NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there are a couple of other idea's floating around for a replacement for Metric System, which I still maintain is an appallingly written, somewhat confusing, and slightly limiting resolution, but hey, one more won't hurt!

CURRENT RESOLUTION AT VOTE:

International Measurements Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

REALISING that lack of weight and measurement standardisation is a major concern for importers and exporters,

FURTHER REALISING that such a lack of standisation can impede the flow of scientific research,

BELIEVING, therefore, that a standard for weights and measurements is required,

UNDERSTANDING, however, that one system of measurement, whilst appropriate in some circumstances, may be inappropriate and otherwise unusable in other circumstances,

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that other measurement systems may be of cultural signifigance for certain member states,

The United Nations, hereby:

1) ESTABLISHES the Bureau of Measurements and Weights (BMW),

2) COMMISIONS the BMW to create a standard for all weights and measurements, and warrants the BMW to decide which unit is to be used under what circumstances. This will include, but is not limited to:
a) Metric weights and measures for use on consumer products, scientific calculations (where appropriate), and roadway signage;
b) The Parsec and related measures for astrophysical calculations (where appropriate);
c) The Nautical Mile and related measures for aerial and nautical navigational (where appropriate)
d) Bits, octets, bytes and related units for electrical information storage
e) Other measurements systems for other circumstances as deemed appropriate by the BMW

3) MANDATES that all labelling, roadsigns, scientific papers, navigation charts, and other items requiring notation of this ilk, display the unit system as deemed appropriate for said item by the BMW clearly. This does not preclude the use of alternative measurements on such items as long as the BMW sanctioned unit is also displayed,

4) FURTHER ENCOURAGES that the measurement system(s) as authorised by the BMW be used primarily in educational instruction to encourage familiarity, but not precluding the teaching of other systems should a nation deem it necessary

I like it, but this clause is a bit... awkward.

3) MANDATES that all labelling, roadsigns and other items requiring notation of this ilk display the unit system as deemed appropriate for said item by the UNBWM clearly. This does not preclude the use of alternative measurements on such items as long as the UNBWM sanctioned unit is also displayed,

How about trying this instead:

3) MANDATES that all labels, roadsigns, and other items requiring such notation follow the appropriate measurements as per the UNBWM clearly.
a) Such requirements do not preclude the use of alternative measurements, given that the UN-required measurement is also displayed,

Further thoughts?

The only weights and measures proposal this delegation will support is a blocker. Opposed.

We would have to disagree with item 5: rocking unicycles would seem a singularly unsafe mode of transport.

On a fractionally more serious point of spelling, "COMMISSIONS" has three 'S's in it.

I just doodled something fairly similar this morning. Great minds think alike or fools never differ?

How about trying this instead:

3) MANDATES that all labels, roadsigns, and other items requiring such notation follow the appropriate measurements as per the UNBWM clearly.
a) Such requirements do not preclude the use of alternative measurements, given that the UN-required measurement is also displayed


Further thoughts?

It doesn't have to word ilk in it...

It doesn't have to word ilk in it...

:D

The only weights and measures proposal this delegation will support is a blocker. Opposed.

There is a loophole in the current draft:

"2) COMMISIONS the UNBWM to create a standard for all weights and measurements, and warrants the UNBWM to decide which unit is to be used under what circumstances. This will include, but is not limited to:"

which opens the door for other systems. My government finds this acceptable.

The Government of Venerable Libertarians incorporating the colony of Templar Crusaders supports this with one exception.

Rocking Unicycles and the associated carny types who use said vehicles are banned within our jurisdiction.

That is all.

/s/
Lord Esheram Byron.

There is a loophole in the current draft:

"2) COMMISIONS the UNBWM to create a standard for all weights and measurements, and warrants the UNBWM to decide which unit is to be used under what circumstances. This will include, but is not limited to:"

which opens the door for other systems. My government finds this acceptable.It opens the door for the committee to introduce other systems, not individual nations.

It opens the door for the committee to introduce other systems, not individual nations.

So you could petition the committee to approve your system. Or you could just corrupt the committee. I'm sure the Creative Solutions Agency will think of something.

Aren't replacements supposed to be better than the resolution they will replace, or at least not glaringly contradict the arguments in the repeal?

Aren't replacements supposed to be better than the resolution they will replace, or at least not glaringly contradict the arguments in the repeal?

Not really. They are just a resolution that is intended to replace a repealed resolution. Sometimes replacements are blocker resolutions, other times they actually expand upon the mandate / intent of the original resolution.

The danger in passing a repeal is that the repeal justifications really aren't screened. None fact based opinions are allowed in the preambles of resolutions and repeals, but only resolutions can block other resolutions. There is no reason why a repealed resolution can not be resubmitted using the exact same text as was repealed, other than the obvious knowledge that the exact same repeal text can again be used to remove it again.

Aren't replacements supposed to be better than the resolution they will replace, or at least not glaringly contradict the arguments in the repeal?

1) Not everyone who writes a replacement supported the repeal in the first place
2) Not everyone who supports the repeal supports it for the reasons stated in the repeal
3) The repeal HAS ZERO BINDING EFFECT upon the future actions of this United Nations.
4) You assume that your repeal will be the one that passes.

You'll notice that the representative Cobdenia indicated several problems with UNR #24 insofar as impractical systems for certain fields - all of which he actually addresses in his proposal. At no point did he disagree with the intent of having a unified, mandatory system of measurements nor the concept that many are arguing of being beneficial for trade and tourism. He also noted poor wording and confusion about whether the system is alongside or otherwise - in fact, he and I debated on that very point.

If I had my way, your repeal would fail, we'd scramble a repeal aimed at promoting this replacement, and then get another replacement in behind it.

Aren't replacements supposed to be better than the resolution they will replace, or at least not glaringly contradict the arguments in the repeal?
Your use of 'at least' is misleading: Individual Self-Determination was better than the one it replaced, but contradicted the arguments in the repeal.

So, 'no'.

Anyways, returning to the subject at hand....

As I said earlier, I doodled a very similar proposal on Friday. By and large, the concept and intent of the proposals is pretty much the same, but I just wanted to look at the manner in which we approached your clause 2

For your clause 2, I had:

COMMISSIONS the UN Standards Council to define the UN Measurements Standards covering all fields of measurement based off of existing systems and based upon the following considerations
1) Cost of conversion by all UN member nations to meet the requirements of this resolution
2) Practicality of usage and measurement by the system
3) Commonality of the system amongst member states

Reason being that one of the reasons we had such massive problems with UNR #24 was because it was OMG METRIC!!!111SHIFT1 being explicitly called out in the text. In my mind, I really couldn't see it being explicitly useful for RP and considering that it's probably a more behind-the-scenes RP element, I didn't think calling out a specific system for any particular purpose to be amongst the wisest of choices.

On a similar note, I don't think they're using parsecs to measure the distance between hear to Alpha Centari - and I understand that that is an Astrophysical calculation

Something else that came to me about half an hour ago was.....do we want to have the Gnomes define a standard monetary unit for the purpose of simply having something we can stick in proposals?

Something else that came to me about half an hour ago was.....do we want to have the Gnomes define a standard monetary unit for the purpose of simply having something we can stick in proposals?

I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, but having a UN defined currency is illegal.

I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, but having a UN defined currency is illegal.

....If we try to interfere with Game Mechanics by telling or even recommending nations adopt it.....which isn't what I'm saying. But I do see how this could get ugly fast.....and actually, thinking back it isn't as useful as I was initially thinking....

The only weights and measures proposal this delegation will support is a blocker. Opposed.

We stand with our Kennyite friends on this one.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, but having a UN defined currency is illegal.Not as such. It's possible to have a legal Resolution creating a global currency; it's just monsterously difficult to manage.

Personally, I'd be pretty amused if someone could pull it off.

Not as such. It's possible to have a legal Resolution creating a global currency; it's just monsterously difficult to manage.

Personally, I'd be pretty amused if someone could pull it off.

I'd suggest we use beer as our global currency, but every time I try to talk about the renewable resource some teatotaler gets all offensive excusing me of encouraging alcoholism and the like. ;)

I'd suggest we use beer as our global currency, but every time I try to talk about the renewable resource some teatotaler gets all offensive excusing me of encouraging alcoholism and the like. ;)

Have you not seen Cluichstan's national currency? ;)

The United Nations,

REALISING that lack of weight and measurement standardisation is a major concern for importers and exporters,

FURTHER REALISING that such a lack of standisation can impede the flow of scientific research,

BELIEVING, therefore, that a standard for weights and measurements is required,

UNDERSTANDING, however, that one system of measurement, whilst appropriate in some circumstances, may be inappropriate and otherwise unusable in other circumstances,

The United Nations, hereby:

1) ESTABLISHES the United Nation's Bureau of Weights and Measurements (UNBWM),

2) COMMISIONS the UNBWM to create a standard for all weights and measurements, and warrants the UNBWM to decide which unit is to be used under what circumstances. This will include, but is not limited to:
a) Metric weights and measures for use on consumer products, scientific calculations (where appropriate), and roadway signage;
b) Parsec and related measures for astrophysical calculations (where appropriate);
c) The Nautical Mile and related measures for aerial and nautical navigational (where appropriate)
d) Bits, octets, bytes and related units for electrical information storage
e) Other measurements systems for other circumstances as deemed appropriate by the UNBWM

3) MANDATES that all labelling, roadsigns and other items requiring notation of this ilk display the unit system as deemed appropriate for said item by the UNBWM clearly. This does not preclude the use of alternative measurements on such items as long as the UNBWM sanctioned unit is also displayed,

4) FURTHER ENCOURAGES that the measurement system(s) as authorised by the UNBWM be used primarily in educational instruction to encourage familiarity, but not precluding the teaching of other systems should a nation deem it necessary

Slight alterations for future re-submission

Unicycles do rock though.

Being picky, shouldn't it end "should a nation deem it necessary" without the 's' on 'deem'?

OOC: H'mm, doesn't clause #4 contradict the UN Educational Aid Act?

Alterations made; changed the deem/s problem and the last clause to an ENCOURAGING...

Bump ready for the repeal to come along

We Decapodians did not travel 756C893 cubits to our planet to have standard measurements enforced upon us. What's next your going to force us to use the base10 system of numbers! I like my weight in stones, my height in cubits, my energy in forthlings, and my coolness in megafonzys. While the only flaw i can see is you should also mandate base10 if you are truly standardizing measurements, i oppose it as an infringement on cultural sovereignty.

It doesn't mandate anything of the sort, merely that "metric" measurements be used. This can be in conjunction with existing units, as well as on it's own

One thing I would suggest is to change the name of the UNBWM to something more general purpose, like the UN Standards Organization or somesuch.

But maybe that's just my strange obsession with reusable committees talking.

Mr. Guy
Temporary UN Representative

a) Metric weights and measures for use on consumer products, scientific calculations (where appropriate), and roadway signage;
b) Parsec and related measures for astrophysical calculations (where appropriate);
c) The Admiralty Mile and related measures for aerial and nautical navigational (where appropriate)
d) Bytes and other related units for electrical information storage

My government is interested in some of the justification / thoughts behind these recommendations for establishing standards.

For example, why the Admiralty Mile for aerial and nautical navigation?

They all have logical reasons for the measurements chosen

a) Metric weights and measures for use on consumer products, scientific calculations (where appropriate), and roadway signage;
Practicality and simplicity of conversions and the mathematics involved

b) Parsec and related measures for astrophysical calculations (where appropriate);
Ease of measurement - in order to use light years, for example, you have to work it out in parsecs first, then convert it. Same with other measurements.

c) The Admiralty Mile and related measures for aerial and nautical navigational (where appropriate)

Should read nautical mile as opposed to admiralty (both are similar, but the Admiralty mile is more Anglocentric); both are based on the measurements of the earth's circumference (1NM=1 degree of latitude). Again, similarly to the parsec, in order to use km or statute miles, one would have to measure in NM and convert, which seems like a waste of time. I know that in NS their are other planets and the NM won't work their, but I feel reasonable nation theory would cover that.

d) Bytes and other related units for electrical information storage
This one is simply because there ain't no other measurement for electrical information storage!

d) Bytes and other related units for electrical information storage
This one is simply because there ain't no other measurement for electrical information storage!
OOC: Technically, the correct measure is "octets". While the definition of "byte" as "8 bits" has settled down, there are not so very historical machines with 7- and 9-bit bytes. That's why the international standards that I love so very much still refer to octets, and almost never to bytes.

Should read nautical mile as opposed to admiralty (both are similar, but the Admiralty mile is more Anglocentric); both are based on the measurements of the earth's circumference (1NM=1 degree of latitude). Again, similarly to the parsec, in order to use km or statute miles, one would have to measure in NM and convert, which seems like a waste of time. I know that in NS their are other planets and the NM won't work their, but I feel reasonable nation theory would cover that.


Thanks, and I like the idea of using navigational measurements that are based on degrees.

One problem, the linear distance associated with a full degree of latitude (north-south measurement) is also a function of the circumference of the planet in question. You correctly mentioned that they are based on earth's measurements, so if we were to talk about navigational distances on another planet, is earth still the reference point?

The metric system of measurements and IIRC time were at one point based on chemistry ... half lives or atomic measurements. I could be wrong, but I liked the idea of benchmarking measurements to hydrogen atoms. With the exception of the Dog Women of Mutara, most everybody else agrees that hydrogen exists. ;)

I guess I might have missed this, but these are just some of the standards right? Nations can still use other measurements too, right?

The metric system of measurements and IIRC time were at one point based on chemistry ... half lives or atomic measurements.Many still are...

I could be wrong, but I liked the idea of benchmarking measurements to hydrogen atoms....but I don't think any actually use hydrogen.

Thanks, and I like the idea of using navigational measurements that are based on degrees.

One problem, the linear distance associated with a full degree of latitude (north-south measurement) is also a function of the circumference of the planet in question. You correctly mentioned that they are based on earth's measurements, so if we were to talk about navigational distances on another planet, is earth still the reference point?

That would be for the commitee's gnomes to worry about - it's the primary reason I've stuck "where appropriate" on the end!

The metric system of measurements and IIRC time were at one point based on chemistry ... half lives or atomic measurements. I could be wrong, but I liked the idea of benchmarking measurements to hydrogen atoms. With the exception of the Dog Women of Mutara, most everybody else agrees that hydrogen exists. ;)
Originally it was just based on the earths circumference, then they made a long bar a metre long and said "that's the prototype metre". Then they got bored and changed it again to something annoyingly complicated, and now, apparently, a metre is delineated as 1,579,800.298728(39) wavelengths of helium-neon laser light in a vacuum. Again, I'm content to let the gnomes deal with definitions, and, in fairness, coming up with a new system would hurt my brain and everyone elses brain who tried to write a resolution that included weights &c lol! In all honesty, the examples aren't needed - they're more to explain the sort of thing the commitee will be doing, and to stop those crazy gnomes from forcing us to use cubits.

I guess I might have missed this, but these are just some of the standards right? Nations can still use other measurements too, right?
Yes, there examples of what the commitee will introduce for labelling &c. You're free to use other measurements alongside these, and the comittee is free to introduce other measures for other circumstances

OOC: Technically, the correct measure is "octets". While the definition of "byte" as "8 bits" has settled down, there are not so very historical machines with 7- and 9-bit bytes. That's why the international standards that I love so very much still refer to octets, and almost never to bytes.

OoC: Should I use octets then? I really wouldn't know about this sort of thing

Should read nautical mile as opposed to admiralty (both are similar, but the Admiralty mile is more Anglocentric); both are based on the measurements of the earth's circumference (1NM=1 degree of latitude).

"Ahem!"
Shouldn't that be '(1NM=1 minute of latitude)'? I rather think that the Earth is considered to be more than 360NM around... ;)

Yes. Yes it should!

"Ahem!"
Shouldn't that be '(1NM=1 minute of latitude)'? I rather think that the Earth is considered to be more than 360NM around... ;)

Hayden Seigfried whistled "It's a Small World" as he read over the proposal. Attempting to get that earworm out of his head, he spoke up before the floor. "Catawaba supports the repeal currently coming before the United Nations. Having read over this proposal, we find that this fits our existing national standards for weights and measures. Catawaba has for much of its history been tied to the Imperial System of measurements. After our Revolution, we have tried to take steps to modernize and catch up with the rest of the world."

He pushed his glasses back up his nose as he noticed them sliding down. "As such we have already begin to implement mandates to integrate metric and more internations systems of measure to better facilitate our relations with the wider world. Therefore should this proposal be submitted for consideration, we will give our approval. Because...with globalization and mass communications...it is a small world after all." Seigfried whinced as the repetitive and inescapable saccharine melody and overly-coached singing of children filled his head again and again and again.

OoC: Should I use octets then? I really wouldn't know about this sort of thing
OOC: I'd stick with bytes. Only ISO-nargs like me will know the difference :-)

Yes, but as I've been anal enough about parsecs and nautical miles, I'd rather get it right.

Or would these bitty things be a better base unit?

Bits are probably worth mentioning in any case.

Hmm. Thinking about it, both of bytes and octets have good, correct and different uses in the international standardisation realm. Bytes are the smallest individually addressable unit of storage, however many bits that may be, which is relevant to how "big" a disk or memory chip is. Octets are more important in data transfer protocols when you explicitly need to know what bits are going where. Can I suggest all three: "bits, octets, bytes and related units."

Good plan, will get on it.

Incidentally, if anyone can think of anything else I should add to example list, feel free to let me know. I've plenty of letters left!

I just spotted something earlier in the thread, which I'd like to bring up for discussion. I'm rather intrigued by the possibility of some form of standardised currency being implemented, to whit perhaps another subclause that reads something like:

"introduce a new measurement of product worth, immune to commidity fluctuation, to be displayed on goods earmarked for import/export"

as such, not a currency, rather a price indication. It would be like having an imported jumper marked " £15/10 Milkshakes/$7.50" on products in RL (normally I'd use gold as an example, but that fluctuates too much). I'm not sold on the idea, but I find it intriguing...

Intriguing it is, but should the usual suspects notice we suspect that it will prove controversial beyond all reason.

take out section 5 in the original and I can find no problem that hasn't already been dealt with.

I just spotted something earlier in the thread, which I'd like to bring up for discussion. I'm rather intrigued by the possibility of some form of standardised currency being implemented, to whit perhaps another subclause that reads something like:

"introduce a new measurement of product worth, immune to commidity fluctuation, to be displayed on goods earmarked for import/export"

as such, not a currency, rather a price indication. It would be like having an imported jumper marked " £15/10 Milkshakes/$7.50" on products in RL (normally I'd use gold as an example, but that fluctuates too much). I'm not sold on the idea, but I find it intriguing...

'Product worth' isn't a universal constant, there are too many local fluctuations in supply & demand... unless you're actually trying to have the UN's bureaucracy set prices for everything regardless of such factors, which would really just lead to shortages of certain goods in some areas (because it would no longer be worth importing the relevant goods into those places) and the probable development of a 'black market' undercutting the official prices for certain goods elsewhere...

i just want to say that UNBWM is a very odd name...

i think UNIMS would be better...

UNIMS = United Nations International Measurement System

I have submitted a proposal to the UN regarding this matter, titled the "Standards and Measurements Act". Please tell me what you think. Thanks :)

Personally, I found the text constraint a bit annoying, so I had to remove sections defining the standard prefixes to be used, as well as defining the limits of the Council's powers. Maybe I should write an additional Resolution with amendments...

I have submitted a proposal to the UN regarding this matter, titled the "Standards and Measurements Act". Please tell me what you think. Thanks :)
We think it is in violation of the rules on formation of committees, and therefore illegal. We also think it more than a little impolite to advertise your proposal in the discussion of this proposal, and that an apology to the Cobdenian delegation would be in order.

My formal apologies to the Cobdenian delegation. I'm a bit new at this...

Submitted as follows:


International Measurements Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

REALISING that lack of weight and measurement standardisation is a major concern for importers and exporters,

FURTHER REALISING that such a lack of standisation can impede the flow of scientific research,

BELIEVING, therefore, that a standard for weights and measurements is required,

UNDERSTANDING, however, that one system of measurement, whilst appropriate in some circumstances, may be inappropriate and otherwise unusable in other circumstances,

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that other measurement systems may be of cultural signifigance for certain member states,

The United Nations, hereby:

1) ESTABLISHES the Bureau of Measurements and Weights (BMW),

2) COMMISIONS the BMW to create a standard for all weights and measurements, and warrants the BMW to decide which unit is to be used under what circumstances. This will include, but is not limited to:
a) Metric weights and measures for use on consumer products, scientific calculations (where appropriate), and roadway signage;
b) The Parsec and related measures for astrophysical calculations (where appropriate);
c) The Nautical Mile and related measures for aerial and nautical navigational (where appropriate)
d) Bits, octets, bytes and related units for electrical information storage
e) Other measurements systems for other circumstances as deemed appropriate by the BMW

3) MANDATES that all labelling, roadsigns, scientific papers, navigation charts, and other items requiring notation of this ilk, display the unit system as deemed appropriate for said item by the BMW clearly. This does not preclude the use of alternative measurements on such items as long as the BMW sanctioned unit is also displayed,

4) FURTHER ENCOURAGES that the measurement system(s) as authorised by the BMW be used primarily in educational instruction to encourage familiarity, but not precluding the teaching of other systems should a nation deem it necessary

Approvals: 0

I just noticed this today, but it's telegrammed for. Now to wait and see.

I'd not be so harsh, but for a region that specialises in UN proposals and (supposedly) quality ones, this little gem falls way short of the mark.

'REALISING that lack of weight and measurement standardisation is a major concern for importers and exporters,

FURTHER REALISING that such a lack of standisation can impede the flow of scientific research,'

"Standisation"? Try "standardisation"

2) 'COMMISIONS the BMW to create a standard for all weights and measurements, and warrants the BMW to decide which unit is to be used under what circumstances. This will include, but is not limited to:'

"COMMISIONS" - I believe we are talking about "COMMISSIONS" perhaps?

Two bald spelling errors right there in public, after the draft stage and under proposal for all to see. Tsk tsk. 2008, and the proposal screen not only underlines errors, there's this BIG button named "SpellCheck" right next to "Submit This Proposal" in case one is too daft and blind to ignore the red dots...use it?

Well, so much for repealing badly written and misspelt resolutions. Let's have vague, misspelt proposals instead. Cobbled together, ahem.

My my, how embarrassing. I'd withdraw this pronto - and try replacing it with something that a) is spelt correctly, and b) doesn't mislead the marks into believing that it is a replacement for "Metric System" (as this legislation totally fails to standardise a thing, merely creates more bureaucracy - I note "...warrants the BMW to decide which unit is to be used under what circumstances. This will include, but is not limited to:" So, the Bureau of Weights and Measures are under no obligation to use anything listed underneath - we could be measuring things in farfels and gnishes globally if the Bureau so decides.)...c) BMW? Really? Oh lord. Drive on, James.

Perhaps the next one could be written by a...pro? Someone without a car...hell, a streetworker?

1) Spelling errors are something of a tradition in Cobdenian resolutions, which you would know, if you'd been in the UN for some time.
2) "This will include, but not limited to"; for someone so anal about spelling, you're understanding of English verb froms and declension is woeful. Notice it is a standard future tense "will", whereas you seem to think that it is a modal verb, such as "may", which it isn't. Therefore those listed, plus others not listed and decided by the BMW for other circumstances, will (not may, will) be the measurement system to be used in the appropriate circumstance.

Perhaps the next one could be written by a...pro? Someone without a car...hell, a streetworker?
I see, now looking down the list of passed resolutions, and in the NSwiki UN timeline (which includes failed proposals), I see precisely none by Minyos, as opposed to four (+1 failed) by Cobdenia. Therefore, I reserve the right not to give a shit about your opinions and Johnny come lately comments.

"COMMISIONS" - I believe we are talking about "COMMISSIONS" perhaps?
*snip*
there's this BIG button named "SpellCheck" right next to "Submit This Proposal" in case one is too daft and blind to ignore the red dots...use it?The spellcheck function here ignores words that are all in upper-case letters, so "COMMISIONS" would have slipped through anyway...

I repeat. This proposal doesn't standardise a thing - it merely sets out a few isolated examples of measurements. And, in the process, creates yet another UN bureaucracy. Scientific measurements where appropriate? Like, uh, temperature? "It's 564 Kanardles" today, whew!". This proposal allows for Kanardles to be the international standard for measuring temperature, as long as the BMW declaims it so. I forget, if my nation insists
on the dastardly metric system, most official temperature measurements must also have degrees Kanardle, or any other unspecified-as-yet BMW measurement in parentheses.

That's standisation? I mean, standardisation? Something as simple as temperature measurement left wide open?

THAT is how loose this proposal is.

"you're understanding of English verb froms and declension is woeful". Ahem, I believe you meant "Your"? And "forms"?

Am I to take it the Honourable Delegate Cobdenia is scornful of literacy? If said Delegate cannot spell, surely s/he has staff to do so. Perhaps Cobdenia's education system needs a thorough overhaul in regards to teaching both literacy and information technology, if the Delegate's proposal is any example of its output.

Congratulations on your success with previous proposals Delegate, I applaud you. However late, (and I am a busy man with other things to do than pore over AO draft resolutions, let alone write them myself), the fact still stands that various repeals have cited spelling errors (in part) as justification.

OOC: Look, if no-one spotted your spelling mistakes and I did, don't yowl. I just added the rest on, I wouldn't have bothered posting unless it had spelling errors. If this makes quorum, it's not going to look good for yourself nor your region. I certainly will be pointing your spelling mistakes out over and over on the vote thread if it comes to that. I'm sorry, but it's NOT professional by this stage in NS UN history. In fact, as you should be aware, spelling mistakes can nullify an entire piece of legislation. It's slipshod QC for a region dedicated to repeals/resolution writing. If I'm the only person on NS who noticed your spelling mistakes, and at a late stage, so be it. Why not withdraw it and tighten it up generally, plus fix the errors? Peace.

Look, you may be wrapped in the whole "look at me, I can spell" (an argument that is only used by people to oppose a resolution without actually having a reason to oppose it), to actually think a bit, but here we go. It has to be up to the committee to define the majority of measurements. Why? Because there's a fucking word limit, that's why - I can only list examples. There simply isn't enough room to include the measurements and the occaisions for which they are to be used. I can't just say metric, as for some things (navigation, astronomical measures, etc) it is about as much use a chocolate bloody teapot.

Why not withdraw it and tighten it up generally, plus fix the errors?
There is a very good reason why not, but as you've been incredibly rude unneccessarily, I'm not going to say

The Minyosan embassy has had a great many months to display their mastery of English in the drafting stages of this proposal. That they have not done so lends no credence to the suggestion that they give a damn about it.

My apologies Cobdenia, I was excessively rude. When I was making more frequent visits to the forum in the early days of my nation, I do not recall you being especially rude to me. I should have been quite a bit more circumspect and kept things to salient points.

The Minyosan embassy has had a great many months to display their mastery of English in the drafting stages of this proposal. That they have not done so lends no credence to the suggestion that they give a damn about it.

Speaking of those early days - very shortly after, my mother who had been fighting cancer for seven years and I lived with her helping her to keep on going, died. She was the closest person in the world to me, and I her. That was only a little over a year ago. That's why I am not writing UN proposals, nor checking the UN forums, or helping to draft proposals. I am co-leader of a large (143 members) region, and that takes all my NS energy. The grieving process has meant well, lack of energy, inability to concentrate, depression, lack of appetite...I'm not up to the cut and thrust of these forums on a regular basis yet. I merely happened to notice the spelling mistakes when I was perusing the document once it had been submitted for proposal, as is my job as UN Delegate for my region, and thought they deserved drawing attention to.

Once again, my apologies Cob. I should have left it merely at pointing out the spelling mistakes.

Gob - I hope you understand my reasons for not having been involved earlier. It's going to be some time until I am fully back on track, my sister is in the same boat and the general consensus from others that have lost parents they were very close to is that it usually takes a couple of years. My counsellor agreed this was about right.

I'd like to be more involved on here in a constructive way, but with university, my region, my life as is (per above), it's just not possible right now.

OoC: Apology accepted, and my apologies for my tone and somewhat haughty reply - the primary reason for not wanting to withdraw the proposal is due to the fact that I myself didn't telegramme for it, but rather another Antartican did. Having telegrammed in the past for all my previous resolutions, I know how much of a pain it can be - it usually takes several hours of very monotonous copy and pasting. Had I had done it myself, I would have considered withdrawing it and resubmitting it straight away depending on the number of approvals it had (afterall, the link will still work, just it would go to the new proposal instead of the old). If it hadn't have made quorum, the errors would have been sorted. Combine this and my very mild dislexia, and hopefully you can appreciate why I'm not overly concerned with minor spelling errors, as long as they don't effect the content - and why we have a Maritime Neutrality Covention and nearly had a Marmite safety standards act;)

Also quorum. Yay!

Gob - I hope you understand my reasons for not having been involved earlier. It's going to be some time until I am fully back on track, my sister is in the same boat and the general consensus from others that have lost parents they were very close to is that it usually takes a couple of years. My counsellor agreed this was about right.

OOC: My mother died slightly more than a couple of years ago after a not-quite-so-long fight against cancer, and I'll endorse what your counsellor said. My best advice is to avoid snap decisions (about anything!); if you're anything like me your instincts are going to be off for a bit.

Prince Rhodri's remarks weren't aimed at you personally, they were just a snotty response to the Minyosan ambassador's snotty remarks. Being snotty to each other is half the fun in here, after all.

This is now at vote. Now lets see it pass!

4) FURTHER ENCOURAGES that the measurement system(s) as authorised by the BMW be used primarily in educational instruction to encourage familiarity, but not precluding the teaching of other systems should a nation deem it necessary We understand the reason behind this but find it voilates the general rights of nations under R171 in which they determine what is taught in their education system not the UN. Doing this even as it is just encourage means for some new books and hours of additional training of teachers as well as students in another subject.

We feel that inside out nation we teach a based system of measurements and then give the children the ability to go on and learn additional as systems of measurements as needed. We hope since it only encourages it in the education system that we do not come in conflict if we do not teach it in our general education of our young from age five to age ten.. and only in later years if they have need to learn it by way of having to deal outside our borders.

This part however we do not find suitable as it would mean new signage and marking on items in use here and cost us far more than we might be willing to give up.

3) MANDATES that all labelling, roadsigns, scientific papers, navigation charts, and other items requiring notation of this ilk, display the unit system as deemed appropriate for said item by the BMW clearly. This does not preclude the use of alternative measurements on such items as long as the BMW sanctioned unit is also displayed, We train/teach as needed those of our citizens who deal with other nations to speak, read, write, and understand the basics of things in those nations they deal with outside out own. Before they visit or move to that nation to work or whatever... we expect other visitors to learn our language and laws as we set them down and not how they might find them laid out in their own nation. Failure to learn our laws and understand them has many who came to visit now doing time or they have paid heavy fines for breaking our laws.

As far as items exported outside our nation we include the cost of labeling them in proper language and such in the cost we charge for such items so the other nations pay for us to label in their language and put on their standard markings of items. In otherwords the items are packaged for their markit and the price is set to include any special package requirements set by another nation on such items as we trade with them.

If the UN is going to cover the cost to change things to include BMW units then we will be for this but if we must pay for it then we must oppose it.

We hope since it only encourages it in the education system that we do not come in conflict if we do not teach it in our general education of our young from age five to age ten.. and only in later years if they have need to learn it by way of having to deal outside our borders.

You should look up the word encourages. It doesn't conflict with the rights of nations to teach whatever they want because it doesn't mandate they teach it, it encourages like minded nations to do so.

*snipped the rest*

Needing to put a smaller print version of a standardized measurement up on your signs is NOT a big deal. It will actually help with some of that confusion you talked about.

What you're saying is that all immigrants and tourists should learn your entire measurement system before entering your nation. That you should not, in effect, post a simple conversion for them, to avoid any possible trouble.

Alright. I guess.

You should look up the word encourages. It doesn't conflict with the rights of nations to teach whatever they want because it doesn't mandate they teach it, it encourages like minded nations to do so.



Needing to put a smaller print version of a standardized measurement up on your signs is NOT a big deal. It will actually help with some of that confusion you talked about.

What you're saying is that all immigrants and tourists should learn your entire measurement system before entering your nation. That you should not, in effect, post a simple conversion for them, to avoid any possible trouble.

Alright. I guess.

I support this resolution as it means that it's easier to do business with other coutries.:p

Sorry, but i don't understand why you considered only the BMW?
There is a particular reason?

Thanks!

A non-issue. A waste of time, and effort. The issue has no clear definitive language or purpose. It is nothing but a deceitful conformist nation, who believes everything must be uniform with it's belief. I call for a vote of no.

The Popotan will vote "no" and has encouraged others to vote "no" do to unfunded mandate. If the UN wishes to force The Popotan and other small nations that are still developing to support this it should be willing to have a way to funnel cash. The Popotan does not believe it serves the interest of a majority of it's citizens to waste their tax dollars on redoing every sign, every textbook, every manual to conform to the new standard.

If the UN will cover all the cost as of this as well as retraining, The Popotan will change it position and send out a new memo stating to those it has suggested a no vote to to change their vote.

This is a critical issue for the facilitation of international trade and cooperation in everything from international infrastructure to joint ventures in space.

Intangelon and my region vote FOR.

You should look up the word encourages. It doesn't conflict with the rights of nations to teach whatever they want because it doesn't mandate they teach it, it encourages like minded nations to do so.Not so fast, Ambassador Willing. Although you are correct in your analysis of the strength of that clause, it must be noted that this Assembly was quite adamant about leaving all matters of curriculum in the hands of the various nations when UNEAA was passed. A mild "encouraging" clause may not technically conflict, but it does muddy the waters as to resolution 171. It would be as if this assembly, after passing "Durable Goods", then passed a resolution urging the implementation of tariffs on washing machines.

Although we support standardization (Leetha winks at the Cobdenians as she emphasizes the zed.) of weights and measures, the education clause gives us pause and we will be abstaining for the time being.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador, Rubina
Regional Delegate, User Friendlia

Although we also question the spelling and punctuation errors in the said proposal (we're fussy too) - I certainly wouldn't go so far as to discredit Cobdenia's work solely based on these disadvantages.

What we are concerned about, is the general lack of intrepidity. We wish there was more of this:

3) MANDATES that all labelling, roadsigns, scientific papers, navigation charts, and other items requiring notation of this ilk...

Thats about the only mandate. In plain english, the proposal is full of "orders" (being told to do something with no specific guidelines), but very few "commands" (being told to do something in a specific way). We would have liked to have seen less encouragements/vagueness and more instruction - more boldness.

This issue should be deemed important enough to warrant such specifics.

Although we support standardization...of weights and measures, the education clause gives us pause and we will be abstaining for the time being.

As with Ambassador Leetha Talone, The Narnian Council will delay its vote to give us further time to consider the matter.

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Not so fast, Ambassador Willing. Although you are correct in your analysis of the strength of that clause, it must be noted that this Assembly was quite adamant about leaving all matters of curriculum in the hands of the various nations when UNEAA was passed. A mild "encouraging" clause may not technically conflict, but it does muddy the waters as to resolution 171. It would be as if this assembly, after passing "Durable Goods", then passed a resolution urging the implementation of tariffs on washing machines.

We must beg to disagee, Ambassador Talone. Durable Goods in essence prohibited tariffs, at least for those insufficiently ingenious to circumvent the wording, so the urging of a tariff sits much more directly in opposition than a suggestion towards curriculum contents. One is saying, "Here is a good idea, but you can't implement it;" the other, "Here is a good idea, and you can implement it if you so choose." Distinct concepts, we hope you'll agree.

What Gob said; in addition, I feel their needs to be some mention of the fact as, without such a clause, there is the possibility for problems. Indeed, in earlier drafts it was a MANDATING clause, until someone bought up that pesky resolution (resolution 171, coming into our homes, stealing our jobs *muzzer muzzer*). I suppose it could be considered in violation with a very broad interpretation of 171, however I dismiss such thoughts with a resound "bah!", using the fuzzy logic that, had it been deemed illegal, some bugger would have reported it and it would have been deleted. It is further worth remembering that fuzzy logic is the best kind of logic, and thus I win.

Sir Cyril etc.


OoC: incidentally, writing replies is somewhat easier after four pints of lager, three double scotches, and two glasses of port.

Nautical Mile is not an SI unit of measure, nor is it compliant like the litre (which is not actually SI. The SI unit of volume is the decimeter cubed).

We must beg to disagee, Ambassador Talone. Durable Goods in essence prohibited tariffs, at least for those insufficiently ingenious to circumvent the wording, so the urging of a tariff sits much more directly in opposition than a suggestion towards curriculum contents. One is saying, "Here is a good idea, but you can't implement it;" the other, "Here is a good idea, and you can implement it if you so choose." Distinct concepts, we hope you'll agree.My apologies, dear prince, but we must disagree, albeit with some ennui. Resolution 171 clearly reserves to the state all curriculum matters. It is well known and has been argued that "encourages" though not mandating action is an action clause and is meant to effect change on member nations. I believe it has been expressed most frequently as bringing those nations who just need a little "push" into conformance with UN desires. Thus by putting the full intent of the UN behind a curriculum "suggestion" it does, granted gently, come into conflict with R171.

... in addition, I feel their needs to be some mention of the fact as, without such a clause, there is the possibility for problems.Are nations to be coddled and hand-held then? Surely a nation that is having to use the established units in its daily dealings will have the sense to include such in its curriculum without this resolution having a brush with illegality?
Indeed, in earlier drafts it was a MANDATING clause, until someone bought up that pesky resolution (resolution 171, coming into our homes, stealing our jobs *muzzer muzzer*). I suppose it could be considered in violation with a very broad interpretation of 171, however I dismiss such thoughts with a resound "bah!", using the fuzzy logic that, had it been deemed illegal, some bugger would have reported it and it would have been deleted.Sir Cyril! You know better than that. Although passage of a resolution provides it with the glow of legality, the reaching of quorum and vote is no guarantee whatsoever that a resolution contains no illegal elements. Such fuzzy thinking, there seems to be no logic involved, makes us even more concerned about this particular resolution.

--L.T.

OoC: incidentally, writing replies is somewhat easier after four pints of lager, three double scotches, and two glasses of port.Heh. I think the term is comfortably numb. :)

Nautical Mile is not an SI unit of measure, nor is it compliant like the litre (which is not actually SI. The SI unit of volume is the decimeter cubed).

Doesn't matter for the purposes of this, as it's not imposing the SI system, rather a series of various sactioned systems which are most practical for various situations. It is more about standardisation - indeed, had I mandated imperial units, or cubits and spans, or troy pounds, the actual effect on the intent would be the same.

Nautical Mile is not an SI unit of measure, nor is it compliant like the litre (which is not actually SI. The SI unit of volume is the decimeter cubed).
Doesn't matter for the purposes of this, as it's not imposing the SI system, rather a series of various sactioned systems which are most practical for various situations. It is more about standardisation - indeed, had I mandated imperial units, or cubits and spans, or troy pounds, the actual effect on the intent would be the same.

Not to mention that the Nautical Mile has been used in previous UN resoloutions.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Who will over see the BWM if it decided to go absolutely nuts and start telling people the price or worth of a pound of my countries finest hand embroidered linen was actually only half a pound?
Over sight committees need to go to the people in each region and thence in each nation. BWM committee members should be chosen from each of the concerned nations and regions and comprised much the same way the UN is now comprised.
I don't want a nation getting an unfair advantage or god forbid be put in a situation where I might be persuaded to cash in on my own unfair advantage.

:fluffle:

Divine Creator

Who will over see the BWM if it decided to go absolutely nuts and start telling people the price or worth of a pound of my countries finest hand embroidered linen was actually only half a pound?

The rules on UN committees are quite clear; they do what they are mandated to do by the resolution or resolutions empowering them, no more and no less. They are staffed by perfect beings loftily independent of such trifling concerns as national favoritism, who will carry out their duties faultlessly.

In this particular case, since the resolution gives the committee no mandate to assess financial worth, it cannot so instruct your nation's broderers.

The great nation of Marcusism will be opposing this measure. While it does leave room for individual nations to have their own standards, they must run parallel and not instead of this system. This is a violation of our sovereignty as an independent state and must not be passed. Everything that makes it to a vote gets passed. Let's change that tradition and shoot this down!

Not to mention that the Nautical Mile has been used in previous UN resoloutions.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Yes, well, that's my fault too...

Youteria has voted FOR this resolution. It will help tourists and merchants keep track of distances, and will put an end to the confusions and errors they have to suffer nowadays. May God Save Youteria.

Cneus Pompeus Parvus, Commerce and Tourism Advisor

1. The smallest number is negative infinty.

2. If this proposal passes then all it will do is create more beaurcracy and limit the freedoms of businesses and people. The Businesses will lose millions of dollars converting all of their machinery into a different measurement system. Finally if the people of my Country want to use a measurement system different from the international comunity than that is their inherint right.

3. I hope i spelled everything in here rite.;)

4. Vote Colbert for president!

we can not force anyone to adopt one measurement, it may be beneficial, and if it is then wont most nations adopt it of their own free will? no, we can not allow this massive travisty to occur, rally to the cause, loyal soldiers of freedom, independence, and republic!!!!!!

2. If this proposal passes then all it will do is create more beaurcracy and limit the freedoms of businesses and people. The Businesses will lose millions of dollars converting all of their machinery into a different measurement system. Finally if the people of my Country want to use a measurement system different from the international comunity than that is their inherint right.

I can't see there would be any great cost in changing a label printer to read, for example, 435grammes instead of 1lb...

I can't see there would be any great cost in changing a label printer to read, for example, 435grammes instead of 1lb...But let's be honest here, Sir Cyril. It's not just a matter of changing a label printer.

Granted, your third article is primarily directed at the printed product... signs, maps, research papers and whatnot. But you're in denial, or maybe just senile, if you are maintaining that such printed units won't have a very real, physical counterpart which must needs also conform to the standard measurement in order to avoid repetitive and unnecessary constant conversion of units.

More importantly, your second article, establishing the (UN)BMW, grants that body full authority to designate "which unit is to be used under what circumstances." Surely, it's not unreasonable to expect the BMW to designate the meter as the standard linear unit and mandate its use in all manufacturing applications. Which would then require nations to retool their manufacturing industries and not just reprogram a label printer.

As we've said before, standardization is a noble goal, but let's not hoodwink ourselves into thinking we're not asking nations to commit resources to implement this act.

--L.T.

We are, thought not entirely, surprised by the level of abject stupidity shown during this debate. We wholeheartedly support the Cobdenian delegation in this matter; we only wish we had thought of it first.

Of course, my dear Leetha, we might expect some considerate expense in the adaptation of nations to new standardisations- but this is a necessary evil, is it not? Some sacrifice must be made for the greater development and the benefits given by standardisation of such measurements.

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

Excuse me, Ambassador Shandreð, but we will take exception to your analysis of comments here as stupid, at least in so far as your comment was directed at us. And don't be coming to us for your next order of ganja and lemonaid stands, Leetha thought cynically to herself.

Of course, we consider reasonable outlay of resources to come into compliance with standardization legislation to be in order. We even consider some retooling of industry well worth it. What we object to is the Cobdenians' pooh-poohing concerns about costs to the nations of this proposal by equating it to changing the output of a printing machine. Misstating the impact of one's proposal does nothing to build trust of this body for one's future work here.

--L.T.

I apologize, dear Leetha, my comments were misconstrued. The vast majority of comments (by the same sort of new and naive amassadors as is the case) are stupid and ill-concieved, your own excluded. Always a pleasure, actually.

I quite agree. While there is certainly a measure of simplicity in reorganization, there may incur great costs which some smaller nations might not be able to withstand. This is my only point of contention with the proposal.

H.S
etc.

But let's be honest here, Sir Cyril. It's not just a matter of changing a label printer.

Granted, your third article is primarily directed at the printed product... signs, maps, research papers and whatnot. But you're in denial, or maybe just senile, if you are maintaining that such printed units won't have a very real, physical counterpart which must needs also conform to the standard measurement in order to avoid repetitive and unnecessary constant conversion of units.

More importantly, your second article, establishing the (UN)BMW, grants that body full authority to designate "which unit is to be used under what circumstances." Surely, it's not unreasonable to expect the BMW to designate the meter as the standard linear unit and mandate its use in all manufacturing applications. Which would then require nations to retool their manufacturing industries and not just reprogram a label printer.

As we've said before, standardization is a noble goal, but let's not hoodwink ourselves into thinking we're not asking nations to commit resources to implement this act.

--L.T.

I think you're reading to much into it; the BMW has no power designate, say, the metre as the unit that has to be used for products - merely that the metre should be used to measure stuff, such as in my examples above - "what measurement is to be used in what circumstances", by my original intention and in my reading of it does not mean "what measurement stuff ought to be measured in". Indeed, I'd point to section three, which clearly states that the it is labelling, rather than the actual product, that requires metric notation. Of course, if you think it easier to convert your tooling, you're free to, but you don't have to.

If this will help out international trade, and make it easier, then the Palentine Shall vote for. I say old boy, well done. <toasts Sir Cyril with a drink of Wild Turkey(TM)>
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I apologize, dear Leetha, my comments were misconstrued. The vast majority of comments (by the same sort of new and naive amassadors as is the case) are stupid and ill-concieved, your own excluded. Always a pleasure, actually.
[/b]The apology is ours to make, Harmalan, for taking offense when we should have known none was intended.

I think you're reading to much into it; the BMW has no power designate, say, the metre as the unit that has to be used for products - merely that the metre should be used to measure stuff, such as in my examples above - "what measurement is to be used in what circumstances", by my original intention and in my reading of it does not mean "what measurement stuff ought to be measured in". Indeed, I'd point to section three, which clearly states that the it is labelling, rather than the actual product, that requires metric notation. Of course, if you think it easier to convert your tooling, you're free to, but you don't have to.
It may have been your intention to limit the BMW in the way you indicate, but the legislation does not do so. Even if the BMW is limited to labeling duties (the proximity of the two clauses, however and no matter how hard we wish it, does not so limit the powers of that body) we begin to wonder, Sir Cyril, if you have ever worked a day in your life--especially with your "let them eat cake" prevarications. If the meter is mandated to measure "stuff" then the meter will be the unit used in manufacture. Period. One does not measure in meters and then cut in yards.

--L.T.

"It would seem to me easy enough to measure in whatever unit your nation uses, and then have the printers display on the label both that unit and the international one. There would be no need to 'measure in meters and cut in yards.' You would measure in yards, cut in yards, display in meters and yards. Having the yard measurement, there's no reason to repeat it in meters when it can be calculated. You don't even have to buy a single bloody meterstick. Or any such standardized device.

"While I feel somewhat bad for nations that might have an irritating funding kink for things such as duplicate street signs for everything everywhere, I think this will largely be fine. Finding no real reason to oppose it, we shall grant it support.

"Incidentally, for all your signage needs, feel free to contact Commonwealth Signs, due to open, uh, as soon as this passes."

If this passes the EU an it's inherent evil will be in Nation states.

Vote Against.

"While I feel somewhat bad for nations that might have an irritating funding kink for things such as duplicate street signs for everything everywhere, I think this will largely be fine. Finding no real reason to oppose it, we shall grant it support.

"Incidentally, for all your signage needs, feel free to contact Commonwealth Signs, due to open, uh, as soon as this passes."Then would you care to lend The Popotan enough money for the conversion of all it's signs, textbooks, retraining personnel? We would not mind if this were phased in over a matter of decades, but an immediate enactment on such a massive scale is beyond our scope without severely hurting the economic livelyhood of our population.

"It... uh... doesn't actually say immediate... You know what. Fine. We'll make your signs on the cheap. One can safely assume that no resolution that requires infrastructure change is expected to happen instantaneously. That's impossible. Except in nations with holographic signs. Ahem. Besides that, though, it's fairly obvious that it's going to take a reasonable amount of time to implement such a change, even if it doesn't lay out a specific time period for it to occur. Besides, doesn't the government have all the money in your nation anyway?"

I can't see there would be any great cost in changing a label printer to read, for example, 435grammes instead of 1lb...

You fail to realize that not only would labels would have to be changed but so would Milk Jugs and other containers. Also anymachine that makes a product based on certain measure ments would have to completely changed if not replaced at a cost to the manufacturer.

You fail to realize that not only would labels would have to be changed but so would Milk Jugs and other containers. Also anymachine that makes a product based on certain measure ments would have to completely changed if not replaced at a cost to the manufacturer.

"Not bloody true! The container would merely have a sign on it saying, 'Hey! This is also 3.785 liters!' in case the person had no perspective really on how much a gallon is. As I read it, the only thing this requires is for you to NOTE alternate, universal measurements, just to let people who don't know your defaults still be able to make reference."

All in all changing road signs, maps, restraining orders, and much more would not only hurt the big businesses but cost the taxpayers millions of dollars or pounds or whatever. I must remind you that replacing all the overhanging road signs on a highway is not cheap.

The Wolf Guardians;13539898']"Not bloody true! The container would merely have a sign on it saying, 'Hey! This is also 3.785 liters!' in case the person had no perspective really on how much a gallon is. As I read it, the only thing this requires is for you to NOTE alternate, universal measurements, just to let people who don't know your defaults still be able to make reference."

Even a change such as that can still be costly.

The apology is ours to make, Harmalan, for taking offense when we should have known none was intended.


It may have been your intention to limit the BMW in the way you indicate, but the legislation does not do so. Even if the BMW is limited to labeling duties (the proximity of the two clauses, however and no matter how hard we wish it, does not so limit the powers of that body) we begin to wonder, Sir Cyril, if you have ever worked a day in your life--especially with your "let them eat cake" prevarications. If the meter is mandated to measure "stuff" then the meter will be the unit used in manufacture. Period. One does not measure in meters and then cut in yards.

--L.T.


Sure you can; may not be practical, but there's nothing in the proposal that prevents it. There is nothing in this resolution that mandates that produce be produced in metric measurements.

The United Nations does not have the power to make such a decision regarding the internal affairs of sovereign governments.
Sasenna, for one, will make no effort of any sort to enforce this rule, and in fact shall issue a Proclamation declaring all such Resolutions impugning nation sovereignty to be void.

Like it matters: Sasenna's not even in the UN.

Even a change such as that can still be costly.

::Ambassador Prince Rhodri looks rather surprised:: If the honoured ambassador would care to discuss business with us outside this chamber, we are sure that we can oblige him with a very reasonable deal for changing signage. Unfortunately we sincerely doubt we would be the cheapest to make this offer, but still, the matter is not as apocalyptic as it is being made out to be.

The United Nations does not have the power to make such a decision regarding the internal affairs of sovereign governments.
Sasenna, for one, will make no effort of any sort to enforce this rule, and in fact shall issue a Proclamation declaring all such Resolutions impugning nation sovereignty to be void.
Sasenna, we fear, is doomed to disappointment as a nation, since it will find that somehow the UN's gnomes have managed to write compliance with this and every other resolution into its law books (OOC: and your nation's stats will change). Your choice, honoured ambassador, is not whether you will enforce this resolution; it is whether your nation chooses to be a member of this august body. Membership carries responsibilities as well as rights, and no one will give you the least bit of respect for attempting to claim one while denying the other.

You do, on the other hand, have as much latitude as doesn't involve rewriting the dictionary in how you interpret UN resolutions in your country.

Edit: of course if you aren't in the UN in the first place, you can do the opposite of what the UN resolves as much as you like. The rest of us aren't going to pay a blind bit of attention to your whining, though.

Congratulations on this passing Cob.

Since this measure is an obvious violation of the rights of the people of Romentius, we are going to remove ourselves from the United Nations rather than put up with the costs. We expect more of these senseless measures, in the future.

We believe in international rights, liberties, and commerce. We do not believe in restrictions of measurement systems to fit the majority, while costing the minority significant sums.

OOC: Just playing my role. I was in the UN to help protect my region.

Since this measure is an obvious violation of the rights of the people of Romentius, we are going to remove ourselves from the United Nations rather than put up with the costs.

I'd bag their office, but I have no need for a stall in the 7th floor ladies' room.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'd bag their office, but I have no need for a stall in the 7th floor ladies' room.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Was there a need for an insult?

Was there a need for an insult?

I see you're new here.

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

Was there a need for an insult?

No, but I do see a need for someone to grow some thicker skin and learn to recognize a joke.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No, but I do see a need for someone to grow some thicker skin and learn to recognize a joke.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The only one that got bent out of shape was you. :p

The only one that got bent out of shape was you. :p

Whatever gave you the impression that I was bent out of shape? It takes more than that little comment you made to get me bent out of shape. The fact is, my contacts over in the UN Building Management (http://www.nationstates.net/un_building_mgmt) informed me that not only had you not applied for an actual office, but that that particular bathroom stall was what you were using. Besides bagging leaving ambassador's office has been a tradition for some time now, it started back when people would just bag office supplies, then it grew until people started bagging entire offices. And considering how long it take for the UNBM to process an office application*, it's understandable why people started doing it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representive

*And it takes even longer for them to process an application due to the NSWiki (which is where the UN Building Directory is) being in a read-only state right now.