and everyone and their protection should very much exceed transient (historically speaking) political boundaries.

We have voted against this repeal suspecting that there is no real intent on the author to replace it, despite replacement being used as a primary argument for the repeal.


Leetha Talone
Acting Ambassador
Rubina

"Good intentions" mean nothing. If a law is bad, then a law is bad, and it needs to be scrapped. Staking your vote on whether repeal authors want a replacement is just plain silly, especially considering that no one is tying your hands against writing your own damned replacement once this pile is cleared out.

I think you should pay better attention to what's going on around you. You haven't seen anything being drafted and discussed for a replacement? You're either blind or just not looking hard enough.

Go here. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386)

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of KarmicariaWe will rephrase Karmicaria's comments in a somewhat gentler form: it is standard Antarctican practice, as we saw in the debate over the repeal of UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom”), to de-emphasize the replacement resolution in order to debate the repeal on its own merits. In that debate, Karmicaria had a replacement ready but did not make it available for public scrutiny until much too late in the voting - with the result that the repeal attempt failed.

Since then, members of the Antarctic Oasis have learned to publicly develop replacements and refer to them throughout the debate. This has helped overcome the natural skepticism of nations like ours, who would otherwise be inclined to believe that any reference to replacement in an Antarctican-sponsored repeal is nothing more than rank deception in the service of the most cycnical form of hypocrisy; with genuine public efforts to develop replacements in public by Kivisto and others, many of us are now able to begin trusting members of the Antarctic Oasis once more, a development that advances international harmony considerably.

We have read Kivisto's draft text for a replacement resolution and eagerly await it introduction to the delegates next Tuesday, as soon as this repeal passes. It is certainly ready for submission, having been well-crafted to appeal to nations of all political stripes. It is on the basis of the excellent replacement that we support this repeal.

(Or at least that half of our government that does support this repeal; the other half just wants to see the rest of the Universe added to the WHL as the last step in the ultimate triumph of environmentalism; hence, the split.)

Again, we're glad that proud Antarctican nations like Karmicaria and Kivisto has stepped up to the plate, answered the challenge, and put their nations' good names and reputations behind the promise to immediately introduce the aforementioned fine replacement as soon as this repeal is complete.

"Good intentions" mean nothing. If a law is bad, then a law is bad, and it needs to be scrapped. Staking your vote on whether repeal authors want a replacement is just plain silly, especially considering that no one is tying your hands against writing your own damned replacement once this pile is cleared out.Good intentions mean quite a lot. Evil legislation can be dressed up in "good" language, as you well know.

We don't dispute that the WHL is flawed. We merely object to the hypocrisy of using replacement as an argument for the repeal (language that most definitely exists as part of the argument of this repeal) and acting like there is going to be a replacement when sincerity of such is highly in doubt (we'll contribute 10,000 terus to the CEPSL, or whatever that disgusting organization of the Cluichstani's is, if Kivisto ever files a proposed replacement). It makes certain delegates' accusations of legalism and perfidy toward others ring hollow.
no one is tying your hands against writing your own damned replacement once this pile is cleared out.You got that right, bub.

--L.T.

So, lemme get this straight: you support a repeal, you support a replacement, you're even willing to write one up yourself, yet you are against removing a technical roadblock just because you don't trust the author? This line of "logic" is somewhat odd.

And please, don't encourage the sheik. He pimps for the CPESL enough as it is.

So, lemme get this straight: you support a repeal, you support a replacement, you're even willing to write one up yourself, yet you are against removing a technical roadblock just because you don't trust the author? This line of "logic" is somewhat odd.

And please, don't encourage the sheik. He pimps for the CPESL enough as it is.Correction. I don't support the repeal. Neither the repeal itself nor the arguments being used for the repeal. Flawed does not necessarily mean repeal-worthy. Should it be repealed, then yes we would support a replacement that has similar goals to the WHL.

Yes, we've noticed the sheik's... devotion... to his favorite cause.

--L.T.

Correction. I don't support the repeal. Neither the repeal itself nor the arguments being used for the repeal. Flawed does not necessarily mean repeal-worthy. Should it be repealed, then yes we would support a replacement that has similar goals to the WHL.


--L.T.

If being a bad piece of legislation and horrendously flawed isn't a reason to repeal something, then what is? Would you have opposed the repeal of "Fight The Axis of Evil" on the same grounds?

it is standard Antarctican practice,

Since then, members of the Antarctic Oasis have learned to publicly develop replacements and refer to them throughout the debate.

many of us are now able to begin trusting members of the Antarctic Oasis once more

we're glad that proud Antarctican nations like Karmicaria and Kivisto has stepped up to the plate

Goddamn it, not this shit again. Would you just lay the fuck off the Antarctic Oasis? I mean honestly, it's gone beyond petty.

Rang Erman

Correction. I don't support the repeal. Neither the repeal itself nor the arguments being used for the repeal. Flawed does not necessarily mean repeal-worthy. Should it be repealed, then yes we would support a replacement that has similar goals to the WHL.Correction. You said:

We have voted against this repeal suspecting that there is no real intent on the author to replace it, despite replacement being used as a primary argument for the repeal.That's what I was responding to.

Offering up arguments that are deemed moot by your disinclination to support any repeal is every bit as dishonest as you suspect this repeal's author of being.

He said viable and effective replacement. Perhaps Representative Petrov should "pay better attention."

I never said that it was good, viable or effective. I have been paying attention and wanted to divert any talk of a replacement to the proper place. This is not the place for it since there is already a "discussion" happening for the tree hugging filth that is trying to pass itself off as a replacement.

We will rephrase Karmicaria's comments in a somewhat gentler form: it is standard Antarctican practice, as we saw in the debate over the repeal of UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom”), to de-emphasize the replacement resolution in order to debate the repeal on its own merits. In that debate, Karmicaria had a replacement ready but did not make it available for public scrutiny until much too late in the voting - with the result that the repeal attempt failed.

It's not just "standard Antarctian practice". Repeal authors should try to make people see that they need to vote on the merits of the repeal rather then judge it on whether or not there's a replacement. Have you ever considered the possibility that not everything that is repealed needs to be replaced?

As for the replacement for Sexual Freedom, it was available both times that the repeal was up for vote. The second time, we wanted people to vote on the merits of the damn repeal. Judging from both repeal attempts, it would have failed no matter what. Drop the talk about that repeal. We are here to discuss the WHL repeal.

We have read Kivisto's draft text for a replacement resolution and eagerly await it introduction to the delegates next Tuesday, as soon as this repeal passes. It is certainly ready for submission, having been well-crafted to appeal to nations of all political stripes. It is on the basis of the excellent replacement that we support this repeal.

You're one of those tree humping hippies, aren't you? And, what's this talk about next Tuesday?

Again, we're glad that proud Antarctican nations like Karmicaria and Kivisto has stepped up to the plate, answered the challenge, and put their nations' good names and reputations behind the promise to immediately introduce the aforementioned fine replacement as soon as this repeal is complete.

Karmicaria has said nothing of the sort. At first, we did support the replacement. That has since changed. We want to see the World Heritage List gone, but feel that a replacement is unnecessary. Hence our decision to vote FOR the repeal based solely on the repeal itself. We're ignoring the so-called replacement.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

So, lemme get this straight: you support a repeal, you support a replacement, you're even willing to write one up yourself, yet you are against removing a technical roadblock just because you don't trust the author? This line of "logic" is somewhat odd.Is it?

Consider UNR #110 (“United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)”): many nations - including yours, we suspect - support UNR #110; yet in truth the resolution is worthless. Uttering what many of us have termed “the magic words” (“...Finding said weapons to be utterly unnecessary for the defense of any nation, we do hereby ban them.”), UNR #110 can be circumvented easily.

Now, as you well know - for you proved it yourselves, as authors of Section 8 of the late and unlamented UCAA - a more effective replacement could certainly be enacted. Does that mean that you, OMGTKK, will support the repeal of UNR #110? We think we know the answer: you would not, in large part because the likelihood of getting a superior replacement past this body is quite slim, whereas the risks you and your ideological peers would face were UNR #110 were to be repealed would be quite high (there are too many people out there who don't know the magic words, so we see otherwise legal arms control measures get struck constantly).

By your own logic, UNR #110 should go; but because there are cases in which half a loaf is better than none, we think you'll be likely voting “nay” when the time comes - as it will in the not-too-distant future.We merely object to the hypocrisy of using replacement as an argument for the repeal (language that most definitely exists as part of the argument of this repeal) and acting like there is going to be a replacement when sincerity of such is highly in doubt (we'll contribute 10,000 terus to the CEPSL, or whatever that disgusting organization of the Cluichstani's is, if Kivisto ever files a proposed replacement). It makes certain delegates' accusations of legalism and perfidy toward others ring hollow.With all due respect for our dear friends from Rubina, we very much doubt that Kivisto will fail to introduce its proposed replacement. Given the effort it has put into drafting a replacement and its citation of that measure as justification for this repeal, who could ever trust Kivisto again if it were to stab this body in the back in such a flagrantly cynical way?

Likewise for Karmicaria: after telling us we should stop whining about a replacement when one has been offered, and urging us to look there if we're concerned about this repeal, who will ever trust a single word from Mdm. Petrov's mouth were she discovered to be a party to such deception? Not only that, but given her delegation's reluctance to produce a replacement for UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom”) in the face of charges that it was the intention of her nation's bloc to strike that resolution without replacement, who would be able to look back at its late capitulation on that point and not see it as a supreme act of cynicism, wondering if in fact Karmicaria ever actually intended to offer its proposal to this body?

Kivisto, Karmicaria, and other supporters of this repeal who have told us to read the replacement must know that an honest reputation is like virginity: once lost, it can never be regained. We seriously doubt that they intend treachery. Nobody can be that stupid, and these are not stupid people. The may think that most Members of this body are cattle, and they may think most of us are stupid; but they certainly can't believe that none of us can remember what happens from one week to the next. No, a betrayal on this order would break the back of Antarctican political power; one does not play for those stakes short of total and final victory, and this is far from that. The repeal of the WHL is just not that important that these shrewd operators would deliberately take themselves onto those rocks short of their being bewitched by a Siren's song - and we don't hear that ending aria just yet.

Likewise for Karmicaria: after telling us we should stop whining about a replacement when one has been offered, and urging us to look there if we're concerned about this repeal, who will ever trust a single word from Mdm. Petrov's mouth were she discovered to be a party to such deception? Not only that, but given her delegation's reluctance to produce a replacement for UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom”) in the face of charges that it was the intention of her nation's bloc to strike that resolution without replacement, who would be able to look back at its late capitulation on that point and not see it as a supreme act of cynicism, wondering if in fact Karmicaria ever actually intended to offer its proposal to this body?

Didn't I ask you to drop the subject of Sexual Freedom? It is irrelevant to this topic, but if you want to know, yes there was the intention, at the time, to offer the proposal to this body. But since we're not planning another attempt to repeal Sexual Freedom, does any of this really matter? No, it doesn't. So, I ask you again, please drop the subject of Sexual Freedom and stick to the topic at hand please. If you would like to discuss this further find me in my office and we can talk.

Anyway, I didn't tell people to stop whining about a replacement, at least not this time around. All I wanted was for people to stop doing it here and take it to the discussion about the replacement. This is the repeal thread. Yeah I know. We've had this argument in the past. I'm done with it. Take any and all replacement discussion to the appropriate place.

Kivisto, Karmicaria, and other supporters of this repeal who have told us to read the replacement must know that an honest reputation is like virginity: once lost, it can never be regained. We seriously doubt that they intend treachery. Nobody can be that stupid, and these are not stupid people. The may think that most Members of this body are cattle, and they may think most of us are stupid; but they certainly can't believe that none of us can remember what happens from one week to the next. No, a betrayal on this order would break the back of Antarctican political power; one does not play for those stakes short of total and final victory, and this is far from that. The repeal of the WHL is just not that important that these shrewd operators would deliberately take themselves onto those rocks short of their being bewitched by a Siren's song - and we don't hear that ending aria just yet.

Okay, we have nothing to do with the replacement, so please stop mentioning us when talking about it. I gave you my reason for asking people to look over it. I'm done. And as the representative from Allech-Atreus said, lay off the Antarctic Oasis. We've had enough and I'm sure most others have as well. Give it a rest.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

Have you ever considered the possibility that not everything that is repealed needs to be replaced?Most certainly. UNR #110 is a perfect example of such a resolution. But when the time comes for its repeal, you won't hear us alluding to any replacement.

That's called “honesty”. I never said that it was good, viable or effective. I have been paying attention and wanted to divert any talk of a replacement to the proper place. This is not the place for it since there is already a "discussion" happening for the tree hugging filth that is trying to pass itself off as a replacement.So you're basically telling is that this...I think you should pay better attention to what's going on around you. You haven't seen anything being drafted and discussed for a replacement? You're either blind or just not looking hard enough.

Go here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386)...is just a fancy way of saying, “stop talking about a replacement”?

You'd be better served by simply saying that you don't think there ought to be a replacement and arguing that point alone. To try and defuse objections about the possibility of repeal without replacement by referring to a replacement you have no intention of supporting is disingenuous.

At least in the case of OMGTKK, I know where they stand. I can respect that kind of honesty, even if I don't agree with their position. Mind you, I think the perennial argument raised by all the usual suspects that “we should never talk about replacement until we're done with the repeal” is utter bunk; nothing happens in a vacuum, and for you to tell people how they ought to think about things is the very height of arrogance.

It is certainly a legitimate argument to say that one will only support a repeal if there's a sufficient likelihood that a suitable replacement will be enacted in its place. Just because there's no guarantee of the replacement coming off doesn't mean it's illogical to analyze the situation in terms of a problem in risk and risk management. It may not be an approach you'll ever take, but there's no law that we all have to look at things the way you do.

So, once and for all, stow this “not-proper-to-talk-about-replacements” tripe. It's a valid concern; address it or not, as you please. But dismiss it only at your peril.

Most certainly. UNR #110 is a perfect example of such a resolution. But when the time comes for its repeal, you won't hear us alluding to any replacement.

Good. Glad to hear it.

So you're basically telling is that this......is just a fancy way of saying, “stop talking about a replacement”?

Yes.

You'd be better served by simply saying that you don't think there ought to be a replacement and arguing that point alone. To try and defuse objections about the possibility of repeal without replacement by referring to a replacement you have no intention of supporting is disingenuous.

I did.
At first, we did support the replacement. That has since changed. We want to see the World Heritage List gone, but feel that a replacement is unnecessary. Hence our decision to vote FOR the repeal based solely on the repeal itself. We're ignoring the so-called replacement.

It may not be an approach you'll ever take, but there's no law that we all have to look at things the way you do.

I may at some point, but not right now and I never said that you had to look at things my way. I think that the day we agree on anything, is the day hell freezes over.

So, once and for all, stow this “not-proper-to-talk-about-replacements” tripe. It's a valid concern; address it or not, as you please. But dismiss it only at your peril.

I'll "stow" it if you lay off the entirety of the Antarctic Oasis.

Correction. I don't support the repeal. Neither the repeal itself nor the arguments being used for the repeal. Flawed does not necessarily mean repeal-worthy. Should it be repealed, then yes we would support a replacement that has similar goals to the WHL.

If this was a proper debating forum I would ask for permission to enter into a colloquy with the representative from Rubina, but instead I’ll just ask you a question. What are the “goals” of the WHL, because as far as I can see either this is a really good blocker or it’s so poorly written that is not only does nothing well, it prevents anything from being done at all!

The basic action clause of this resolution is “Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.” The definition of “environmentally-damaging activities” is not defined which apparently is what annoys Mr. Fibble, because I severely doubt anyone would want to mine or log his … well anyway I believe I was trying to make a point here.

The WHL list, as the old saying goes, does not cure cancer. It cannot be applied to non-UN members and it cannot be applied to non-UN member territory. It says that a thing shall be done without telling how such a thing will be done.

Of course I could be naive. Perhaps the real purpose or the real goal of the resolution really was to provide a means of economic warfare to member UN nations to allow them to cripple the economy of any other potential economic rival by placing that nation’s resources under the “protection” of the WHL, although such nations could in theory counterstrike by the attacked nation. Perhaps the original author had expected a MAD philosophy from preventing such economic warfare, or perhaps he was someone dumber than a Blonde like me.

Seeing that Tana Petrov is responding to the representative from Community Property I will refrain from commenting further. As a member of the Antarctic Oasis I am shocked and appalled by the baseless allegations of this representative towards our wonderful region. Likewise the slander of the Queendom of Karmicaria, whose Queen I managed to thankfully avoid being married to.

Flash Blonde, representative for the Retired Werepenguins

The democratic republic of Papalla will vote against the resolution.
I will be prepared to take in consideration an alternative resolution to replace the existing one but IMHO I disagree to dismiss the existing resolution leaving the matter unregolated.

Prime Minister Cidrolin of the Democratic Repubblic of Papalla

I never said that it was good, viable or effective. I have been paying attention and wanted to divert any talk of a replacement No, you didn't. But USA NA did (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12021073&postcount=99). You ignored their criteria for a replacement in your haste to slap them down.

Repeal authors should try to make people see that they need to vote on the merits of the repeal rather then judge it on whether or not there's a replacement.I disagree to a point. If there is a ready replacement, and if the delegate in good faith intends to submit such after repeal, it is quite relevant to mention and discuss it during the repeal process. I do agree that if the repeal author has no plans to submit a replacement they have no business implying such or listing future replacement as grounds for repeal. It's just not honest.
Correction. You said:

Quote:
We have voted against this repeal suspecting that there is no real intent on the author to replace it, despite replacement being used as a primary argument for the repeal.
That's what I was responding to.

Offering up arguments that are deemed moot by your disinclination to support any repeal is every bit as dishonest as you suspect this repeal's author of being.I apologize to the Kennyites for not being as clear as I could be.

Until such time as there is a replacement that I believe is both well-written, likely to be submitted and likely to pass, I am inclined (and have been instructed by those I represent) to reject this repeal. In some cases, and I believe WHL to be one, 'badly flawed, on the books' is better than nothing on the books for it at least continues to state the intent of this body to protect unique ecological and historical places. In addition, I repudiate the portion of the argument for the repeal that implies the author will submit a serious replacement proposal. I also repudiate the argument that has been put forth by others that environmental concerns are solely internal.

You are correct, we are distrustful of repeals, though we have voted 'yes' on close to a third of those proposed since repeals became legal. We do however, consider each repeal separately, so no, our arguments are neither moot nor dishonest.

--L.T.

It cannot be applied to non-UN members and it cannot be applied to non-UN member territory.And if I could engage you in a colloquy on this point, I would:

You appear to be suggesting that any resolution that doesn't affect Non-Members is unworthy of consideration. If this is your philosophy, then is there any resolution you believe worthy of being or remaining on the books?

You seem to be denying any basis for action on the part of this body whatsoever.

If this was a proper debating forum I would ask for permission to enter into a colloquy with the representative from Rubina, but instead I’ll just ask you a question. What are the “goals” of the WHL, because as far as I can see either this is a really good blocker or it’s so poorly written that is not only does nothing well, it prevents anything from being done at all!Representative Blonde (Mr.? Ms.? We apologize for not being able to tell by appearance.), we are not surprised that so many of today's delegates have difficulty understanding an old-style fluffy concept. And we acknowledge that the current iteration is both poorly written and, at least for the time being, is a serviceable blocker.

If our notes are correct, the goal of the WHL was to provide a mechanism to preserve pristine and key ecologies (both micro- and macro-), as well as historically significant constructs, for the benefit of all future generations regardless of nationality or location. Such places frequently extend beyond a single nation's borders and frequently outlast (if not destroyed by short-term action) nations' political systems.

Despite the current WHL's inefficiency and flaws, it does at least state the importance of preservation of such places.

It cannot be applied to non-UN members and it cannot be applied to non-UN member territory.
And if I could engage you in a colloquy on this point, I would:

You appear to be suggesting that any resolution that doesn't affect Non-Members is unworthy of consideration. If this is your philosophy, then is there any resolution you believe worthy of being or remaining on the books?

You seem to be denying any basis for action on the part of this body whatsoever.Thank you, Community Property for raising this issue. I too await an answer, though I much delay my curiosity and tend to some business in delegation offices.

--L.T.

If our notes are correct, the goal of the WHL was to provide a mechanism to preserve pristine and key ecologies (both micro- and macro-), as well as historically significant constructs, for the benefit of all future generations regardless of nationality or location. Such places frequently extend beyond a single nation's borders and frequently outlast (if not destroyed by short-term action) nations' political systems.

You are correct. No one disputes the original intent of the legislation, however, the issue is with the multiple grevious flaws within the legislation itself. Really, that's about the crux of the argument.

Despite the current WHL's inefficiency and flaws, it does at least state the importance of preservation of such places.

It does, it does. But does it achieve that goal? No.


Prince Tang
Ambassador

And if I could engage you in a colloquy on this point, I would:

You appear to be suggesting that any resolution that doesn't affect Non-Members is unworthy of consideration. If this is your philosophy, then is there any resolution you believe worthy of being or remaining on the books?

You seem to be denying any basis for action on the part of this body whatsoever.

I'm more than willing to engae you on that point. UN Membership is voluntary; you can't force a nation to do anything. UN resolutions can be designed to encourage a UN member to do something. In short you need the carrot and the stick. This resolution is merely a big stick that any UN member nation can use to hit another member nation.

The same applies to the lack of global scope of UN nations. If you need a resolution that must cover all nations then it won't work because only a small percent of nations are in the UN and the rest do not need to follow the resolution. Complete global disarment and perhaps massive CO2 reduction resolutions would fall into that category and you would get massive opposition because of this fact.

So to answer your question, there are a lot of resolutions I would consider.

With the goal of ending the attacks on the AO, allow me to say that as no point has any prominent member of the Antarctic Oasis supported what I have put forward for a potential replacement. Quite the contrary, many of them, as well as many others, have all put forward strenuous objections to it, for many reasons. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't need to exist at all. It contains loopholes similar or worse than those of WHL.

As for the rest....*shrug*....Your perception of the apparent "Antarctian Agenda" is frankly quite humourous.

At any rate, this is a discussion of the repeal. There is another discussion for the EPA elsewhere. While they are somewhat connected, it should not be an exceptionally difficult matter to keep the various discussions within their appropriate areas. If what is offered in the other thread is not suitable for your needs, let me know why there, and it will be dealt with there.

Personally, I'd prefer to keep this discussion on topic with the repeal. The arguments contained therein and their validity.

Representative Blonde (Mr.? Ms.? We apologize for not being able to tell by appearance.), we are not surprised that so many of today's delegates have difficulty understanding an old-style fluffy concept. And we acknowledge that the current iteration is both poorly written and, at least for the time being, is a serviceable blocker.

If our notes are correct, the goal of the WHL was to provide a mechanism to preserve pristine and key ecologies (both micro- and macro-), as well as historically significant constructs, for the benefit of all future generations regardless of nationality or location. Such places frequently extend beyond a single nation's borders and frequently outlast (if not destroyed by short-term action) nations' political systems.


OOC: You might have missed the line in my post or if you didn't you just indirectly called the Queen of Karmicaria gay. (Of course since she is currently marrying as we speak a man who wants to blow himself up one can never really know for sure.)

The last time I checked, I was a guy, so "Mr." is appropriate.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-183288376.jpg

There is an old saying that a wrench can be used to hammer a nail, but it's not a good idea when you could better use a hammer. This resolution doesn't cover pristine or key ecologies, cross border or otherwise. It covers anything and everything. It doesn't attempt to try to address the real problems of migratory animals and criticial habitats and biospheres.

If this was the intent of the resolution then it is clearly flawed in two ways. In the first place, there is no mechanism to determine what is really key, nation A might just as well oppose nation B's wind farms because it blocks their view of the sea/mountains for all we know. Secondly is the fact that the odds are that cross border environmentally sensitive areas are going to cross UN / Non UN borders. If I want to extend a biological buffer around my own nation's sensitive areas odds are I won't be able to do it through this resolution. If I want to annoy a UN nation, for any reason whatsoever then this is the resolution for me!

My previous post addresses the problem that you can't have a resolution that needs to be applied to the whole world in order to make it work. Cross border problems need to be addressed by both nations who share the common border, not by a fiat from the UN, because it just doesn't work.

I'm all in favor of the fluffy you have espoused, although I can't think of a reasonable way we could implement that in a UN resolution. But this resolution doesn't even come close to the fluffy espoused. Therefore I strongly oppose it because it is more of a weapon than a solution.

Flash Blonde - A Guy - Representative of Retired Werepenguins.

And please, don't encourage the sheik. He pimps for the CPESL enough as it is.

Oh, yeah! CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21), baby!

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6459/cpeslad4oe.jpg

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Note to Rubina, I posted a reply but got thrown into a moderated status on the post. It should appear shortly.

Note to Cluich, oh sure go ahead and post an img. When I do that my post gets thrown into moderated status!

Much of the debate on this resolution strikes us as, frankly, quite nonsensical.

If you're opposed to the repeal because you don't think its proponents plan to offer a replacement, my response to that is: so what if they don't? Are your pens and computers all broken in your country? You can draft a replacement if you want, or encourage others to do so.

In addition, keeping an inherently flawed resolution on the books just because "it's better than nothing" is itself a flawed concept. I am very grateful the Altanari Legislature doesn't draft our national laws that way, we'd be a basket case if they did. Bad laws are bad laws, period. They need to be removed, period. And a bad law can be a hell of a lot more harmful than no law at all.

"Bravo, bravo, Ambassador Krytellin! Very well said!"

Much of the debate on this resolution strikes us as, frankly, quite nonsensical.

If you're opposed to the repeal because you don't think its proponents plan to offer a replacement, my response to that is: so what if they don't? Are your pens and computers all broken in your country? You can draft a replacement if you want, or encourage others to do so.

In addition, keeping an inherently flawed resolution on the books just because "it's better than nothing" is itself a flawed concept. I am very grateful the Altanari Legislature doesn't draft our national laws that way, we'd be a basket case if they did. Bad laws are bad laws, period. They need to be removed, period. And a bad law can be a hell of a lot more harmful than no law at all.

I agree with the Representative from Altanar. Thank you very much!

*Tana stands, walks over to the rep from Altanar and kisses them on the cheek

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

"Bravo, bravo, Ambassador Krytellin! Very well said!"

Jaris acknowledges Ambassador Langdon's remarks with a graceful bow and a smile.

I agree with the Representative from Altanar. Thank you very much!

*Tana stands, walks over to the rep from Altanar and kisses them on the cheek

Jaris blushes at the kiss, but returns the gesture with a kiss to the hand of the Karmicarian representative.

Understandably the resolution that is being appealed was lacking and did for the most part concentrate only on the woodchipping industry. However, in repealing this law - we are going to be taking away the only protection the environment really has. No replacements have been offered immediately at the repealing of the law and all it takes is the shortest amount of time for other Nations to take full advantage of the absence of any law.

WHILST understanding that a bad law has little or no effect, it at least gives the power of other nations to shine controversy on those who would seek to exploit the environment for short term gain.

Why, may I ask then is so many people so ready to axe this resolution. Propose another law first that is going to make the previous redundant then fully repeal that one. the absence of a law in the meantime is far more harmful than the presence of a law that cannot really prosecute anyone - it at least gives other nations and media a focus point on which to launch a campaign against nations that would seek to exploit the environment.

Keep this resolution for now - repeal it AFTER a replacement is made.

Mikeswill's vote for Repeal "World Heritage List" has been noted.

The Resolution in question, though altruistic, legislates nothing: thereby merits Repeal.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

LAMENTS that UNR#37, despite its mention environmentally damaging activities, is narrowly targetted at only the woodchipping industry; <-----------
Quote.

It does address mining and others otherwise I'm completely blind :headbang: xD!

Much of the debate on this resolution strikes us as, frankly, quite nonsensical.

If you're opposed to the repeal because you don't think its proponents plan to offer a replacement, my response to that is: so what if they don't? Are your pens and computers all broken in your country? You can draft a replacement if you want, or encourage others to do so.

In addition, keeping an inherently flawed resolution on the books just because "it's better than nothing" is itself a flawed concept. I am very grateful the Altanari Legislature doesn't draft our national laws that way, we'd be a basket case if they did. Bad laws are bad laws, period. They need to be removed, period. And a bad law can be a hell of a lot more harmful than no law at all.

Grand Utoy applaudes the speeche.

"Well said, indeed... mayhaps more of us should be speak plainly, eh?"

However, in repealing this law - we are going to be taking away the only protection the environment really has. No replacements have been offered immediately at the repealing of the law and all it takes is the shortest amount of time for other Nations to take full advantage of the absence of any law.

No replacement offered, eh? What do you call this (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386), then?

Besides that, while we are well aware that harm can be done in the absence of law, you don't address my point that harm can also be done by bad legislation.

WHILST understanding that a bad law has little or no effect,

Really? And if I wrote and managed to get the UN to pass a law banning your nation from existence (which, by any definition, would be a bad law), would you still think bad laws have little or no effect?

it at least gives the power of other nations to shine controversy on those who would seek to exploit the environment for short term gain.

You can do that in a number of ways, without keeping bad legislation from being repealed.

Why, may I ask then is so many people so ready to axe this resolution.

Because the WHL (and pardon my undiplomatic language) sucks. It is poorly written, has ridiculous loopholes, and doesn't really do much for the environment at all. It is also open to tremendous abuse. Does that clear it up?

Propose another law first that is going to make the previous redundant then fully repeal that one.

You have to repeal the existing law before passing a new one. A repeal can't propose new legislation.

the absence of a law in the meantime is far more harmful than the presence of a law that cannot really prosecute anyone -

If it can't do anything, as you insist, what's the harm in repealing it?
it at least gives other nations and media a focus point on which to launch a campaign against nations that would seek to exploit the environment.

Again, you can do that in a number of ways, and that goal really doesn't justify keeping around bad legislation that doesn't help the environment much at all.

Keep this resolution for now - repeal it AFTER a replacement is made.

No, dump the harmful and bad legislation now, because it's bad. Why is this so hard a concept to grasp?

Grand Utoy applaudes the speeche.

"Well said, indeed... mayhaps more of us should be speak plainly, eh?"


Jaris gives a polite nod to the Steweystan representative. "It would help debates be a lot less painful sometimes."

Is it?

Consider UNR #110 (“United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)”): many nations - including yours, we suspect - support UNR #110; yet in truth the resolution is worthless. Uttering what many of us have termed “the magic words” (“...Finding said weapons to be utterly unnecessary for the defense of any nation, we do hereby ban them.”), UNR #110 can be circumvented easily.

Now, as you well know - for you proved it yourselves, as authors of Section 8 of the late and unlamented UCAA - a more effective replacement could certainly be enacted. Does that mean that you, OMGTKK, will support the repeal of UNR #110? We think we know the answer: you would not, in large part because the likelihood of getting a superior replacement past this body is quite slim, whereas the risks you and your ideological peers would face were UNR #110 were to be repealed would be quite high (there are too many people out there who don't know the magic words, so we see otherwise legal arms control measures get struck constantly).

By your own logic, UNR #110 should go; but because there are cases in which half a loaf is better than none, we think you'll be likely voting “nay” when the time comes - as it will in the not-too-distant future.We did not vote on Resolution #110. As it stands, unless the moderators revisit their ruling on the subject, the resolution may just as well die. The moderators' neutering of its mandates makes it pretty much useless anyway.

And even if it weren't, it (as well as the matter of Sexual Freedom) is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Stay on topic, please.

With all due respect for our dear friends from Rubina, we very much doubt that Kivisto will fail to introduce its proposed replacement. Given the effort it has put into drafting a replacement and its citation of that measure as justification for this repeal, who could ever trust Kivisto again if it were to stab this body in the back in such a flagrantly cynical way?

Likewise for Karmicaria: after telling us we should stop whining about a replacement when one has been offered, and urging us to look there if we're concerned about this repeal, who will ever trust a single word from Mdm. Petrov's mouth were she discovered to be a party to such deception? Not only that, but given her delegation's reluctance to produce a replacement for UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom”) in the face of charges that it was the intention of her nation's bloc to strike that resolution without replacement, who would be able to look back at its late capitulation on that point and not see it as a supreme act of cynicism, wondering if in fact Karmicaria ever actually intended to offer its proposal to this body?

Kivisto, Karmicaria, and other supporters of this repeal who have told us to read the replacement must know that an honest reputation is like virginity: once lost, it can never be regained. We seriously doubt that they intend treachery. Nobody can be that stupid, and these are not stupid people. The may think that most Members of this body are cattle, and they may think most of us are stupid; but they certainly can't believe that none of us can remember what happens from one week to the next. No, a betrayal on this order would break the back of Antarctican political power; one does not play for those stakes short of total and final victory, and this is far from that. The repeal of the WHL is just not that important that these shrewd operators would deliberately take themselves onto those rocks short of their being bewitched by a Siren's song - and we don't hear that ending aria just yet.We will rephrase Karmicaria's comments in a somewhat gentler form: it is standard Antarctican practice, as we saw in the debate over the repeal of UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom”), to de-emphasize the replacement resolution in order to debate the repeal on its own merits. In that debate, Karmicaria had a replacement ready but did not make it available for public scrutiny until much too late in the voting - with the result that the repeal attempt failed.

Since then, members of the Antarctic Oasis have learned to publicly develop replacements and refer to them throughout the debate. This has helped overcome the natural skepticism of nations like ours, who would otherwise be inclined to believe that any reference to replacement in an Antarctican-sponsored repeal is nothing more than rank deception in the service of the most cycnical form of hypocrisy; with genuine public efforts to develop replacements in public by Kivisto and others, many of us are now able to begin trusting members of the Antarctic Oasis once more, a development that advances international harmony considerably.

We have read Kivisto's draft text for a replacement resolution and eagerly await it introduction to the delegates next Tuesday, as soon as this repeal passes. It is certainly ready for submission, having been well-crafted to appeal to nations of all political stripes. It is on the basis of the excellent replacement that we support this repeal.

Again, we're glad that proud Antarctican nations like Karmicaria and Kivisto has stepped up to the plate, answered the challenge, and put their nations' good names and reputations behind the promise to immediately introduce the aforementioned fine replacement as soon as this repeal is complete.Antarctic Oasis bears no responsibility for the subject matter of this repeal, or the proposed replacement. I wasn't even aware of this repeal until a day before it came to vote, and I run the joint. If Kivisto fails to follow through with his replacement proposal, it will be the fault of Kivisto and Kivisto alone; not Antarctic Oasis, or for that matter, Karmicaria. Any attempt to smear this region on the basis of any single nation's actions will not be tolerated.

Also, it is, as you stated so eloquently before, "the height of arrogance" to set a deadline for the replacement's submission, the date by which you imply the reputation of this region will be sealed. So long as you yourself are not willing to offer up your own replacement for this legislation, the subject should be discussed on the author's timetable, not yours.

Could somebody dumb this down so I can understand it. I am sort of intelligent but this issue sort of stumps me. It might just be I'm new to politics


Vack the 3rd

si vis pacem para bellum

This law will clearly kill the economy of the poor while the rich find a way to bypass the law.I dont see employees complaining about their factory/plant paycheck and i dont see why I should force my already minimal economy to a peak of unemployment.Now if we were to vote on something enviromentaly friendly how about that :

Nations with great supplies of wood/minerals/resources make a communal contribution to every other UN nation.

Nations mentioned above should provide off-shore employment to others with minimal resources or bad economy.

Nations must fund the operations concerning supply and distribution of resources.


Nations with no access to such resources must be supported through tourism and cheaper imports.

All nations in UN must vote FOR. We CANNOT force a national economy that doesnt fulfill our desires! (Ever thought a desert nomadic people trying to produce wood or islands drilling for petroil while nations with millions of forests and petroil supplies leave them unexploited) Consider the application NOT the
ideal! Ideal comes when simplicity of application reaches maximum possible.

Thank you for considering my statements.

Could somebody dumb this down so I can understand it. I am sort of intelligent but this issue sort of stumps me. It might just be I'm new to politics

Dumbing down is my speciality. In fact, it's a Blonde tradition. I'd vote against anything whose basic principle I can't KISS (Keep it short and simple).

In ancient times (2003) people actually thought that a resolution that sort of sounded half way good was good even though it made no practical sense. "What if we made this list thing, and everyone could put places on it and they would all be protected and stuff." And when you think about that long enough, that's stupid. Anyone could put your land on the list and there was no way to get it removed. So there have been attempts before to get this thing removed. This is the latest one.

As Antarctic Oasis regional delegate, we are voting against this repeal, because of the duplicity in the promising of a replacement that won't be submitted. Those who continue to try to racially slander an entire region based on the actions of one or two of its members are invited to proceed through the door marked "shut up".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

If you're opposed to the repeal because you don't think its proponents plan to offer a replacement, my response to that is: so what if they don't? Are your pens and computers all broken in your country? You can draft a replacement if you want, or encourage others to do so.

In addition, keeping an inherently flawed resolution on the books just because "it's better than nothing" is itself a flawed concept. I am very grateful the Altanari Legislature doesn't draft our national laws that way, we'd be a basket case if they did. Bad laws are bad laws, period. They need to be removed, period. And a bad law can be a hell of a lot more harmful than no law at all.A wonderful sentiment to have when you'd just as soon see all law in a given area repealed and you're pretty sure that you've got an even or better than even chance of defeating the proposed replacement.

This is the part of the “damn-the-torpedoes-repeal-all-proposals-that-are-flawed” argument that flies in the face of reality. The same folks who urge us to ignore all possible replacements in a repeal will then fight all replacements tooth and nail; and then to add insult to injury they'll tell us that we're better off without any legislation anyway because anarchy - er, laissez-faire is the best of all possible words.

You can ignore political reality until the cows come home, but that doesn't mean we have to.I'm more than willing to engae you on that point. UN Membership is voluntary; you can't force a nation to do anything. UN resolutions can be designed to encourage a UN member to do something. In short you need the carrot and the stick. This resolution is merely a big stick that any UN member nation can use to hit another member nation.

The same applies to the lack of global scope of UN nations. If you need a resolution that must cover all nations then it won't work because only a small percent of nations are in the UN and the rest do not need to follow the resolution. Complete global disarment and perhaps massive CO2 reduction resolutions would fall into that category and you would get massive opposition because of this fact.

So to answer your question, there are a lot of resolutions I would consider.Reading your reply, I can't think of a single one that would fit your ideals of complete optionality combined with international scope. Free trade? Nope. Diplomacy, peacekeeping, and global disarmament? Nope. Collective security? Nope. Free trade? Nope.

By the foregoing logic, there is absolutely nothing the body should be doing - nothing whatsoever.

To be quite frank, we are astonished at the debate concerning a replacement to the WHL in this tread. Anyone who has read the rules concerning resolution proposals knows for a fact that repeals may not introduce new legislation.

As for replacing a resolution, one must first repeal an existing resolution that blocks the replacement, unless of course the author of the supposed replacement just likes having his/her proposals deleted by the mods and then joked about in the silly/illegal proposals thread.

While Ellelt's Government feels that a replacement is not necessary; I, Vladimir Khernynko, would personally like to see a replacement even if I will vote against it because of my orders from New Stalingrad.

As for those who complain about the lack of a replacement...There is a draft proposal replacement for the WHL already on the Forum.

Of course I must ask if all the pens in that nation(s) complain of the lack of a replacement proposal are broken. If its a matter of Pens, I'm sure I can offer some foreign aide to the nations with the broken pens that are preventing them from writing their own bloody replacement...Indeed the New Stalingrad Stationary Company has an over abundance of pens in its warehouses and we want to be rid of them. And they are quite nice pens too, they have our Motto: "Workers of the World, Unite!" and a prominent Elletian National Seal displayed upon them.

As for not debating replacements when repealing that only makes common sense...no replacement proposal would be considered legal by a mod until the passage of the repeal anyway. Once again refer to the rules concerning proposal resolutions...they are stickied in this very forum. The matter of that being AO policy or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion of this repeal resolution.

Indeed I am shocked at the mention of a supposed AO agenda. Really what agenda do they have that I have seen? Doing what is best for their member nations? What region doesn't do that.

I Urge all of the New nations that I have seen in this debate that are confused to read the WHL and to look at the NSWiki (Which although not official...can be enlightening to the potentials for abuse caused by the WHL as it is written currently) on the matter.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

A wonderful sentiment to have when you'd just as soon see all law in a given area repealed and you're pretty sure that you've got an even or better than even chance of defeating the proposed replacement.

I'm not sure which delegation you're referring to, but Altanar is a supporter of relevant, comprehensive and well-thought-out environmental legislation. The WHL doesn't qualify as any of those.

This is the part of the “damn-the-torpedoes-repeal-all-proposals-that-are-flawed” argument that flies in the face of reality. The same folks who urge us to ignore all possible replacements in a repeal will then fight all replacements tooth and nail; and then to add insult to injury they'll tell us that we're better off without any legislation anyway because anarchy - er, laissez-faire is the best of all possible words.

As we have previously pointed out, a replacement proposal was being debated. And I still don't see how the fear that a replacement to a flawed proposal won't be forthcoming, or might be opposed, justifies keeping a bad piece of legislation on the books. By that logic, we need to keep every piece of bad legislation, no matter how horrendously flawed, just because of the fear of the unknown, the fear of the scary legislative boogeymen that opponents of this repeal seem to see around every corner.

You can ignore political reality until the cows come home, but that doesn't mean we have to.

Speaking merely from a personal level, I don't ignore political reality; I was a politician back home, before being sent here by my King. Having dealt with politics before, however, I'm not scared of it as some here seem to be. None of the arguments you've made are remotely convincing to me as justification to keep a bad piece of law around. And the fact that certain opponents of this repeal seem to have so little faith in their own ability to pass effective environmental legislation that they want to keep a patently flawed resolution active just because of that does not convince me either. A good piece of environmental law (unlike the WHL) should be able to pass the GA without concern....if it's actually good enough, that is.

The definition of “environmentally-damaging activities” is not defined which apparently is what annoys Mr. Fibble, because I severely doubt anyone would want to mine or log his … well anyway I believe I was trying to make a point here.
You know, I'm not the only person who has their genitaila listed.
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich's testicles
And furthermore, the entriesAccelerus Dioce's "natural sausage".
Norderia's Noodle Could also be referring to people's genitalia.

As Antarctic Oasis regional delegate, we are voting against this repeal, because of the duplicity in the promising of a replacement that won't be submitted. Those who continue to try to racially slander an entire region based on the actions of one or two of its members are invited to proceed through the door marked "shut up".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Rono, Rono, Rono. You do realize what this means don't you? Now I have to defenestrate you too.:(

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

As Antarctic Oasis regional delegate, we are voting against this repeal, because of the duplicity in the promising of a replacement that won't be submitted. Those who continue to try to racially slander an entire region based on the actions of one or two of its members are invited to proceed through the door marked "shut up".Well, now, that does change some things.

We were wrong about the AO; whatever its agenda, clearly the desire to deceive the Members of this body was not as pervasive as we had feared. We appreciate Mr. Pyandran's candor and respect both him and his country for it, and offer our apologies.

That said, we were also wrong in giving Kivisto and some of its supporters the benefit of any doubt. We had not believed that they could be so stupid as to deliberately seek to hoodwink this Assembly, but obviously they are. Whatever measure of honor they had is now forfeit; whatever trust we may have once had in them was gone. To Rubina and others who first expressed their suspicions about this people, we also offer our apologies.

It is an odd position in which we find ourselves, but not an altogether surprising one. We can at least take our hats off to nations like OMGTKK and Cluichstan, who made clear their opposition to any replacement from the start; they were - and still are - true to their word, and we both respect and appreciate that, even where we find ourselves in stark opposition to their strongly held beliefs.

But for the rest of you, those of you who chose the part of political expediency over honor and sought to try and lure the rest of us into supporting your repeal on the basis of a sham, we have no respect at all. What did you think you would gain from this? Was repeal of the WHL worth so much that you would roll in the gutter for it? And did you think, having lain with swine, the stench wouldn't be noticed when all was said and done?

We have no doubt that the WHL will be repealed; we also plan on working as hard as we can to replace it with something stronger. To those who chose the path of honor - even those who oppose such environmental issues utterly - we welcome your feedback in this effort, supportive or not.

To the others, the dissemblers, we say this: get the H_ll out of our way.

Community Property votes against this repeal, as an expression of our contempt for liars.

<Kicks loose from Iron Felix's grip, swings over to hug a nearby tree, and climbs to the ground>

A wonderful sentiment to have when you'd just as soon see all law in a given area repealed and you're pretty sure that you've got an even or better than even chance of defeating the proposed replacement.

This is the part of the “damn-the-torpedoes-repeal-all-proposals-that-are-flawed” argument that flies in the face of reality. The same folks who urge us to ignore all possible replacements in a repeal will then fight all replacements tooth and nail; and then to add insult to injury they'll tell us that we're better off without any legislation anyway because anarchy - er, laissez-faire is the best of all possible words.

You can ignore political reality until the cows come home, but that doesn't mean we have to.Reading your reply, I can't think of a single one that would fit your ideals of complete optionality combined with international scope. Free trade? Nope. Diplomacy, peacekeeping, and global disarmament? Nope. Collective security? Nope. Free trade? Nope.

By the foregoing logic, there is absolutely nothing the body should be doing - nothing whatsoever.

I am fucking tired of your antics. If you want a goddamn replacement, put up or shut up. By all means, continue with your riduculous position! By all means, argue that poor laws should remain on the books because people haven't offered a replacement!

Did you lose the ability to legislate in the few hours since you presented your countervalue proposal to the assembley? Did you suddenly become an illieterate moron who couldn't legislate? Instead of authoring a completely useless proposal that has almost ZERO support, you could have been writing a replacement to the World Heritage List! Maybe you could have fulfilled your desire to legislate on fluffy leftist issues by writing the perfect replacement, one that even CLUICHSTAN might have supported.

But you didn't, and now you are wasting all of our time. Either present a viable replacement to the repeal, or stop whining about the lack of one. Contribute, or leave.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Now Officially Pissed Off

If you want a goddamn replacement, put up or shut up.Be careful what you ask for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allech-Atreus
If you want a goddamn replacement, put up or shut up.

Be careful what you ask for.

As far as this delegation is concerned, our colleague is correct. You've already agreed the current WHL is crap. So let's repeal it already! You want a viable replacement in hand before voting here, write it yourself! Otherwise, all you are doing is posturing.

As far as this delegation is concerned, our colleague is correct. You've already agreed the current WHL is crap. So let's repeal it already! You want a viable replacement in hand before voting here, write it yourself! Otherwise, all you are doing is posturing.

We agree with the representatives of Drae Nei and also Allech-Atreus. If your pen is broken because you have used it to write too much garbage...Here Have one of mine...I have several boxes of them and will be passing them out as tokens of appreciation to our UN Office opening reception anyway.

*crosses the floor and hands a pen to the Representative of Community Property.*

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

We have no doubt that the WHL will be repealed; we also plan on working as hard as we can to replace it with something stronger.

Good! I think that's what a lot of us have been suggesting this whole time.

To the others, the dissemblers, we say this: get the H_ll out of our way.

Who's in your way? You've even been given a new pen. Have at it.

You've already agreed the current WHL is crap.Actually, you've mistaken what we said:We have no doubt that the WHL will be repealed; we also plan on working as hard as we can to replace it with something stronger.There a difference between that which is certain to be repealed, and that which merits repeal. At this stage, the latter hardly matters.*crosses the floor and hands a pen to the Representative of Community Property.*If you turn around and hold still, kamarado, I'll show you how to use this little piece of metal and plastic to turn a U.N. Ambassador into a Popsicle...

If you turn around and hold still, kamarado, I'll show you how to use this little piece of metal and plastic to turn a U.N. Ambassador into a Popsicle...

We'd advise the honorable representative from Ellelt to take that comment seriously. After all, it's plain from this debate that the honorable representative from CP must have forgotten how to use a pen for its original purpose, writing....you know, things like replacement proposals...

(at a sudden sharp tug on his jacket from Cmdr. Meleketh, sitting next to him, Krytellin abruptly sits down)

I am fucking tired of your antics. If you want a goddamn replacement, put up or shut up. By all means, continue with your riduculous position! By all means, argue that poor laws should remain on the books because people haven't offered a replacement!

Did you lose the ability to legislate in the few hours since you presented your countervalue proposal to the assembley? Did you suddenly become an illieterate moron who couldn't legislate? Instead of authoring a completely useless proposal that has almost ZERO support, you could have been writing a replacement to the World Heritage List! Maybe you could have fulfilled your desire to legislate on fluffy leftist issues by writing the perfect replacement, one that even CLUICHSTAN might have supported.

But you didn't, and now you are wasting all of our time. Either present a viable replacement to the repeal, or stop whining about the lack of one. Contribute, or leave.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Now Officially Pissed Off

Uh, Mr. Erman, in case your haven't noticed, nobody from CP can write a legal proposal to save their life.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

Oh, we are well aware of our surroundings at all times. In my previous job not being so could mean death. Although, I would advise the Representative from Community Property to not try to inflict harm on me nor any of my staff with that pen, or with any other device. Instead, perhaps they could use it to write their replacement as suggested...or even construct a drugs smoking apparatus out of it...we really don't care so long as no attempt is made upon the life or health of an Elletian Delegate or Staff-Member.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Uh, Mr. Erman, in case your haven't noticed, nobody from CP can write a legal proposal to save their life.Ahem (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=international).

Now, since we're not the issue here, can the Assembly get back to talking about the WHL?

</HIJACK>

Well, off topic or not I have yet to see a proposal by the Representatives of Community Property make it to the debating floor. They usually are either ruled illegal or never make it to quorum. And before He says he hasn't seen any of mine make it to the debate floor let me clarify my position at the current time...Ellelt has not proposed any legislation formally...we have a few drafts we are working on...but no actual submissions. Our delegation is committed to making sure our proposal is a perfect as possible, in our estimation, before submission and none of our drafts as of yet have met that criterion.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Most Honorable and Glorious UN Nations,

The governing Council of The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA feel that the replacement proposal (located here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386)) is now worded in a way that brings it closer to becoming a true replacement of the intent of resolution #37. We have proposed some minor definition changes to the replacement proposal that, if adopted to the proposal in some form, will greatly strengthen it (see definitions (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12024756#post12024756) for more info).

The Council still feels that there are no guarantees that the replacement proposal will make it through the rigorous trials of becoming an adopted UN resolution. In fact, many comments regarding the replacement proposal suggest that nations will not be supportive once it is proposed. Repealing #37 leaves a large void in environmental legislation and opens the door for further environmental repeals. The vote against the repeal of #37 still remains the public will of The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA until there is guaranteed majority support (enough for a quorum of regions and then support for the subsequent adoption of the resolution) in the form of a poll or other verbal acknowledgment linked directly to the replacement proposal.

Thank you for your time,

Tumil Orno III
USA NA United Nations Lead Advisor

OOC: It's unfortunate that we cannot make amendments to resolutions.

We, the nation and Havvy vote FOR the repeal of this piece of trash.

It seems that the entire region of Sicily is doing so also (or at least the majority with votes). [Not Giving Sources]

Oh, and do we really need to have a resolution for this. Why don't we all just make our own little lists of landmarks and stuff that we don't want destroyed. It is much easier to do it that way, and to try and get neighboring nations to agree with the parts that are partially in their country?

That is what the country of Havvy shall do. We just don't have any neighboring countries.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

Hey, anybody need help getting defenestrated?

I am seeing some very differant Diplomatic ways of "kissing someone off" I think...

Repealing #37 leaves a large void in environmental legislation and opens the door for further environmental repeals.Nonsensical, slippery-slope idiocy. This is not a key piece of environmental legislation. This is nothing more than a mechanic to create a hit list of "environmentally sensitive" areas within the territory or other nations. Passive aggressive drek, and the UN would be better off without it.

As for opening the door for further repeals... what the bloody hell are you talking about? There's no door here. Any and all resolutions can be repealed, and if anything, a repeal here makes it harder to repeal other environmental resolutions because the idiot members of this body tend to whine if too many repeals happen at once.

That same sort of fuzzy-headed fear mongering reared it's ugly face when Gay Rights was repealed. And, holy shit, gays aren't being rounded up and slaughtered in the streets, nor has every Human Rights resolution been repealed.

Stupid GA. I'm getting a fucking drink.


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

I can't understand how comes we are about to repeal something on the sole argument it's unperfect and we need something better.

I tend to think we should make the "better" resolution pass before repealing anything that is not THAT bad.

I tend to think we should make the "better" resolution pass before repealing anything that is not THAT bad.Against the rules. Repeal first, then replace.

I can't understand how comes we are about to repeal something on the sole argument it's unperfect and we need something better.

I tend to think we should make the "better" resolution pass before repealing anything that is not THAT bad.

You cannot introduce the new legislation until the old law has been repealed. That's the way it works. It's a pain in the ass, but that's the way it is.

Repealing something on the grounds that it isn't "perfect" and that we need something better, which we really don't, is fine.

WHL is far from perfect and is one of the most abused resolutions on the books and I'm sure that it comes close to being one of the most hated as well. It needs to go.

Check out the list (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List#The_List).

I'm with Doctor Leary. I need a drink.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

The vote against the repeal of #37 still remains the public will of The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA until there is guaranteed majority support (enough for a quorum of regions and then support for the subsequent adoption of the resolution) in the form of a poll or other verbal acknowledgment linked directly to the replacement proposal.

Thank you for your time,

Tumil Orno III
USA NA United Nations Lead Advisor*sigh* Another day, another defenestration.
*Bob picks up Tumil Orno III and throws him out the window*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

This is the part of the “damn-the-torpedoes-repeal-all-proposals-that-are-flawed” argument that flies in the face of reality. The same folks who urge us to ignore all possible replacements in a repeal will then fight all replacements tooth and nail; and then to add insult to injury they'll tell us that we're better off without any legislation anyway because anarchy - er, laissez-faire is the best of all possible words.

That is absolutely and patently false. If you keep throwing up these straw men I'm going to make a motion baring all candles from the GA because you've created a fire hazard here.

First and foremost there is no "repeal-all-proposals-that-are-flawed" group. All of the people I know subscribe, in one way or another, to the "positive harm" theory. Resolutions must be flawed and cause positive harm in order to be worthy of a repeal. Contrary to popular opinion, repeals are a lot of hard work. Repeals often fail, and have to be evaluated and tried again.

Second, knowing that it is the resolutions that promote positive harm where the "repeal first, worry about replacement second" attitude comes from. Repeals are, as I pointed out a lot of work. The first priority is to eliminate the positive harm. You can't even think about making something good until that harm has been eliminated.

Are there people who will argue for a repeal and would argue against any replacement? There might be a few; I am certainly not one of them. Actually I would argue that there are none, those who think they are have never seen the replacement resolution that they would like. Most of the time people try to resubmit the same old manure without taking the time to study why the resolution was flawed and how the resolution could be properly rewritten to be acceptable to everyone.

I mentioned that positive harm is the main reason why people push for repeals. But both positive harm and flawed concepts are the reasons why people push against replacements. There are things the UN can do and things the UN simply cannot do no matter how much we wish it were otherwise. This is the nature of the institution.

I've actually given a lot of thought to a replacement for the WHL. I've got a basic idea already and if I had the time I could write one up that could be used as a starting point. From what I have heard so far in the debate, the so called "importance" of the WHL is large scale ecosystems that cross national borders. A mechanism that would allow nations to propose international ecosystems that extends from their borders, using a mindless committee system to verify that they are in fact important contiguous ecosystems which encourages the other nation to respect and maintain that ecosystem (more than just a lack of development) might be indeed the perfect replacement for what people think the WHL is supposed to be doing.

Like I said, this isn't a delaying tactic, I'd post it right now only I just don't have the time. If I get the time I might throw a horrid draft on Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/). (OOC: Actually I'll get my "friend" to post it there. Oh the joys of multiple nations under ones control.)

And I think this needs to be said. If I were to have written a "replacement" before this repeal debate began it would have been as different as night is from day (or in the Antarctic as winter from summer because that's more or less the same thing here) from what I would write now, given the general arguments that have been presented in the repeal debate so far. This is another reason why repeal first, replace later is really a better way to go. It's easier, and it really does make for better replacements.

Grand Utoy Stewey shakes his head, and heads to the bar, "I'm so glad I already cast my vote... though I have learned some new phrases here..."

Ausserland has enthusiastically cast its vote FOR this repeal. The intent of the original resolution is commendable; its execution execrable. It allows for considerable and dangerous abuse, which has been amply demonstrated.

We consider the interminable whining and posturing about a replacement to be completely irrelevant. The resolution enables positive harm to be done to member nations and for that reason demands repeal.

We would also like to state that we have perfect confidence in the integrity of the honorable representative of Kivisto. To question his intent to submit his drafted replacement is, in our minds, absurd.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Consider UNR #110 (“United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)”): many nations - including yours, we suspect - support UNR #110; yet in truth the resolution is worthless.

Oh really?

Uttering what many of us have termed “the magic words” (“...Finding said weapons to be utterly unnecessary for the defense of any nation, we do hereby ban them.”), UNR #110 can be circumvented easily.

...in large part because the likelihood of getting a superior replacement past this body is quite slim, whereas the risks you and your ideological peers would face were UNR #110 were to be repealed would be quite high (there are too many people out there who don't know the magic words, so we see otherwise legal arms control measures get struck constantly).

So by your own admission, it frequently blocks otherwise legal arms control measures from getting to quorum? That hardly seems worthless.

Frankly, your nonsensical claims about the UNSA are getting tiresome.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR the repeal of "World Heritage List" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. This is currently the opinion shared by the large majority of UN voters.

Hellar Gray

We consider the interminable whining and posturing about a replacement to be completely irrelevant.

We don't. (And yes, Patrick, I know I'm quoting you out of your general context, you usually put up with whining and posturing quite well. Had another ancient birthday lately, did we?).

In fact, the reason I had planned to spend most of this debate in the Strangers Bar was to avoid the i w & p. Unfortunately, it's been going on even there. It happens every repeal.

The thing is, for some of us particular resolutions are the only thing holding back the barbarians from an ideal we consider absolutely vital to human rights/survival/The World As We Know It. A repeal seems like an attack on that ideal, even those that really are just aimed at the technical effectiveness of the original.

So knowing that a replacement is at hand, and having a chance to look at it to see if it's a good replacement, becomes something of an obsession. Note: obsession. It's not completely responsive to logical argument (and why should it be; most humans aren't).

When you're dealing with that level of feeling, emotions are important. The way you feel about the repealers is important. Especially if you've been burned before. Or if the repealer is somehow associated in your mind with cleverdickery in proposals.

So I'd like to reassure Mr Tom, the janitor currently holding the fort for the Community Property delegation, that I endorse Mr Olembe's remark:

We would also like to state that we have perfect confidence in the integrity of the honorable representative of Kivisto.

Or, to put it in my terms, even though Ardchoilleans are pacifistic socialists and Kivistans, um, aren't, I'd take his word.

Which is why we're comfortable with voting FOR the repeal.
__________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille

Frankly, your nonsensical claims about the UNSA are getting tiresome.Keep that thought warm; there will be a repeal attempt in the not-too-distant future. For now, though, let's stay on topic.

Keep that thought warm; there will be a repeal attempt in the not-too-distant future. For now, though, let's stay on topic.

I'm sorry. I must have given you the impression that I care if it gets repealed.

I really don't. In fact, it'll be pretty damn convenient for me if you do repeal it.

this resolution should be reformed, that is to make it so that protection is voluntary. #37 isn't that bad, bu UN protection cannot be involuntary or else massive amounts of people will begin to leave the UN. we need to stop and reform it.

UN protection cannot be involuntary or else massive amounts of people will begin to leave the UN. we need to stop and reform it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but we rarely see "massive amounts of people leave the UN" when most resolutions are passed. The UN wouldn't have anyone in it, if that were the case.

More to the point, there isn't anything to "reform" about this proposal. Either you repeal WHL, or you don't. That's it.

Originally Posted by Auss:
We consider the interminable whining and posturing about a replacement to be completely irrelevant.

We don't. (And yes, Patrick, I know I'm quoting you out of your general context, you usually put up with whining and posturing quite well. Had another ancient birthday lately, did we?).

In fact, the reason I had planned to spend most of this debate in the Strangers Bar was to avoid the i w & p. Unfortunately, it's been going on even there. It happens every repeal.

The thing is, for some of us particular resolutions are the only thing holding back the barbarians from an ideal we consider absolutely vital to human rights/survival/The World As We Know It. A repeal seems like an attack on that ideal, even those that really are just aimed at the technical effectiveness of the original.

So knowing that a replacement is at hand, and having a chance to look at it to see if it's a good replacement, becomes something of an obsession. Note: obsession. It's not completely responsive to logical argument (and why should it be; most humans aren't).

When you're dealing with that level of feeling, emotions are important. The way you feel about the repealers is important. Especially if you've been burned before. Or if the repealer is somehow associated in your mind with cleverdickery in proposals.


We're compelled to say "tsk, tsk" to our estimable friend and colleague, the distinguished Co-President of Ardchoille. Not only were we quoted out of general context, we were quoted out of the specific context as well.

Our point was that, in this case, the potential for replacement should have no weight in decision-making on the repeal. The resolution gives nations the means and full license to take action which could damage the infrastructure of other NSUN member nations. It does positive harm, and for that reason, must be repealed.

If a resolution attempts something worthwhile, but simply fails to do it effectively, then the potential for a better replacement is an important decision element. But if it does actual harm, that harm must be prevented. Our analogy would be to finding spoiled food in the refrigerator, which we know will cause poisoning if eaten. We wouldn't hesitate to chuck it in the garbage can, regardless of whether we'd be able to buy a replacement.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Originally Posted by Auss:
We consider the interminable whining and posturing about a replacement to be completely irrelevant.

Grand Utoy Stewey sits up even straighter, a slightly offended look on his face, "My posture is quite all right, thank you!" His Aide, Charles whispers in Grand Utoy's Stewey's ear, and there is a quick exchange of mutters between them, mixed with hand motions, wagging of fingers and copious eyebrow raising.

"My apologies, my translator seems to be mucking up again... I thought you were saying I slouched..."

OCC- Sorry for taking your comment way out of context... but I couldn't resist the pun about posture. Hehehe.

Don't you 'tsk, tsk!' at me, Patrick Olembe, or I'll shake my finger reprovingly at you, so watch it! Things could get nasty!

Even if you are quite justified. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious I was just misusing your remark to give me a springboard for a more general comment.

My point was, several delegates have been going at the valiant janitor Tom boots-and-all because he's reluctant to let this one go, believing that, however little good it may do, at least it's some protection.

I do take your point that, far from doing even a little good, it's doing positive harm. Fair enough, in this case.

Tom, I'm not part of any 'repeal-everything-now!' frenzy. I just think that the nations supporting the repeal have proven that its bad effects outweigh the good ones, and I add -- solely as an opinion, not an argument -- that I think you can trust Kivisto's assurances.

I concede that, as a matter of principle, repeals should stand on their own, without it being necessary to know whether there's a replacement (better or worse) in the offing.

But I'm realistic enough to accept that not all repeals are based on an altruistic belief that the original resolution does actual harm. Some (shock, horror, politics) may be based on "We didn't get our way last time, but this time we think we've got the votes".

And then, sometimes the demonstrated 'positive harm' may be, in our opinion, either not demonstrated at all, or be far less than the harm likely to come from repealing a resolution that commits UN nations to an ideal we admire.

That's when we would argue against the repeals, and not expect to be denigrated for making a decision on what such a repeal would imply, rather than on what it would do.

Which means that Ardchoille's policy is, tentatively and open to change at any time, to take each repeal as it comes.
___________________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

I'm with Doctor Leary. I need a drink.Well, if you'd like to join me, I'm sure I've got a bottle left in my office...

Doctor Denis Leary

Are we STILL discussing this?

Minyos, a member-state of the International Communist Union, feels that whilst on the surface this repeal may make sense if it is to be replaced with more comprehensive environmental resolutions, Minyos itself cannot support this repeal.

As I, Lars Ruski (Archon-elect) gaze upon the vast tracts of untamed wilderness in our small but highly democratic green worker's paradise, I feel a warm glow of satisfaction that pig-dog capitalist woodchippers cannot touch the unspoiled beauty that is Minyos.

It is hard for Minyos to support the ravages of untrammelled, undemocratic capitalism such as those espoused by Kivisto - a nation whose citizens have not even the right to vote. Minyos is rightly suspicious of any repeal which may further the aims of individual capitalists and the unwholesome regimes which harbour and encourage them.

With no disrespect to Kivisto, Minyos has concerns that any future, more progressive environmental resolutions may be callously voted down en bloc, and has voted against this repeal - despite the elected ICU UN delegate (who has my endorsement) voting for this repeal.

I just then opened the window in my small but efficient office, and drew in a deep breath of fragrant air...ahhh, the smell of foliage and democracy. ;)

Yours in struggle,

Lars Ruski.

Minyos is rightly suspicious of any repeal which may further the aims of individual capitalists and the unwholesome regimes which harbour and encourage them.It couldn't possibly be because the Resolution in question sucks, could it?

Are we STILL discussing this?It's still at vote, isn't it?

Lets make this more simple.At this point 1,899 nations say lets save the trees.
7,262 nations say lets save the trees AND our economy.Unless there is a major change in the repeal and in the nations state of mind I tend to take a roughly 7 to 2 for granted. Its THAT simple.We all like to hug trees but some would like to make certain that after all that tree molesting we would all like to come back to our LCD home cinemas instead of our begging spots.And dare not say I am a capitalist.I strive for the good of my people.And some of them are lumberjacks.Some live in wooden houses.Some work at factories.Some use wooden furniture.Some use petroil heating.And all of the above are the 99% of my people.And even my shamen,tribal priests and hermits would like to have an easy choice to change their lives if they wish to. So tomorrow the UN will make a positive change!A choice for liberty! We should all rejoice!

May the spirits grant you bliss.

It couldn't possibly be because the Resolution in question sucks, could it?

The legislation itself may suck but I voted against repeal purely on the basis that there is no guarantee that future UN environmental protection resolutions may not get up as law. If only, as other posters have lamented, we could amend resolutions.

Allow me a little rhetoric - as ruler of a Liberal Democratic Socialist nation in a Communist region what else would you expect? :)

Yours in struggle,

Lars Ruski.

Lets make this more simple.At this point 1,899 nations say lets save the trees.
7,262 nations say lets save the trees AND our economy.Unless there is a major change in the repeal and in the nations state of mind I tend to take a roughly 7 to 2 for granted. Its THAT simple.We all like to hug trees but some would like to make certain that after all that tree molesting we would all like to come back to our LCD home cinemas instead of our begging spots.And dare not say I am a capitalist.I strive for the good of my people.And some of them are lumberjacks.Some live in wooden houses.Some work at factories.Some use wooden furniture.Some use petroil heating.And all of the above are the 99% of my people.And even my shamen,tribal priests and hermits would like to have an easy choice to change their lives if they wish to. So tomorrow the UN will make a positive change!A choice for liberty! We should all rejoice!

May the spirits grant you bliss.


It is amazing to us in our first session observing and participating in the UN that a resolution can be repealed using "vaugeness" as the primary argument when it is precisely that vaugeness of language which empowers individual nation states to interpret the WHL as they wish.

A vote for this resolution is not a vote for trees and the economy it is only for the economy and many bad resolutions and appeals have had overwhelming margins in the past.

It is amazing to us in our first session observing and participating in the UN that a resolution can be repealed using "vaugeness" as the primary argument when it is precisely that vaugeness of language which empowers individual nation states to interpret the WHL as they wish.

A vote for this resolution is not a vote for trees and the economy it is only for the economy and many bad resolutions and appeals have had overwhelming margins in the past.


I completly argree. This act should not be repealed simply because it is vague and you plan on coming up with something better later. First you should propose what you can do to improve this act before it is just scrapped to the side.

The legislation itself may suck but I voted against repeal purely on the basis that there is no guarantee that future UN environmental protection resolutions may not get up as law. If only, as other posters have lamented, we could amend resolutions.

Allow me a little rhetoric - as ruler of a Liberal Democratic Socialist nation in a Communist region what else would you expect? :)

Yours in struggle,

Lars Ruski.

*Ambassador Khernynko stood up again to face this time Ambassador Ruski from Minyos*

Comrade Ruski,

The United Socialist States of Ellelt is NOT A CAPITALIST COUNTRY, however we support the repeal of the WHL. Whole nations may be placed on the WHL and that prevents any economic activity what-so-ever from occurring there leading to massive economic consequences.

Your statements concerning the lack of discussion on a replacement is irrelevant. If you don't like the replacement draft proposal that is on the floor in committee by all means write your own. If you lack a pen to write a replacement, I will give you a pen. Would you prefer black ink or blue ink?

We Agree with the esteemed Ambassador from Ausserland, when we find rotten food in our refrigerator we throw it out into the compost pile. Likewise when we find horrible legislation, we chuck it into the paper shredder to be recycled into something useful...like paper to draft a replacement that might actually work.

While we respect your nations decision to protect the environment, Ellelt feels that the best way to protect the environment and our economy is to remove the WHL and not replace it with anything. Environmental concerns can be addressed nationally, and we as of yet have had to hear an argument would support international intervention in regard to environmental legislation...excepting cases of atmospheric interests, the ozone layer for example.

Further the current votes are now:

Votes For: 7,476

Votes Against: 1,896.

Thats a ratio of 7 votes in favor, to 2 votes opposed. Unless I am much mistaken it will be very difficult for this proposal to fail. And Indeed this repeal has been a long time coming. I have heard that there have been 3 repeal attempts (although there could be more...not really sure because i learned that in a conversation and it was said in passing).

Furthermore, the WHL as it has been used in the past is not a measure to protect the environment or even culturally important areas. Rather it has been used as a means of economic retaliation, a means that the nation being retaliated upon can not remove. While Ellelt will not support a replacement, I will debate any replacement that comes to the voting floor.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Why does this repeal not include an alternative resolution to replace UNR#37?

Dr. Sizofren walks over to Lars Ruski, picks him up, and opens a window. Dr. Sizofren dangles Lars over the ground by the collar of his shirt and Dr. Sizofren says to him, "We can't amend resolutions (Makes this face: :eek:) and if you want something to protect the environment, why don't you try to make a resolution than that helps it?"

With that he drops the poor Mr. Ruski, and he falls. Than Dr. Sizofren throws a black pen, a blue pen, and a red pen out of the same window.

Dr. Sizofren goes back to his seat.

"What, I got bored"

'Dr. Sizofren is a UN Ambassador'

Originally posted by Yustaga
Why does this repeal not include an alternative resolution to replace UNR#37?


(OOC: It can't. A replacement is already under way, but cannot be proposed while the existing legislation is still on the books. So, first, we repeal the existing, then a new proposal (replacement) can be considered.)

Question. Doesn't resolution 37 overlap resolution 15,Protect Historical Sites (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Protect_Historical_Sites)?

#37 States: Recognising that a lack of environmental protection protocols currently exists: when it clearly does, in resolution 15.

Thus, those annoyed and beliving that there is no protection, actually have resolution 15 to protect said WHL sites (well, except those...um...fun...ones...)


Jainey Slate
UN Representative for Mavenu

Indeed, a replacement is on the way; but it will be a while before it appears. Don't ask what's in it or what it will do, because the people who are writing it don't know yet.

As for the alleged replacement being offered by Kivisto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386), it's a complete red herring. A nicely written red herring to be sure, but a complete red herring nonetheless. Kivisto will never introduce it; the pretense that they will is a deception deliberately foisted upon this body for the sake of winning support for a repeal; indeed, people closer to Kivisto and in a better position to report on the authors' intentions have stated as much.

The same tactic was attempted - without success - in the case of the failed repeal of UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6)”). It is a tactic we should never fall prey to again. Sadly, this means that genuine attempts at the “repeal with replacement” of existing laws that need reform will be damaged by this sort of unconscionable behavior; the result is that the ability of this body to do good work on behalf of all have once more been weakened by people whose sole intent as members appears to be the reduction of the United Nations to a state of abject impotence.

As for the proposal cynically offered for our consideration by Kivisto, lest some of you think, “Well, we can just introduce it without the authors' support,” it in fact can not - under the rules of this body - be introduced by anybody else; to do so would be plagiarism, which is illegal. The replacement for UNR #37, which many Members have called for in this debate, will have to be written from scratch.

Congratulations to Kivisto on a well-orchestrated con.

OOC: Why does everything need a replacement? I can just as easily make individual laws saying what I want to protect, and if it's in another nation that's being unreasonable...

:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:

(For anybody who's having a blond moment, that means WAR)

The legislation itself may suck but I voted against repeal purely on the basis that there is no guarantee that future UN environmental protection resolutions may not get up as law. If only, as other posters have lamented, we could amend resolutions.

Allow me a little rhetoric - as ruler of a Liberal Democratic Socialist nation in a Communist region what else would you expect? :)

Yours in struggle,

Lars Ruski.Well, it's just fine and dandy that you agree that the resolution sucks, however we can't replace it with a version that doesn't suck without repealing it first.

It is amazing to us in our first session observing and participating in the UN that a resolution can be repealed using "vaugeness" as the primary argument when it is precisely that vaugeness of language which empowers individual nation states to interpret the WHL as they wish.

A vote for this resolution is not a vote for trees and the economy it is only for the economy and many bad resolutions and appeals have had overwhelming margins in the past.And in this case the WHL's vagueness also allows for it to be easily abused, just take a look at what's actually been added to the list (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List).

I completly argree. This act should not be repealed simply because it is vague and you plan on coming up with something better later. First you should propose what you can do to improve this act before it is just scrapped to the side.IThe proposed replacement is right here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386), but before the replacement can be submitted the repeal has to pass.

Indeed, a replacement is on the way; but it will be a while before it appears. Don't ask what's in it or what it will do, because the people who are writing it don't know yet.

As for the alleged replacement being offered by Kivisto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386), it's a complete red herring. A nicely written red herring to be sure, but a complete red herring nonetheless. Kivisto will never introduce it; the pretense that they will is a deception deliberately foisted upon this body for the sake of winning support for a repeal; indeed, people closer to Kivisto and in a better position to report on the authors' intentions have stated as much.

Well, I see the representative from Community Property is prognosticating again.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

OOC: Why does everything need a replacement?Not everything does. But many people feel that this resolution should be replaced, and voted to repeal because they were told there would be a replacement. To offer them one to win their support with no intention of submitting it is duplicity.I can just as easily make individual laws saying what I want to protect, and if it's in another nation that's being unreasonable...Here's the problem with that approach: nations do not exist in hermetic isolation from one another; what one does can have an impact on others, which makes environmental regulation an international issue.

Moreover, certain important ecosystems do not scale downward well; if they fall below a certain minimal size, they fail. If individual nations are granted complete freedom to regulate or destroy their environments as they see fit, then these ecosystems can be quickly destroyed as well through a “patchwork quilt” process. We need the ability to force recalcitrant nations whose environmental mismanagement damages ecosystems well beyond their borders into taking a more responsible approach to land management.

Here's an analogy to chew on. Suppose a number of people are sharing a boat. Each is given freedom to do as he or she pleases within their cabins. One of these people wants to punch a hole in the boat, well beneath the waterline, insisting on the right to do so within their own “sovereign” space. Should we let them do it?

The notion of absolute individual or absolute national freedom assumes that there are no “commons”, no shared space, no shared resources, and no shared responsibilities to contend with. If this assumption fails, then the philosophy built upon it must be reckoned invalid.

Ahem (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=international).

Now, since we're not the issue here, can the Assembly get back to talking about the WHL?

</HIJACK>

You, as a subject, are about as much on topic here as my intentions as it regards to anything.

... the duplicity in the promising of a replacement that won't be submitted...

Well, now, that does change some things.
...
That said, we were also wrong in giving Kivisto and some of its supporters the benefit of any doubt. We had not believed that they could be so stupid as to deliberately seek to hoodwink this Assembly, but obviously they are. Whatever measure of honor they had is now forfeit; whatever trust we may have once had in them was gone. ...

Community Property votes against this repeal, as an expression of our contempt for liars.




As for the alleged replacement being offered by Kivisto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386), it's a complete red herring. A nicely written red herring to be sure, but a complete red herring nonetheless. Kivisto will never introduce it; the pretense that they will is a deception deliberately foisted upon this body for the sake of winning support for a repeal; indeed, people closer to Kivisto and in a better position to report on the authors' intentions have stated as much.

WOW! That's quite a strong set of sentiments about my personal plans from people who are not me. Impressive. Seems people think that they are privy to some kind of information that isn't available to everybody else and believe that the information that they have received is somehow superior to information taken from anywhere else. Cool. I love conspiracy theories. Where shall I start with these?....

OOC:I'll paraphrase to save on quote boxes

CP - earlier on you essentially delivered an ultimatum stating that if the replacement was not submitted Monday night/Tuesday morning, then it would tarnish the honour and credibility of the entire AO region, and in the statement claimed that we had none to begin with. Fascinating. Bloody retarded, but fascinating. In the same kind of way it's fascinating to watch a train wreck happen.

Mr. Pyandran - Basically called me a duplicitous liar. Why? Because you had acces to information from elsewhere that I had no intention of submitting the replacement because even I didn't really like it. Interesting. Choose to believe information from one source and disregard seemingly contradictory evidence from another. Not even a valid attempt at reconciling the differences between the stories, simply assume the worst. Good job. The only way that you could assume that the duplicitous liar was telling the truth in one particular case would be if it was in some secret private place where there was an assumption of security with trustworthy confidantes. The locale of where you took this information was not private, and even if it were, you prove your own untrustworthiness by spewing the contents all over the floor. Luckily, I wouldn't be making that accusation since it was a public space.

Back to CP - So when one of the unreliable and unhonourable outs one of their own as being unreliable and unhonourable, you suddenly decide that this one must be sincere. OMGWTFBBQROFLCOPTER! The whole story is different now. There's a scapegoat! Target acquired! Fire all Stupid Lasers! In case you missed that, choosing to believe one "liar" over another is, once again, pretty retarded.

Seems like you two might be at a tie as to which one is making the largest logical error in assumption of facts. I think CP might be a bit ahead, but Gruen does know me better, so it could probably be assumed that he would have some clue as to what I'm capable of for deception. Not likely, though, as this is the first time a charge of this nature has come up against me.

meh - Flip a coin. Loser gets to be the loser.

The same tactic was attempted - without success - in the case of the failed repeal of UNR #7 (“Sexual Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6)”). It is a tactic we should never fall prey to again. Sadly, this means that genuine attempts at the “repeal with replacement” of existing laws that need reform will be damaged by this sort of unconscionable behavior; the result is that the ability of this body to do good work on behalf of all have once more been weakened by people whose sole intent as members appears to be the reduction of the United Nations to a state of abject impotence.

Speaking of topic hijack....:rolleyes:

Congratulations to Kivisto on a well-orchestrated con.

I wouldn't call it a con. I'd call it a large number of people choosing to believe what they are afraid might be true instead of actually analyzing the situation. Aside from that, we haven't even reached the big crescendo.

We would also like to state that we have perfect confidence in the integrity of the honorable representative of Kivisto. To question his intent to submit his drafted replacement is, in our minds, absurd.

My thanks to the honourable Ambassador Olembe for his confidence in our intentions. Also to the Ardchoillean delegation for their belief in our desire to do something.

As for the actual subject matter of the above comments...

Did I say that I do not like the EPA as I've drafted it? Hells, yes! There are some huge issues with it that need to be rectified. Would I submit it? Hells, no! I won't submit anything until it is fully ready, and EPA is not. Will I submit it as a replacement for WHL? Gods, no! It doesn't even resemble WHL past the point that it falls into the Environmental category. Will it ever get submitted? How the hell should I know? The thing isn't done being drafted yet! I was somewhat hoping that this repeal debate might draw a few more people into the discussion of the EPA, but few have been lured into that, so little progress has been made with it.

The original purpose and intent of EPA was to patch the gaping wounds left in the WHL. That purpose changed when the people of Cluichstan resubmitted their repeal, and became three-fold.

1) To form a possible replacement for the WHL in the sccenario where the repeal was successful.

2) To brainstorm ideas for some of the things that should be included in this type of legislation.

3) To show the assembled delegations that there is still interest in legislating in this area, thereby alleviating some of their concerns about repealing environmental protections.

Cluich's repeal failed. Twice. I drafted this repeal and drew people's attention to a possible repeal with the last line:

SEEKING an opportunity to pass more effective legislation in replacement;

At this point, what I have drafted with the assistance of others fails to be effective, or a replacement for WHL. Simply reading it will demonstrate that with ease. If anyone feels that they have been misled by this, you have my apologies, but the arguments presented within the repeal are still valid, and I intend to continue drafting the EPA to some rational conclusion, be that when it is ready for submission, or when I am convinced that there is no point in continuing with it at all.

As for one last comment made by the representative of CP: It is possible for another to submit my works. They simply need my permission to do so.

To that end, I'm going to go check on the discussion for the EPA, to see if there are any further comments since I last checked on it.

{OOC: It's been a couple of days. Work is killing me this week. Sorry about the delay in my response time.}

Further, by way of demonstrating my sincerity, I formally grant the delegation from Ausserland my permissions to submit The Environmental Protection Act if they, at any point, believe it is ready and see no further reason to delay it. [OOC: The earliest I'd be looking at would be Friday afternoon when I'm done work for the week, possibly Monday, when it is easier to gain quorum.]

If there are any further questions about my integrity, allow me to simply say this. Words are meaningless. Let actions be the ruler that you measure us with.

:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
For those of us who aren't blonde, that means "n00b".

I for one understand why this can be a very important peice of the united Nations resolutions. To protect our national forests and high risk areas we are ensuring that our national animals and people have a place for themselves now and always

For those of us who aren't blonde, that means "n00b".

Even those of us who are "Blonde" can use some translation on that, thanks!

By the way, just to give a heads up, if you throw in a repeal to this quickly I may actually oppose it. My reason for this is simple, I have a clear idea of what this should be in terms of an international resolution, and frankly I have the feeling that any resolution would not include the points I feel are necessary and vital. Those points are, in simple form.

They must be international in scope
Nations may only propose areas that are partly contained within their own nation
It must be verified by a nameless committee so that only vital ecosystems are so listed
It should not be so strong as to encourage membership dropping from the UN
It needs to have carrots as well as sticks, just not doing anything is often not enough


These are the basic points I will need to see before I will even consider a replacement resolution. As long as you can avoid protecting your ecosystem by leaving the UN then any system that pushes too hard will fail. Remember any resolution is worthless when the specific ecosystem we want to protect is not protected. I would rather have a weak resolution that works than a strong one that does not. Because, in the end, the only thing I want is one that works, period.

A bit late to the discussion...

All I have to say is that I support the repeal on the merits of its argument. I honestly don't give a damn if Kivisto has a replacement for it.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

A bit late to the discussion...

All I have to say is that I support the repeal on the merits of its argument. I honestly don't give a damn if Kivisto has a replacement for it.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

For that, I commend you, and thank you.

A bit late to the discussion...

All I have to say is that I support the repeal on the merits of its argument. I honestly don't give a damn if Kivisto has a replacement for it.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

Finally, some common sense.

The Ausserland delegation formally retracts its earlier statement concerning the probability of submission of the draft "replacement" for the resolution under repeal and the integrity of the representative of Kivisto. We had every confidence in the honorable intentions of the representative. Based on intelligence later obtained, that confidence has been shattered. We apologize to our colleagues for our failure to properly investigate the matter before making our statement.

We continue to strongly support the repeal. Regardless of the probability of a replacement, this dangerously flawed resolution must be stricken from the books.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We have known for quite some time that the... ahem... honourable representatives from Kivisto have no intention of ever submitting a replacement. While we fully believe the WHL should be repealed, the tactics involved here meet with stern condemnation on our part.

Ariddia is withdrawing its vote in favour of the repeal, and will abstain.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

After returning from various enjoyable events and a private ceremony honoring the recently-ended life of the late Minister of Hospitality, Sam I Am...

I'm glad to be back in the halls of the United Nations. Never thought I'd be saying that, mais c'est la vie, non?

In any case, I'm in favor of the repeal of this badly-flawed piece of ostrich fesces that has masqueraded as a resolution for far too long.

As to the concerns regarding the honesty of the Kivistan representative, I'm not worried. Frankly, if there was indeed dishonesty, it's no worse than the stupidity of those who won't vote for a repeal without a replacement ready.

Feel free to have some cheese with that whine.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Frankly, if there was indeed dishonesty, it's no worse than the stupidity of those who won't vote for a repeal without a replacement ready.


Naturally. And we trust that Mr. Dioce knows how to read, and can draw the distinction between demanding a repeal and criticising those who propose a repeal they do not intend to submit. Or is that too subtle for the honourable representative to grasp?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Naturally. And we trust that Mr. Dioce knows how to read, and can draw the distinction between demanding a repeal and criticising those who propose a repeal they do not intend to submit. Or is that too subtle for the honourable representative to grasp?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ms. Zyranov, you might want to check the transcripts of this debate, as the rep from Kivisto has recently (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12032453&postcount=196) said that they will submit the EPA when it is done being drafted, and in fact has also stated that if at any time Mr. Olembe from Ausserland feels that it is submitable he can submit it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

Naturally. And we trust that Mr. Dioce knows how to read, and can draw the distinction between demanding a repeal and criticising those who propose a repeal they do not intend to submit. Or is that too subtle for the honourable representative to grasp?

Not at all. I have no trouble grasping irrelevant distinctions. I just don't go on about them.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Not at all. I have no trouble grasping irrelevant distinctions. I just don't go on about them.


If you believe the distinction is "irrelevant", you must be very confused.


Ms. Zyranov, you might want to check the transcripts of this debate, as the rep from Kivisto has recently said that they will submit the EPA when it is done being drafted, and in fact has also stated that if at any time Mr. Olembe from Ausserland feels that it is submitable he can submit it.


Thank you. That latter point is good enough for me. My country will support the repeal.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

If you believe the distinction is "irrelevant", you must be very confused.

Nope. Regardless of whether you approve of dishonesty or not (and I certainly don't), the stupidity of folks who insist on a replacement is just as bad as that alleged dishonesty.

Thank you. That latter point is good enough for me. My country will support the repeal.

Glad to hear it. Looks like you know how to read as well. Congratulations.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Since our nation has now -- partly through our delegation's own fault -- been made a party to this unfortunate affair, we believe it's necessary to make our position clear.

Ausserland will not submit the proposal as drafted or in any future version. We will not submit any proposal on environmental protection, period. We simply do not have the expertise in environmental affairs to properly lead the debate on such a proposal. We might well support a well-crafted proposal in this area, but to take the lead in such a matter is beyond our capabilities. The permission to submit the drafted proposal was granted without our knowledge or consent. We will not exercise it.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Regardless of whether you approve of dishonesty or not (and I certainly don't), the stupidity of folks who insist on a replacement is just as bad as that alleged dishonesty.

On that point, we're in complete agreement.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Repeal "World Heritage List" was passed 10,436 votes to 2,697

I would like to be the first to congratulate Kivisto! Good job!

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Yay! Now we can bicker about something differant, eh?

And in this case the WHL's vagueness also allows for it to be easily abused, just take a look at what's actually been added to the list (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List).


So, in theory if this repeal hadn't passed your saying someone may have placed the entire nation of Freemarsh on the WHL as a "punishment?" While we probably would have embraced such a designation it's probably for the best we'll never know.

I would Like to congratulate the Kivistan Delegation on the passage of their fine repeal.

While we will not support a replacement for the WHL and have changed our opinion on the EPA from one of support to one of opposition after debating it in the Elleltian Politburo of the Communist Party of Ellelt. We may consider it again should it be presented before the UN.

Once Again, Congratulations on the passage of this fine repeal, and this day has truly been a great one with the removal of dung from the UN law books.

Vladimir Khenynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

&

Demitri Petrovich
Secretary of the Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Yeah! Woohooo! It passed! Kivisto, Kedalfax would like to send you some Champaign for finally getting a repeal of this through. And a cookie. We'll send you a cookie, too.

After returning from various enjoyable events and a private ceremony honoring the recently-ended life of the late Minister of Hospitality, Sam I Am...
I should really pay more attention to international events. Our condolences, my friend.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker for International Relations

Altanar would like to congratulate Kivisto as well. We applaud the removal of the flawed WHL, and look forward to a better replacement - whatever its source may be.

Drae Nei also offer it's congratulations. Well done, Kivisto!

Sir Cyril pulls a silver case from the hip pocket of his immaculately tailored three piece suits, opens it and lights a cigarette...

"I've been waiting to do that for too long, now I can smoke freely"

EPA is submitted. Do what you want with it.

EPA is submitted. Do what you want with it.

That could get dirty, ugly, and just plain nasty.

Sounds about right.

That could get dirty, ugly, and just plain nasty.

Sounds about right.

Thanks. I needed the chuckle.

Dicey Reilly rises. She is wearing what appears to be a cosmetic face-mask, which flakes gently as she speaks:

Joe the janitor, I'm sorry. I can only say I did genuinely believe the endorsement I gave.

To the aged but, one hopes, happy bridegroom Accelerus I would point out that it is not necessarily a sign of stupidity to ask, when voting on a repeal, whether a genuine replacement exists.

However, standing here with egg on my face is not the best time to make that argument, so I'll keep it for next time.

Mr Olembe, if you'd care to join me, I'll shout you an omelette at the Strangers Bar.
____________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille

So, in theory if this repeal hadn't passed your saying someone may have placed the entire nation of Freemarsh on the WHL as a "punishment?" While we probably would have embraced such a designation it's probably for the best we'll never know.
Actually you probably were already qualified under at least one of those listings, after all The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites qualified under half a dozen of them (and that's not counting the fact that part of my anatomy was on there as well).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Former WHL Victim

On behalf of the UN Building Management I must say that I am disappointed in the UN's decision to repeal the World Heritage List. Now we'll have to find another way to protect the UN Building from environmentally damaging activities.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Maybe the new statue will help? I'm sure the image of a man struggling against Feral Babies will be deterrent enough to keep the Envrionmental Baddies away?

Ummmm... Any idea when I can move my stuff from the broom closet into a proper office?

On behalf of the UN Building Management I must say that I am disappointed in the UN's decision to repeal the World Heritage List. Now we'll have to find another way to protect the UN Building from environmentally damaging activities.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Hurry. We've got a shipment of genetically modified super-termites coming in soon. We're going to release them into the airducts and watch the show. After that, we'll be hiring unemployed diamond miners and slash 'n burn foresters to come in and just dig holes in the basement.

Hope you don't mind.

Rang Erman

Please be so kind until I can at least get assigned a proper office... Please?

Minyos graciously thanks you for the non-existent boost to our economy - an illegal blackmarket trade in woodchipping, and demands for pay rises for workers in same!

Minyos was an environmental paradise, and it seems that countries that have not raped and pillaged their own environment are being forced to chop down their OWN forests so that undemocratic nations with no natural environment to speak of can have paper napkins, print out useless emails and not use the other side then recycle, and eat their sushi with those little throwaway chopsticks (now would I be talking about the massive deforestation in nations such as...oh, I don't know, Kivisto for example?)...

Never mind the "positive harm" aspect, all I know is that SOMEHOW, as a side-effect, Minyos and other environmentally-aware nations now have illegal woodchipping. Interesting that a nation that does not claim to have been a victim of positive harm is out there championing for the rights of other nations who have...yet this same "champion" benefits wonderfully from countries that have managed their own environments in a sane, humane and eco-friendly way - AT THEIR COST. Politics eh? Well, Minyos wasn't duped, and voted against the repeal.

May the leaders of those nations who have committed ecocide in their own nations and are now raping ours...DIE THE DEATH OF A THOUSAND PAPERCUTS :p :p :p

We (Minyos) shall be having WORDS in the draft proposal for the new Kivisto-inspired Draft Environmental Protection Resolution discussion - our concerns regarding the proposed UNEPO UN body have increased - oddly enough.

Lars Ruski, unhappily leafing through report after report of old-growth forest being desecrated, sighs and feels sombre. Time for a stroll in the grounds methinks.

That sounds like a problem with the laws of Minyos to me.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Seems like the Draft Proposal from Kivisto has GONE. Exactly as predicted by another poster. Which I also suspected would happen.I don't suppose you actually tried to look at the Proposal list before making a fool of yourself, did you?

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Kivistan UN Bordello

Description: The United Nations

APPLAUDING international interest in protection of the environment;

NOTING the importance of protecting environmentally significant locations to maintain our global environment;

SUPPORTS AND ENCOURAGES the practice of nations designating specific sites within their borders as being of environmental significance and deserving of protection from public or private organizations and entities;

SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area;

DEFINES "pristine in nature" to refer to natural land or water living ecosystems or natural geographic features including, but not limited to mountains, deserts, or ice fields, that are untouched, minimally touched, or desired by inhabitants to be less touched by human development;

FURTHER DEFINES "significant to the ecosystem of that area" to mean an area of land or water that contributes to the general well-being of a larger area which may therefore contribute to the general well-being of the entire planet.;

CREATES the United Nations Environmental Protection Organization (UNEPO) to examine indicated sites and the merits of the site as an environmental location significant enough to warrant international protection;

EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;

CLARIFIES that the protection granted by the UNEPO will include the protection of these locations against public and private industrial organizations and entities whose activities would impair the significance or pristine nature of the location;

STIPULATES that nothing within this resolution shall remove the right of nations to protect their own lands independent of the UNEPO;

ALLOWS for nations to petition the UNEPO to have international protection removed from locations within their borders;

Approvals: 11 (Understood correctnes, WZ Forums, Flibbleites, Ultrasilvania, Gruenberg, Greenmark, Firebert, Aethera, Iron Felix, Nicoshore, Lionsgate)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 113 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 7 2006

The draft proposal has been archived, immediately, with no further discussions - straight after R37 goes through.

How are UN delegates, UN members even supposed to discuss this draft, when it is hidden away in the archives - as a closed thread?What the hell are you talking about (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506386)?

I was as surprised as hell to see it on the main page again! It literally was NOT THERE on the main page. There were only 12 topics, I read and re-read, no EPA draft thread. For three hours. I'd checked over and over. Only found it eventually in the archive. Closed down the browser, logged out, refreshed. Did all that. Still just in the archive. I went back to the main page for the umpteenth time, only 25 minutes-ish ago and there it was, in big bold underlined text - all I thought was "WTF?" (and I mean a BIG Whaaat the fuuuu!!!) then checked your post.

I think there are some problems with the software in here, I actually a couple of nights ago tried to post the same post four times in the R37 thread and nothing appeared until the next day - my connection was fine, I had been posting previous then all of a sudden...no. Closed down the browser, did a restart, did everything. Just typical software SNAFUs, and again, it seems as though this is the case. Perhaps Jolt could be contacted re possible bugs, but it may just be irrelevant random glitching. I hate software sometimes.

Honestly, I never would have posted the long, "out of character" post had it been there.

My apologies - these glitches can sometimes be for only some users; I have experienced this before where some can see the post/thread/topic and some not, and other times it is a generalised but short-lived glitch. I have no idea which is the case, and I am glad that I have been made to look a fool only for it to be a technical fault.

To anyone who has read these and taken offence, my apologies, I shall remove the two rather strong posts. However, it must be said, I am prepared to look the fool, and be right, rather than let an apparent injustice go by unnoticed. Happily this time it was not thus, and a technical fault.

I was as surprised as hell to see it on again! It literally was NOT THERE. For three hours. I'd checked over and over. Closed down the browser, logged out, refreshed. I went back to the main page for the umpteenth time, and there it was, in big bold underlined text - all I thought was "WTF?" then checked your post.

I think there are some problems with the software in here, I actually a couple of nights ago tried to post the same post four times in the R37 thread and nothing appeared until the next day - my connection was fine, I had been posting previous then all of a sudden...no. Closed down the browser, did a restart, did everything. Just typical software SNAFUs, and again, it seems as though this is the case. Perhaps Jolt could be contacted re possible bugs, but it may just be irrelevant random glitching. I hate software sometimes.

OOC: Minyos, go back to the UN forum page and scroll down to the bottom. See the "Display Options"? Does it say to show posts from the "Last Day"? (I think that's the default.) If so, only threads which have been posted to within that period will show on your screen. It seems very likely that's the reason why that thread seemed to disappear and reappear.

I looked at that initially but didn't fiddle with it. Thread isn't in bold anymore (?) was a few mins ago, and is still there unbolded, first page, whether I choose "last day" or "last two weeks" after I press "Show Threads" - I just get more pages with "last two weeks" but the EPA prop. still first page same location on either setting so yes, a definite glitch there.

SOFTWARE! :sniper:

Grrrr! All's well that ends well, and thanks for the tip, but no it isn't that this time.

I looked at that initially but didn't fiddle with it. Thread isn't in bold anymore (?) was a few mins ago, and is still there unbolded, first page, whether I choose "last day" or "last two weeks" after I press "Show Threads" - I just get more pages with "last two weeks" but the EPA prop. still first page same location on either setting so yes, a definite glitch there.

SOFTWARE! :sniper:

Grrrr! All's well that ends well, and thanks for the tip, but no it isn't that this time.

OOC: The bolding of a thread title indicates that there have been new posts since you last read the thread. And, unless you reset your reading options, the threads are listed in the order last-posted-to-first (except for the stickied ones). Put those two together and they explain why that particular thread is displayed as it is. I see no indication of any glitch.

The last post in the EPA thread was from Kivisto, replying to mine with UNEPO concerns - and slightly over a day ago. So, it didn't show with my unaltered settings until Kenny posted in there that the thread seemed to be working for him, and of course, it was in bold. And, of course, once it had been posted in, it was on the main page with "last post" whether I had it set on last day or two weeks, or whatever.

Makes perfect sense, now that I know the system. So many different forum systems I have used - all using different ways of viewing things, different settings, differing capabilities for the user. Some have been vastly different, and this forum setup was totally unfamilar to me.

Thanks Aus - I truly appreciate your patience with me in pointing out what had happened and explaining the system. I was getting rather bewildered. Mark of a good mod, my best wishes to you.

The last post in the EPA thread was from Kivisto, replying to mine with UNEPO concerns - and slightly over a day ago. So, it didn't show with my unaltered settings until Kenny posted in there that the thread seemed to be working for him, and of course, it was in bold. And, of course, once it had been posted in, it was on the main page with "last post" whether I had it set on last day or two weeks, or whatever.

Makes perfect sense, now that I know the system. So many different forum systems I have used - all using different ways of viewing things, different settings, differing capabilities for the user. Some have been vastly different, and this forum setup was totally unfamilar to me.

Thanks Aus - I truly appreciate your patience with me in pointing out what had happened and explaining the system. I was getting rather bewildered. Mark of a good mod, my best wishes to you.

OOC: Yer welcome. I've been doing this computer stuff for about 30 years, so I've gotten pretty good at recognizing how the various ways of doing things confuse people.

Just one thing, though...

I AM NOT A MOD!!

I'm pretty good at putting up with insults, but there are some that just cross the line! :D

I AM NOT A MOD!!

I'm pretty good at putting up with insults, but there are some that just cross the line! :D
http://afrael.loquesea.org/images/nosoupforyou.gif
No soup for you!

Leetha turns to her assistant.

Becherie, you'll need to request a disbursement of 10,000 terus. It seems Kivisto filed his paper tiger of a proposal, and we're not one to welch on a bet. Make it out to the Cluichstanis' CEPSL as a donation. Description? Oh just put it down as hookers and blow, that'll give the home office something to whine about.

OOC: Yer welcome. I've been doing this computer stuff for about 30 years, so I've gotten pretty good at recognizing how the various ways of doing things confuse people.

Just one thing, though...

I AM NOT A MOD!!

I'm pretty good at putting up with insults, but there are some that just cross the line! :D

OOC: Not related to this thread, but I do hope someday that is something the powers that be consider changing. I think you'd make an excellent moderator. :)

OOC: Not related to this thread, but I do hope someday that is something the powers that be consider changing. I think you'd make an excellent moderator. :)

You're free to nominate him by following the instructions in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451644&postcount=2).

... I do hope someday that is something the powers that be consider changing. I think you'd make an excellent moderator.

C'mon, comrade, if you're that annoyed at him, just chuck his entire delegation out the window. I mean, show a bit of respect!

You're free to nominate him by following the instructions in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451644&postcount=2).

I think we should all get together and nominate WZ Forums. :p

I think we should all get together and nominate WZ Forums. :p

Have fun finding links to back up the nomination. :p