NationStates Jolt Archive

*phone rings*

Anthony Schiller, groggy and sleep-deprived, presses a small orange button on his videophone watchband.

"Answer", he says, as clearly as he can, yet the soft slur of his Gurguntian accent remains.

"Tony, wake the hell up!"

"What is it?"

"Repeal 'Metric System.' You've got a news conference."

"It actually made quorum?"

"Barely. It was an inch away from missing."

"Despite the apostrophe problem?"

"Have you seen the covention on maritime neutrality in queue before it?"

pause
"Why should I care about this anyway?"

"It's your job...and...
pause
...Craig'll stop bitching about how he can't read it constantly."

"Craig is an idiot."

"Yes, but he is your son. Preserving his mental well-being should at least matter to you."

"Positive rights? I'm exhausted, but I know that's pre-third revolution."

"Ahh...just get up, or I'll schedule a actually schedule that meeting with the representative from Minyos."

"You can't do that. You're my secretary."

"So fire me then."

quickly
"Okay, okay, I'm getting up."

Twenty minutes later, Dr. Schiller is in the UN building.

"Ladies, gentleman, assorted sapient lifeforms, and representatives from Cluichstan, I present to you Repeal 'Metric System', the glorious resolution produced and campaigned to quorum by the ACCEL's Department of Trade and National Sovereignty...

Repeal "Metric System "

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #24 (http://www.nationstates.net/20379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=023) | Proposed by: David6 (http://www.nationstates.net/david6)

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

Argument: COMMENDING the scientific advantages of the metric system,

AGREEING with the importance of facilitating trade among member nations,

NOTING that Resolution #24 'Metric System' calls for the conversion of all measurements, both domestic and international,

QUESTIONING the need to have standardised measurements not being used for trade or science,

ALARMED at the vast and unnecessary cost of converting all measurements, regardless of their use,

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

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

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

REPEALS Resolution #24 "Metric System."

Vast and unnecessary cost? I don't see converting to the metric system breaking anybody's bank.

Plus since we've already converted over to comply with the resolution as it stands... it's money already spent in any case. It's not like if we changed back to whatever we were using before the money would magically reappear.

I'll vote for when your repeal comes to vote, just as I voted for the last repeal attempt on this reso back in August. Considering how soundly that repeal was defeated however, I won't hold my breath for a win this time.

You never know though, the UN voting membership can be very fickle at times. Hopefully this time, they will see the light and get rid.

We'll vote for, but we really, really don't care, and if this makes us metric fascists, so be it.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Meh...most of our outer provinces turned their middle fingers up at this resolution when we joined anyway, but the cities use both readings. That's probably how it will stay, but at least we won't have to hear the UN gripe about it.

We're for it.

Vast and unnecessary cost? I don't see converting to the metric system breaking anybody's bank.

Plus since we've already converted over to comply with the resolution as it stands... it's money already spent in any case. It's not like if we changed back to whatever we were using before the money would magically reappear.

Yo0u use metric for everything already? Do your planes and ships often end up in completely the wrong place?

Could you possibly put the proposal in Quote tags if you'll bury it that far into your post - then if I'm just skimming through it, I'll be able to find the text.

Anyways, we oppose this proposal as it still allows all nations to use their own systems alongside the metric system. By having a standardized system throughout the world, we are doing two things:
1) We are making it easier for tourists to visit nations and be able to operate in these other nations - giving them a standardized system so they don't need to know the conversions for the local systems
2) We are helping your own citizens learn the conversions to the metric system as they are exposed to it so that they can utilize this system when they travel abroad.

We also feel that this particular line is false:

ALARMED at the vast and unnecessary cost of converting all measurements, regardless of their use,

It has been nearly 3 years. I would hope that the cost has already been spent.

On a different note:

Argument: COMMENDING the scientific advantages of the metric system,

I must be tired, I almost started a rant about Condemning the scientific advantages

It has been nearly 3 years. I would hope that the cost has already been spent.
You speak from a position of luxury. We joined the UN in January 2007; we notice there are people joining this very day. 3 years?

-- George Madison

We sincerely hope this repeal passes by a wide margin -- by like several thousand miles.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You speak from a position of luxury. We joined the UN in January 2007; we notice there are people joining this very day. 3 years?

-- George Madison

Yes, you have to pass laws and create procedures to implement every resolution that has ever been written no matter how great or vastly modifying they are to your nation when you join the UN. There's probably 125-150 resolutions that compliance elements attached to them, elements that every single nation would be required to implement upon joining the UN.

Are we really going to go from the argument that there's a gigantic financial burden upon nations when they join the UN? The proposal makes no distinction between those that have recently joined and those that have been here since the UN's inception. Nations that join do so willingly and fully aware of the costs involved in joining.

We do not accept the argument.

Our nation was *BORN* metric. (This was because we derived our indepenence from a nation in the UN bound by the Metric laws.) We will continue to be metric whether this repeal succeeds or not. Peddle your feet elsewhere. Our nation has spared the rod from our people. We've cut out the cubit!

(OK I'll admit it ... we still think light years are cool!)

Good luck with your repeal. But please don't peddle your non metric cars in our nation if you do! I mean if a car isn't metric, how can it use the parking meter?

We fully support this repeal. You may copy our arguments from the previous attempt at gutting this and paste them here. Thank you.

Sammy Faisano
etc.

As a member of the NSO, we are obviously concerned with National Sovereignty. We applaud David6 for his effort to repeal this because I still don't know what a yocto is. I preferred inches. Countries should get to choose for themselves.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad yadda yadda
"Famous Quote"

We support

We honestly don't care. Whatever the result, we will continue using the metric system (which has some significant advantages in education and science) in parallel with the older royal system (which has some significant advantages in everyday practical usages). We would strongly advise other nations to retain the metric system also, but if they wish to put themselves at such a disadvantage by doing otherwise we would not feel compelled to stop them.

Just so everyone knows if this repeal passes I will introduce a new standard of measurement in my country. I shall call it the "penis." Height and length will be henceforth be measured in penii. A penis shall be precisely 6 inches or 15.24 centimeters. Thus a six foot man would 12 penises tall.

Weight units shall henceforth be measured in a unit I call a "ball." A ball would be 4 ounces or 11.34 centigrams. So a man weighing 180 lbs would come in at 720 balls. Thus the average male would be 12 penises, 720 balls.

Imagine all of the fun we could have with all of the non-standard measures in the world.

Oh, BTW. Against....by about 10,0000 Km

Warmest left handed regards,

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Just so everyone knows if this repeal passes I will introduce a new standard of measurement in my country. I shall call it the "penis." Height and length will be henceforth be measured in penii. A penis shall be precisely 6 inches or 15.24 centimeters. Thus a six foot man would 12 penises tall.

Weight units shall henceforth be measured in a unit I call a "ball." A ball would be 4 ounces or 11.34 centigrams. So a man weighing 180 lbs would come in at 720 balls. Thus the average male would be 12 penises, 720 balls.

Imagine all of the fun we could have with all of the non-standard measures in the world.

Oh, BTW. Against....by about 10,0000 Km

Warmest left handed regards,

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of the Schwarzchild

Your example is quite similar to the ancient Balabani measurement of the dral. It roughly translates into modern English as "****." The ancient Balabani used it for everything, it was a completely arbitrary term. I could be the same height as you, yet we could be measured in different numbers of cunts. An old Balabani man once told me I was worth three cunts because I was four cunts tall and wighed 18 cunts.

Now, I don't mind using the metric system. I'm all for it. But mandating it in all nations? I don't want to see rich cultural heritages like the **** disappear, half the fun is figuring out how many cunts the volume of a basket is!

Rang Erman
Really, Really Reaching

If you really want to confuse people, use an undecimalised currency system (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Cobdenian_Pound)...

If you really want to confuse people, use an undecimalised currency system (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Cobdenian_Pound)...
Hey! Where's the guinea?

That only shews are notes and coins. I'm going to add other common terms such as the crown and the guinea...

I assume from the discursive opening statement on this repeal that Ambassador Faisano now has a chela, in the shape of David6.

Still, you could do a lot worse than choose young Sammy as your guru, even though his government and mine disagree on just about everything. (If he weren't a Kennyite, I'd accuse him of being quite clever.)

It'll be a fair while, I'm afraid, before the apprentice challenges the master, but I can already see the improvement. For example, this time there's only one clause --

ALARMED at the vast and unnecessary cost of converting all measurements, regardless of their use,

-- where you've let yourself be blinded by your own rhetoric, and even that could be an honest mistake. I think the delegate from New Manth and Ambassador Macdougall of Forgottenlands have already dealt with the logical flaw there, so let's move on to this one:

QUESTIONING the need to have standardised measurements not being used for trade or science,.
I'd just comment there that once you've been a tourist in a country where every single unit of measurement differs from the ones you understand, you might stop QUESTIONING that need -- though maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones who doesn't get beaten up by some disgruntled resident. Finally,

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

-- well, there's an argument I wouldn't touch with a forty-foot pole. You just haven't done the hard yards on this. Maybe you think that if we give you an inch you can take a mile, but you'd need seven-league boots to make up the ground you've lost on this bit; quite a few cubits, I'd estimate.

I mean, seriously, so okay that a system of measurement may be as much part of a nation's culture, etc. That doesn't mean that if they change the system, they'll lose all the cultural references associated with the earlier one. To use a cultural reference associated with this venue, that's an Inflatable Gandalf of an argument; one that's been blown up with hot wind.

Which brings me to your conclusion, and I was all set to niggle about that, too --

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

-- because I think "there is be" quite a bit of observable benefit in the conversion, forced or unforced, of domestic measurement units; the couple of "flaws" you refer to melt away when looked at directly.

However, if I niggle about your conclusion too much, I may talk myself into opposing the repeal. And, though I originally intended to, here's the reason I won't:

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

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

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

Yup. That's the original, in all its glory. Yes, I know it's a statement of intent. Yes, I know proposals used to be written differently. Yes, I know that mis-spellings don't render a proposal useless. But ... let's just have it quietly put down.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

Are we really going to go from the argument that there's a gigantic financial burden upon nations when they join the UN? The proposal makes no distinction between those that have recently joined and those that have been here since the UN's inception. Nations that join do so willingly and fully aware of the costs involved in joining.

So if I read this right, the substance of your argument is...

Nations don't have to join the UN --> we should keep proposals that put unnecessary financial burden on recently admitted member nations

To quote the honored representative from Forgottenlands, "we do not accept the argument."

So if I read this right, the substance of your argument is...

Nations don't have to join the UN --> we should keep proposals that put unnecessary financial burden on recently admitted member nations

To quote the honored representative from Forgottenlands, "we do not accept the argument."

I'll tell you what: next time, you make the argument explicitly for new members rather than insinuating its a financial burden shared by all members even today, and we'll let the matter slide. You didn't argue that in your text, we don't believe that's your actual argument.

ALARMED at the vast and unnecessary cost of converting all measurements, regardless of their use,

The proposal clearly says...

converting all measurements = vast and unnecessary cost

It doesn't say...

converting all measurements = financial burden shared by all members even today

We had assumed that UN members could deduct (as Forgottenlands has) that if a nation has already finished its convertion to the metric system, it has already assumed the vast and unnecessary cost (ignoring the possibility of acquisitions).

The proposal clearly says...

converting all measurements = vast and unnecessary cost

But is it really? Is it really vast and is it really unnecessary? I would argue that for most nations joining the UN, it is both reasonable and exceptionally necessary.

Most nations that join the UN are relatively small and relatively new. They don’t have significant existing industries in their nations in the single digits of millions of people, and they probably desperately need markets for them to sell their products in order to significantly raise the standard of living for their people.

Having a significant number of nations with a measurement standard is a significant advantage for them. They can build their really cheap cars and other things so they can all use metric replacement parts (like nuts bolts and washers) and people won’t have to worry about maintaining them in those foreign nations. In one sense universal metric is a free trade facilitator.

Most nations that join the UN are relatively small and relatively new. They don’t have significant existing industries in their nations in the single digits of millions of people, and they probably desperately need markets for them to sell their products in order to significantly raise the standard of living for their people.

Having a significant number of nations with a measurement standard is a significant advantage for them.*[snip]* metric is a free trade facilitator.

The St Edmundan Antarctic is one of the nations that joined the UN when it was small -- in terms of population, although not of geographical area -- but most of our external trade has always been with other 'Godwinnian Commonwealth' countries, such as our motherland of St Edmund itself, and the standardised system that they prefer is the traditional Godwinnian one... so that for us, shifting to the 'metric' system (had the St Edmundan government not found a major loophole in Resolution #24) would have been a major hindrance to trade rather than a "facilitator".
My government, as a member of the NSO, supports this proposed repeal even though some of its rhetoric is a bit stronger than we'd prefer and we rather wish that a line saying that _
"RECOGNISES that the repeal of resolution #24 will not force any nation that likes the metric system to stop using it"
had been included, because we're sure SOME nations' governments won't realise that that's the case and might vote against the proposal for that reason...
I've been told that we have a potential replacement for Resolution #24 drafted, somewhere in the files back home, but a copy of it has yet to reach me here. ( Barring accidents, I'll post it -- in a thread of its own, rather than in this one -- tomorrow evening BST. )

Dr Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

Yet again, we have a representative that's fully aware of the ability to use multiple different systems of measurement so long as one of them is metric but preaching to this body how this resolution means they are potentially hindered in trade with their trading partners because they wouldn't be allowed to use the alternate measurement. We are disgusted by this blatant disregard of reality.

Please give me the excuse to go to my "penis and ball" system of weights and measures.

This whole argument is predicated on the concept that a universal system of weights and measures is costly, hinders trade and violates national sovereignty.

None of these rather strident arguments passes muster. All of the old UN Nations have already converted and the small, new member nations have very little cost associated with the conversion.

I rather think Retired Werepenguins handled the free trade portion of the argument nicely.

Now as to the national sovereignty schtick. If you want to do all of the functions of running a nation completely without outside interference then:

1. Don't join the UN

2. Leave the UN if you don't want to adhere to the resolutions and rules.

The metric system is already in place.

As for the rest, it's all gross pontification. Dogmatic, pedantic and a decided waste of this body's time.

Luddites.

I must say, whilst I am not in favour of the arguements presented, I am in favour because the metric system is lacking seriously in some areas. For those who say a repeal hinders free trade - yes, it does. But so, also, does the metric system, due to the fact that nautical miles is not a metric measurement, therefore cannot be used by shipping and aircraft. Unfortunately, a kilometre is useless. One nautical mile is 1 meridian arc minute at sea-level surface distance - i.e. designed specifically for navigation. As opposed to a kilometre, which is defined as the length to be equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the 2p10 and 5d5 quantum levels of the krypton-86 atom. Whatever the hell that means. Simply put, if you use Km for navigation you might end up in Madras when your supposed to be heading for Elba - not good for free trade, and nobody wants our Captain's to be unable to tell their Madras from their Elba.

Secondly - astonomical navigation relies on the use of red shift, the light version of the doppler effect, to get a surpisingly easy to measure unit called a Parsec (the distance from the Earth to a star that has a parallax of 1 arcsecond) - light years aren't used scientifically as it involves a rather pointless conversion - and, more often, megaparsecs. Would you really rather use gigametres, which involve an even more pointless coversion? Considering the distances involved, those intergalatic nations would have an even bigger problem then earthbound seaman

Simply put, the metric system bears no resemblence to real life and the universe - in many cases, this doesn't matter. The imperial system also doesn't bear any resemblence, nor to most basic systems. But where it is required, a special measure not related to these arbitrary systems is introduce, and the original proposal prevents us from using these.


Anyone still awake?

Dr Gino Yocto-Fotherington-Nosepipe
Proffessor of Astrophysics and Inability to Spell Professor Correctly
Sexdrive College, Hailshame

Simply put, the metric system bears no resemblence to real life and the universe - in many cases, this doesn't matter. The imperial system also doesn't bear any resemblence, nor to most basic systems. But where it is required, a special measure not related to these arbitrary systems is introduce, and the original proposal prevents us from using these.


Anyone still awake?

Dr Gino Yocto-Fotherington-Nosepipe
Proffessor of Astrophysics and Inability to Spell Professor Correctly
Sexdrive College, Hailshame

For the third time in this thread, I point out that for personal use, you are nor PREVENTED from utilizing your local or convenient time measures SO LONG AS you have the metric equivalent as easily accessible and publicly available as your own system.

If we want to keep misreading UNR #24, if we want to keep badgering on about the usefulness of other systems, if we want to keep complaining about the inability to use these systems - PROVE IT. Rhetoric is a pointless waste of the time and effort of the delegates here.

For the third time in this thread, I point out that for personal use, you are nor PREVENTED from utilizing your local or convenient time measures SO LONG AS you have the metric equivalent as easily accessible and publicly available as your own system.

If we want to keep misreading UNR #24, if we want to keep badgering on about the usefulness of other systems, if we want to keep complaining about the inability to use these systems - PROVE IT. Rhetoric is a pointless waste of the time and effort of the delegates here.


im confused. So this repeal is pretty pointless, since it doesn't forbid the use of indiginous systems ?


The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

YES!

And I'm not the only one who's said that, either.

In the last 10 posts statements alone, we have the representatives of Ardchoille, Retired Werepenguins, and Schwarzchild state this. Further, the representatives of St Edmund admitted that the proposal included such a loophole while uttering the same rhetoric. Yet not one of us have been challenged on the matter.

I think it falls upon the supporters of this repeal to prove that it does what they claim. Thus far, they have failed to do so and instead preached about the evils of the metric system or the cost that had already been paid, by and large. We would love to hear them actually answer the questions in their arguments rather than stand there uttering rhetoric.

For the third time in this thread, I point out that for personal use, you are nor PREVENTED from utilizing your local or convenient time measures SO LONG AS you have the metric equivalent as easily accessible and publicly available as your own system.

If we want to keep misreading UNR #24, if we want to keep badgering on about the usefulness of other systems, if we want to keep complaining about the inability to use these systems - PROVE IT. Rhetoric is a pointless waste of the time and effort of the delegates here.


Sorry, but it is you who needs to read the resolution:

I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard.
No mention of being able to keep old systems - it says that we must convert to the metric system. No buts, no alongsides, no exemptions. All countries must convert to metric. If it said "the metric system must be displayed", then you'd have a point. It doesn't.

This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling.
Offical research includes astrological research, for which using the metric system for distances is about as useful as masturbating in a cup of coffee. Similarly for measuring of amounts of chemicals, which is done in moles, not grams. There are far more examples that escape me the uselessness of the metric system in the scientific community. Labelling includes map legends, which as I have already said is useless for navigation. And, as pointed out above, the only system permitted by the resolution is the metric system.

Prove it? Simple. Why does the scientific community use parsecs, moles, etc and shipping and aircraft use knots and nM? Because these units are designed specifically due to the ease of measurements and simplicity. To navigate using metric, one would have to take the nautical miles measurements, convert the metric measurements on the map to nautical miles, make the calculation, convert back to km To measure astrological distances, one would have to measure in metric, convert to parsecs, make the calculation, convert back to metric. Madness. Utter, utter madness

Explain to me how this precludes the ability to have your native measurements displayed alongside the metric measurements. So it says that your primary measurement should be metric - big flipping deal. The actual primary system of any nation isn't the one that's legislated on put is actually used. Regardless, you can still have two sets of numbers on every single sign, on every single map, and on every single research report. Explain to me how the term "convert to metric" means "bans the publication and usage of alternate systems".

It doesn't say one's primary measurement should be metric. It says we should convert. Convert means change from one to another, not introduce a new thing alongside an old, thereby precluding the use of other measurements. When one converts a barn into a house, you have a house. Not a barn and a house. When you convert water into ice, you have ice, not water and ice. When a nation converts it's measurements from imperial to metric, it uses metric, not imperial and metric. It may not have been the intent, but the semantics do preclude the use of other systems.

YES!

And I'm not the only one who's said that, either.

In the last 10 posts statements alone, we have the representatives of Ardchoille, Retired Werepenguins, and Schwarzchild state this. Further, the representatives of St Edmund admitted that the proposal included such a loophole while uttering the same rhetoric. Yet not one of us have been challenged on the matter.

I think it falls upon the supporters of this repeal to prove that it does what they claim. Thus far, they have failed to do so and instead preached about the evils of the metric system or the cost that had already been paid, by and large. We would love to hear them actually answer the questions in their arguments rather than stand there uttering rhetoric.


Whoa, calm down ;) anyways point taken. Still have more reading and some weighing of the sides to do.


The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

It doesn't say one's primary measurement should be metric. It says we should convert. Convert means change from one to another, not introduce a new thing alongside an old, thereby precluding the use of other measurements. When one converts a barn into a house, you have a house. Not a barn and a house.

Because a house and a barn are, logistically, difficult, impractical and foolish to possess within the same structure.

When you convert water into ice, you have ice, not water and ice.

Because when water freezes, it doesn't make matter out of thin air

When a nation converts it's measurements from imperial to metric, it uses metric, not imperial and metric. It may not have been the intent, but the semantics do preclude the use of other systems.

Oh, yes, because when a nation converts its religion, that means that no one can utilize other religions nor can state-funded churches of the other religions exist. In the same way, nations that willingly "convert" to the metric system only use the metric system at the exclusion of all others.

Alas, the definition says, to summarize, "to change from one to another". I can find no definition that mandates that the one can no longer exist as a secondary entity anymore than I can find evidence that that the entity has the capacity to exist. As such, I can only conclude that it is an area where it is undefined and in the event that something is undefined, the UN has granted the nations to ability to define it for themselves. As such, I think the obvious self-definition is that it doesn't mandate that the old system be tossed out, merely that it no longer be the main system.

However, to back into your other arguments, a house can still be used for the purposes of a barn if needed (toss some hay in there, pull in a few cows, you're set) just as the theories of equilibrium say that your frozen water still contains the tiniest amount of liquid water. It does not preclude the use of alternate systems as....well....alternate systems. It merely says that your primary system is to be metric, just as the primary purpose of a house is to house people just as the primary composition of ice is ice.

Offical research includes astrological research [snip]

As to astrological research, I'm both confused as to why that's been brought up as a serious matter, especially by Cobdenia. Surely it's both before and after your time? [/tongue in cheek]

Seriously, I don't really see how the metric system and astronomical measurements differ. Surely they are just as constant as the SI is (meant) to be?

When a nation converts it's measurements from imperial to metric, it uses metric, not imperial and metric. It may not have been the intent, but the semantics do preclude the use of other systems.
OOC: This doesn't explain why Australia still uses inches, feet acres in everyday speech. While officially they aren't used, they still exist. And this is from someone who grew up with metric.

Didn't Britain officially change over to SI a few years ago, with pretty much no effect on everyday living? Or am I mistaken on that count?

[edit]
IC: I seriously object to the proposal author's use of the du form in the poll. He has no right to claim such familiarity with me, or indeed any of our esteemed colleagues in this august place. I cannot support such rudeness. AGAINST.

~ Sebastian Ennuk,
Short-fused Representative of Emen Un

As to astrological research, I'm both confused as to why that's been brought up as a serious matter, especially by Cobdenia. Surely it's both before and after your time? [/tongue in cheek]

Seriously, I don't really see how the metric system and astronomical measurements differ. Surely they are just as constant as the SI is (meant) to be?

You have to be very precise to use a Lamson tube to put a man into space, I'd wager.

You aren't.

There are literally only three nations left in the RL world who have not converted to metric. The USA just happens to be one of them.

As for here, we have a whiny, crybaby nation who doesn't want to convert metric, despite the fact that the metric conversion has been in effect since #24 was put into effect. Just for the record we are in the 190s now in resolutions.

Schwarzchild posts all of it's measurements in the old Imperial system and the metric system and has no difficulty with standardised weights and measures. We have no fear of losing our national sovereignty over an issue that is common sense.

This repeal is about as useful as tits on a boar hog wearing lipstick.

As to astrological research, I'm both confused as to why that's been brought up as a serious matter, especially by Cobdenia. Surely it's both before and after your time? [/tongue in cheek]

Seriously, I don't really see how the metric system and astronomical measurements differ. Surely they are just as constant as the SI is (meant) to be?

Ah, but SI is not the same as metric. Parsec is an SI measurement, but not a metric one, being 1.49598×10^8 km. Metric is the system based on decimals, and is designed for convertability at some levels of science and thus metres is an SI unit. And whilst only our science fiction writers are thinking about going into space, we still research it and measure the distances.

As for the EU measurement thing, the EU said that metric measurements must be displayed on labels, which indeed does not preclude the use of other measurements being used in labelling.

Oh, yes, because when a nation converts its religion, that means that no one can utilize other religions nor can state-funded churches of the other religions exist.
It's only converting the state religion, changing the state religion would only effect the state religion. If it converted the religion of people in the state, then every one in the state would have to be of that religion. Converting the measurements of a nation converts them all to being that measurement. Think about it. You start with a tin of treacle, which ways 1lb. It says we must convert, so it now says 453.59 grammes. You put 1lb on the tin aswell. Unfortunately, this must also be converted to metric. So you now have 453.59 grammes twice on the label.

It does not preclude the use of alternate systems as....well....alternate systems. It merely says that your primary system is to be metric, just as the primary purpose of a house is to house people just as the primary composition of ice is ice.

Alternate systems of measurements, eh? So, one can of treacle is labelled in metric, the next imperial, the one after that metric, and the next one imperial. Surely you mean alternative...

I'm not adverse to a replacement, but this resolution is useless

It is the belief of the Forgottenlands government that the representative of Cobdenia is going well beyond the text of the resolution and rather putting his own interpretation of the connotative meaning of words to dictate how he interprets the denotative text of this resolution. We are uninterested in continuing this argument because clearly this is a difference in opinion - even if we went to the defintion of the term "convert", I'm sure that we would be unable to find a definitive manner to convince each other of the limitations the term grants.

Certainly, when such clear distinctions in interpretation exist, when such vast groups of rules lawyers and others within this body are so sharply divided on the matter, I think it would be fair to claim that BOTH interpretations are accurate enough to be accepted by the Gnomes and thus be considered within compliance.

However, when such distinctions in what constitutes compliance exist, one would assume that in issues of distinction, it is up to the nations themselves how they would adopt it. Thus, we would assume that the nations that assume the more restrictive interpretation is looking for an excuse to be upset with it being to restrictive.

Because a house and a barn are, logistically, difficult, impractical and foolish to possess within the same structure.
In point of fact this isn't true. Such structures do in fact exist, in contradiction of both arguements. While Gobbannium does not have mountains high enough for it to be a significant issue, we are aware of high mountain villages where the winter shelter for grazing animals is the lower floor of the family home; thus a house and a barn in a single structure.

(OOC: wander round the back streets of some of the small Swiss ski resorts like Sass Fee if you don't believe me.)

As we said earlier, we don't much care if other nations choose to disadvantage themselves by dropping the metric system simply because it was invented elsewhere. Stupidity is generally its own punishment.

Ladies, gentlemen and other sapient beings,
My government's draft of a potential replacment for Resolution #24 is now available for your persual, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12562898#post12562898).

We agree with the Cobdenian government's opinion about what the term "convert to" means: The major flaw in Resolution #24 that we have been exploiting is that the term "metric system" is literally just a slightly fancier way of saying "system of measurements", that the resolution does not identify just which system of measurements it intends nations to convert to because -- although many nations here have taken it as referring to the so-called 'Metric System' from the mythical world of RL -- it neither defines nor even names any units, names any nations where the desired system or gives the inventors' names, and that ( coming from an alternative reality where the French Revolution didn't happen and the 'Metric System' was therefore never invented...) we have therefore been able to consider it just a poorly-written and vague exhortation -- like all too many of the other early Resolutions -- with no actual binding effects...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this double-dashed penguin costume…)

If the original... resolution actually has _ no binding effects, then why should we vote for a repeal... that states that it does?

Incidentally, the hackneyed OP links to... Resolution #7 rather than #24: an ironic indication of the legislative practices of its author.

Incidentally, the hackneyed OP links to... Resolution #7 rather than #24: an ironic indication of the legislative practices of its author.Perhaps we're expected to convert the reference to metric? ;)

In point of fact this isn't true. Such structures do in fact exist, in contradiction of both arguements. While Gobbannium does not have mountains high enough for it to be a significant issue, we are aware of high mountain villages where the winter shelter for grazing animals is the lower floor of the family home; thus a house and a barn in a single structure.

Totally OOC: I knew a friend in the U.S. who lived in an appartment that was on the second floor of a horse barn. They lived above the horses. I had to carry their king sized matress up the very narrow stairs. Fortunately it was really old and bent easily.

If the original... resolution actually has _ no binding effects, then why should we vote for a repeal... that states that it does?

Because, flawed though the contents of the repeal might be, those of the original resolution are far worse?
Because leaving the original proposal in place would block the passage of any better replacement?
Because the very fact that the original resolution even tried to impose a single system of weights and measures on all UN nations for all purposes is a serious affront to the concept of National Sovereignty?

Resolution #7 rather than #24: an ironic indication of the legislative practices of its author

It actually always linked to 24, it just said it linked to 7. Problem fixed.

The major flaw in Resolution #24 that we have been exploiting is that the term "metric system" is literally just a slightly fancier way of saying "system of measurements"...

This is a simple issue of context...

I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard.

Notice it does not say a metric standard, it says the Metric standard. Obviously, the resolution is not saying that nations will convert to whatever standards they want to: it is referring specifically to the Metric standard.

This proposal would mainly help countries of poor economic standing, whereas the common standard...

Again...the argument that 'the common standard' does not refer to 'the metric standard' would be equivalent to claiming every appearance of the word 'their' in UN legislation applies to dolphins in its blatant ignorance of context and the use of the English language.

Because the very fact that the original resolution even tried to impose a single system of weights and measures on all UN nations for all purposes is a serious affront to the concept of National Sovereignty?
Given the degree of veneration it seems to receive, it is entirely possible that the concept of National Sovereignty needs to be seriously affronted. We say this as a nation that believes that sovereignty issues have their place, simply not at the forefront of consideration.

We are also unsure what to make of the fact that St Edmundan's proposed replacement does unequivocally impose a single system of weights and measures on sovereign nations, albeit a single system of the nation's choice.

We are also unsure what to make of the fact that St Edmundan's proposed replacement does unequivocally impose a single system of weights and measures on sovereign nations, albeit a single system of the nation's choice.

Whilst our businesses are quite happy dealing with nations whose systems of weights & measures differ from ours, they say that it's rather difficult trying to trade with people who don't have any standard system of weights & measures at all...
I accept that -- as several of you have pointed out -- our drafting team did not adequately consider those cases where different political subdivsions within a single nation might have differing systems, and this point has been passed to them for further consideration. In the meanwhile, I would point out that as our current draft allows the use of other systems alongside the official one "on a less official basis" it does at least allow for the continued use of those local systems as well as whichever one might be chosen for 'national' use.


Alfred Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

In the new internationalised world we are dreaming of, every country can keep their traditions. Although, in order to achieve something like that, we need to use an international language in trading and commerce. We vote against. Internationalism and Socialistic Globalization is the key to the Peace!:rolleyes:

It contradicts every UN principle to hold a resolution such as the one we're trying to repeal. Lacklististan is a proud member of the United Nations, but it cherishes its sacred right to measure physical objects using the scales and names the national government sees fit to use. The UN is meant to be a peacekeepin body, not one that forces ridiculous standards on all nations in blatant defiance to its sworn oath to uphold National Sovereignity. This is but one of many resolutions passed by this UN that are in violation of its own principles. If a nation wishes to use the metric system, it may do so, but it cannot force every UN member nation to comply with it as well. Lacklististan calls upon all the nations who can see the many apparent contradictions of this UN, both in the metric system resolution and many others, to form their own UN and govern it according to the true principles of the United Nations, if this and several other necessary repeals are not made.
Fredor Greylwald
Lacklististan Ambassador to the UN

The UN is meant to be a peacekeepin body, not one that forces ridiculous standards on all nations in blatant defiance to its sworn oath to uphold National Sovereignity.
Er, no.

A repeal that we can actually support... That's nice.

Ariddia has always used metric, but this is a matter of principle.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Since there is in fact only a small percentage of the existing world that does not currently use metric as system of measure, wouldn't it make sense to try to have that small percentage come to their senses rather than change the entire world for the fascist few... I think not, I vote against...

I've placed the New Cultural Revolution's vote in support of this repeal. The original resolution, while in essence little more than a statement of intent, nonetheless presents too broad a remit for metrication for our liking.

Benedictions,

Since there is in fact only a small percentage of the existing world that does not currently use metric as system of measure, wouldn't it make sense to try to have that small percentage come to their senses rather than change the entire world for the fascist few... I think not, I vote against...

Gee, thanks. We're not fascists, many of us are sovereigntists. We make are own decisions. You don't need to force your system on us.

We Support.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

Dear goverment leaders,

I would like to admit, that the Confederacy of Leikeze is against striking out metric system. I will now try to explain why.

Firstly, I agree 100% with the fact that only the minority of nations do not have metric system.
Secondly, the government of Leikeze thinks that the topic of the vote is quite agressive.
Thirdly, what sounds better: a "Quarter-pounder" or "Royale with cheese"?

Actually, I wonder, who cares what system every country has. So, if your nation's motto consists of such words as "liberty", "freedom" or "independence" I think, it would be logical to vote against.

With regards,

Confederacy of Leikeze
The Head of confederacy
Leikeze II

To the Exalted Rulers of Many Nations,

This resolution is not within the Mandate of These United Nations. We must allow for the free hand of the market to handle this. If nations that do not use the system wish not to convert when trading with others, then let their businesses suffer. It is not in our power to govern other people, only to ensure that those people work together in harmony and peace.

God Bless You,

Arch Bishop of Valii
Albin Bolesław

Sen. Sulla is sitting at his desk looking a little hung over. He reaches for a pitcher of ice water and pours a glass. As he picks the glass up and gets it near his lips, his face makes a pained expression and he visibly shudders. Quickly he pours the water back into the pitcher. With bloodshot eyes he peers out at his fellow UN delegates. Carefully the good senator leans over to his microphone and says.
"To tell the truth I couldn't really give a rat's behind if this repeal passes or not. I should be voting for the resoution, as it is a repeal, and throughout my tenurehere at the UN I've voted for most of the repeals. However this doesn't really strike me as a pressing matter, for us to waste our time on. Tell you what though, I'm a good capitalist and fairly corrupt so I'll give each side a chance to buy my allegience. The side who offers the best bribe getts my vote. THis is strickly a COD service and all bribes are non refundable. However I assure you that once bought I stay bought...unless a better offer comes along."
Senator Sulla reaches under his desk and pulls out his very familiar recepticle for accepting bribes...an empty gallon glass jar of Fine Yeldan Pickles(TM). He places the large jar on the corner of his desk. Then he give a most unpleasent smile to his fellow delegates

Ausserland has voted AGAINST the repeal. Having read the text of the repeal carefully, we find nothing that moves us to support it.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

This is a summary for myself, and if you consider, also for you.

1. Resolution #24 is poorly formulated. Actually 'Metric System' is undefined (is it refers to SI or CGM or sg. else?). For the purpose of this discussion I suppose everybody means SI as 'THE' Metric system. (legal observation)
2. Most of the nationstates have no detailed knowledge about SI which allows usage of non-standard measurements (even unlimited in time and context). This nautical mile argument is just a proof of this (SI allows usage of nautical miles). (scientific observation)
3. As per the standpoint of FeherTigris, sovereignity is sg. you WANT to give (partly) up if you join UN in exchange of advantages like peace, easier and safer trade, UN ambassador positions for your best friends etc. This should be true without limit unless you can prove that sg. cuases an unbearable disadvantage for your nationstate. (general political principle)
4. The cost argument of the conversion is not impressive enough. Costs occur all the time: catastrophes (e.g. earthquake); general cost of democracy vs. dictatorship (democracy is by far more expensive) etc. are all costs that are NOT counted (this is the 'luck' of a nationstate in one case and 'unluck' in another). Cost of conversion happens not only in physical metrics but also with currencies that is also some kind of metrics (e.g. nobody complains that oil prices are quoted in US dollars only). No more examples: this 'conversion' is NOT unbearable. (practical observation)
5. When we make a decision about a repel we should evaluate TWO situation: one WITH a resolution and one WITHOUT. For FeherTigris in this case the situation WITH is better then WITHOUT (let me remind all nationstates of loosing a Mars probe in RL because of no common metrics used). (actual political standpoint derived from 2-4.)
6. However FeherTigris welcomes a rework of Resolution #24 in the following direction: A) unified system should be used only in international affairs, cooperation, trade etc. B) bodies who has the power to influence all interested parties may introduce special measurements exclusively for purposes only affecting the interested parties. C) This does not change the base idea: there should be one unified (so called) metric system in international affairs. (actual standpoint derived from 1.)

resolution #24 is NOT GOOD (too restrictive) BUT is BETTER than no resolution at all.
against.

FeherTigris

When I approached the leader of EDP123 with the text of this document, he scaned it, then passed it back and said "nah" (and I quote).

It was therefore left to me to draw up the official arguement for my country, which is this. This repeal serves no important purpose to the U.N, and if passed is likely to make things just difficult and incur just enough cost to be nothing more than annoying. The vote of my country is therfore against the repeal.

We already spent a fortune converting to the idiotic metric system. Why should we spend another fortune converting it back?

How many quarts in a gallon? How many feet in a mile? Square feet in an acre?

Was that really easier than powers of 10?

We here at Sanitary Napkins support the metric system. Due to ease of use and the widespread use in most nations, it saves more money and time than it could ever possibly cost. Our engineers have threatened strike if we convert to a backwards system that makes no sense.

Chancellor Absorbent III
"The Winged One"
U.N Representative and Part-Time Newspaper Deliveryman from The Federation of Sanitary Napkins.

Sen. Sulla is sitting at his desk looking a little hung over. He reaches for a pitcher of ice water and pours a glass. As he picks the glass up and gets it near his lips, his face makes a pained expression and he visibly shudders. Quickly he pours the water back into the pitcher. With bloodshot eyes he peers out at his fellow UN delegates. Carefully the good senator leans over to his microphone and says.
"To tell the truth I couldn't really give a rat's behind if this repeal passes or not. I should be voting for the resolution, as it is a repeal, and throughout my tenure here at the UN I've voted for most of the repeals. However this doesn't really strike me as a pressing matter, for us to waste our time on. Tell you what though, I'm a good capitalist and fairly corrupt so I'll give each side a chance to buy my allegiance. The side who offers the best bribe getts my vote. This is strictly a COD service and all bribes are non refundable. However I assure you that once bought I stay bought...unless a better offer comes along."
Senator Sulla reaches under his desk and pulls out his very familiar receptacle for accepting bribes...an empty gallon glass jar of Fine Yeldan Pickles(TM). He places the large jar on the corner of his desk. Then he give a most unpleasant smile to his fellow delegates

Dr. Hodz passes Sen. Sulla's desk.

"Here's a check. It's from my friends at VISA Corp. for 1000 greenbacks. They're asking you to support the repeal, as it causes harm for them in non-UN member states."

Dr. Hodz deposits the check in the pickle jar.

"They're prepared to give you more. Or they'll just give you a card with unlimited spending and 0% interest."

Dr. Hodz walks away.

We already spent a fortune converting to the idiotic metric system. Why should we spend another fortune converting it back?

How many quarts in a gallon? How many feet in a mile? Square feet in an acre?

Was that really easier than powers of 10?

We here at Sanitary Napkins support the metric system. Due to ease of use and the widespread use in most nations, it saves more money and time than it could ever possibly cost. Our engineers have threatened strike if we convert to a backwards system that makes no sense.

Chancellor Absorbent III
"The Winged One"
U.N Representative and Part-Time Newspaper Deliveryman from The Federation of Sanitary Napkins.

You do realize that if this repeal passes, you won't have to change if you don't want to. You can stay with your system. We'll be going back to our own.

Please try to understand terms of a repeal next time.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Still wearing a Flat Cap

Even if this repeal passes, there would be no reason for a nation that had already converted to metric to switch back. They could continue as they are. But the repeal would benefit nations just joining the UN that don't use metric, and it might even benefit nations like mine that are still in the process of converting, but still prefer our old systems.

Edit: Dang slow typing! I need a secretary!

Even if this repeal passes, there would be no reason for a nation that had already converted to metric to switch back. They could continue as they are. But the repeal would benefit nations just joining the UN that don't use metric, and it might even benefit nations like mine that are still in the process of converting, but still prefer our old systems.

It would be downright foolish for some nations to switch back until it has been determined whether St Edmund's or Cobdenia's replacement has been enshrined.

*Nudges his financial advisor*
How much has converting to the metric system cost us?
Really, that little? Any reason why we should switch back? No?
Any reason why we should care either way about this?
Ah, bribe money. Why didn't you mention that before!
*Takes off his hat and places it top-down on his desk, ready to receive "contributions" before turning toward his fellow U.N. representatives*
"The Armed Republic of Armortoria could be persuaded to adopt either side in this issue. We shall decide our course based on the "weight" of your "arguments"."

Pathetic. My first ever UN vote is on...this? Right, I'm going to vote AGAINST for no particular reason. Well, maybe it's because I'm annoyed. I tend to vote against things when I'm annoyed.

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Worst Arguments Ever in a Repeal. A vote Negatory from the Dark Empire.

Mr. Ted Nickelra
-Understudy to the UN Deligate

Worst Arguments Ever in a Repeal.

We would greatly welcome an explanation for this statement.

Also: Just to clear up some misunderstandings for a few of our new member nations who are against this repeal...

This repeal does not abolish the metric system, or force anyone to convert back. It simply allows individual nations to use whatever system they wish, in order to preserve culture and lift the financial burden of converting on those nations that have not finished conversion.

It appears a few of your assumptions were incorrect. From what has so far transpired in my region, their first inclination when they saw the cost argument was that the cost had already been incurred and they ignored the potential cost for new members - reading the line as referring to all members rather than specifically for the new members.

After reviewing the arguments both for and against this repeal, we have decided to vote against. We remain unconvinced that the potential harm the original resolution may cause outweighs its benefits.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The Republic of Blaues Kreuz agrees with this resolution. Each nation should be able to choose witch system they use whether it be Standard, Metric, or Maxic.

Official Satement by Lucus Ee, Head Administrator of Dorgeshun:

I applaud the newest resolution to repeal "Metric System". We here at Dorgeshun, for since before we became a UN nation, have been using a system we call the "Sol" system. It is based off of the relative distance between the Earth, and the Sun. However, because we are now a UN nation, we can no longer use the measurements we came to know and understand. Our easy to use system was based off of powers of 5, instead of 10, and our units were bigger than those of the metric system.

ALARMED at the vast and unnecessary cost of converting all measurements, regardless of their use,

Obviously, this is saying that converting all measurements = vast and unnecessary cost. As a result, a member nation that has already converted all its measurements = a member nation that has already incurred the vast and unneccesary cost. Similarily, a member nation that has not yet converted its measurements = a member nation that has not yet incurred the vast and unneccessary cost.

I Belive We Need A Confusing System To Make The General Populce Confused To Make Them Easy To Control Muhahhahahahah

Obviously, this is saying that converting all measurements = vast and unnecessary cost. As a result, a member nation that has already converted all its measurements = a member nation that has already incurred the vast and unneccesary cost. Similarily, a member nation that has not yet converted its measurements = a member nation that has not yet incurred the vast and unneccessary cost.
Obviously, this hasn't been obvious to many. Such are the perils of abbreviating your argument in favour of a snappy line, as politicians the worlds over all eventually discover.

LEAVING aside the argument about the cost of conversion;

ROLLING its collective eyes at the hysteria said argument has produced;

PROBABLY because the opposition doesn't have any other valid arguments to offer against this;

AGREEING that arbitrarily forcing all member states to convert to a single system of weights and measurements really is stupid and trivial;

ASSERTING that domestic standards for weights and measurements is intrinsically an issue for national governments, and if the United Nations can't respect that, what will it respect?;

NOTING with concern that many of the outspoken opponents of this repeal are also Members in Good Standing of the nimble-minded, prejudicial "OMGzACCEL IS EEEEEEVIIIILLLLL!!!!" Brigade;

DECLARING that capitalizing the first word in every clause of UN proposals really is getting tiresome;

The Federal Republic nonetheless votes FOR this repeal.

How many quarts in a gallon? How many feet in a mile? Square feet in an acre?4; 5,280; 43,560.

Some of us paid attention in school.


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 report what say my most excellent president:
"In Democratic Republic of Onitorincopoli we use the metric system. Is simple, is pratics, and don't have any cost".

Lamberto Canella
Ambassador to UN for the Democratic Republic of Onitorincopoli

The Armed Republic of Scottdo supports this. Each nation should have the right to choose it's own system plus billons of people would have to be taught the new system which would be a waste of time and money.

COMMUNISM AND VICTORY

I'm just going to take a stab here and say that the person who drafted this is an American... cause the US is the only nation still using the old Imperial system...

using a standardized metric system is an excuse used by powerful nations to gain advantage over less powerful ones...being a new nation, i strongly contradict to this...we are allowed our own way of running things, hence our own measurement system...maintaining our own metric system will allow us to take total control of our economy, away from the grasps of power hungry nations...

so i call upon all of you not to fall into this ruse...

This issue is not one that we as people even need to consider. This does not belong in the United Nations, it belongs in the governments of those countries. If they wish keep their own allow them, if not then the free hand of the market will take care of their foolishness not to convert to a system when trading. There are more important issues at hand...

4; 5,280; 43,560.

Some of us paid attention in school.


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 had the first two.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It seems as though people are missing the point when they discuss cost. No student in a nation in the real world that is a member of the UN does not learn the metric system if they attend a public school so there is no additional learning cost. In fact America teaches only the metric system now because it understands the importance of unified measurement to the progress of knowledge.

As the international scientific community grows the need for cooperation between scientists is key to saving lives, making discoveries and progressing human knowledge. NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency's team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation. If scientists are going to work together to share research and save lives not to mention build international space stations that will house actual people worth a lot more than 125 million dollars there MUST be a standardized system of measurement. This isn't about nation's right to choose or cost of conversion... it could be about the future of humankind.

I Belive We Need A Confusing System To Make The General Populce Confused To Make Them Easy To Control Muhahhahahahah

I Believe You Are An Idiot Who Doesn't Understand Proper Capitalisation.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm just going to take a stab here and say that the person who drafted this is an American... cause the US is the only nation still using the old Imperial system...

OOC: If I'm not mistaken, is beer not still sold in pints in the UK, and aren't speed limits in miles per hour?

Oh, but let's take that stab anyway, cuz anything from an American must automatically be bad. :rolleyes:

OoC: In Britain, we use a system known as Impetric. Simply put, we use both whenever we feel like it. For example, beer and milk is sold in pints, Golden Syrup is sold in 500ml tins. Hot weather is measured in Farenheit, cold weather in Centigrade. Car speed is measured in Miles Per Hour, trains speeds in Km/h, and aeroplane speeds in knots. We weigh people in stone, our luggage in kilogrammes.

T'is a good system...

OoC: In Britain, we use a system known as Impetric. Simply put, we use both whenever we feel like it. For example, beer and milk is sold in pints, Golden Syrup is sold in 500ml tins. Hot weather is measured in Farenheit, cold weather in Centigrade. Car speed is measured in Miles Per Hour, trains speeds in Km/h, and aeroplane speeds in knots. We weigh people in stone, our luggage in kilogrammes.

T'is a good system...
* ooc: Indeed, and, when one considers the issue dispassionately, it doesn't really make any Meterial difference which system one uses provided one takes care.

Wacca.

Though I never use Fahrenheit, even for hot weather. I believe only the Dailies Mail and Express insist on squealing when we reach the 'hundreds'. *

Ok, first of all I would like to know which saddo trawled through all the UN resolutions to go pick pick picking at a perfectly good resolution - harming no one and go and REPEAL it. What are we coming to. We all vote to impose metric on EVERYONE and then some idiot comes along and goes THATS NOT FAIR i want to use my nations unit the squerlge. Why waste our precious UN time with some rubbish proposal when we could make a new UN resolution and do some good in our nations.

Heres why the original system works.

1) no confusion when international trading takes place
2) keeps arrogant mathematicians quiet in their office doing meaningless conversions instead of bothering me about the ridiculous rate of tax in my country!

Everyone wins!!

VOTE AGAINST!!!!

DOWN WITH POINTLESS REPEALS

Oh, but let's take that stab anyway, cuz anything from an American must automatically be bad.

Yes I must agree, the americans are slightly dim... anyone see George Bush bongoing on the news this morning?!?!

Down With Drive-by Posters!

Despite the plethora of arguments put forth for this repeal, none are particularly convincing. One stands out, however, for its lack of a grain of common sense.QUESTIONING the need to have standardised measurements not being used for trade or science,We cannot fathom where the author purchased the blinders he wears to avoid seeing that science isn't an autonomous quarter, but invests itself in all activities of sapient beings. Science and trade both are processes that literally have a hand in everything. A system of measure, standardized across the nations of this body gives us the advantage we must have to continue standing against the barbarians pounding at the proverbial gate.

To condemn ourselves to the potential of a chaotic hodge-podge of metrical terminology is to shoot ourselves in the foot in every area of public life for the consolation of tradition. This body, in the span of four short years, has made tremendous strides that deserve clapping palms of encouragement rather than fingers of disdain.

As an added bonus, we prefer to do our part to keep the Schwarzchildren from ever having the option of choosing their preferred measurement. ;)

I am against repealing it, we use the metric system in almost everything that has to do with math.

and as it stands its 2:1 against repeling it.

:sniper:

Down With Drive-by Posters!

*rolls into the debate*

I am against this repeal for the many reasons already enumerated by so many other worthy delegates. Imperfectia shall cast its vote "Against."

*drives off into the sunset and back into the mystical, mythical realm of RL*

yeah, repealing the metric system is a retarded idea.
other than that minor detail, im mildly irritated by the spelling of "argument".
no idea why though...

Lades and gentlemen, for the purposes of the discussion of this repeal, I would like to introduce the official metric representative for Retired Werepenguins, the lovely Rita the Meter Maid.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/248655828.jpg

Why thank you Flash. As Flash mentioned I am Rita. I am the official spokesperson for the Metric Promotion Board of Retired Werepenguins. It's my job to promote the meter, and the gram, and degrees celsius, and the importance of having ten fingers on your two hands.

The metric system is an important common measuring system. It promotes free trade. I highly reccomend every nation uses it. That's my job.

Therefore I strongly support this repeal? Why? Because currently all UN nations use metric. I don't have to promote the metric system to you all. I have to go to third world non UN nations whose hotels are all sub par. I mean consider Frustrated Franciscans ... what a dump! I'm half scared that I'll die from an insect bite in Tzorsland. And don't get me started about those ex-pirates now legislators in Blue Booted Bobbies. No I want to come to your nation. Every year. And promote the metric system. Remember you can still remain metric even after the repeal is passed. So give me a better job and vote for this repeal. Thank you very much.

yeah, repealing the metric system is a retarded idea.
other than that minor detail, im mildly irritated by the spelling of "argument".
no idea why though...
Possibly because it's correct?

We, on the other hand, are more than mildly irritated by the absence of correctly placed capital letters and apostrophes, and we have every idea of why that should be.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled irrelevancies...

While the independence of every nation is indisputably a priority, we do not feel that identifying a standard unit of measure infringes on the sovereignty of member nations. At a time when world markets and international trade are practically unavoidable, it is important for us to keep a common set of units to insure that dealings between nations are fair and confusion and costly errors in conversion are easily avoided. On behalf of the nations in of the Lands of Imlay, we implore you all to vote against the repeal of the metric system as a standard unit of measure and embrace the idea that standardization of measure is not an attack on the individual rights or culture of an individual nation, but a celebration of a united world community.

While the independence of every nation is indisputably a priority, we do not feel that identifying a standard unit of measure infringes on the sovereignty of member nations. At a time when world markets and international trade are practically unavoidable, it is important for us to keep a common set of units to insure that dealings between nations are fair and confusion and costly errors in conversion are easily avoided. On behalf of the nations in of the Lands of Imlay, we implore you all to vote against the repeal of the metric system as a standard unit of measure and embrace the idea that standardization of measure is not an attack on the individual rights or culture of an individual nation, but a celebration of a united world community.
As a representative of the People's Republic of Anti-modernizators, I concur with that. Let us keep the world united. This is the only way to international peace. Every nation has its right to keep their citizens having their own beliefs and their own traditions. Although, we believe that repealing the international metric system law will bring us in front of many problems about the unification and good relationships we dream of achieving. AGAINST for a new united world based on humanistic ideas.

Imposing a single system on member nations:world peace::onion rings:saving the dolphins.

The Democratic Republic of Calbrica fully supports this appeal. Our standpoint is that any country can choose whatever system of measurement that they please. We personally choose the US measurement system over the Metric system.

the position of our nation is simply thus

that we do not use the metric system at all right now, and we have absolutely no intention of ever doing so.

that in the interests of world peace this strange law must be repealed

that if the forced conversion to metric is upheld it will simply put tear the un and the world apart even worse then it already is.

i mean really gentleman what are you going to do how are you going to even enforce this law. if my nation refuses what are you going to do sanction us, invade us and force us to conform.

this will have no good effect

and then what about all of the other nations who disagree, sanction them or make war on them. what you are talking about is starting a world war. all of this over what. whether you chose to use inches or centimeters or whatever other measurement you might use.

we say never,at no time will we be forced to use the metric system. under no circumstances will we be forced to conform to the standards of others.

Not now Not ever not even if all the bombs in the U.N fall upon our heads or all of the U.N refuses to trade with us. we will have freedom or we will die fighting at the hands of those who would take it from us.

gentleman
good day

Imposing a single system on member nations:world peace::onion rings:saving the dolphins.
Do I need to vote FOR or AGAINST the repeal to save the dolphins?
BTW, by the looks of it, unless there's a sudden flood of FOR-voters, my measly little vote won't care either way.
Just for the record though, the Free Land of The Asylum Manager supports this repeal, otherwise it wouldn't be true to its prefix.

How hard is this to understand? USE BOTH!
If something is REALLY small, use millimeters. If it's small enough to fit into a breadbox, you use inches. Bigger than that, go with feet. Bigger than a horse, use meters. Simple. The alternative is dumbassery.

Despite my government's opinion that the two replacement proposals for this resolution are better scoped out than the text of this resolution, the intent behind this resolution is clear and sound.

Furthermore, the repeal has one clause that my government believes is not true:

ALARMED at the vast and unnecessary cost of converting all measurements, regardless of their use,

As other nations have stated, the steep cost of converting measurements has largely past and nations are free to use other systems of measurement as well. Standardization, however, is particularly important in areas of international trade and commerce. As a capitalist nation, we are happy to see that other nations interested in promoting free trade share this opinion.

Mikitivity has voted against this repeal. If another repeal were made without the above clause, we would actually consider supporting that repeal and encouraging one of the replacements be brought to the UN floor.

Mikitivity has no ill will towards any nation, including strong proponents of this repeal. We appreciate the work your governments have done, and are pleased that you've continued to express your opinions on international standardization. We simply disagree with some of the arguments used.

Howie T. Katzman

The Democratic Republic of Calbrica fully supports this appeal. Our standpoint is that any country can choose whatever system of measurement that they please. We personally choose the US measurement system over the Metric system.

"I, S. Belser, as the Nomition Ambassador (from Nomidity) would like to point out that the US measurement system is a variation on the Imperial measurement system, and that this system has been abandoned everywhere but the US. The primary reason for the maintained usage in the US is due to the impracticalities of changing a system in a single country of that size.

"I would also like to quote the proposal "ALARMED at the vast and unnecessary cost of converting all measurements, regardless of their use" and re-iterate other Ambassador's points. The cost of this would a) already have been paid by current UN countries, b) be insignificant compared to the effects of some of the other resolutions that they would have to conform with, and c) would also be outweighed by the advantage of having international trade and research progress at a faster rate with less errors.

"It would seem appropriate to point out the fact that whilst many measurement systems are around, few of them have been specifically designed for the purpose of ease of use and accuracy, unlike the metric system. It is based around a base 10 numbering system which corresponds to the ease of counting to ten due to fingers (and toes) which is used in most developed countries. And although one can count to 31 on one hand using binary (I is straight, O is bent), base ten is easier to manage when written. As most countries currently use base 10 numbering, it would make sense to use a system designed for ease of use in base 10 numbering.

"I also feel that the measurement system is not the only area where uniformity needs to be enforced. The way people record dates is also an area where many confusions arise, because there is rarely any explanation of which number means. I am referring to the use of six or eight digit dates, in the form dd/mm/yy(yy) or mm/dd/yy(yy). To give some history, the original use of this format was for computers, when chronological ordering was required for computers. The computer was able to order things numerically, and so the original format was yy(yy)/mm/dd (greatest to smallest amounts). By using this format, computers could easily order documents chronologically. But this fell into disuse and was changed into dd/mm/yy(yy) and mm/dd/yy(yy). The confusions that can arise from this difference can be the difference of a week to 9 or so months, which, for trade and scientific purposes, is a very significant issue.

"As such, Nomidity feels that there should be a standardisation of the date format so that, in the same way that the metric system reduces errors of understanding, the errors of understanding dates can be removed. If there is some support in this forum, a proposal to the UN will be made.

"Thank you."

"As such, Nomidity feels that there should be a standardisation of the date format so that, in the same way that the metric system reduces errors of understanding, the errors of understanding dates can be removed. If there is some support in this forum, a proposal to the UN will be made.

"Thank you."

For the purpose of international commerce, my government feels that having standardize time stamping of products and manifests is of benefit to the international community. The UN already employs a system of time measurement, and I'd recommend we encourage nations to adopt this system for international transport and cargo.

The people of Mikitivity are tired of strange cargoes being dropped in the Thuvian mountains and not knowing if the food contents inside are spoiled or not! ;)

For the support, the Democratic Republic of Nomidity thanks you.

How hard is this to understand? USE BOTH!
If something is REALLY small, use millimeters. If it's small enough to fit into a breadbox, you use inches. Bigger than that, go with feet. Bigger than a horse, use meters. Simple. The alternative is dumbassery.
Use both?
What if I need to convert inches to mm accurately? it would have been easier if I started with cm.

This doesn't explain why Australia still uses inches, feet acres in everyday speech. While officially they aren't used, they still exist.

Yes, they still are used. Mainly by the older generations. People who grew up with the metric system *never* use the old units.

If I need precisely 10cm screws, what if I get an approximation of 4 inches (~10.16cm). International trade depends on both parties knowing what they are getting.
We need an international standard. It doesn't matter if it's SI or American Standard, but since the metric system is already used by the vast majority of the world and is far easier to understand (5,280 yards = 1 mile or 1000 m = 1 km), it is pretty obvious what we should be using.

Give it up, Flat Earthers, repealing metric will never happen. AGAINST.

The Rouge Nation of Rah-Sang finds that the benefits of a hegemonous system vastly outweigh some countries' need to be different.

This isn't so much a front to sovereignty, so much as it is an attempt to unify the United Nations and, in to a greater extent, the World.

We do not support the repeal.

Imagine this scenario:


That almost every country in the world speaks one language, let's call it "Lingooij." Almost everyone speaks it, everyone understands it, and it is simply a joy for other people from other countries visiting others to understand everything and know everything what's going on, and at the same time grasping the other country’s culture.

But unfortunately, there is one country in the world that speaks a different language, dubbed "Rimehrica". Rimehrica is generally unfavored by all other countries in the world for its need to be "independent". It's completely different language results in hassle for speaking with other people and other people understand Rimehrica".


The metric system is one of the most unnecessary things we have in this world. Differences in measuring impacts both science and trade with other nations. Expenses for conversion are too high, and it is only a hassle. I knew the outcome of this resolution before it would be passed. From an educated opinion, the majority of those opposing the repeal are American NationStates users, thinking that the nation-wide conversion into the S.I. system would be too painful and difficult.


Regardless, it is a change that needs to happen. Having a different measurement system does little to give your country more "cultural distinction" or "independence". These elements exist in more variable ways, with a different measurement system not being one of them. It is only a hassle for pretty much anybody non-American who lives in the country to understand Fahrenheit, feet, miles, and etc. I was primarily raised in this country with the metric system being mostly embedded into my head as the true system. Oppositely, my parents who were not raised here, always have some sort of difficult understanding "Oh, it's only about four miles from here", or "The cable can only extend up to 8 feet.” Striking out and repealing the metric system would benefit America and the entire world. Conversion would take over slowly, but the American people would eventually adapt, and thus we will at least have one element in every country in the world that "speaks the same language".


- Bosnaeum's Representative Diplomat

I'm confused. You say the metric system is unnecessary, then you speak out for it?

Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Give it up, Flat Earthers, repealing metric will never happen. AGAINST.

Because obviously, an unscientific theory about the way the world works is completely comparable to a system of measurement.

Yes, they still are used. Mainly by the older generations. People who grew up with the metric system *never* use the old units.
A-hem. I'm 19, and have grown up with metric.

I know many, many people my age who will refer to things being 'an inch wide', while people's heights are often informally given in feet and inches, mainly because it 'sounds' better to be 6 foot than 'just' 183 cm.

And are you seriously suggesting we never talk about the quarter acre block? It's almost a cliché in Australian parlance.

I have already discussed this proposal's faults. Repealing #24 with this text is akin to having a bad tooth pulled by a drunken, cross-eyed dentist. Without anaesthetic.

All the same, #24 has to go if Cobdenia's greatly preferable version is to be considered. If we wait for a better, clearer repeal, we will have to subject ourselves to yet another round of speeches explaining how the eeevil metric system curdles milk in the breasts of nursing mothers, bleaches the stripes off tigers and makes sunflowers turn the wrong way round (or was that daylight saving?).

Anyway, in the interests of reducing pain and suffering and getting the whole thing over with, Ardchoille, which is strongly in favour of an international standard system of measurement, has voted FOR the repeal.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

Basically what the honourable UN imbecile has proposed is that even though the metric system is great and the majority of the UN voted for the metric system to be adopted we should scrap it cos we can..

I have no idea how there came to be this much discussion on the topic! so many people are against it, it is roughly 7 to 3 isn't it! I would personally like to congratulate the people who are risking career to bravely defend this repeal. My vote is still no however, and this is not only the view of my govenrment but my personal one as well.

Minyos, you've been asked before to keep your OOC rantings out of this forum. Please don't spam this thread with OOC statements about the author.

Please.

It wasn't about the author especially it could have been anyone, and it's very relevant.

The metric system is rather more sound and is a defense of the current resolution, I merely used the example of the US not using metric and Hubble, and listed why the metric system makes more rational sense.

If anyone in NS is using another alternative to metric apart from Imperial in their nation it'd be great to see, I think it would be fascinating.

Allech - Atreus, I have seen you be slapped down various times, and by moderators. I don't see any moderator tag on your visage to the left...so enough of the powertripping thanks.

It wasn't about the author especially it could have been anyone, and it's very relevant.

The metric system is rather more sound and is a defense of the current resolution, I merely used the example of the US not using metric and Hubble, and listed why the metric system makes more rational sense.

If anyone in NS is using another alternative to metric apart from Imperial in their nation it'd be great to see, I think it would be fascinating.

Now, you weren't around for the debate and the threads suggesting a replacement, so you clearly missed the point of the repeal.

But the vote is over, so it's a moot point.

Allech - Atreus, I have seen you be slapped down various times, and by moderators. I don't see any moderator tag on your visage to the left...so enough of the powertripping thanks.

See, I'm asking you politely not to spam the thread with personal attacks like the one you just made. Politely asking, not demanding. Okay?

It wasn't about the author especially it could have been anyone, and it's very relevant.And yet you called him out by name, and used his presumed American-ness to launch into a diatribe.

Given the use of "s" in words that Americans would use "z", I'd postulate your assumption was incorrect, as was to a certain extent your diatribe.
Allech - Atreus, I have seen you be slapped down various times, and by moderators. I don't see any moderator tag on your visage to the left...so enough of the powertripping thanks.This is mostly a self-policing body--though push the envelope often enough and you'll be seeing folks who do wear the mod label. If you're upset about A-A alerting you to a problem, perhaps you'll be less upset if a hard-core fluffy lets you know the same.

OOC: Minyos: no more personal attacks. Not on me, or on anyone else. A-A politely asked you to stop so that the mods would not have to get involved--they have enough to do as it is.

It was defeated. What a surprise.

OOC: Hubble's problem wasn't an imperial/metric conversion failure, Minyos, it was a straightforward error with the curvature of a segment of mirror. If you're going to launch personal attacks (which these are, so stop it), you could at least use the right example!

OOC: IMO, Minyos, your OOC statement to David6 was both a personal attack, and an anti-American rant. It was also unnecessary.

It was defeated. What a surprise.

OOC: Yeah, because while the US is "teh evil cultural hegemon!!!1eleven," those outside the US (and the UK, in this case) will take every opportunity that presents itself to enforce their culture on others. Gotta love the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

I don't see any moderator tag on your visage to the left...so enough of the powertripping thanks.

We are and always have been completely fine with players self-policing these forums. I don't see an "I set NS Policy for everyone else" tag on your nation either, so how about backing off and leave the policy setting to the mods and admins, k?

If anyone in NS is using another alternative to metric apart from Imperial in their nation it'd be great to see, I think it would be fascinating.

I'd had the basic details of the traditional Godwinnian system of weights & measures (which is also the standard one for the other 'Godwinnian Commonwealth' nations, such as St Edmund) worked out as rough notes for ages, and this debate finally prompted me to type those notes up & expand them: They're in Godwinnia's main NSwiki article (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Godwinnia)...

Ok, first of all I would like to know which saddo trawled through all the UN resolutions to go pick pick picking at a perfectly good resolution - harming no one and go and REPEAL it. What are we coming to. We all vote to impose metric on EVERYONE and then some idiot comes along and goes THATS NOT FAIR i want to use my nations unit the squerlge.

Your lack of logic astounds me.

I'm also baffled as to why this august body continues to impose a metric system on all its members.

I must be out of touch with UN logic...


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I must be out of touch with UN logic...


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Well, there's your problem. You think logic is actually involved.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm also baffled as to why this august body continues to impose a metric system on all its members.

Ladies and gentlemen (and any other freaky-assed "sentients" here), put your hands (or flippers, pincers, or whatever) together for the lovely Christelle Zyryanov: slowly but surely seeing the NatSov light!

I must be out of touch with UN logic...

"UN logic"? Now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Lmao yeh! How can you condemn my crap logic when i may be the correct UN logic.

My idea. If it sounds dangerous. VOTE AGAINST:P

Lmao yeh! How can you condemn my crap logic when i may be the correct UN logic.

My idea. If it sounds dangerous. VOTE AGAINST:P

What is your logic?