NationStates Jolt Archive

It's on the third page. It's called "Repeal Historical Landmarks"

It's the first one I've ever made. I'd appreciate feedback from people that have done this before.

It's on the third page. It's called "Repeal Historical Landmarks"

It is considered polite to post the text of the proposal you are promoting

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #15


Proposed by: Paulfus

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

Argument: COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution in preserving culture,

RECOGNISES the importance of preserving culture,

NOTES that historical sites are not clearly defined by a set of standards,

BELIEVING that allowing the UN to decide what is and what isn't historical does not allow a country to decide what is and what isn't their culture,

FURTHERMORE NOTES that this proposal strains new economic developments,

RECOGNISES that new buildings can also draw tourism,

BELIEVING that this resolution does not clearly define what will be done to protect the historical sites,

CONCLUDES that this resolution is unclear, unnecessary, and harmful to economically developing nations,

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #15 "Protect Historical Sites", to possibly allow a more clearly defined resolution to take it's place.

Approvals: 17 (Naughty Slave Girls, NorthSouthLand, Esperantania, WZ Forums, Roman Restoration, Thelostsouls, NewTexas, Arturo the beaner, Compulsoria, Kerimaki Cowboys, Psycotia Island, The Sacred Orb, Lanterne, Lurkar, Deutscher Geist, The Big Green Tree, Don Corelone)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 94 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Mar 23 2007


I have yet to see a proposal successfully get 94 nominations in under 24 hrs - even the most universally supported ones are not that good. I will post an analysis in a sec

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #15


Proposed by: Paulfus

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

Category is good - yes that is something people screw up

Argument: COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution in preserving culture,

RECOGNISES the importance of preserving culture,

NOTES that historical sites are not clearly defined by a set of standards,

BELIEVING that allowing the UN to decide what is and what isn't historical does not allow a country to decide what is and what isn't their culture,

Ok, let me check this. UNR #15 is two lines and somehow you got this:

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

To Equate to

allowing the UN to decide what is and what isn't historical

That is an extreme leap in logic. UNR #15's can be summarized into 5 words to indicate its total, net effect upon member nations

We must preserve our cultures

I make an explicit point to the word we. WE, the nation must preserve OUR culture. Not we the assembly, WE, the nation. The onus to decide what is and isn't historical is upon the nation and thus it isn't a question of the UN being able to decide this information

FURTHERMORE NOTES that this proposal strains new economic developments,

Actually, I think the very point of the proposal was "we must acknowledge that the cultural value of some sites is more important than the economic value". That aside, the fact that the net effect of UNR #15 means zilch so that you can declare what is and isn't a historical site within your nation (and, actually, even if it were a historical site, you'd STILL be able to tear it down because UNR #15 doesn't stop you from doing that), so UNR #15 is completely incapable of straining economic development without using connotative meanings - and Connotative meanings is COMPLETELY based upon where you're from.

RECOGNISES that new buildings can also draw tourism,

Doesn't mean they are culturally equivelent

BELIEVING that this resolution does not clearly define what will be done to protect the historical sites,

Which is why your earlier claim about economic strain is false.

CONCLUDES that this resolution is unclear,

Check

unnecessary,

Debatable. In its current form, yes. In a more developed, succinct, and complete proposal, I wouldn't necessarily agree. Culture has some degree of importance and it can have great meaning for many people.

and harmful to economically developing nations,

UNR #15 is incapable of doing that.

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #15 "Protect Historical Sites", to possibly allow a more clearly defined resolution to take it's place.

Ok, your starting and your end match but don't match your middle. Your middle bashes away at the sentiment behind the resolution - of cultural preservation being held above economic gain - while your start and end applaud the sentiment. While both approaches are appropriate for different tones of a repeal attempt, that isn't what you're working with.

Also, please: unless you have plans to personally work on a replacement or have spoken with people who are considering a replacement, don't leave in the carrot for replacing a resolution. There are a lot of people that are disgruntled about a lot of these "promises" for a replacement resolution not being fulfilled when part of the problem is the overuse of the line by people who have absolutely no plans to replace

It is considered polite to post the text of the proposal you are promoting



I have yet to see a proposal successfully get 94 nominations in under 24 hrs - even the most universally supported ones are not that good. I will post an analysis in a sec

It is possible. The Epidemic Protocol proposal reached quorum in less than two days.

I'm not going to repeat what Forgottenlands said but I'm in accord with him. If you want I will think about a new proposal but some body else would have to propose it because I can't for the moment.

Just a couple of quick points here.

I make an explicit point to the word we. WE, the nation must preserve OUR culture. Not we the assembly, WE, the nation. The onus to decide what is and isn't historical is upon the nation and thus it isn't a question of the UN being able to decide this information

I'm pretty sure that "we," when used in the text of a UN resolution, carries the implication that the antecedent of that pronoun is "the UN." Since when does a UN law speak for each individual nation? It speaks for the UN as the UN. So yeah...you're just plain wrong on this point.

Also, please: unless you have plans to personally work on a replacement or have spoken with people who are considering a replacement, don't leave in the carrot for replacing a resolution. There are a lot of people that are disgruntled about a lot of these "promises" for a replacement resolution not being fulfilled when part of the problem is the overuse of the line by people who have absolutely no plans to replace

It's not a promise of anything, and those who are disgruntled about such language can easily get off their lazy arses and write replacements for repealed proposals if they so wish. There is no promise being made by the repeal author that he or she will be the one to write a replacement. The language in the repeal merely acknowledges that, should the repeal pass, it can be replaced by a better piece of legislation -- no more, no less. If lazy people want to read into it and be disappointed, that's their bloody problem. I find the outrage when no replacement for a repealed resolution is offered absolutely ludicrous. That adamant that a replacement is needed? Write one your-fucking-self.

Oh, but then it's a lot easier to bitch and whine than to actually sit down and draft legislation... :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Cluich:

1) Do you actually believe that UNR #15 and those five words gives the UN the power to declare what is and isn't a Historical Site? Do you actually believe it puts the onus on the UN as a body to preserve culturally important landmarks?

2) Again, I believe we should be improving the community, and when I see the fluffies bitching about this sort of thing, I think we should be looking for ways to minimize their confusion because the consequences end up being dire for those who are attempting to actually perform a true R&R. Further, I did not say it was illegal or that he was required to make such a change, but I asked him to do it as a curtesy. I fail to see how asking him to do something that helps future proposers not get beaned for the same thing is out of line or, really, uncalled for.

But why bother actually thinking about intentions and purposes and secondary reasons and such when we can have a chance to stick it to the representative of Forgottenlands

Cluich:

1) Do you actually believe that UNR #15 and those five words gives the UN the power to declare what is and isn't a Historical Site? Do you actually believe it puts the onus on the UN as a body to preserve culturally important landmarks?

But why bother actually thinking about intentions and purposes and secondary reasons and such when we can have a chance to stick it to the representative of Forgottenlands

OOC: Yes, I do, based on interpretations that have been made of other early, shoddily written resolutions -- as well as the reason I stated IC above. The intention of the resolution in question, by my reading is clear: to give the UN power to decide what are culturally important landmarks worthy of international protection. It is an international law after all, isn't it? And the word "we" in the text, by the old crappy standards that let garbage language like that go, means "the UN."

Oh, and FL, jeez...get over yourself. I don't sit here dreaming about "sticking it" to the representative of Forgottenlands. If anything, I sit here dreaming about sticking it to Alyson Hannigan. :p

OOC: Yes, I do, based on interpretations that have been made of other early, shoddily written resolutions -- as well as the reason I stated IC above. The intention of the resolution in question, by my reading is clear: to give the UN power to decide what are culturally important landmarks worthy of international protection. It is an international law after all, isn't it? And the word "we" in the text, by the old crappy standards that let garbage language like that go, means "the UN."

Since when have you cared about intent of a resolution?

Or am I confusing you with Kenny?

I remember one of you kept banging around about his legal-wanking abilities.

Either way, even if I went with intent, I actually don't see the author's intent as being the UN decides the culturally important landmarks but rather a call for nations to preserve their culturally important landmarks - I really do see the author as putting the onus on the nation, not the UN

Oh, and FL, jeez...get over yourself. I don't sit here dreaming about "sticking it" to the representative of Forgottenlands. If anything, I sit here dreaming about sticking it to Alyson Hannigan. :p

I suppose if I don't put up a picture of Jamie MacDougall, you don't have anything to dream of sticking it to.....

Oh who am I kidding, I'd probably make it a picture of someone who'd make you go limp....

All OOC:

Since when have you cared about intent of a resolution?

Or am I confusing you with Kenny?

I remember one of you kept banging around about his legal-wanking abilities.

Um...that would be Kenny. You might wanna check his sig.

As for the rest of your post, meh. Take your personal problems with me up with me offboard if you really feel the need. There's really no place for it here.

Or am I confusing you with Kenny?Milord, I am here. What is your will?

OOC: Kenny, where's your sig?

OOC: Kenny, where's your sig?

OOC: Wow...talk about clueless...

OOC: Kenny, where's your sig?Try clicking "Why your stupid proposal..." If you can't see the sig, you probably need to alter your forum options.

Also, please: unless you have plans to personally work on a replacement or have spoken with people who are considering a replacement, don't leave in the carrot for replacing a resolution.

Even if you have a perfect replacement waiting, don't say it in the repeal. Say it in the repeal debate, fine. Post it as a draft, fine. It's what was done with the current at-vote. But the actual wording of a repeal should deal with the resolution it's repealing.