NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"
(http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=sites)
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15 (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14)
Proposed by: Jey (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=display_nation/nation=jey)

Description: UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14) (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

COMMENDING Resolution #15: "Protect Historical Sites," for its intent to safeguard historically significant locations within member nations;

HOWEVER NOTING that Resolution #15 wholly lacks any apparent methods for which to protect the historical sites referenced to within the resolution text, only saying "we cannot let historical sites go to waste;"

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #15, at no point within the resolution text, defines what constitutes a "historical site" that is worthy of protection, thus leading to confusion and misunderstandings among member nations;

CONCLUDING that Resolution #15 is an insufficient and ineffectual resolution, given that it lacks any form of implementation of its admirable intent;

REPEALS Resolution #15: "Protect Historical Sites."

Approvals: 120

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Original Resolution:

Protect Historical Sites (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14)

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: X-tonia

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

Votes For: 15,515
Votes Against: 4,317

Implemented: Fri May 23 2003

We feel that it is about time that UNR#15 was repealed. It has needed to be repealed for a long long long time. And finally maybe it will be. The Democratic Republic of Zyrwick UN Mission will vote in Favor of this repeal.

Congrats on making quorum, Jey. Happy to hear the death knell for this wholly useless resolution.

Is this going to get replaced by a stronger version? I like the idea but the resolution is garbage.

Yes.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

And OOC: Congrats to you for managing to get this to quorum. I tried to repeal this once, and was considering doing it again, but hopefully that won't be necessary.

Could you provide a reference for the curious, or is it currently in the realms of intent? Don't take that as a criticism, the repeal argument is sound.

Is this going to get replaced by a stronger version? I like the idea but the resolution is garbage.

Actually we would oppose a replacement. While we do like the Idea of protecting historical sites. We believe that only nations can successfully determine what is and is not a historical site worthy of preservation.

Not everything that gets repealed needs a replacement. We fully support repealing bad laws simply because they are bad laws.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Is this going to get replaced by a stronger version? I like the idea but the resolution is garbage.

We agree that the intent is a respectable, however we have not yet given very strong consideration to a replacement. If we were to write one, it would likely be relatively mild.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

The Politburo has convened, and has not found any reason to vote in favor of the repeal.

The Politburo views UNR #15 as an urging or a message in favor of protecting historical sites in general whatever the definition of a historical site may be.

Repealing this resolution would leave nothing better as its replacement.

As UNR #15 has already been passed, there is no reason to remove it. The law may be vague and badly written, but there is nothing better that would serve as a replacement as the exact definition of historical sites cannot be outlined.

Unless Representative Aceon will give his word in attempting to pass another resolution pertaining to the matter, the Politburo will vote against it. A law that says nothing is better than no law

There are two points to be made on what Nachtbergen has presented.


Repealing this resolution would leave nothing better as its replacement.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/diy.jpg

We feel that it is not the inherent responsibility of the repealer to write replacement legislation if one is deemed necessary. If you feel that a resolution protecting historical sites is necessary, write one. As it is, there is no resolution protecting historical sites right now, as this resolution doesn't exactly do anything.

A law that says nothing is better than no law

A law that says nothing is no law. There is no protection of historical sites at all right now, and having a resolution named "Protect Historical Sites" doesn't change that.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

WOW! I do believe that that is the fastest I have ever seen a card pulled out in a debate. How many posts did it take in this thread? Nine?

Anyway. I do not think that there needs to be a replacement for this. Should someone want to protect historical sites on a UN level. They should feel free to draft a resolution that does that. We will probably vote against it. But they should go ahead and write it.

As I read UNR#15 it is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Comrade Gramiko,

No "Card" has been pulled. I have simply stated the position of the Politburo. We feel it is more important that there be a mention of the protection of historical sites, albeit causally and coherently ineffectual, than no mention at all.

It is called a UN resolution or a UN proposal, not a UN law.

I challenge Comrade Gramiko to provide evidence that such a resolution does not "belong" in the UN.
____________

To Representative Aceon

I am essentially challenging you to demonstrate how repealing this resolution would assist the protection of historical sites:

Any further resolution would be rejected to its infringement violation on national sovereignity.

You must argue how protecting historical sites, or the mention of historical sites is more important than having a resolution that commands explicit physical action or its prohibition.

The problem, my friend, is essentially in the first clause. You seem insincere in your statement. If you truly feel that historical sites need to be protected, and you indeed feel that this is a UN proposal, then such a notion argues against such a repeal.

Hence our conclusion that we will not vote for it, unless we have significant reason to believe that a better proposal will be written.

As for the Politburo's own position on historical sites, this is immaterial.

The proposal is contradictory

The Politburo has convened, and has not found any reason to vote in favor of the repeal.

The Politburo views UNR #15 as an urging or a message in favor of protecting historical sites in general whatever the definition of a historical site may be.

Repealing this resolution would leave nothing better as its replacement.

As UNR #15 has already been passed, there is no reason to remove it. The law may be vague and badly written, but there is nothing better that would serve as a replacement as the exact definition of historical sites cannot be outlined.

Unless Representative Aceon will give his word in attempting to pass another resolution pertaining to the matter, the Politburo will vote against it. A law that says nothing is better than no law

We must disagree with the representative of Nachtbergen. Having a piece of completely ineffective, totally worthless trash on the books simply discourages efforts toward better legislation on the subject. Removing it clears both the way and the air.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

As UNR #15 is largely a piece of empty rhetoric which effectively does nothing, I have been urged by my council to show the Free Land of Denactia's support for both a repeal of this senseless resolution and the possibility of a future resolution which more adequately provides means to protect historical sites worldwide.

-- Ambassador Leeman Lyme of the Free Land of Denactia

I am essentially challenging you to demonstrate how repealing this resolution would assist the protection of historical sites

About as much as the current resolution. You are aware that repeals cannot introduce new legislation, only repeal the old one, correct?

You must argue how protecting historical sites, or the mention of historical sites is more important than having a resolution that commands explicit physical action or its prohibition.

The representative from Ausserland is correct. We believe that removing completely worthless legislation from the books is more important than the sentimentality of the worthless resolution. In fact, we founded an organization (http://randr.dompody.com) dedicated to removing poor resolutions.

If you truly feel that historical sites need to be protected, and you indeed feel that this is a UN proposal, then such a notion argues against such a repeal.

Not at all. We truely appreciate the intent of the resolution, however the resolution is flawed. We will not keep around resolutions simply because we like their ideas. If we did, we would not have passed repeals for "Scientific Freedom", "Keep The World Disease-Free!", "Free Education", "Replanting Trees", "Mandatory Recycling", etc. All of these resolutions had very fine ideas, but they were flawed, ineffectual, and worthless, and thus needed to be removed.

Hence our conclusion that we will not vote for it, unless we have significant reason to believe that a better proposal will be written.

Again, our first clause should not be considered as an agreement that we will write an appropriate replacement. You also have the opportunity to write a replacement if you feel the need to.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Representative Aceon

Your argument seems sound enough, and after re-examining the original resolution, the Politburo has concluded that it is, as Comrade Feyederov put it "A drainage clogged with toupees"

However, it is precisely this sentimentality which you mention that makes me reluctant to approve this repeal.

The politburo will reconvene at a later date, and decide the matter.

It would help if Representative Aceon would assist or offer commentary on a future proposal which I intend to author which would replace the current proposal regarding protection of historical sites. In such a case, you have our vote.

Comrade Gramiko,

No "Card" has been pulled. I have simply stated the position of the Politburo. We feel it is more important that there be a mention of the protection of historical sites, albeit causally and coherently ineffectual, than no mention at all.

It is called a UN resolution or a UN proposal, not a UN law.

I challenge Comrade Gramiko to provide evidence that such a resolution does not "belong" in the UN.



Apparently you didn't bother to click Jey's link in his first response you you. You would have see this image.

Look at this HERE (http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aiserpov/diy.jpg)

That is known as a NSUN card and are I believe to be used when argument and/or knee-jerk reactioneering has obviously failed.

Now as to your proof that UNR#15 does not do what it says its supposed to...look at the resolution yourself. Do your see any Recommends? Any Requires? Any Mandates? Any Urges?

No. It is just a long empty piece of rhetoric. Under the current UN rules the Mods would have deleted it I believe as such. Since I wasn't on NS back in '03 it may have been legal back then.

It requires nothing, mandates nothing it doesn't even urge you to do nothing, not even if you "want to maybe, pretty please". UNR#15 is does nothing more than say "We really should protect historical sites". But does not bother to set up a system to protect them, define them or anything else that is in essence a requirement to have a well written law.

Which are what UN Resolutions are. They are the International Laws binding on all UN Member Nations.

No other proof is necessary.

Okay, for the good of everyone, let's dissect this thing.

Protect Historical Sites

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: X-tonia

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

Votes For: 15,515
Votes Against: 4,317

Implemented: Fri May 23 2003

We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place.

Depending on how you interpret this, this either does absolutely nothing, by the lack of an implementation clause, or it does absolutely nothing, by requiring that historical sites not go to waste, but not defining a historical site, thus leaving those guys in the bulldozer confused and bored.

Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income.

This presents a one-sided view of historical sites as tourist attractions, but whatever. This is really just an appeal trying to get at us in the heart or something. It's entirely useless.

We must preserve our cultures to keep this world a fascinating place to travel in.

So, as I see it, the resolution just switched ball games here. First it was historical sites, now culture? Certainly historical sites could be a part of culture, but "culture" so very general, and this resolution doesn't address everything else. The last part makes it somewhat clear that this proposal is a disguised attempt from the tourism industry to preserve their business.

Frankly, I want this proposal burned.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

Comrade Gramiko,

No "Card" has been pulled.

yes it has, by Card he means a UN Card (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Cards) like the one Deputy Ambassador Aceon used



I have simply stated the position of the Politburo. We feel it is more important that there be a mention of the protection of historical sites, albeit causally and coherently ineffectual, than no mention at all.

Then it's not actucally protecting them, so the proposal isn't doing it's job, ergo it probably should be repealed.



To Representative Aceon

I am essentially challenging you to demonstrate how repealing this resolution would assist the protection of historical sites:

I challenge you to demonstrate how it does assit in the protection of historical sites.

Any further resolution would be rejected to its infringement violation on national sovereignity.

You must argue how protecting historical sites, or the mention of historical sites is more important than having a resolution that commands explicit physical action or its prohibition.

The proposal says nothing of prohibiting or physical action of protecting historical sites, it gets rid of the resolution that protects them in name only.

The problem, my friend, is essentially in the first clause. You seem insincere in your statement. If you truly feel that historical sites need to be protected, and you indeed feel that this is a UN proposal, then such a notion argues against such a repeal.

Historical sites need protection, but this resolution doesn't cut it.

Hence our conclusion that we will not vote for it, unless we have significant reason to believe that a better proposal will be written.

As said earlier, there is probably going to be an effort to write a better proposal. This is also the reason im voting "FOR" on this proposal.

The proposal is contradictory

How so?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

I would like to know how it is possible for a repeal to be contradictory? It either repeals UNR#15 or it does not. Repeals have to be the simplest of all proposals done in the UN they are not creating anything...rather they are removing something.

The main clause is: "The United Nations resolves that UN Resolution #(whatever number was assigned upon adoption) shall be rendered null and void."

There is no introduction of anything new at all. The rest is all argument as to why the resolution to be removed should or must be removed.

No other type of resolution done by the UN is as simple as a repeal. As there is nothing created there is no possibility of a repeal to be contradictory. The operative clause is always that such and such resolution will be rendered null and void. And it is either rendered null and void or the repeal has failed the vote.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

I'm going to make the standard argument for the very uncommon reason. We really do not need to "discuss" a "replacement" for this resolution because this resolution isn't really a good blocker to begin with.

This resolution did not stop the passing of UN Resolution #207, "Cultural Heritage in War" which does far more to preserve and I quote ...
- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic, historical or religious significance;
- areas and buildings primarily used for the storage and display of such items, such as galleries, libraries and museums;
- sites officially recognised as being used solely for archaeological excavation; than this resolution ever could hope to save.

I have only one good thing to say about this resolution under consideration for being repealed. The use of rhyme in the text is slightly cute.

I don't want CUTE in my UN Resolutions.

Retired Werepenguins will support this repeal when it comes to a vote.

Comrade Gramiko and TBEM:

My problem is with the first clause, it does not belong in the repeal. There is no reason for it to be included;

COMMENDING Resolution #15: "Protect Historical Sites," for its intent to safeguard historically significant locations within member nations;

I simply do not see why this clause is included. I do not write about the importance of the Proletariat in my proposals, and I don't see people writing about their own personal convictions in their own proposals (At least not good proposals) - and I find it very offensive that a proposal which aims to repeal another resolution by virtue of it not meeting UN standards should contain an unnecessary clause.

Plutoni supports the repeal and a replacement.

Considering the precedent of the "UN Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List)", I believe that an important part of a replacement would be specifying that nations can only add sites in their own nation*.

-the Plutonian ambassador

*OOC: (Or nations under the control of the same user, though how to work that into an IC context is beyond me.)

Comrade Gramiko and TBEM:

My problem is with the first clause, it does not belong in the repeal. There is no reason for it to be included;


I simply do not see why this clause is included. I do not write about the importance of the Proletariat in my proposals, and I don't see people writing about their own personal convictions in their own proposals (At least not good proposals) - and I find it very offensive that a proposal which aims to repeal another resolution by virtue of it not meeting UN standards should contain an unnecessary clause.


UN Resolution #15 has a good idea, but it doesn't do anything to help that idea. Its ineffective and just a waste.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Comrade Gramiko and TBEM:

My problem is with the first clause, it does not belong in the repeal. There is no reason for it to be included;

We disagree, we find it entirely appropriate to commend a resolution that has a good intent, though does not fulfill that intent. There is much precedent to include such a clause admiring the intent of a resolution in a repeal, such as resolutions #188 (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=187), #185 (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=184), #181 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=180), etc etc.

I simply do not see why this clause is included.

As stated earlier, to applaud the resolution for its admirable intent.

and I don't see people writing about their own personal convictions in their own proposals

It's not a personal conviction, it's a clause of a repeal. If the UN passes the repeal, they "COMMEND Resolution #15: "Protect Historical Sites," for its intent to safeguard historically significant locations within member nations;" as they have done with a number of past repealed resolutions.

(At least not good proposals)

Thanks. I suppose very few repeals meet your definition of "good" then.

and I find it very offensive that a proposal which aims to repeal another resolution by virtue of it

I'm not repealing Resolution #15 because of its virtues; I'm repealing it because of its inefficiency and worthlessness. We don't see anything "offensive" about the clause; and we don't understand at all how you find it offensive, especially since you argued for a replacement, you must find the intent of Resolution 15 praiseworthy.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Does a mention of such a notion "X has a good idea, but it's not expressed clearly enough" belong in a UNR? Perhaps our Grammarians and Discourse Faculty may wish to include such clauses, but I do not see it belonging in a proposal.

And perhaps this may be high-time to repeal other such resolutions that contain unnecessary clauses. We do not need nations breaking their heads over a meaning of a clause which has no impact on the actual resolution.

I will personally make efforts to repeal those aforementioned repeals.

I will personally make efforts to repeal those aforementioned repeals.

Yeah, good luck with that. *Bob walks off trying to keep from laughing.*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I can't understand how you cant see that it is necessary. The clause indicates the support of the INTENT of UNR#15.

I believe that the intent was very good, Zyrwick protects its historical sites that need protection on its own as do other nations. However, we generally believe that historical sites should be left up to the various member nations and need not be mandated by the UN therefore we oppose a replacement, and yet support a repeal.

The clause you are objecting to however is irrelevent in the case of a repeal as the main clause is at the begining where it says: "UN Resolution 15 "Protect Historical Sites" (Category, Strength) Shall be Repealed and Rendered Null and Void."

Even if someone didn't like the intent of UNR#15 that one clause is not enough for them to vote against the repeal.

Why?

The answer for that is simple. The main and operative clause of a repeal proposal is the part where it says the UN Resolution to be repealed is repealed.

Now if you nothing else to add....Im going to the bar. I need a vodka after reading your comments.

Comrade Gramiko,

I am simply pointing out the notional contradictions in such a proposal. I may indeed vote for it; certainly after having a prior resolution brought to my attention that defines and urges protection of historical sites.

You may have some vodka at the local Hall-Shel-Simha; I am celebrating the engagement of my pet gerbil.

Comrade Gramiko,

I am simply pointing out the notional contradictions in such a proposal. I may indeed vote for it; certainly after having a prior resolution brought to my attention that defines and urges protection of historical sites.

You may have some vodka at the local Hall-Shel-Simha; I am celebrating the engagement of my pet gerbil.

I'll be sure miss your gerbil's engagement party then....I think I'll have vodka and a bologna sandwich with my UN Delegation Janitor instead. I'm hoping that he will provide more intelligent conversation. It is obvious that you won't since you believe that it is possible for a repeal to be contradictory. How that has happened I just can't possibly fathom unless the gnomes need to replace your translation equipment.

Filthy no good gnomes. Their always trying to steal the waste paper that Comrade Alexandrovich collects to insulate our porto-potty, and use as cooking fuel. I swear I need to get an office...preferably with a piece of furniture in it.

Anyway do not call me Comrade. I don't like it when people outside of the Party call me that. I have a title you know. Its called Ambassador.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

And of course by "Party", you mean the "NationStates Communist Party"

I believe that any document can be contradictory if given sufficient analysis. As I said, there is a notional contradiction, as the bulk of this document merely requests the repeal of UNR#15 by virtue of it being ineffectual per se, and not by virtue of it being unable to provide assistance regarding the protection of historical sites:


COMMENDING Resolution #15: "Protect Historical Sites," for its intent to safeguard historically significant locations within member nations;


This clause connotes a certain support for a notion aiming to protect historical sites

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #15, at no point within the resolution text, defines what constitutes a "historical site" that is worthy of protection, thus leading to confusion and misunderstandings among member nations;

So this resolution should be repealed for causing confusion...

CONCLUDING that Resolution #15 is an insufficient and ineffectual resolution, given that it lacks any form of implementation of its admirable intent;

Or should it be repealed because it is ineffectual?

A better version of the appeal would clearly separate the two reasons, as the repeal in itself "Causes confusion and misunderstanding"

There are clearly two reasons for this repeal, and neither of them are clearly defined, and perhaps contradictory.

The first reason is that it "does not define what a historical site is, thereby leading to confusion among nations", which implies that UNR#15 actually mandates something, only that a definition is lacking

The second reason is that "lacks any form of implementation"

I must ask, how can a resolution that lacks any form of intent or implementation cause confusion among nations? what will cause the confusion? if the confusion is to be caused by attempting to implement the resolution, the second argument clearly states that it has no form of implementation.

Here, you see, Mr. Ambassador, another inherent contradiction within the document. I do not see this document as logically coherent and logically supportive of its claim.

Indeed, we may all agree that UNR#15 "Says Nothing", but how are we to say that? How are we to properly define the flaws and inefficiencies within UNR#15? If we cannot do so in a proper way, then we cannot repeal it.

I do wish that such logical fallacies not be admitted within the UN.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpg


This clause connotes a certain support for a notion aiming to protect historical sites

Yes, a support for protecting historical sites in general. UNR15 doesn't do that.


Or should it be repealed because it is ineffectual?

Correct.


The first reason is that it "does not define what a historical site is, thereby leading to confusion among nations", which implies that UNR#15 actually mandates something, only that a definition is lacking

What? No. There is absolutely no implication of that whatsoever. The clause only mentions the definition, nothing about the mandate. Let me jump ahead in your post...

I do wish that such logical fallacies not be admitted within the UN.

Ever heard of the logical fallacy Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic))?

The second reason is that "lacks any form of implementation"

I must ask, how can a resolution that lacks any form of intent or implementation cause confusion among nations?

The resolution has no method of implementation...United Nations construe, misconstrue, interpret, etc resolution as they see appropriate...confusion.

Here, you see, Mr. Ambassador, another inherent contradiction within the document. I do not see this document as logically coherent and logically supportive of its claim.

Ok, let us break it down:

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"
1) Commendation of resolution's good intent
2) No methods of implementation
3) Further, it lacks definition of "historical sites," (which is important and all...)
4) Repeals resolution 15

What's so difficult to understand?

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

but that is not all that is stated in the resolution. you did not read my arguments, and instead are appealing to simplicity

but that is not all that is stated in the resolution. you did not read my arguments, and instead are appealing to simplicity

Yes, all of that is said in the argument except the parenthetical clause which we would hope would be blatently obvious. We were "appealing to simplicity," as you call it, to try to help you understand that our proposal has no contradictory logic at all.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Well, i rest my case. I am just pointing out a small bit of irony. You cannot expect a legal document to "make sense"; everything must be as foolproof as possible. If the repeal was on a more articulate proposal, I would argue more, but as it stands, I don't think the possible damage is that significant.

We will probably approve.

Well, i rest my case. I am just pointing out a small bit of irony. You cannot expect a legal document to "make sense"; everything must be as foolproof as possible.
On the contrary, a legal document must "make sense" in order to be at all foolproof. Furthermore this repeal is very clear about where it's coming from, and why it's doing what it's doing. I really don't understand how you can possibly misconstrue it the way that you have.

While the original resolution had good intent, good intent does not overcome the fact that it is a short platitude passing as a resolution that actually does something to protect historic sites. And good intent that is utterly ineffective prevents anything from being accomplished towards the goal desired. Altanar completely supports this repeal.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Well, i rest my case. I am just pointing out a small bit of irony. You cannot expect a legal document to "make sense"; everything must be as foolproof as possible. If the repeal was on a more articulate proposal, I would argue more, but as it stands, I don't think the possible damage is that significant.

We will probably approve.

Is the representative saying that legislation that "makes sense" cannot be "as foolproof as possible"? Perhaps he's using those terms in ways that are completely foreign to us. If not, we see no logic to the statement.

There are no logical contradictions in this repeal. It's quite logical to commend the intent of legislation while lamenting its failure to fulfill that intent. And the lack of definition of the subject would cause confusion as nations attempted to discern the meaning and impact of the resolution. The fact that it has no impact is immaterial.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We would urge our colleagues from Jey and Ausserland to remember that they are discussing legislation with a person who has proved himself incapable of logical thought.

All three of us have tried to make the repeals process as simple as possible to understand for him yet he still fails to see the simple logic that a resolution that is nothing more than a platitude is not a resolution but perhaps an essay...or maybe a proverb or something. What it definitely isn't is a resolution.

As such, UNR15 should be repealed if for nothing more than to make space for an effective piece of legislation if that is deemed necessary by the UN.

Further I would like to note to the Representative of Nachtbergen, that we were referring to the use of comrade outside of the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick. Our region NationStates Communist Party, has communists yes...but it also has bourgeois socialists, left-wingers of other verities and the occasional pot smoking hippie or two. As such only a select group of the residents of that region qualify to be called comrade.

We take our titles very seriously. In the UN we are to be known by our title of Ambassador, Deputy Ambassador and Janitor for when Vladimir makes his daily rounds of gathering up the trash.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

I rise to support the repeal of UNR#15 on the grounds it's ineffectiveness and confusion. I do urge the NSUN to begin work on drafting a new resolution safeguarding sites of historical significance.

Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Is the representative saying that legislation that "makes sense" cannot be "as foolproof as possible"? Perhaps he's using those terms in ways that are completely foreign to us. If not, we see no logic to the statement.


What I am saying is that a repeal of an obviously defunct resolution (As UNR# 15 does not clearly state what is considered a historical site, and therefore would be using incomprehensible terminology per se; furthermore, the resolution is not written in the traditional format, further adding to the meek image of the resolution) must be well structured and well articulated, even if it should pass my a wide margin.

It is true that its main clause is sufficient to repeal such a resolution, simply because most nations will not find purpose in UNR# 15, however, one must ensure that the logic is sufficient and rigid enough to repeal a resolution which may be more controversial.

Earlier in this forum, I explicated a contradiction between two clauses of the repeal. I did not even mention that one of those clauses are blatantly false:

In the fourth clause, the document states:

CONCLUDING that Resolution #15 is an insufficient and ineffectual resolution, given that it lacks any form of implementation of its admirable intent;


With great bewilderment I ask: Has the author not read the first sentence of UNR #15?

We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place.

Which clearly states that this resolution prohibits erecting new structures on historical sites; there are other implications, but this is the most obvious.

Having concluded that the fourth clause of the pending resolution is clearly false, I shall now mention another deficiency in UNR# 15:

Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income.

Which unless changed to the form "This will cause Tourism....", is completely incomprehensible.

Which clearly states that this resolution prohibits erecting new structures on historical sites; there are other implications, but this is the most obvious.




I must hastily rise to disagree with the esteemed ambassador from Nachtbergen. UNR#15 doesn't clearly state anything of the sort. The quoted passage from the resolution only states the intent of the resolution and does nothing to describe how the UN should keep historical sites from being replaced with new buildings.

Let us not keep bad resolution from being replaced with a better stronger resolution due to squabbling over the text in the repeal. The United States of Philimbesi has begun work on a new draft aimed at preserving and protecting historical sites.

Which clearly states that this resolution prohibits erecting new structures on historical sites; there are other implications, but this is the most obvious.

We don't know what you're talking about, this clause does not carry that implication whatsoever. However, let's just give your assumption some merit, let's say it actually does imply that. What then? There's no implementation, there's no mandate, there's nothing even urging nations to protect historical sites. It's just an (untrue) implication, no implementation.

Having concluded that the fourth clause of the pending resolution is clearly false, I shall now mention another deficiency in UNR# 15:


Which unless changed to the form "This will cause Tourism....", is completely incomprehensible.

We don't understand why you're including this in your post. Are you trying to point out areas that we did not discuss in our repeal? Sorry, we didn't see this clause as particularly poor. The clause is describing what will happen to tourism should historical sites "go to waste."

And with that,

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/ignoreax4.jpg

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

What I am saying is that a repeal of an obviously defunct resolution (As UNR# 15 does not clearly state what is considered a historical site, and therefore would be using incomprehensible terminology per se; furthermore, the resolution is not written in the traditional format, further adding to the meek image of the resolution) must be well structured and well articulated, even if it should pass my a wide margin.

It is true that its main clause is sufficient to repeal such a resolution, simply because most nations will not find purpose in UNR# 15, however, one must ensure that the logic is sufficient and rigid enough to repeal a resolution which may be more controversial.


We agree wholeheartedly that repeals should be carefully drafted and logically consistent. This one is. We explained how your claims of logical contradiction were false. You choose to ignore what we said and simply repeat your spurious claim. Ignoring counterarguments is an unfortunately common debating tactic in this Assembly. It impresses and convinces no one.

And, by the way, the resolution is not "defunct". It is still in force.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We will support this repeal, not because we like it, but because of how fundamentally unsound the original resolution is.

~S

We agree wholeheartedly that repeals should be carefully drafted and logically consistent. This one is. We explained how your claims of logical contradiction were false.

If you would have paid attention, I did not address your counterargument, as your counterargument merely masks behind the words "Quite logical", on which I cannot debate.

I will mention my arguments in this thread, together with some of the responses that I received, as I wish to defend the integrity of my region, and fend off this blasphemous accusation of "Ignoring counterarguments"

1) Although UNR# 15 does not explicitly define its terms and is not a sound resolution, a bad resolution is better than no resolution at all, as attempting to defend historical sites and the like may cause more problems. However, if another proposal will be drafter, I will withdraw my argument


A new proposal will be drafted shortly. UNR# 15 is illegal etc..

2) There is a notional contradiction within the resolution; the resolution commends UNR# 15 for its intent, yet wishes to erase any mention of maintaining historical sites from the law

Such wording is common in UN resolutions etc...

3) There is a logical contradiction within the resolution; the clause stating that UNR# 15 resolution lacks implementation contradicts the clause stating that it will bring confusion among nations etc..

Yet to be addressed per se. The ambassador of Ausserland, it seems, intended to say that "Confusion" would be inherent, yet it does not defend the phrasing of the current resolution, which was essentially the point of argument 3)

4) The fourth clause of the resolution stating that it lacks implementation is false

There is no easily inferred implementation (At least this is what I managed to understand

The error, I realize, that many of you make, is that you are looking at my arguments from the perspective of this resolution already being true and correct by virtue of its urge and demand to repeal UNR# 15, (a notion with which I now agree), however I am simply elucidating certain technical aspects within the current resolution that are flawed as well.

Ausserland: your claim of "False Logic" was not even to the point. You attempted to make my statements seem absurd by paraphrasing me as saying
that legislation that "makes sense" cannot be "as foolproof as possible"

Whereas I never even implied such a claim. What I said was that legislation must not only appeal to "Common Sense" (or "Make Sense"), i.e. it must not only be sound, but that it should also be carefully worded as not to allow for loopholes in the future, should the document be challenged in a paradigm where "Common Sense" has changed.

1) Although UNR# 15 does not explicitly define its terms and is not a sound resolution, a bad resolution is better than no resolution at allWrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. A bad resolution is infinitely worse than no resolution because a bad resolution blocks a good resolution from being submitted.

2) [B]There is a notional contradiction within the resolution; the resolution commends UNR# 15 for its intent, yet wishes to erase any mention of maintaining historical sites from the lawYou can like the intent of a resolution yet not like how it's actually carried out, just look at the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List). It's intent was great, however the way it was written allowed for massive abuse.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The General Secratary of TSRCPP, about to burst out in flames of uranium induced mushrooms, restrains himself and says
"I did not mean to raise all the problems once again."

The General Secratary of TSRCPP, about to burst out in flames of uranium induced mushrooms, restrains himself and says
"I did not mean to raise all the problems once again."

And yet you did. And everyone will continue to respond negatively because you're wrong, and compound this by being selective in the responses you mangle.

The reason for the summary was, if you were following the thread, to deflect the argument that I was somehow repeating myself, I did not intend to pose these problems again, as they have mainly been resolved.

Because you are wrong

I understand that my comments are not "Popular", unfortunately, the UN is not controlled by a revolutionary force; however, I would like you to make a slight attempt at demonstrating logic within your postings such as you and other have done in the past.

The Republic of New Goldwater fully supports the repealing of Resolution 15 as it is the right of every sovereign nation to deem what may be categorised as a “historical site” and if indeed such a site is worthy of preservation. The intrusion of the United Nations into assessing the cultural heritage of individual nations, an area which may be beyond the comprehension of other nations whose values systems differ greatly from others and result in a site being deemed historical when indeed it may offer no such value to the actual residents of our nation is an unwarranted and undesirable act, the Republic of New Goldwater shall firmly oppose the enactment of any such resolution to replace Resolution 15 once it has been repealed, this is a matter solely to be considered by individual nations and to be debated within their respective system of Government.

I completely agree with the recinding of the Resolution...it clearly lacks any real political and social 'Wack' and ammendments must be made. We must however, think out these ammendments throughly to prevent abuse by those UN nations who wish not to presevere the relics of the past...clearly we must put forth a unanimous and clear agenda on the matter. I see no real objection to this ruling, and believe me, I tried to. Any objection is nulled due to the fact real and effectatious implementations will be proposed in due course, this current Resolution is clearly blocking a more lucidic method of Historical Protection. In our History after all, is our present.

Governments should have the right to choose whether they want to keep existing historical sites as tourist locations or develop the land for other purposes, such as factories that could potentially generate more revenue for the country. There are some things in life that we will have to let go eventually, as change is the only universal constant. Some of these historical sites hardly earn anything anymore, as maintenance costs far outweigh the monetary gain. I strongly urge the UN to repeal this resolution and allow countries the choice whether they want to hold on to obsolete structures or develop the land and prepare for a brighter future.

That this should not be against "UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites", without a replacement be brought forward. Because there should be something in the planning that is supportive of historic buildings being decided upon to be of benefit rather than for over developers' short term profit.
Otherwise short term profit may tear down buildings that may be of more benefit in the long term.

Cookesland officially votes "FOR"

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

That this should not be against "UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites", without a replacement be brought forward. Because there should be something in the planning that is supportive of historic buildings being decided upon to be of benefit rather than for over developers' short term profit.
Otherwise short term profit may tear down buildings that may be of more benefit in the long term.
You're free to tear down buildings with this resolution in place; you're equally free to submit a resolution to stop that with this resolution in place. Repealing #15 will do nothing to allow destruction of historic sites because #15 itself does nothing to stop it.

Anyway, we vote for this.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

I rise to support this resolution as well as to state I have a draft of a replacement for consideration if the general assembly would like to see it.

Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador-At-Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Actually we would oppose a replacement. While we do like the Idea of protecting historical sites. We believe that only nations can successfully determine what is and is not a historical site worthy of preservation.

Not everything that gets repealed needs a replacement. We fully support repealing bad laws simply because they are bad laws.


I find myself quite surprised that, while defending the idea of protecting historical sites and placing the responsibility and ability of judgment on a national level, you want to repeal the proposition.
By not bringing any specifications about which monuments to preserve and to what extent you would have to do so, the resolution makes your point. It underlines the necessity to protect our historical legacy without interfering with national sovereignty.
The notes put forward in the repealing of this proposition seem to indicate it gets repealed because it is inefficient and not constraining enough. The Holy republic of Scargistan fully subscribes to this analysis.
However we doubt the fact that a better resolution will be endorsed later. Consequently we will oppose the repeal of the resolution and strongly advise our regional delegate to do the same!
We remain open for discussion and will of course support any attempt to replace this resolution by one that would defend the legacy of mankind as being an issue for whole humanity and not an independent national issue.

Hail to the Snail!

Scarg

As I read UNR#15 it is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Indeed the Ambassador's words ring true in the halls of Gaulacia's parliament. We will most definately vote in favor of this repeal.

Bruce Bruton, Gaulacian Ambassador to The United Nations.

We are voting against this for the simple fact that, though we agree with the resolution on the table, it fails to consider a replacement with stronger language.


Sincerely,

The Premier of The Commonwealth of Western Florida
UN Delegate from the United States of America

Congrats Jey for reaching the quorum.

As much as I would like a real resolutions to replace #15 tomorrow, as a lot of sites relevant to human heritage are destroyed by lunatics all-over the world, this repeal in undeniable. The present #15 would be bad as an introduction to the paper of a 10-year old written for the history class.

Aye for repeal.

I have been authorised to support the repeal of this charming yet superfluous resolution.

Benedictions,

Quote:
Protect Historical Sites

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: X-tonia

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

Votes For: 15,515
Votes Against: 4,317

Implemented: Fri May 23 2003
So ?

The original resolution states a principal. The principal "Protection of historically valuable stuff is worthwhile" is now on the NSUN books.

The same resolution does NOT do anything else, though its mere "being there" can encourage "implementational legislation".

Maybe that didn't happen -yet- but there's no need to REPEAL the principle.

So RensSignol will vote against the repeal. We will back a meaningfull replacement, but we don't feel it is necessary to repeal Number 15.
If someone comes with a more "active" proposal, we sure willback that one, but it will have opponents in "the small government coalition" and "the natsov coalition".
Therefor, we won't shoot down the principal law that is there: the expression of an INTENT.

Why repeal the resolution with this resolution. If you want to repeal it state not just the problems with the resolution at large but fix the problem within the resolution that is proposed to replace the one on the books. Work smarter not harder.

We will back a meaningfull replacement, but we don't feel it is necessary to repeal Number 15.

OOC: Actually, if you had bothered to read the rules, you would have learned that it is necessary to repeal before replacing.

Why repeal the resolution with this resolution. If you want to repeal it state not just the problems with the resolution at large but fix the problem within the resolution that is proposed to replace the one on the books. Work smarter not harder.

OOC: Just read the rules. That's a big part of working smarter.

I think that we should create a new UN resolution about “Protec historical sites”. If the members of the UN aprove the issue, then we could repeal this resolution.

The histocial sites keep good, and we obtain a better resolution.

Original Resolution:



Please elaborate on your definition of an historical site. In other words what in your resolution constitutes an historical site? For example if we build today, will it be considered an historical site five years from now?

The proposal to repeal UN15 is utterly inadequate in itself. It does not offer a replacement to UN15. It simply notes the weaknesses of UN15. It is argued that UN15 is vague in terms of criteria for implementation but does this not leave adequate room for implementation by each member nation as they see fit? There is nothing wrong with the spirit of UN15. Can one support an equally weak resolution and open the door for the potential unbridled commercial exploitation of historically and culturally significant cites? If the motion for repeal had any substance in itself it would have offered the updates to UN15 that it so blandly criticizes. What is the agenda behind this supposed innocuous proposal to so kindly rid us of the "offensive" UN15?

I rise to remind the members who are spending their time arguing that this repeal has no replacement that according to the stated Rules for UN Proposals:

If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

I would suggest having an aide go over that section so you can be completely briefed. We are in the first step of that process.


Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Please be so kind as to specify this is a repeal of and not a amendment to UN15?

Please be so kind as to specify this is a repeal of and not a amendment to UN15?

It's a repeal; amendments are illegal.

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15
Proposed by: Jey

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

Not sure where my esteemed colleagues got the impression it was in amendment.

Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

Esteemed Colleagues at this time I must excuse myself, while I attempt to wrap my head round the logic of the current floor debate.




:headbang:



Yup not working.

The motion to repeal UN15 does not include a statement to say the purpose of the repeal is to amend UN15. As it stands, it simply aims to remove the existing resolution.

*Leetha walks to the front of the hall dragging a blackboard on wheels. Whacking the blackboard hard several times with a pointer (and considering whacking some of the delegations within reach)...*

Okay, class is in session.

Jey didn't write the original resolution, X-tonia did. X-tonia failed to define historical sites, which Jey points out in his repeal argument. You've been provided copies of both the original and the repeal resolution to make it easier for you to follow along. Whether you believe "historical sites" needs defining or not is up to you and can be factored into your decision whether or not to vote for the repeal.

Repeals cannot contain any attempt to "fix" the legislation being repealed and still be legal. Thus, Jey cannot provide a replacement within the repeal. Nor can he "amend" UNR #15 to make it stronger, weaker, prettier, smarter or any number of 'ers'. Nor can he use the repeal to do anything whatsoever at all except nullify the original resolution.

Can we ask about a replacement? Yes; someone already has. (Props to Jey for not dangling a possible replacement in the argument for repeal.). And Jey has indicated he might consider writing a weaker one; someone else has indicated they would draft a stronger one. This, so far, is not an extensive debate, please check the minutes for previous comments pertinent to your concerns.

Can someone have a replacement ready before a repeal is attempted? You betcha. It can even be submitted before the repeal is passed... though doing so risks the replacement becoming illegal by default if the repeal fails. This tends to irritate mods, so careful there, Bucky.

We will back a meaningfull replacement, but we don't feel it is necessary to repeal Number 15.OOC: Actually, if you had bothered to read the rules, you would have learned that it is necessary to repeal before replacing.
Ah now, this is a tad different. New Vandalia's speed at yammering about the rules perhaps blinded them to the difference in what Renssignol is saying. If I've understood him correctly, he believes UNR #15 is such a weak resolution, implementation-wise, that it could be legislated around without being repealed, thus leaving the sense of this body (i.e. preservation of historical sites) on record. And we've seen that happen before with UNR #7 and UNR #192. Were a repeal of UNR #15 to fail again, such a course of action might become more enticing.

For the record, we personally support this repeal and will support a good replacement.

Okay, school's out for summer.

*Leetha wipes her hands down the front of her darii leaving chalk hand-prints in interesting places.*

Well, damn.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador in search of a good laundry.

The delegate from The United States Of Philimbesi thanks his esteemed colleague from Rubina

Well said.

So who is meta-gaming here, "Bucky"? Should we simply vote for an inadequately worded resolution? Is it relevant that an amendment is planned but this is not stated in the repeal?

"Rising to restrain the honorable delegate from Rubina... "

I would strongly advise the ambassador from Proto-Consilience to vote for the repeal if he or she wishes or not to if he or she wishes, but for the love of whatever you hold dear please subsist from this debate of semantics. The resolution is as stands, and as it's stands it's being passed by about a 2.3 to 1 margin.

Please be so kind as to specify this is a repeal of and not a amendment to UN15?
You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.
So who is meta-gaming here, "Bucky"? Perhaps we should have indicated that Bucky is our pet rat; she's in charge of repeals and replacements for the Rubinan delegation.

A repeal author doesn't have to state whether their proffered resolution is a repeal or an amendment, because, as you so adequately note in your later statement, amendments are illegal. (ooc: This series of posts makes us wonder if one is puppet-wanking and forgot which character one was supposed to be playing, hmmm?)

Should we simply vote for an inadequately worded resolution? Of course not. However, if the "wording" that one considers inadequate is a function of the required format for resolutions, one should educate themselves as to the rules of this body.Is it relevant that an amendment is planned but this is not stated in the repeal?Relevance is ... relative. The lack of a statement pertaining to a replacement does not weaken the argument of a repeal.

--L.T.

(ooc: This series of posts makes us wonder if one is puppet-wanking and forgot which character one was supposed to be playing, hmmm?)
--L.T.

OOC: I'm no puppet master. :) The opinions however varied are truly really that of Proto-Consilience

Oh god. We're being invaded by ReadNothing n00bs. I'm going to throughly wack anybody who mentions "amendments" with the Book of Rules.

There really ought to be a proficiency test to take before you can be in the UN.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Getting really, really ticked off
In possession of a branding iron also

Forgive me, your vacuousness, for thinking that the removal of a resolution to be replaced with nothing apparent is a problem.

:headbang: Make :headbang: it :headbang: stop

Forgive me, your vacuousness, for thinking that the removal of a resolution to be replaced with nothing apparent is a problem.

It isn't the fact that it's a problem (or not) that tends to set people off when someone insists that a replacement (or amendment, which isn't even possible here) be available before a bad resolution is repealed. It's the fact that this problem, if you see it as one, is easily remedied. Anyone here can draft a proposal. Not having a replacement is not, and should not be, any reason whatsoever to prevent a repeal of ineffective, poorly written, or just plain bad legislation. I apologize for some of my colleagues (or myself, for that matter) if we get a little irritated when this issue comes up, but it really does get tiresome hearing the same fallacious arguments in repeal debates over and over again.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The great Dr. Jules Hodz, would you be so kind to enlighten all of us illiterates on how you would go about improving on an existing resolution, not proposal.

The great Dr. Jules Hodz, would you be so kind to enlighten all of us illiterates on how you would go about improving on an existing resolution, not proposal.

You don't add on, you repeal it and write a better version.

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Thank you, Ambassador.

It isn't the fact that it's a problem (or not) that tends to set people off when someone insists that a replacement (or amendment, which isn't even possible here) be available before a bad resolution is repealed. It's the fact that this problem, if you see it as one, is easily remedied.We actually have no problem with that stance; it's conceivable (to us) that in certain circumstances a poor resolution is better than none. (To be clear, this isn't such a situation.) Had the delegate of Proto-Consilience simply said as much clearly, his post would have joined the great many similar in the history of this Assembly. It's the inane, illogical attempt at semantics arguments that tumbles our inner bucket.

--L.T.

"Javar looks around the room knee bouncing... "

You don't add on, you repeal it and write a better version.

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

My sentiments exactly.

You would do good to read the "Rules for UN Proposals". They can greatly benefit you, both by giving you new learning, and by escaping by branding iron that reads "ignorant jerk". So save yourself.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Really, really trying to be approachable

NEY!

All we need is a declaration to protect historical sites. What do you guys want? History police invading sovereign countries to protect their historical sites? HELL NO. VOTE NO.

The original Resolution does not define what makes a site historical and is as such useless. Besides, the construction of more buildings = progress. What progress does the dusty house of some long dead person achieve?

Embassador Arn Kilde,
Confederacy of Conglomerated Tribes

The resolution admitedly has flaws, but surely we can ammend it instead of repealing it altogether. If we just vote to not repeal this act we can make changes to it without destroying the basic idea of protecting our history.

NEY!

All we need is a declaration to protect historical sites. What do you guys want? History police invading sovereign countries to protect their historical sites? HELL NO. VOTE NO.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/809/hpjk9.jpg

Couldn't resist..:rolleyes:

The resolution admitedly has flaws, but surely we can ammend it instead of repealing it altogether. If we just vote to not repeal this act we can make changes to it without destroying the basic idea of protecting our history.

Once again, amendments are illegal. (And it only has one 'm'!)

Is this going to get replaced by a stronger version? I like the idea but the resolution is garbage.

The Empire of Fluted Piccolos agrees with this. The idea is lovely, however, it needs to be more black and white in its description. The Empire of Fluted Piccolos suggests that the resolution be scrapped and rewritten to be a more coherent resolution.

it's important to protect historical sites. It doesn't matter if 15# is not good enough, it is worst to not have no rule about the protection of these sites...

make a better 15# before taking 15# out of the book

it's important to protect historical sites. It doesn't matter if 15# is not good enough, it is worst to not have no rule about the protection of these sites...

make a better 15# before taking 15# out of the book

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Please explain to me the tortured and convoluted logic that leads you to conclude that having an ineffective, poorly written resolution that does nothing to protect historic sites is somehow better than removing the crap resolution, in order for someone to introduce new legislation that does protect historic sites. Having something on the books that does nothing to protect historic sites, and at the same time prevents better legislation from being introduced, is inherently worse than no resolution at all, because it provides the illusion of protection where none exists and prevents anyone else from trying their hand at authoring legislation that does provide protection. In other words, it's all sizzle, no steak. And I prefer steak. Do those of you who don't get why bad legislation is worse than no legislation get it now?

- Jinella Agaranth, Annoyed Ambassador

I'm wholly in favour of repealing the resolution but would like to see a replacement. However, a replacement should allow scope for governments to define an "historical site"...

I too am in favour of repealing this resolution.

However I'm wary of taking the risk of not having a new, better written, resolution to replace it. I feel it would be wise to simultaneously propose the repeal of this resolution and the formation of a suitable replacement, such that those who are concerned about the integrity of historical sites may see that a replacement will in fact be passed.

It is for this reason that I vote against the repeal of resolution#15 in this instance. I urge all those of you who truly wish to safe-guard your nations' heritage to vote against the repeal of the proposition, while acknowledging the fact that the resolution as it stands is, quite simply, useless, and with a view to repealling it at a laterdate.

The basic concept of Resolution 15 is a noble one. However as has been previously stated, it does nothing to actually protect historical sites or define what constitutes one. I believe that a new resolution should be written to include a definition of a historical site. Before this improvement is written, the books need to be cleared on the subject. It is for that reason that The Republic of Central Prestonia votes yes on the repeal.

Bosnaeum fully agrees with the repeal of the Protect Historical Sites resolution. The resolution while it has a great concept, doesn't specify enough information for it to be in effect effectively. It does not specify which cultural sites are deemed "important" and it also does not supply a method in which to protect these sites. Most nations will simply guess militarily, but this may not be the unspecified intent. It is overall an insufficient resolution that is much better to be repealed.

Bosnaeum votes FOR the repeal.




- Bosnaeum's UN Representative

I too am in favour of repealing this resolution.

However I'm wary of taking the risk of not having a new, better written, resolution to replace it. I feel it would be wise to simultaneously propose the repeal of this resolution and the formation of a suitable replacement, such that those who are concerned about the integrity of historical sites may see that a replacement will in fact be passed.

By the gods and goddesses, if you're so concerned about a replacement, write your own. No one yet, as long as I have been here, has been able to offer a convincing argument as to why we shouldn't repeal bad legislation because the author of the repeal doesn't have a replacement ready to pull out of his or her...um...hat, the second they submit the repeal.

It is for this reason that I vote against the repeal of resolution#15 in this instance. I urge all those of you who truly wish to safe-guard your nations' heritage to vote against the repeal of the proposition, while acknowledging the fact that the resolution as it stands is, quite simply, useless, and with a view to repealling it at a laterdate.

You support repealing #15, as you stated in your first sentence. Yet, you are voting against the repeal of #15, and are urging nations to vote against the repeal to "safeguard [their] nations' heritage"...while "acknowledging the fact that the resolution as it stands is, quite simply, useless". Do you even realize how much sense that doesn't make? This kind of "logic" makes my head hurt.

- Jinella Agaranth, Annoyed and now angry ambassador

That's it, from now on, anyone who says anything about amending Resolution #15 or submitting a replacement now gets defenestrated!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

That's it, from now on, anyone who says anything about amending Resolution #15 or submitting a replacement now gets defenestrated!

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeI would like to suggest a depantsing in addition to the defenestrating to further the point that such arguments are both lacking in intelligence and over-abundantly ridiculous. Those who do not wear pants and therefore cannot be depantsed may be struck with the Slappingfish prior to their assisted aerial exit.

Personally, I'd be just as happy if this resolution was never replaced. Even if historical sites are maintained, they tend to lose their impact and their importance as those who personally remember the event and/or person(s) commemorated by the location pass away and younger, more ignorant generations take their place. When history is truly taken for granted, no amount of building maintenance will be able to restore the significance of what it represents or make the new generations even care. Old places must eventually make way for the new. Thus individual governments, if they so choose, must be allowed to make their own historically related decisions.

On a final and much more on-topic note, I've voted for this repeal in a most Delegate fashion.

That's it, from now on, anyone who says anything about amending Resolution #15 or submitting a replacement now gets defenestrated!

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeOh dear gods no! Have the windows of these hallowed halls not suffered enough? Must we continue this architectural abuse?

*Leetha walks over to the Flibble delegation and slams a trout on the desk.*

Administer as much piscean justice as you would like, but leave the poor Fensters out of it.

*Tactfully wiping fish slime off on Bob's pants, Leetha then returns to her desk.*

See, this is why we have an official breed known as the Slappingfish. No slime.

The Republic of The Fifth Dynasty supports the legislature. "Protect Historical Sites" is based on a purposeful idea; however it provides no enforcement or proposals. We earnestly wait for a similar proposal that offers substantial proposals and recommendations.

Vladimir Walker
UN Ambassador of The Fifth Dynasty

My apologies about my previous argument. I am new to this. Now seeing that amendments are illegal I change my vote. I vote to repeal this act in order that we immediately afterward propose a new act to protect historical sites. The new act should be specific on what makes a site elligable for protection.

I would like to add I will stick by the idea of a replacement whether I'm thrown out a window or not.

(The representative then pointedly moons the oficial who suggested defenestration.)

The ability to learn and apply that learning is a most useful characteristic for a UN member. Welcome and may your stay be long and enjoyable.

And we're not saying that just because you mooned Flibble. :D

Leetha Talone
A slightly drunk UN Ambassador

HawaiianFreedom's position is that our Historical Sites do indeed require respect and measures of protection. However, before we say something that may have long reaching implications like that, it should be noted that to give them that respect, they should be defined properly so that every nation large or small should know what a site requires to be of historical value.

The nation that holds a historical site of value, should have a shared history of that site with at least one other nation or have a story that other nations are willing to listen to now and in generations to come. This should be a site that other nation's tourists would be willing to visit and cherish, because its history is important to them, even if they aren't from the nation it resides in.

Now while these base definitions are a great starting point, they need fine tuning. At the very least, they provide a solid background from which to form a new resolution that would make a global resolution on historical site protection worthwhile.

The next portion should include how these sites are to be protected. Ideas may include UN security, security of the nation the site resides in, with special funds for restoration if necessary. These base ideas are the means with which to carry out the protection of what we treasure in our histories.

Responses are welcome.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation.

A0001 stand FOR the repeal of resolution 15. Removal of this resolution will only make way for an effective resolution with the same intent.

...we shouldn't repeal bad legislation because the author of the repeal doesn't have a replacement...[quote]
Yes exactly. Being only newly elected I must rely on others to draw up legislation in a safe and effective manner.

[QUOTE=Altanar;12793935]
You support repealing #15, as you stated in your first sentence. Yet, you are voting against the repeal of #15, and are urging nations to vote against the repeal to "safeguard [their] nations' heritage"...while "acknowledging the fact that the resolution as it stands is, quite simply, useless". Do you even realize how much sense that doesn't make? This kind of "logic" makes my head hurt.

- Jinella Agaranth, Annoyed and now angry ambassador

Perhaps I should have explained a little more clearly, I'm in favour of repealing resolution #15, but not before a suitable alternative is proposed. I'm suspicious that this is a ploy to convince those who care about historical sites to abandon the flimsy protection that they have.

Is this going to get replaced by a stronger version? I like the idea but the resolution is garbage.

It'd better be replaced by a stronger resolution. The last thing I want is people putting the M3 over Tara (ancient megalithic archaeological goldmine). Roads can be rerouted. History can't.

Perhaps I should have explained a little more clearly, I'm in favour of repealing resolution #15, but not before a suitable alternative is proposed.

Ok, let's get one thing squared away first...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/defenestrationdr6.jpg

Secondly, if you recognize that Resolution #15 "is useless," then what matters when a replacement is crafted? There's no historical site protection now; there won't be when it's repealed. You're perfectly capable of making a "replacement" (if you can even call it that) if you so desire one--it will be the first actual resolution in the NSUN that protects historical sites.

Also,

I'm suspicious that this is a ploy to convince those who care about historical sites to abandon the flimsy protection that they have.

No, it isn't. There isn't any protection to abandon.

From the nice, cozy office of
Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Her Majesty has instructed me to vote for this repeal. Removing old, useless legislation is always a good thing, even if there are many who seem to claim this is just a sneaky way to get rid of something "useful". Which, of course, it isn't.

I'd also like to note, on a personal level, that the current antics are quite amusing. Tell me, in addition to defenestration, do you also do hazing of other ambassadors? That might help weed out some of the more unworthy ones.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

In response to the representative of Nachtbergen....


We agree wholeheartedly that repeals should be carefully drafted and logically consistent. This one is. We explained how your claims of logical contradiction were false.

If you would have paid attention, I did not address your counterargument, as your counterargument merely masks behind the words "Quite logical", on which I cannot debate.

No, we paid attention. We paid attention as you blithely ignored what we had said. Since you seem incapable of recognizing the flawed reasoning of your statements when it is pointed out to you, we'll elaborate.


2) There is a notional contradiction within the resolution; the resolution commends UNR# 15 for its intent, yet wishes to erase any mention of maintaining historical sites from the law

There is no contradiction, "notional" or logical. You misrepresent the intent of the repeal. Nowhere does it say that there should be no mention of historical sites in the law. On the contrary, by commending the intent of the original resolution, it suggests that there is indeed room for legislation on the matter. The intent and effect of the repeal is to remove a single, useless resolution from the books. And there is nothing illogical whatever about commending the intent of legislation while regretting its failure to achieve that intent.


3) There is a logical contradiction within the resolution; the clause stating that UNR# 15 resolution lacks implementation contradicts the clause stating that it will bring confusion among nations etc..

Yet to be addressed per se. The ambassador of Ausserland, it seems, intended to say that "Confusion" would be inherent, yet it does not defend the phrasing of the current resolution, which was essentially the point of argument 3)

As we stated earlier, the lack of proper definition would cause confusion as nations attempted to discern the scope of coverage of the resolution. The confusion arises as they try to figure out what the blasted thing's talking about. Whether the resolution has effective implementation provisions or not has nothing to do with that. In fact, the lack of implementation provisions would compound the confusion.


Ausserland: your claim of "False Logic" was not even to the point. You attempted to make my statements seem absurd by paraphrasing me as saying
that

legislation that "makes sense" cannot be "as foolproof as possible"

Whereas I never even implied such a claim. What I said was that legislation must not only appeal to "Common Sense" (or "Make Sense"), i.e. it must not only be sound, but that it should also be carefully worded as not to allow for loopholes in the future, should the document be challenged in a paradigm where "Common Sense" has changed.

That may be what you intended to say. It may be what you thought you said. But it clearly was not what you said. We'll simply quote your original statement, the meaning of which is clear to anyone who can read English: "You cannot expect a legal document to 'make sense'; everything must be as foolproof as possible." You said absolutely nothing about appealing to common sense or changing paradigms.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Oh dear gods no! Have the windows of these hallowed halls not suffered enough? Must we continue this architectural abuse?

*Leetha walks over to the Flibble delegation and slams a trout on the desk.*

Administer as much piscean justice as you would like, but leave the poor Fensters out of it.

*Tactfully wiping fish slime off on Bob's pants, Leetha then returns to her desk.*Leetha, Leetha, Leetha, do you honestly think I'd risk incurring the wrath of the UN Building Management by not opening the window prior to committing acts of defenestration?

See, this is why we have an official breed known as the Slappingfish. No slime.I may have to invest in some of those.

I would like to add I will stick by the idea of a replacement whether I'm thrown out a window or not.

(The representative then pointedly moons the oficial who suggested defenestration.)

I have no problem with people wanting a replacement, I do however have a problem with people wanting the replacement to be submitted prior to the original being repealed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Theocracy of Judeastan strongly supports the resolution at hand, citing the weaknesses and inefficiencies of the initial bill. Judaestan has an interest in preserving Historical sites, for the benefit of the education process. Any other "historical" site that has no educational value, or is merely in existence for posterity, will cease to exist in Judeastan.

We the People of Proto-Prime apologize for any affront caused on this topic, or to be caused on it.

Those who tend to think that Resolution 15 offers no protection lack imagination. The more specific any legislation becomes, the more constrained it becomes in its application. What is deemed historically significant off course differs from culture to culture, but tends to have some commonality – a place, an item, a grave, etc. For example, the statue of Kalinin Moi on Proto-Prime. It is not as much the statue as the hallowed ground its rests upon. It is some 2,000 years ago that here the mighty Kalinin, the proto-tieger of greatest renown, finished off the last rat on Proto-Prime. Strangely not even the pro-life anythingers squealed about this. Sadly, the poor Kalinin died due to obesity given the richly rewarded life he lived after the Glorious Moment. We digress but to say that the sadly learnt truth is that paying too much attention to our living heroes may not be good for them, but that the loss of their memory once they are gone is even a greater travesty.

What We the People of Proto-Prime fail to grasp is the popularity of the proposal to repeal UN15. We are well aware that naivety increases exponentially the larger a sentient mass becomes unless guided by basic premises. What concerns Us is the lack of basic premises in the petition to repeal UN15. At its most basic an attempt to alter a governing principle must contain purpose and intent. It would appear that the purpose of the repeal is to remove UN15 because it lacks specifics on how to protect historical sites, a definition of historical site, and apparently lack of implementation (? - surely it is up to each member nation to implement the Resolution as it sees fit) of its intent. Granted, that there is no definition of historical site – which could serve as a guide to what needs to be protected, but can also be considered prescriptive, as could any specification as to how this protection is to be implemented. So, as the motion to repeal stands its argument is that peoples of this Mighty Union are too ignorant and incompetent to decide what is historically significant for them, or how to protect what they consider historically significant without greater guidance.

Yet, the proposal makes no mention of “greater guidance”. It does not spell out its intent. The repeal of UN15 could have the following purpose: to allow the commercial exploitation of historical riches. It does not state the intent to replace UN15 with another resolution the aim of which is to update it with a definition of historical site, as well as guidance on protection and implementation of intent (?). This does not imply that the new resolution should already be available for implementation, but that the intent of the repeal is made very clear: to update UN15 with a new resolution true to the intent of UN15. As it stands, the appeal to remove UN15 is flawed and needs to be re-formulated. Without a statement of intent contained in it to replace UN15 with an updated resolution the ability of commercial interests scuttling any future attempt to re-introduce the equivalent of UN15 becomes likelihood. It can simply be argued that the Assembly voted to get rid of a “useless” principle, and why should it be reintroduced now. Delegates and their peoples need to think clearly on this.

Love and Spiritual Essence,

The People of Proto-Prime.

Brevity is the soul of wit.
Do you ambassadors have anything else to do, other than to be long-winded?

Say what you want, and get it over with.

As for this piece of legislation, let it do, what it was meant to do. UNR15 is ridiculous. Let it be repealed.


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

We the People of Proto-Prime apologize for any affront caused on this topic, or to be caused on it.

What?

snip

Phew. Yes, we read that unnecessarily long speech and believe we can still function properly enough to convey a logical response.

You say that our repeal "does nothing" inasmuch as the resolution itself. Untrue, this repeal 1) Removes from the books a completely useless resolution that does not fulfill its intent at all and does virtually nothing, and 2) Paves the way for a potential replacement.

Why don't we reference a replacement specifically in the repeal text?

1) We are not currently creating a replacement. That can be done by anyone! Yes, even you!
2) We find it inappropriate to formally endorse future legislation in a repeal which is only allowed to remove past legislation. (what if someone approves of the repeal, though not any replacement)
3) Every single resolution ever passed in NationStates history can be repealed on the grounds of "Well, we can repeal this and make a better one." When we fill in the "Argument" section of a repeal, we think "what is inadequate about this resolution specifically"? To find out our thoughts on that, read our proposal Repeal "Protect Historical Sites."

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

OOC: Actually, if you had bothered to read the rules, you would have learned that it is necessary to repeal before replacing.

OOC: Just read the rules. That's a big part of working smarter.

The rules seem to state that we cannot CONTRADICT a -standing- resolution with a new one, and that we cannot reuse the rules title.
The rules -iirc- do NOT state we cannot implement or agree on definitions when said definitions do not already exist, or when such "implementation" of a (former) rule wasn't done already. The limits of legislation seems to be that one cannot UNDO legislation without a formal repeal.

So a new proposal "Implement Protection of Historical Sites" -or some other administrativ language to say the same- would be very feasable. I can imagine it being called "Protection of historical patrimony" , or that multiple smaller parts would be proposed: houses, landscapes, cimeteries, ...

Our opinion is that these resolutions about the importance of an issue ARE helpful, in spite of being vague. Maybe the "vagueness" helped them against the "nationalist" movements wihin NSUN.
They certainly ASK for an implemention, later.

Our vision has the benefit that the ideas stay on the books, proclaiming a "set of values" the NSUN agrees upon. But the actual form of the protection can be repealed to allow changing the "flawed" regulations (implementations seem to be accompanied by commissions, supervisor institutes etc)

Of course, the "implementation" doesn't need to refer to the resolution that proclaims the fundamental value: IF NSUN change their mind about the value issue, and repeal it, the "implementation" would refer to something stricken.
And NS doesn't have a "cascading effect", where later resolutions can be undone by repealing a previous one. So the "NS International Trust" could still stand *after* a repeal of this "number 15".
But without "number 15" on the books, there'd be less direction for future resolutions.
In our opinion, this resolution simply *prevents* that later resolutions would do away with "historical sites" in some sweeping manner.
It won't protect an individual landscape or city, but it makes UN decision makers - members - reflect upon their future decisions.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Palaiologos is against the repeal of UN Resolution # 15 under the premise of the absence of a replacement.

We have more than once in the past experienced weak leadership that allowed the exploitation of our historical heritage to satisfy the hunger of private pockets or museum greed. While it is the right of every sovereign nation to use and misuse its lands, landmarks and national heritage in any way it considers appropriate, let us not forget that a national treasure only in seldom cases lacks international importance. National heritage is always part of our international cultural wealth as human beings and so it should be protected.

The Republic of Anor Exia is a new nation, and this resolution is the first to come its way.

Initially the people of Anor Exia were puzzled as to why, if one were to remove a poor resolution, one would not have another, better, resolution ready to replace it. So in that sense the republic considered that the repeal was not welcome. However, sufficient argument has been presented in this forum to persuade many that the repeal was justified.

Then one of our top legal minds noted that Resolution #15 contains the wording "We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place." To our top legal mind, and indeed to anyone with a knowledge of grammar, this means "We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and we cannot let new buildings built in their place go to waste either".
Presumably the intent of the original wording was "We cannot let historical sites go to waste, nor let new buildings be built in their place". But intent is not the same as reality.
Furthermore, the definition of "waste" is sorely lacking. In theory, a nation with a shortage of space for industrial development could consider a preserved historical site as being wasteful, and so to preserve waste would eliminate said site.

Therefore on the grounds of the original Resolution #15 being a very poorly worded thing, the Republic of Anor Exia is happy to vote for its repeal.

The holy empire of Balifaski is all for the repeal if it helps us purge :sniper::mp5: the world of infediels

I rise (yet again) to inform the general assembly that should this repeal pass the Delegation from the United States of Philimbesi is prepared to offer a new resolution.

We have and continue to confer with the esteemed delegate from Jey and are drafting the proposal now. If anyone is interested in viewing that replacement I will post it after the outcome of this resolution.

Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Snip

It could be as not contradicting as possible, but that would still be amending the original proposal which is against the rules.

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

We thank the esteemed representative of the United States of Philimbesi. The promise of a new resolution concerning this matter is of course to be welcomed. Voting for the repeal in good faith and before a replacing resolution is formed, is still something we must consider well and a decision we will have to struggle with.

I want to know why every time we have a repeal the argument that we need a predrafted replacement resolution is needed. The fact is that it is not. I support the repeal and would oppose a replacement.

However, for those who want to whine about there not being a replacement.

WRITE A REPLACEMENT YOURSELF!

I'm also tired of n00bs wanting to amend resolutions. That is impossible under the NSUN rules. Get used to it.

Alexei Gramiko
The Very Annoyed Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

That's it, from now on, anyone who says anything about amending Resolution #15 or submitting a replacement now gets defenestrated!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hey! I already claimed whacking rights!

That's it! I've had it with the motherf***ing n00bs in this motherf***ing assembly! *cocks gun*


And remember kids,
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/untitled9by.png

~Dr. Jules Hodz

The fact is that it is not. I support the repeal and would oppose a replacement.

Once again we bask in the warm inviting glow of our friend from Zyrwick. I object to your opposition of the new resolution on the grounds that you haven't even been able to figure out how it would interfere with your national sovereignty yet!

That being said we do agree that simply because you are repealing a resolution does not necessarily mean that a replacement resolution MUST be formed. However we do respectfully disagree that this is true in this particular case.

Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

The younger nations of the UN, or noobs as you put it, thank you for your warm welcome. You honor us with your civilized manners.

We are aware that a calm and tolerant discussion is near impossible in this day and age, but please refrain from insults.

It could be as not contradicting as possible, but that would still be amending the original proposal which is against the rules.Not necessarily. It would perhaps take more effort to write legal legislation on the topic, but it is doable without "amending" UNR #15.

The younger nations of the UN, or noobs as you put it, thank you for your warm welcome. You honor us with your civilized manners.

We are aware that a calm and tolerant discussion is near impossible in this day and age, but please refrain from insults.May we extend a truly warm welcome to you, Palaiologos. We note that it is indeed some of our "younger" members yelling "n00b" the loudest.

Each delegate must determine the crux of the matter themselves, regardless of how much hand-wringing and "you can't think that way; it's wrong, wrong, wrong" emoting goes on here. To resist repeal without evidence of a planned replacement is your right; as it is the right of a repeal author to not be required to proffer a replacement.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

May we extend a truly warm welcome to you, Palaiologos.

Each delegate must determine the crux of the matter themselves, regardless of how much hand-wringing and "you can't think that way; it's wrong, wrong, wrong" emoting goes on here. To resist repeal without evidence of a planned replacement is your right; as it is the right of a repeal author to not be required to proffer a replacement.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

We thank the esteemed Ambassador for the heartwarming welcome. It is such company that we value the most.

We agree with your views on this discussion and on the rights of sovereign nations in such matters. It was never our intention to dispute such rights of any sovereign nation, as it is not our intention to allow such rights of our own be disputed.

We ask Tyche to keep you and save you and give you success in the service to your nation.

Respectfully.

HM Demetrios Palaiologos

May we extend a truly warm welcome to you, Palaiologos.

Each delegate must determine the crux of the matter themselves, regardless of how much hand-wringing and "you can't think that way; it's wrong, wrong, wrong" emoting goes on here. To resist repeal without evidence of a planned replacement is your right; as it is the right of a repeal author to not be required to proffer a replacement.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

We too extend a warm welcome to our neighbor in The North Pacific and urge them to not take the rhetoric they may encounter on the floor to heart.

Should you need any help feel free to telegram either myself or our leader Josiah Barttlet.

Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

The Constitutional Monarchy of Palaiologos is against the repeal of UN Resolution # 15 under the premise of the absence of a replacement.

You want a replacement? Write it yourself.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The younger nations of the UN, or noobs as you put it, thank you for your warm welcome. You honor us with your civilized manners.

We are aware that a calm and tolerant discussion is near impossible in this day and age, but please refrain from insults.

I haven't the patience to treat any new person who does not care to inform himself of the procedures of this body with respect. Of course, I am not speaking to anyone in particular.

You may be new, but once you've been here a while, people who post their slipshod, ignorant opinion and then run off to Parts Unknown can really start to annoy you.

It makes one wonder: Is it really that hard to read the rules and comprehend that amendments are illegal or replacements aren't required of the repeal author?

It is disheartening sometimes.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative and
Professor Emeritus of Political Sciences

What possessed me to read through the entirety of that thread I have no idea. All I can say is it's a good thing that we in Sanguinex are a peaceful people and that I don't have any sharp objects on my person.

It's about time UNR#15 was repealed, whether or not it is eventually replaced with another resolution is entirely beside the point as UNR#15 does absolutely nothing except clog the statute books.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

Once again we bask in the warm inviting glow of our friend from Zyrwick. I object to your opposition of the new resolution on the grounds that you haven't even been able to figure out how it would interfere with your national sovereignty yet!

That being said we do agree that simply because you are repealing a resolution does not necessarily mean that a replacement resolution MUST be formed. However we do respectfully disagree that this is true in this particular case.

Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Actually we oppose any replacement on the grounds that only our national governement is able to determine what is and is not a historical site to be preserved.

As any UN resolution on this matter is most likely to be inadequite, given the history of such resolutions in the past.

Actually we oppose any replacement on the grounds that only our national governement is able to determine what is and is not a historical site to be preserved.

As any UN resolution on this matter is most likely to be inadequite, given the history of such resolutions in the past.

We urge our esteemed colleague to hold off on final judgement before he reads our draft.

Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Ambassador Deqar,

We fully plan to. However, given the history of such resolutions in the past I doubt that anything new, forthcoming, or relevant will urge us to vote in favor of a UN resolution "protecting" historical sites.

The reasoning behind this belief is that history is relative to the individual nations, and their culture firstly. Also there are many variables to culture. And the variables in political ideology in the Various Member Nations.

Zyrwick for example would not protect the palaces of the Tsars which were appropriated by the Proletariat and have been divided into flats for working peoples. Where as the shack that Comrade Ulyanov was born in is a place of great importance to us and we have already constructed a granite outer building to protect what is left of said shack from the elements.

Also other buildings of note include the barn where the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick had its first congress. The smelting facility which was used to melt down the statues of Tsar Nikolei II for bullets during our Late Civil War, and the House where the Tsar was executed in for crimes against the people.

However an other nation might find that these places of historical significance to be undesirable.

As such any resolution to protect historical sites must allow the nations to determine for themselves what is and is not to be protected. Disallow foreign nations protecting any building, area or object within the territory of an other nation. (Can we say....World Heritage List anyone?) And fully ground the protection of historical locations or objects as the authority of the Various Member Nations and their national or sub-national governments.

Failing those necessary provisions we must oppose any UN resolution on this matter.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

I haven't the patience to treat any new person who does not care to inform himself of the procedures of this body with respect. Of course, I am not speaking to anyone in particular.

It makes one wonder: Is it really that hard to read the rules and comprehend that amendments are illegal or replacements aren't required of the repeal author?


We have tried to inform ourselves as well as is possible. We are a young nation and the legal procedures more than numerous. That said, we have tried to impose our views on no one. We merely stated that we consider the existence of a resolution similar to UN Resolution #15 important, even though we also find it to be too vague.

We requested no amendment and we requested no replacement. We merely stated that under the premise of no resolution replacing #15, after a possible repeal, we will not agree with the repeal. This is neither offensive nor illegal so we do not understand the commotion. Under no circumstances do we understand insults and indignities.

We do not find it is our obligation to present a replacement simply because we do not agree with a repeal and its premises.

That said, we have stated our opinion and we tried discussing it. Since an opposition to any replacement of #15 has been made clear, we simply cannot agree with the repeal. We would rather have a vague resolution that none at all protecting national heritage.

Respectfully.

Demetrios Palaiologos I

--Snip--Demetrios Palaiologos I

I urge our esteemed colleague to remember that no replacement is possible without repeal. The Zyrwickian Delegation is itself playing with the idea of submitting a replacement which would ground the protection of historical sites as the province of national governments.

Also the Philimbesi-ian (?) Ambassador has stated that he plans on submitting a replacement. Further there is noting from you yourself submitting a replacement following the repeal.

The current resolution is inadequate in our opinion and if for no other reason, it should therefore be repealed to allow future legislation on this matter if that is what the General Assembly deems necessary.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Should you need any help feel free to telegram either myself or our leader Josiah Barttlet.No thanks. I wouldn't trust Martin Sheen any farther than I could throw him.

I urge our esteemed colleague to remember that no replacement is possible without repeal. The Zyrwickian Delegation is itself playing with the idea of submitting a replacement which would ground the protection of historical sites as the province of national governments.

The current resolution is inadequate in our opinion and if for no other reason, it should therefore be repealed to allow future legislation on this matter if that is what the General Assembly deems necessary.


We agree on both points; A replacement can only come after a repeal and the current resolution is inadequate.

Conserning your proposal concept you have just mentioned - and we are aware that a mentioned idea is not a fully developed concept and thus it is difficult for it to be yet properly discussed - is the protection of historical sites not already the province of national governments?

No thanks. I wouldn't trust Martin Sheen any farther than I could throw him.

I know not this Martin Sheen...

We agree on both points; A replacement can only come after a repeal and the current resolution is inadequate.

Conserning your proposal concept you have just mentioned - and we are aware that a mentioned idea is not a fully developed concept and thus it is difficult for it to be yet properly discussed - is the protection of historical sites not already the province of national governments?

Actually, my friend, we have already posted today a very rough draft of our proposal in Reclamation (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx). I usually do my drafting there to hammer out all the dings and dents before even bringing it to the General Assembly for consideration.

You may view our draft there. Although I don't know if it will be needed. Should the repeal fail, which we hope it does not, all points about replacing UNR15 will be moot.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

We would rather have a vague resolution that none at all protecting national heritage.
The existing resolution is not vague so much as completely useless.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Venerable ambassador Gramiko.

We thank you for the information. We will visit said archive as soon as possible.

It seems that the repeal has high appeal, so it is most probable that it will pass. We just hope that we will find a common solution so other nations don't have to repeat the mistakes of our past. Be it a shack of a comrade or a palace of a Tsar, every historical site is valuable. Maybe a new resolution could define possible reutilization of historical sites to some extent, so that a Tsar's palace can be re utilized but still guaranty the preservation of its value. We will work hard for new ideas and we hope we can support the esteemed colleagues of the US of Philimbesi in their work.

By decree of HM Demetrios Palaiologos

Hey! I already claimed whacking rights!

That's it! I've had it with the motherf***ing n00bs in this motherf***ing assembly! *cocks gun*


And remember kids,
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/untitled9by.png

~Dr. Jules Hodz

A man wearing a white t-shirt with a image of a panther on the front, and a red kilt stands up from the Palentine delegation. He is carring a cordless microphone and a coconut.

"Dr Hodz! Dr Hodz! Please calm down sir! Think nice thoughts."

*The man walks over to the Akimond delegation*

"Please Sir, put down the gun, we don't need my bosss over there, the Senator to get nervose and pull out his 1911a. This can be resolved in a better fashion."
He pauses for a moment and continues,

"All you need is an object lession. May I have your attention, this is what can happen to you if you keep insisting on wanting to amend a proposal insted of repealing it."

*at this point, the man gives a whistle. A smallish, muscular man wearing green tights with yellow lightning bolts on the sides and a silver and green mask runs out of the Palentine delegation towards Dr.Hodz. Before he can get too close, the kilted man grabs him and smashes the coconut on his head. The coconut explodes into small fragments with a resounding thud. The masked wrestler stumbles about briefly before crashing into the ground*

Satisfied the kilted man walks back to his chair and says,
"And I've got plenty of coconuts!"

Ambassador Gramiko, My friend, I hear and understand your opinion and to a degree echo your sentiment. Our President is fond of saying "History is written by the victors." It may be written by those that win but it should be protected by all.

Its is clear however that your culture and mine hold different ideals as to our history. The forts in our states who 78 years ago felt the need to separate from our union causing our terrible Civil War are just as historically significant to us as the forts of the states who did not. The graves of the slain solders who died trying to regain our land during the 10 Year War are just as sacred to us as the graves of the Unknown Fallen. The parts of the wall used to seperate the states before our Union was created are just as important as the tools used to break them down. The signs used to segregate our peoples so long ago serve as a reminder of times when we were not so free, and a warning of how awful that can be. History to us is a living breathing thing. A warning sign as well as a road map.

It certainly not for any member of my or any other government to decree to you what the people of your nation should view as historically significant. Or what part of history is correct for a certain culture.

What we believe is important is for any nation who prescribes to the great ideals set forth in the United Nations to protect all that which the member nations holds dear. If that shack is damaged or destroyed by another nation it should be our duty to condemn that act.

I don't believe we are that far away from each other in opinion on this topic Alexei.


Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Actually Sir,

Zyrwick already has adequately revitalized the Tsar's palaces to preserve their historical significance. I only hope that the former Tsarina would appreciate, if she were still living, my cousin's pigs being housed in her former rose garden. Well actually the pigs belong to the Zyrwina Hog Farmer's Soviet, but you get my point.

The pigs are still in the rose garden after all. ;)

Vladimir Alexandrovich
Janitor for the Zyrwickian UN Delegation.

I have no problem with people wanting a replacement, I do however have a problem with people wanting the replacement to be submitted prior to the original being repealed.
Bob Flibble
UN Representative[/QUOTE]

What is so wrong about setting up a better and stronger version as soon as possable. It seems to me that this would be the best way to make sure our history is protected. I would not be surprised if those who are opposing this are industrial giants trying to protect their greedy interests. Not at all cairing about what came before them.

:headbang: Make :headbang: It :headbang: Stop :headbang:

First of all, there is nothing wrong with wanting a replacement, if the esteemed ambassador reads any of the last 100 post they might realize that at least two delegates (including myself) have said they are working on it at this time. One of which is allowing access to the bulletin boards in his delegations hallways to see an early draft of such a replacement.

Second of all, there is nothing stop you or any other delegate as long as they have the support to develop one of your own.

Third of all, what you and whatever your governing body do you in your own country is up to you. You are not bound by only the laws set forth by this assembly. If you feel the need to protect your history from those giants you speak... pass your own law... but if you pass it and it conflicts with the law set forth by us (should one be set forth by us in the future...) you need to deal with that as well.

Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

*snip*
So a new proposal "Implement Protection of Historical Sites" -or some other administrativ language to say the same- would be very feasable. I can imagine it being called "Protection of historical patrimony" , or that multiple smaller parts would be proposed: houses, landscapes, cimeteries, ...

Our opinion is that these resolutions about the importance of an issue ARE helpful, in spite of being vague. Maybe the "vagueness" helped them against the "nationalist" movements wihin NSUN.
They certainly ASK for an implemention, later.

What a great idea! Let's have resolutions that state ideals, and then we can can later have resolutions to implement those ideals! Genius!

Why have one resolution do one thing, when we can cave two do that one thing?

Our vision has the benefit that the ideas stay on the books, proclaiming a "set of values" the NSUN agrees upon. But the actual form of the protection can be repealed to allow changing the "flawed" regulations (implementations seem to be accompanied by commissions, supervisor institutes etc)

Yeah, ideas are so nice when we put them into law. Especially when they do nothing. That's great. I like kitty cats. Can we have a resolution stating that cats are cute pets? It would just be an idea after all.

Of course, the "implementation" doesn't need to refer to the resolution that proclaims the fundamental value: IF NSUN change their mind about the value issue, and repeal it, the "implementation" would refer to something stricken.
And NS doesn't have a "cascading effect", where later resolutions can be undone by repealing a previous one. So the "NS International Trust" could still stand *after* a repeal of this "number 15".
But without "number 15" on the books, there'd be less direction for future resolutions.
In our opinion, this resolution simply *prevents* that later resolutions would do away with "historical sites" in some sweeping manner.
It won't protect an individual landscape or city, but it makes UN decision makers - members - reflect upon their future decisions.

Yak, yak, yak, yak...I think I'm going to be sick now.

The younger nations of the UN, or noobs as you put it, thank you for your warm welcome. You honor us with your civilized manners.

We are aware that a calm and tolerant discussion is near impossible in this day and age, but please refrain from insults.

There is no younger-versus-newer on this one. All of the representatives seem to want to announce that they've got the bigger genetalia -- which is rather frighteneing really, when it hear those sorts of remarks coming from other women.

No thanks. I wouldn't trust Martin Sheen any farther than I could throw him.

Martin who?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

First of all, there is nothing wrong with wanting a replacement, if the esteemed ambassador reads any of the last 100 post they might realize that at least two delegates (including myself) have said they are working on it at this time.
Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi[/QUOTE]

I am aware of this I was merely responding to the statement made by UN representative Bob Fliby. (Sorry for not spelling his name right.) Who stated that he had a problem with a replacement law being made as we repeal the old one.

I am aware of this I was merely responding to the statement made by UN representative Bob Fliby. (Sorry for not spelling his name right.) Who stated that he had a problem with a replacement law being made as we repeal the old one.Do be careful then to be accurate about the statement to which you are responding.

What Rep. Flibble said was:I do however have a problem with people wanting the replacement to be submitted prior to the original being repealed.Voting on a replacement prior to repealing the original legislation is not possible. Submitting a replacement prior to successfully repealing the original is unwise. Drafting a replacement can occur at any time.

--L.T.

A man wearing a white t-shirt with a image of a panther on the front, and a red kilt stands up from the Palentine delegation. He is carring a cordless microphone and a coconut.

"Dr Hodz! Dr Hodz! Please calm down sir! Think nice thoughts."

*The man walks over to the Akimond delegation*

"Please Sir, put down the gun, we don't need my bosss over there, the Senator to get nervose and pull out his 1911a. This can be resolved in a better fashion."
He pauses for a moment and continues,

"All you need is an object lession. May I have your attention, this is what can happen to you if you keep insisting on wanting to amend a proposal insted of repealing it."

*at this point, the man gives a whistle. A smallish, muscular man wearing green tights with yellow lightning bolts on the sides and a silver and green mask runs out of the Palentine delegation towards Dr.Hodz. Before he can get too close, the kilted man grabs him and smashes the coconut on his head. The coconut explodes into small fragments with a resounding thud. The masked wrestler stumbles about briefly before crashing into the ground*

Satisfied the kilted man walks back to his chair and says,
"And I've got plenty of coconuts!"

:upyours::upyours::upyours:
Such behavior as cocking guns and assaulting people with cocanuts is hardly civalized UN behavior and those who do such things in these dignified halls truly deserve to be thrown out a window. Folowed by their papers and their right to ever return.

On another note I would like to thank the representative of the country of Rubina for saving my ass twice.

I think the argument of proper UN behavior would be better heard if it were not preceded by vulgar gestures.


Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi


"Javar slides back under his desk for cover, wondering how much of the USP budget he can have appropriated for hazard pay."

Once he's out the window, throw the rule book after him.

I dont see why anyone would vote against this. Its not like he's voting to destroy historical sites. If anything, resoltuion 15 is stopping people from making one that works.

-snip-

What part of
Of course, I am not speaking to anyone in particular.
did you miss?

I was just ranting.

******
:upyours::upyours::upyours:
Such behavior as cocking guns and assaulting people with cocanuts is hardly civalized UN behavior and those who do such things in these dignified halls truly deserve to be thrown out a window. Folowed by their papers and their right to ever return.

Defenestrated.

I'll do what I want, and so will my friends from The Palentine. Plus, I think we're much better able to judge what's "civalized UN behavior". I think most people who have been here sometime would agree with me that this is actually a more civilized debate. We've had worse. Much worse.

And speak for yourself. I didn't flip the bird three times.

Once he's out the window, throw the rule book after him.

Who are you referring to?

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative

We must apologize for scaring Dr. Hodz. We would never consider using his rule book for such a punitive act - we know it would leave him psychologically scarred. Proto-Consilience offers its book.

I ad that giving the finger is certainly more civalized than smashing a cocanut over a persons head in order to threaten people or waving a gun around. Also I am certainly not going to actualy throw someone out a window. I only said that those persons deserved to be defenestrated.

Esteemed representative Dr. Jules Hodz.

Due to a temporal closeness of your "rant" (as well as other "rants") and our comments, we considered it important to explain ourselves as it was unclear to us whether or not you meant ourselves as well. Should we have misjudged the purpose of your rant, we do apologize to you deeply.

Nevertheless we must note that using the word "respectfully" in the same halls, in which one has used a word that describes vulgar acts of fellow colleagues' mothers with said colleagues presents to us a paradox.

With neither the need to... "cock a gun", nor to "throw someone out the window", we salute you and wish you prosperity and luck.

By decree of HM Demetrios Palaiologos I

Despite the reservations of the Politburo about the current repeal at hand (above), we have decided to approve it for the following reasons:

UNR #15 does not include any formal definition of what a historical site is

UNR # 15 does not include any formal mandate, request, or urge pertaining to the protection of historical sites

UNR# 15, by its casual rhetoric, degrades the entire notion of protecting historical sites

A better resolution cannot be authored, unless UNR# 15 is repealed.

The TSRCP Politburo approves.

Before legislation is Repealed on grounds of being inadequate I would prefer alternative legislation resolve said inadequacies thereby continuing the essence of Resolution 15 which overwhelmingly passed the UN and has survived the test of time:

Therefore
Mikeswill's vote against Repeal "Protect Historical Sites" has been noted.

Before legislation is Repealed on grounds of being inadequate I would prefer alternative legislation resolve said inadequacies thereby continuing the essence of Resolution 15 which overwhelmingly passed the UN and has survived the test of time:

Therefore
Mikeswill's vote against Repeal "Protect Historical Sites" has been noted.

I see the broken record titled "we want a replacement" continues to play. I'm really thinking about having our government send all the delegations asking for a replacement some paper and pens. You know, to write replacements with, since anyone here can do that.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I see the broken record titled "we want a replacement" continues to play. I'm really thinking about having our government send all the delegations asking for a replacement some paper and pens. You know, to write replacements with, since anyone here can do that.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Whether everyone can do it or not, is not the point. The point is whether this is the best way or not and from what I've seen so far I think the majority of these representatives agree with me that replacement is the best way.

I find the position of the esteemed ambassador from Mikeswill sound and logical.

Why repeal this resolution, and not author another resolution commending resolution #15 and reconciling it with its inadequacies?

I ask on the great ambassador, however, to ensure that such is in accordance with UN regulations, and to ask if he has any developed plan for such action.

Not necessarily. It would perhaps take more effort to write legal legislation on the topic, but it is doable without "amending" UNR #15.


Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Hmmm i didn't know that, ill have to read over the proposal rules again.

*looks over in Dr. Hodz's direction*

Looks like someone needs a trip to the bar after this debate

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Whether everyone can do it or not, is not the point.

Yes, it is. The point is that not having a replacement instantly available is a ridiculous reason to keep ineffective legislation (which even repeal opponents have described as 'useless') active. Anyone here can write a replacement if they are so inclined. The people whining about not having a replacement available right this second could better spend their time writing one, instead of fighting so hard to keep crap legislation on the books.

The point is whether this is the best way or not and from what I've seen so far I think the majority of these representatives agree with me that replacement is the best way.

Then why don't they get together, get off their collective rear ends, and write one? Perhaps it's easier for them to complain in a counterproductive fashion, rather than solve the problem they see?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Before legislation is Repealed on grounds of being inadequate I would prefer alternative legislation resolve said inadequacies thereby continuing the essence of Resolution 15 which overwhelmingly passed the UN and has survived the test of time:

Therefore
Mikeswill's vote against Repeal "Protect Historical Sites" has been noted.Wait, let me get this straight. You want to see Resolution #15 replaced, and yet you vote against the repeal. You Sir, are an idiot who needs to reread the Rules for UN Proposals.

I find the position of the esteemed ambassador from Mikeswill sound and logical.

Why repeal this resolution, and not author another resolution commending resolution #15 and reconciling it with its inadequacies?

Perhaps because doing so would be an amendment and therefore illegal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You Sir, are an idiot who needs to reread the Rules for UN Proposals.
That's pretty strong language to use against the long-standing Delegate of one of the largest player-created regions out there. I doubt the members of the NationStates region would agree with you about his relative level of intelligence.

Furthermore, the point about Repeal Authors not having to post replacements isn't in the Rules for UN proposals at all. It's in the Comments thread, and it wasn't even raised until Repeals were about 2 years old.

You Sir, need to tone down the rhetoric to a dull roar, lest ye be warned for flaming. [IC] won't protect you either.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator

Ambassador Flibble'

Firstly, I do not see how this would be an amendment, as nothing is being amended. A resolution reconciling UNR# 15 would include such a clause

"CITING UNR# 15, and its intent to protect historical sitess....
DEFINING....
URGING...
MANDATES..."

If such action is legal, I do not know (Which is why I said I ask on the great ambassador, however, to ensure that such is in accordance with UN regulations)

If we repel this resolution the historical sites will lose his protection. The present resolution isn't perfect, but is better than noting.

Nuevo Reino de Granada think that the solution is create new resolution-proposal about Historical sites. If it passes, the actual resolution will not be necessary and we could repeal it. But we must be as Tarzan: Don't leave the first rope if don't have the other rope.

We need a better resolution, but we need a resolution. Don't repeal this if we don't have still the other rope.

If we repel this resolution the historical sites will lose his protection. The present resolution isn't perfect, but is better than noting.

Nuevo Reino de Granada think that the solution is create new resolution-proposal about Historical sites. If it passes, the actual resolution will not be necessary and we could repeal it. But we must be as Tarzan: Don't leave the first rope if don't have the other rope.

We need a better resolution, but we need a resolution. Don't repeal this if we don't have still the other rope."Sir, if you had been paying attention, you would realize that current legislation MUST BE REPEALED BEFORE NEW LEGISLATION CAN BE SUBMITTED ON THE SAME TOPIC!!" Akia takes a moment to regain her composure before continuing. "*ahem* Now that I have your attention..."

Akia proceeds to slap the ambassador with her Slappingfish and gives them a thorough depantsing before administering defenestration.


OOC: How exactly is it that keep ending up posting the top of a new page in here? The constant editing and post-post quoting (two different "post"s there...) is getting more than a little silly...

Anyone here can write a replacement if they are so inclined. The people whining about not having a replacement available right this second could better spend their time writing one, instead of fighting so hard to keep crap legislation on the books.
Then why don't they get together, get off their collective rear ends, and write one? Perhaps it's easier for them to complain in a counterproductive fashion, rather than solve the problem they see?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador[/QUOTE]

You seem to be unaware that certain representatives ARE writing a replacement. This debate has transended simply deciding whther or not to repeal this law. It is now a debate to decide whether to forget this laws ideas or to make a new and better version of the same idea and may I say again people ARE righting a replacement. This is not "a broken record" as you call it.

Akia proceeds to slap the ambassador with her Slappingfish and gives them a thorough depantsing before administering defenestration.[/QUOTE]

On another subject. Listen anarchists stop that right NOW! I'm tired of this business of throwing people out windows and slapping them with fish, the threats and the insults are apalling! I've helped this chaos escalate and for that I apologize. That's why I'm not going to let this embarasing behavior continue.

(The Yellow Sea Islands representative known as Yuru Namari, proceeds to throw all slappingfish out the window.)

I demand that you stop pulling down peoples pants!

Of course I am an idiot... I am still playing this game after 3 1/2 years.
Never-the-less... to respond to the name-calling child...

You are incorrect.

A proposal could be written which would protect and define items of antiquity in such a way as to not be seen as redundant of the aforementioned resolution and yet render it moot. Many times the Honourable Jey has attempted to Repeal Legislation by asserting that the initial legislation has been made moot by provisions of later Resolutions.

Until such legislation occurs, we of the NationStates Region believe the intent of Resolution 15 ought be kept alive as an altruistic essence of the United Nations.

To resort to childish name-calling by a vast minority of the children whom grace this forum is indicative of the trend in this game to totally ignore the UN altogether.

Should the childish perpetrator in question who has endeavoured to sally my reputation choose to reconsider their childish strategy I shall suggest to their parents to return them their bottle.

The Republic of We Are Dangerous would like to state its opinion that this UNR #15 should be repealed on the grounds that it the Resolution states no means of preserving significant historical sites or what is defined as a historical site.

If these issues are dealt with in a way that would satisfy the Republic of We Are Dangerous then we would be prepared to accept a new resolution of the same type to protect historical sites. We must first deal with the issues of stating clearly how they will be protected and the Definition of the appropriate sites.

Thank you for you time fellow UN Delegates.

On another subject. Listen anarchists stop that right NOW! I'm tired of this business of throwing people out windows and slapping them with fish, the threats and the insults are apalling! I've helped this chaos escalate and for that I apologize. That's why I'm not going to let this embarasing behavior continue.

(The Yellow Sea Islands representative known as Yuru Namari, proceeds to throw all slappingfish out the window.)

I demand that you stop pulling down peoples pants!
"Anarchists"? My fellows and I are very much in favor of the continuation of organized bodies of government. We see no advantage whatsoever in the dissolution of legal codes and governing protocols. In fact, you could say we're PRO government, making us anything BUT anarchists. Your accusation is unfounded and your tactics mildly amusing. Your attempts to remove my Slappingfish from my possession are also fruitless as I have a limitless supply. Nice try, though. Play again next week. Same fish-time, same fish-channel!

If you throw people out windows after you internationaly humiliate them then I'd say your behaving like an anarchist. The UN is supposed to be a voice of sense in the world. Also I intend that your "unlimited supply" of slappingfish will have no use when you are under the roof of the United Nations.

You seem to be unaware that certain representatives ARE writing a replacement. This debate has transended simply deciding whther or not to repeal this law. It is now a debate to decide whether to forget this laws ideas or to make a new and better version of the same idea and may I say again people ARE righting a replacement. This is not "a broken record" as you call it.

I am not unaware of the fact that certain representatives are working on a replacement. I am, however, unaware - still - of any reason that makes sense to torpedo a repeal that targets a resolution that even the repeal opponents have acknowledged is useless and not worth the paper it's written on. That's where the 'broken record' comes in...people keep saying, in effect, you can't repeal #15 because you have no replacement, which is utter rubbish.

As far as trying to "forget this law's ideas", repealing the ineffective resolution doesn't have anything to do with being opposed to protecting historic sites; Altanar does, in fact, support such protections. That's why we are supporting the repeal, so something better can be legislated.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

A proposal could be written which would protect and define items of antiquity in such a way as to not be seen as redundant of the aforementioned resolution and yet render it moot. Many times the Honourable Jey has attempted to Repeal Legislation by asserting that the initial legislation has been made moot by provisions of later Resolutions.

You could try that, but that's dancing on the line.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Once again I question the need for a replacement. What is it about the maintenance of historical sites that makes it so important to the UN? Since history itself is relative to the people and institutions involved in its making, the retention of certain structures and lack thereof would and should be similarly relative to the nations impacted by such events as would cause said structures to be of historical value. I understand that certain events would by their very nature be international concerns, but these are by and large of concern to a rather minuscule percent of the UN populace. If someone could explain to me in an intelligent and coherent manner just why this issue is enough of an international matter to constitute the creation of a UN mandate, I'd very much appreciate the opportunity to hear what they have to say. Barring that, I'm going to stick to my current position against a replacement proposal/resolution. Emotional appeal just doesn't cut it here, as far as I'm concerned.

If you throw people out windows after you internationaly humiliate them then I'd say your behaving like an anarchist.

I think the anarchists and defenestrators are offended. You've equated them to be the same.

The UN is supposed to be a voice of sense in the world.
Well, it's supposed to be... but it hardly is more than a corrupt, hollow debate (OOC: about a game.)

Also I intend that your "unlimited supply" of slappingfish will have no use when you are under the roof of the United Nations.

It will have plenty of use. Other than that, I have no idea what your meaning is.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Altanar does, in fact, support such protections. That's why we are supporting the repeal, so something better can be legislated.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador[/QUOTE]

Fine then! It seems to me that we have the same idea here. I would write a replacement but I'm unable to do to the fact I require two endorcements in order to propose a law.

Before I begin, Mikeswill, please take a look at the last 12 pages of this thread. All opponents of this repeal have either argued: a) Resolution #15 is better than nothing, so if there's no replacement, there's no repeal, or b) Resolution actually does do something, we had better not repeal it.

You must understand that it is quite frustrating to the majority of people here who are arguing for the repeal to make the same points time and time again (yes, amendments are illegal, yes there is only one 'm', yes repeals can't introduce new legislation, and for God's sake YES, replacements must come after repeals.) I don't mean to apologize for anyone's actions on this thread, but many people - myself included - are growing very weary of how inept many of the arguers of your position on this repeal can be.


A proposal could be written which would protect and define items of antiquity in such a way as to not be seen as redundant of the aforementioned resolution and yet render it moot.

If a proposal could be written which appropriately defined and protected historical sites and still didn't get deleted for redundancy of Resolution #15, then you must agree that Resolution #15 doesn't do these things. If you agree with that, then we must ask: what in the world is the point of keeping resolution #15 around?

If you are so determined to make sure that the United Nations are protecting historical sites through legislation, why are you not crafting such a resolution to replace #15? When did it become the responsibility of the repealer to create replacement resolutions for repealed legislation whose intent the United Nations appreciates? If your only argument against this repeal is that a replacement is needed then you should be voting for it. All of the arguments against Resolution #15 are true: it has no implementation or a definition of historical sites. Agreeing with these arguments should coincide with you voting for the repeal.

Until such legislation occurs, we of the NationStates Region believe the intent of Resolution 15 ought be kept alive as an altruistic essence of the United Nations.

Ineffectual, inefficient, insufficient, or just plain bad resolutions have no place in the United Nations no matter what their "altruistic essence" is. We cannot have poor legislation on the books of an international organization which affects thousands of NationStates in the world. The United Nations is too important to keep around resolutions of no value simply because we like the ideas. They should be removed, if anything, to support the passing of resolutions with actual force.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

[QUOTE=Akimonad;12798383]I think the anarchists and defenestrators are offended.=QUOTE]

Good! Anarchists are oportunists who take advantage of national chaos. Anarchy almost always leads to bloodshed and disaster. I intend to only do business with an anarchist under the most grave of circumstances.

If you throw people out windows after you internationaly humiliate them then I'd say your behaving like an anarchist. The UN is supposed to be a voice of sense in the world. Also I intend that your "unlimited supply" of slappingfish will have no use when you are under the roof of the United Nations.

key phrase being "supposed to"

Richard York
UN Ambassador

key phrase being "supposed to"

Richard York
UN Ambassador

And it should be!

OK, both sides of the replacement argument are sounding like broken records. And that's putting it politely. More to the point, both of them are wrong.

One of the reasons that Gobbannium is supporting this repeal is that the original resolution does nothing. Nothing at all. Not one single, sodding thing. Am I being completely clear on this point?

Since it does nothing, it doesn't form a bar to a better resolution. A resolution which actually did something to preserve historic sites could easily be written and passed without contradicting UNR#15. We don't need to repeal it to improve it.

Just for once, the order of the repeal and replacement don't matter.

So long as were getting a better and stronger resolution to defend our historical sites, I'm satisfied.

Once again I question the need for a replacement. What is it about the maintenance of historical sites that makes it so important to the UN? Since history itself is relative to the people and institutions involved in its making, the retention of certain structures and lack thereof would and should be similarly relative to the nations impacted by such events ...Regardless of our support (or opposition) to this particular repeal, we must heartily disagree. Historical sites frequently have meaning far beyond their time and locale.

We need not be a member of any particular ethnicity to recognize the importance and wonder of the mythical Great Wall of China. The Rubinan standing stones are known throughout our sector of the multiverse and draw scholars from far and wide. There are too many examples of such that serve as touchstones beyond their political boundaries to list.

The loss of historical sites is frequently a loss for all from an educational standpoint, obviously, but also from the view that we can share a connection with each other and with each others' past through the history that remains.

--L.T.

The representative of Rubina is totaly correct. Without historical sites we are left with only literature to teach us from the past and writing as we know is often biased or destroyed. We need historical sites so that we don't forget the past.

I apologize. I tend not to think of such sights when I hear or read the words "Historical Site". I tend to think of such things as a house a certain government member or famous scientist or author lived in, open fields where obscure yet important battles were won or lost, and even desks upon which certain treaties were signed. These are the things I have become accustomed to being referred to as "sites of historical value". These things are those of which I hear most. Great works of architectural and personal over-achievement (and I mean that in a good way) tend to be referred to as "monuments" or "wonders" and are usually seen as timeless rather than being put under the "historical" hat. Usually, from what I have experienced, things that are referred to as being "historical" are referred to as such because their importance is relevant only within the context of their particular time period of origin.

If I have misunderstood and am conceptually incorrect, I stand corrected and withdraw my statement against a replacement piece of legislation. In fact, I offer my assistance to any who would take it.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator

OOC: Don't worry Fris, I've burned out too many brain cells dealing with this "debate" already. I don't intend to post in this thread again.

And again the Honourable Jey and I disagree, which I believe is my right.

The problem seems that the majority, rather than recognize the role of the minority, in their lust for unanimous approval of their perspective, tend to belittle those whom dissent. Very democratic and adult for those proclaiming to save the UN from itself.

I remain correct ~ unfortunately for the authors and supporters of this Resolution, to accept my perspective would require greater imagination and work by these do-gooders.

Nay, they care not for the essence of the Resolution rather they care more for their egos of alleged righteousness. For if this resolution is ineffective as claimed, no harm is occurring by keeping this Resolution (passed by a 75% majority) on the books.

So continue to tear down the basis of the historical Resultions whilst not creating any tangible good upon our esteemed United Nations. 'Tis much easier to destroy than to create.

Love Conquers Fear

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

[QUOTE=If I have misunderstood and am conceptually incorrect, I stand corrected and withdraw my statement against a replacement piece of legislation. In fact, I offer my assistance to any who would take it.[/QUOTE]

Great, your support is appreciated. I hope that together we can all work to save our history for the next generation.

Has anyone started a thread that the General Assembly might be allowed to view and participate in, or are all the aforementioned replacement draft attempts on private off-site forums?
If there does exist a public off-site forum where a replacement is being drafted, where might it be?
If there exists a private off-site forum where a replacement is being drafted and my participation in said forum is welcome, could someone either e-mail or telegram me with the necessary information?

For if this resolution is ineffective as claimed, no harm is occurring by keeping this Resolution (passed by a 75% majority) on the books.

If this resolution, by its continued existence, keeps better legislation from being enacted, then yes, harm is done.

So continue to tear down the basis of the historical Resultions whilst not creating any tangible good upon our esteemed United Nations. 'Tis much easier to destroy than to create.

It's also a lot easier to complain than to create, as demonstrated by some of the delegates arguing against this repeal rather than working towards a replacement.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

-snipZyrick's proposed replacement is in a thread (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=237) at Reclamation (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?), an open off-site. He admits, however, that his intention is to write a blocker rather than something that would in fact protect the world's historical heritage.

The Yellow Sea Islands, could you please learn how to use bbcode? If you don't want to take the time, then perhaps you could quit using the quote function? You're leaving broken tags scattered all over the place. I wouldn't normally say something, but I've actually lost count of how many broken quotes you've left.

If you need a primer, look here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/misc.php?do=bbcode).

Zyrick's proposed replacement is in a thread (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=237) at Reclamation (http://http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?), an open off-site. He admits, however, that his intention is to write a blocker rather than something that would in fact protect the world's historical heritage.I was under the impression a "blocker" per se was illegal - a proposal would have to actually do something?

Anyhow, legislation on this matter is of international concern. Nations are born or expand often occupying territory where other nations and cultures have previously resided. It might not be in the nations interests to have those historical sites preserved, but it is for the benefit of all peoples and for history as a whole for the preservation of past cultures.

(Real-Life Example would be where China has been destroying ancient Buddhist (http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1144) sites which are of global historical importance, but which go against the governments position.)

There is your gaming persona as the Ambassador of Trollox 5 Beloved Hellhole sitting in your seat on your fat behind in a seat maintained by the NSUN and the following proposal to repeal an existing resolution lands in your lap (you were hard to reach and keen to get hold of a copy quickly). With intense interest you peruse the proposal to find that in essence it says: We don't like the wording of Resolution X - let's do away with it. Ummm. Judging on the meritsof the proposal, do you vote to do away with the existing Resolution? Or, are you simply against the existing Resolution because it prevents you from doing something you want to do but can't and this is the perfect opportunity to get rid of it?

On the merits of the proposal it sets no aim to replace the existing resolution with something considered an improvement by the beloved Assembly. It just says get rid of it - not because it blocks reform - only get rid of it. Now as the Ambassador of Trollox 5 Beloved Hellhole I am not interested to hear who Dr. Hodz screwed in the toilet or Rubina flashed at, and that this information contributes to the rumour, not OFFICIAL DECLARATION, that there will be a replacement for the Resolution whose wording offends. And if another arsehole tells me I can go write my own replacement resolution, then why don't you go study the section on meta-gaming with Dr. Hodz you stupid dolt?:mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5:

"Actually we would oppose a replacement. While we do like the Idea of protecting historical sites. We believe that only nations can successfully determine what is and is not a historical site worthy of preservation.

Not everything that gets repealed needs a replacement. We fully support repealing bad laws simply because they are bad laws.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador."

I disagree my fellow Ambassador, we need a new law in order to protect the sites, if we analise what is worth preservation from a Nationalist point of view, we risk having the people of a country destryoing such important places because of subjective, and time-influenced feelings towards the important historical sites, and just like the Talibans of Afganistan, we might see them destroy their (and the world) history because of unreasonable ideologies.

We should write a new law that allows the UN itself to decide and classify these sites, and it's duty to protect such places on behalf of not just only a handful of people, but for the entire Mankind.

If help is needed to compose such a law, i offer my services unconditionally.

Greetings from The Red Empire of the Killuminati People

Thank you, to the Killuminati People.

I rise to inform you all that our delegation has submitted a first draft of our "Safeguarding Our History Act" in the forums. If this was premature with the repeal of UNR vote going on we apologize and will remove it forthwith. However with the current debate spiraling down in the direction it has gone we figured it might help to have something else to set your ire to.


OOC: It's my first draft of my first resolution, so be gentle.

Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

then why don't you go study the section on meta-gaming with Dr. Hodz you stupid dolt?:mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5:

1. Okay, fine. Here's the MetaGaming section of the rules:
MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

* Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

* Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.


Now, as much as I can see, there is nothing relevant to the discussion we are having in the MetaGaming section.

And in case you're wondering, yes, I've read the rules, about twelve times now.

2. I don't much care for your tone. It's getting awful close to ridiculous flaming. And smilies do not tend to enhance your argument.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Snip /rant

Ambassador Dequar of Philimbesi has said to the GA several times that he is spearheading the project of replacing UN #15 with a better resolution.

linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530803)

help with drafting and some contructive critism im sure would be appreciated.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

I thank my esteemed colleague from Cookesland. You are absolutely right in that constructive criticism is indeed welcome.


Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

I would also like to point out to the esteemed ambassadors that I will be checking that draft. As I too am working on a resolution on this issue in Reclamation.

I of course will offer any criticism required for the drafting phase of the other proposal. And will be sending Ambassador Daqar a telegram inviting him to Reclamation. (it really is a good place to work on draft proposals before they are subjected to the scrutiny of the GA.)

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

same as always... forgot the signature.OOC: You know if you adjust your forum settings to "Show Signatures," you'll be able to see your signature, and you won't have to add it to every single post.

OOC: You know if you adjust your forum settings to "Show Signatures," you'll be able to see your signature, and you won't have to add it to every single post.

Unless of course if you want a signature that goes beyonds the restrictions for signatures (such as having IMG code) but not beyond the restrictions for normal posts in which case you will have to forever cut and paste.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/t-220386035.jpg Tzor Red Brown http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/9336515/t-247000953.jpg

OOC: Or you post as different leaders in different topics...

"I swear to fuck, this is the worst debate in General Assembly history!" Sammy fumed as he slammed his office door shut.

Cdr. Chiang was seated behind his desk for some reason, seeming to examine some of the ambassador's illegally obtained Kawaiian antiquities. "Oh, come now, Ambassador!" she replied as her superior flopped down into the couch by the door. "You say that about every debate. The words have lost all meaning!"

"Oh, yeah?" Sammy challenged her as he wiped sweat off his forehead and yanked off his shirt (unaccustomed the "Antarctian" was to summer heat). He picked up the remote to his office TV. "Well, take a look at this!" He clicked the power button to give his security director a proper, televised view of the Zyrwickians, Philimbesians, Akimonadans, Mikeswillians and the Rubinans bickering back and forth over replacements and illegal "ammendments."

Chiang turned her head and gawked in horror at what she saw on the television. "This is bad," she said dangerously.

"Yeah, and if you really want to lose your breakfast, here's the full transcript, as of 8 this morning!" said the ambassador as he tossed a stack of papers on his desk.

Chiang studied the documents for only a moment before sliding them back across the desk and shrieking, "Put it away! Put it away!"

Why repeal it? It's already there, and if it get's repealed, there is no guarantee that a stronger version will be approved.

Why repeal it? It's already there, and if it get's repealed, there is no guarantee that a stronger version will be approved.

Cause its the debate that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started debating it
Not knowing what is was
and they'll continue debating it because it's the

debate that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started debating it
Not knowing what is was
and they'll continue debating it because it's the

EVERYBODY!!!

:headbang:

... And if another arsehole tells me I can go write my own replacement resolution, then why don't you go study the section on meta-gaming with Dr. Hodz you stupid dolt?:mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5:ooc: Here's a polite notification of your recent addition to my ignore list. HAND.

"I swear to fuck, this is the worst debate in General Assembly history!" Sammy fumed as he slammed his office door shut.*Leetha watched as the Kennyite lurched his way out of the assembly hall.*

Hmm, Faisano doesn't appear sufficiently drunk yet.

Cause its the debate that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started debating it
Not knowing what it was
and they'll continue debating it because it's the
...
EVERYBODY!!! Ye flipping gods! Must. Resist. Earworm.

If looks could kill, the Philimbesians would be dead. *nods*

--L.T.

Ye flipping gods! Must. Resist. Earworm.

If looks could kill, the Philimbesians would be dead. *nods*

--L.T.


Ah dead on the mere glance of LT... what a way to go. Don't worry we're not starting anything we promise.

Good Lord -- I agree with the Kennyites.

REPEAL this pig-eyed sack of tripe already.

Alright, I'm confirming my vote FOR after consulting with my region. And while I'm at it,
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bar.jpg

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

OOC: You know if you adjust your forum settings to "Show Signatures," you'll be able to see your signature, and you won't have to add it to every single post.

Unless of course if you want a signature that goes beyonds the restrictions for signatures (such as having IMG code) but not beyond the restrictions for normal posts in which case you will have to forever cut and paste.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/t-220386035.jpg Tzor Red Brown http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/9336515/t-247000953.jpg

OOC: Or you post as different leaders in different topics...
Lets stick to the debate please.
"I swear to fuck, this is the worst debate in General Assembly history!" Sammy fumed as he slammed his office door shut
Cdr. Chiang was seated behind his desk for some reason, seeming to examine some of the ambassador's illegally obtained Kawaiian antiquities. "Oh, come now, Ambassador!" she replied as her superior flopped down into the couch by the door. "You say that about every debate. The words have lost all meaning!"

"Oh, yeah?" Sammy challenged her as he wiped sweat off his forehead and yanked off his shirt (unaccustomed the "Antarctian" was to summer heat). He picked up the remote to his office TV. "Well, take a look at this!" He clicked the power button to give his security director a proper, televised view of the Zyrwickians, Philimbesians, Akimonadans, Mikeswillians and the Rubinans bickering back and forth over replacements and illegal "ammendments."

Chiang turned her head and gawked in horror at what she saw on the television. "This is bad," she said dangerously.

"Yeah, and if you really want to lose your breakfast, here's the full transcript, as of 8 this morning!" said the ambassador as he tossed a stack of papers on his desk.

Chiang studied the documents for only a moment before sliding them back across the desk and shrieking, "Put it away! Put it away!"
Stop it with all the insults swearing and personal criticisms.
ooc: Here's a polite notification of your recent addition to my ignore list. HAND.

*Leetha watched as the Kennyite lurched his way out of the assembly hall.*

Hmm, Faisano doesn't appear sufficiently drunk yet.

Ye flipping gods! Must. Resist. Earworm.

If looks could kill, the Philimbesians would be dead. *nods*

--L.T.
Same old same old. We are trying to solve a problem you know. All I see is representatives trying to trip eachother up and make wisecracks.
Ah dead on the mere glance of LT... what a way to go. Don't worry we're not starting anything we promise.

Cause its the debate that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started debating it
Not knowing what is was
and they'll continue debating it because it's the

debate that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started debating it
Not knowing what is was
and they'll continue debating it because it's the

EVERYBODY!!!

:headbang:

He's absolutely right from now on unless you can bring something new to the debate...DON'T SAY ANYTHING! THIS DEBATE IS GETTING WAY TOO @$%@ SYNICAL!!

The representative then sits down and lights one of his fuit cigars.

Were you made a moderator while I wasn't paying attention? Whyn't you "stick to the debate" and stop playing referee, huh?

Listen my country may have the most bad mouthed children in my region but they're nothing compared to you and your countries children. Stop throwing the F word around it's getting old. Your country is the rudest I am ever likely to encounter and I'll be the referee if I want thanks.

Listen my country may have the most bad mouthed children in my region but they're nothing compared to you and your countries children. Stop throwing the F word around it's getting old. Your country is the rudest I am ever likely to encounter and I'll be the referee if I want thanks.

he said it like once, and thats not exactly "throwing it around". You don't need to be the ref either if the debate gets too out of hand Hack or Fris will step in and do their job......and with that im off to the bar.

Listen my country may have the most bad mouthed children in my region but they're nothing compared to you and your countries children. Stop throwing the F word around it's getting old. Your country is the rudest I am ever likely to encounter and I'll be the referee if I want thanks.ooc: Um, no. You're quite welcome to request other players and their characters behave to your expectations. You're encouraged to let people know when they're breaking the rules and behaving like asses (though I'd suggest you hang around awhile and get a really good idea of what the rules are). You're even welcome to report them, if you think they've broken the rules (btw, Kenny's use of "fuck" is quite within allowed behavior). What you can't do is self-appoint yourself junior mod.

As for "staying on topic", you'll find that most threads have a little meandering leeway. This one, for lack of anything to debate that hasn't been said a million times before, perhaps meanders a little more than usual. Were there more than one counter-argument to the proposal (and that one has been stated six ways to Sunday already), you would see more serious debate and less self-amusement.

We don't have to amuse ourselves. Like I just said if we don't have something new to add then we don't have to say anything! Oh and you should hear a couple Kennyanites in a bar. I also in my previouse list of quotes forgot to mention Kennyanite gun toting.

I am not interested to hear who Dr. Hodz screwed in the toilet or Rubina flashed at ...

... if another arsehole tells me I can go write my own replacement resolution, then why don't you go study the section on meta-gaming with Dr. Hodz you stupid dolt?:mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5:

And if you continue along these lines, Ambassador whatever-you-call-yourself, you'll find yourself staring at a forumban. [In-character] attacks against the players behind the nations are still flaming, and you will do well to remember that.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

... and lose the gun smilies. Your credibility drops to zero when you use them.

Stop throwing the F word around it's getting old. Your country is the rudest I am ever likely to encounter and I'll be the referee if I want thanks.

Ummm, no, you won't. That's my job. Officially.

You're welcome to make politely phrased suggestions. You can even make rudely phrased suggestions, within limits. I'd strongly suggest that you get a few months of play under your belt before you go the rude route. A lot of nations who moved in too fast and too rude aren't here anymore ... even if they wanted to be.

"The CWG has utter disdain and disinterest for this particular dead horse. We abstain."

OOC: He's absolutely right from now on unless you can bring something new to the debate...DON'T SAY ANYTHING! THIS DEBATE IS GETTING WAY TOO @$%@ SYNICAL!!

Cynical. Cynical. *The Grammar Nazi twitches* Please compose your responses in a word processor, or get a browser with inline spell checking. *twitch*

Same old same old. We are trying to solve a problem you know. All I see is representatives trying to trip each other up and make wisecracks.

Welcome to the NSUN General Assembly. Please enjoy your stay. Information is available at the Reception Desk.

Stop it with all the insults swearing and personal criticisms.

No.

Alright, I'm confirming my vote FOR after consulting with my region. And while I'm at it,

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bar.jpg


That would be the best idea at this point, but not with Yellow Sea Islands' rep in there.

Sod this. I'm going back to my office.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Perfectly corrupt
Just like everyone else in the GA

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! This resolution will destroy national history throughout the world! This cannot pass! I cannot believe this resolution is even being debated!

This resolution will destroy national history throughout the world!

Did I miss the part of the resolution where it was mandated that we destroy our national history?


Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Is it even worth it to continue this debate? Oh well.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! This resolution will destroy national history throughout the world! This cannot pass! I cannot believe this resolution is even being debated!

Here's the resolution that is supposedly keeping all nations from 'destroying national history throughout the world':

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

Let us ask: what does this do? Does this require nations to do anything close to protecting historical sites? Or does it simply provide empty rhetoric and a good idea?

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

That would be the best idea at this point, but not with Yellow Sea Islands' rep in there.

Sod this. I'm going back to my office.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Perfectly corrupt
Just like everyone else in the GA

I'm not going to persecute somone just because they don't agree with me. That wasn't even my point when I was talking about this debate. I am only saying that it seems nobody can add anything new and are just shooting off their mouths in their attempts to find something to talk about. I admit I overreacted to this but it does appear that we have nothing new to debate. So honestly I ask everyone here do you have something truly new to add?

My god, can't the government get up and do something. Their historical sights and they should be protected. I mean how hard can it be to protect these places. All you have to do is make these building companies work somewhere because you do control them.

O.K. fine I'll take that. New enough.

Yey.

Do you vote yey so we can write a replacement, or do you just have no respect for history?

Do you vote yey so we can write a replacement, or do you just have no respect for history?

Hasty generalization, association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).

Toms Olan
Jevian UN Representative
Department of Logical Fallacies

I've read enough of the arguments being slung back and forth.

The Allied nation if TirDaClamh has voted to repeal the legislation, consider it pruning, in order for healthy flowers to grow on a plant, older dead-heads must be removed for newer ones to grow and prosper.

A new, better resolution cannot be put in place before the old one is repealed because those who oppose the protection of historic sights will quash it immediately with the argument that there already is a resolution. Therefore, the current resolution must be gotten rid of, not out of a want to destroy historic sights but so a decent and proper protection can be implemented.

in order for healthy flowers to grow on a plant, older dead-heads must be removed for newer ones to grow and prosper.

I applaud you on your logical argument. Grab a free drink on me in the Stranger's Bar.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

older dead-heads must be removed for newer ones to grow and prosper.

Anything that removes old deadheads can't be all bad, eh?

- The ghost of Jerry Garcia -
Minister of Music, Frisbeeteria

I've read enough of the arguments being slung back and forth.

The Allied nation if TirDaClamh has voted to repeal the legislation, consider it pruning, in order for healthy flowers to grow on a plant, older dead-heads must be removed for newer ones to grow and prosper.

A new, better resolution cannot be put in place before the old one is repealed because those who oppose the protection of historic sights will quash it immediately with the argument that there already is a resolution. Therefore, the current resolution must be gotten rid of, not out of a want to destroy historic sights but so a decent and proper protection can be implemented.

You've got a free drink from me too. You put it perfectly.