NationStates Jolt Archive

Realizing that there are many solar systems, planets, and moons throughout NationStates,

Noting that the majority of UN Resolution #50 UN Space Consortium is centered about an astronomical object known only as "the Moon,"

Dumbfounded as to which moon "the Moon" is,

Concerned by the prospect of phrase "the Moon" referring to all moons, as UNSC prevents a nation from claiming title to the Moon would then cause serious problems in member nations whose populations are situated on moons,

Highlighting that the purpose of the Space Consortium created by Resolution #50 is to "establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources,"

Flummoxed as to the location of this "Lunar Base,"

Not discounting the possibility that this permanent Lunar Base would be situated on "the Moon,"

Concluding that Resolution #50 "UN Space Consortium" is utterly useless and furthermore blocks the passage of better legislation on this issue,

Wishing to pass improved UN legislation in the area of space exploration,

Repeals Resolution #50 "UN Space Consortium."

If the past has taught us anything, it's that you should never make this argument:
Wishing to pass improved UN legislation in the area of space exploration,
Unless you're actually going to replace it.

Why would I repeal this if I didn't plan on writing something better? I want to repeal it in order to replace it, not to replace it in order to repeal it.

Yeah, the "not descounting" was a half-joke.

Why would I repeal this if I didn't plan on writing something better? I want to repeal it in order to replace it, not to replace it in order to repeal it.With respect, that's been said before.

Once.

There has been one time where the person didn't really mean it. And they were hounded so much that they submitted a replacement anyway. Can we please quit pretending that this is some kind of epidemic?

Good point: you sneaked "flummoxed' into a proposal.

Bad point: you didn't link to the resolution you're trying to repeal. It's here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030099&postcount=51).

No point: in trying to talk about this when I have turned into a sodden mass of flu germs.*displays martyred smile* Go on and enjoy your debate, everyone, I'll be quite all right, no, really ...

Why would I repeal this if I didn't plan on writing something better?
Uh, because it's a comically dreadful idea for a resolution that should just be obliterated? This is why the OMGREPLACEMENT scourge is so noxious: it means 'this resolution is terrible' is somehow judged insufficient reason for repeal.
Noting that the majority of UN Resolution #50 UN Space Consortium is centered about an astronomical object known only as "the Moon,"

Dumbfounded as to which moon "the Moon" is,
Stupid argument. And even if it's not stupid, I'll bet you the voters will reject it as mindless nitpicking anyway. Besides, would it not be much better to argue that it obviously does apply to what I shall continue to refer to as the Moon, Terracentrism (?) be damned, and that it seems a little odd to pick out only that uninhabited satellite as opposed to all the others.
Concerned by the prospect of phrase "the Moon" referring to all moons, as UNSC prevents a nation from claiming title to the Moon would then cause serious problems in member nations whose populations are situated on moons,
Some people won't accept the possibility of such populations, and some people might well overlap with the huge majority that voted against resolutions like Rights of Biological Sapients. Hence, it might make more sense to huff and puff righteous indignation about the UN thinking it has the authority to proscribe member nations' territorial claims.
Highlighting that the purpose of the Space Consortium created by Resolution #50 is to "establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources,"

Flummoxed as to the location of this "Lunar Base,"
Silly and irrelevant argument.
Not discounting the possibility that this permanent Lunar Base would be situated on "the Moon,"
Grow up.
Concluding that Resolution #50 "UN Space Consortium" is utterly useless and furthermore blocks the passage of better legislation on this issue,
On what issue?

And besides, you've not come anywhere near to concluding it; mostly, you've just rubbed yourself against a dictionary for a bit. What about the mechanism for funding the UNSC, and the scientific fact that it's utter wank?
Wishing to pass improved UN legislation in the area of space exploration,
Which you can do absent repeal.

Needs a lot of work i.e. completely rewriting.

-- George Madison
Ambassador-Designate and Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs
Bored and posting online to the GA intranet from his hotel room in Highmark City

I ruefully appreciate the delicious irony in the following statement, succulent as it is, but I regret that I am hesitant to support repeal for the simple reason that I fear the mooted replacement. Given the ideological leanings of the author, I suspect that the UN will find itself being asked to endorse a more frightening proposition than simply allowing suspect legislation to remain on its books.

A brief summation of the essential content of the proposed replacement would be most helpful.

Benedictions,

My government wouldn't object to repealing this resolution particularly, but the repeal arguments are so full of themselves I can't see anyway to support this without looking stupid.

This is precisely why we laid claim to the asteroid fields and oort clouds of the Terran system and avoided the moon and mars. People like planets too much and are willing to fight and die over them.

Rex Smiley, UN Representative.

Given the ideological leanings of the author, I suspect that the UN will find itself being asked to endorse a more frightening proposition than simply allowing suspect legislation to remain on its books.Alright, I'll bite: what sort of "frightening" "ideological" space exploration bill might come from this author as a result of this repeal? Or is this yet another generalized and oh-so-amusing "ACCEL is eeevil!!!" statement?

By the way, this repeal argument bites. I won't support it.

Alright, I'll bite: what sort of "frightening" "ideological" space exploration bill might come from this author as a result of this repeal? Or is this yet another generalized and oh-so-amusing "ACCEL is eeevil!!!" statement?
With respect to ACCEL, my reservations are not based on my perceptions of their behaviour in this case, rather my suspicion that they would advocate the establishment of principles I would prefer not to see adopted by the UN. You see, I am a subscriber to the philosophy that worlds such as the moon should be regarded as the treasury of all humankind, not for sale to the highest bidder or speediest claimant. I would reject, for instance, granting the right to title of any part of the moon, to private entity or nation.

Of course, David6 and/or ACCEL may have a perfectly acceptable draft lying in wait, hence my request for a summary. I assure you that I will not object purely on the basis of disapproval of the organisation.

Benedictions,

[* ooc: I know, I know; there a big frickin' intergalactic star empires out there. Gao, however, finds such claims to be fanciful and most likely posturing by excitable delegates. Besides which, he is a bit of a snide git and won't lend his support to an ACCEL initiative easily. *]

I get the whole idea of this repeal argument being absolutely horrible...I plan to completely rewrite it...although I willl include the problems of UNSC's vagueness in the repeal.

[* ooc: I know, I know; there a big frickin' intergalactic star empires out there. Gao, however, finds such claims to be fanciful and most likely posturing by excitable delegates. *]

(OOC: Enjoy the "posturing" when our Death Star obliterates your nation. :p )

I hasten to wonder if there is anything that the delegation from David6 can offer this assembly other than the consistent stream of repeals.

If, Dr. Schiller, your nation speaks as the public face of ACCEL, I seriously hope their agenda is something a bit more developed than the Gatesvillian "repeal everything" shtick. Given that I have defended ACCEL quite vocally in the past, I haven't seen much other than repeal and rhetoric to justify of late.

If this is simply your tendency as an invidiual plenipotentiary, then I seriously hope that you will take stock of your habit and try writing something that isn't a repeal.

Oh, and we will not be supporting this.

Most courteously,

(OOC: Enjoy the "posturing" when our Death Star obliterates your nation. :p )
* ooc: damn you, I want to reply IC! *

If, Dr. Schiller, your nation speaks as the public face of ACCEL, I seriously hope their agenda is something a bit more developed than the Gatesvillian "repeal everything" shtick.

"I must point out that New Manth has voted for several excellent resolutions during its time in Gatesville, including UN Bio Agent Convention and Cultural Heritage in War, as have several fellow members of Gatesville. Portraying us as slavering repealists is hardly accurate.

To the author of this repeal, however, I must say that I would find myself hard-pressed to vote for this repeal as it stands, despite my dislike of the original resolution. It is New Manth's opinion that much better arguments could be made, and we would be happy to lend our assistance in crafting them."

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

I'll be voting against a repeal, mainly because I was involved in the intial roleplay which was associated with this when the legislation first passed.

I'm a sentimental old sod at times.:)

If, Dr. Schiller, your nation speaks as the public face of ACCEL, I seriously hope their agenda is something a bit more developed than the Gatesvillian "repeal everything" shtick.


Your characterisation of Gatesville is highly inaccurate. You might want to check your facts before casting unfounded aspersions.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

* ooc: damn you, I want to reply IC! *

OOC: Then you shouldn't have started with an OOC post. ;)

Your characterisation of Gatesville is highly inaccurate. You might want to check your facts before casting unfounded aspersions.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Please, if you can't identify a generalization based on the rhetoric of that region's leadership, then I don't think we can be at accord.

Most courteously,

Could I suggest we get back to the topic at hand?

It might make the repeal effort get off to a better start if it's identified what is so objectionable about #50. If it's that it refers to The Moon and this is deemed unclear, then I suggest dropping the effort. If it's because there's concern it blocks future space exploration proposals, then I suggest that concern is probably null, and in any case it would make more sense to write up such a proposal, and then see if a) it is ruled as duplication/contradiction and b) cannot be adequately rewritten around that, before worrying about this repeal. If it's because of some flaws in the resolution text, then obviously, there's a much stronger case for a repeal (even if these flaws not being identified in the first place is a little baffling).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)