NationStates Jolt Archive

Political Stability/Mild:

The ambassadors and observers to the NationStates World Assembly:

Laboring to pay attention after lengthy drinking binges last night at a well-known local pub (which, for purposes of this resolution, and for liability reasons, cannot be named);

Acknowledging the importance of international cooperation and understanding;

Applauding the efforts of international diplomatic organizations such as the World Assembly for their promotion of international goodwill;

Stressing the need for maintaining facilities for the furtherance of these activities;

Believing that a WA Headquarters, as a symbol of international unity and harmony, would help legitimize the World Assembly as an instrument of international law, and member states as partners in its creation;

Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

Declaring, nonetheless, that it would be nice for these inmates to have an asylum to run;

Hereby:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
- locating suitable real estate for the establishment of international headquarters for the NationStates World Assembly
- constructing and maintaining the facilities necessary to house these headquarters
- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it
- selling contracts to vendors, retailers and other service providers to offer products or services, or operate local chapters, offices or franchises, within WA-controlled territory
- supplying access to available office space for WA agencies and all member and observer nations who request it, provided the requests are reasonable and appreciative of the OBM's limited time and resources
- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;

Declares that the headquarters for the World Assembly shall be located on international neutral territory, and that regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation;

Stipulates that fair compensation must be granted to nations who willingly, per international agreement, cede part of their territory for this purpose;

Determines that in addition to its regular duties the OBM, as a self-sustaining entity, shall determine fair and reasonable rental fees for all nations who maintain office space at WA Headquarters, and additional fees for nations who regularly use WA facilities;

Grants the OBM exclusive authority to increase, decrease or waive these fees as circumstances warrant;

Requires member states to respect the authoritah of the OBM over assigning offices at WA Headquarters, and invoicing nations for use of WA facilities.

My respect is given. ;)

'Bout time.

I have no problem with the proposal except the misspelling of the word "Authority".


I have never, ever seen south park, or the billions of shirts they have produced[/sarcasm]

Political Stability/Mild:

Declares that the headquarters for the World Assembly shall be located on international neutral territory, and that regular United Nations facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation;

Shouldn't that read, "...and that regular World Assembly facilities..." or are we misreading this passage?

You're correct. This was left over from a proposal we had originally crafted for a UN Headquarters. Good catch!

Ambassador Prince Rhodri walks somewhat unsteadily into the bits of rubble currently being used for debates, to the consternation of his staff. If Cerys Coch's expression is anything to by, whoever was supposed to be keeping an eye out for the boss is in for trouble later.

"We think thish ish a truly exshellent idea," he slurs. "We need shomewhere to put the bar when it rains. An' we'd like to partic'larly thank the Kennyite ambashador for hish..." he peers drunkenly in the direction of Commander Chiang, "...her generoshity in the bar lasht night when we started making suggeshuns. We haven't drunk sho much beer for aaaaaages."

He blinks and wobbles slightly. "Aren't we still mishing the flag pole, though? Otherwise where are we going to put the Thesha.... Thess... her bra?"

The prince sits down rather suddenly on the beer barrel Cerys had appropriated. Then with great dignity he topples sideways and starts to snore.

let me be the first to suggest Th3 Neutral Planet as the headquarters {canon dictates i must}

let me also be the first to complain that i dont like drinking with the gnomes, theyre always so creepy and rarely by the next pitcher. almost as bad as the planet of the moochers.

i do however like the idea of a place in which there is no authority to enforce normal laws; finally ill be able to come at the QoD ambassador with a knife. and thank god there is an absolute rule against a WA police!

and in seriousness, id like to point out its illegal as this does nothing to "A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order." and "- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it" makes a police force/army and is thus illegal, and that id suggest saying where the compensation to nations who cede territory comes from, and that i know this is not entirely serious....

Perhaps the name "Office of Building Management" would be more appropriate. The acronym "BMO" makes me think of "Bowel Movement Office."

Nemo Taranton

and in seriousness, id like to point out its illegal as this does nothing to "A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order."If Continuity of Government and UN Funding Act could be submitted under Political Stability, this certainly can.

and "- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it" makes a police force/army and is thus illegal,Erm, hiring private security to guard a building is an illegal police force now? Was the no-militaries rule really meant to ban rent-a-cops??

and that id suggest saying where the compensation to nations who cede territory comes from, and that i know this is not entirely serious....It's a self-sustaining entity, and it is entitled to collect revenue from nations via rental and user fees. The compensation can come out of that. And, if you really want to get pedantic, it doesn't say the compensation has to be monetary. We could trade Manhattan Island for 18 dollars worth of beads if we really wanted...

Perhaps the name "Office of Building Management" would be more appropriate. The acronym "BMO" makes me think of "Bowel Movement Office."Yeah, me too. We could make it "Headquarters Management Office," then call it "HMO," but I think your suggestion makes more sense.

I would gladly support this proposal, as I am tired of walking through rubble to conduct my daily business.
(It was fun for a while, but I almost got hit by a slab of concrete that shifted and fell. And just a few minutes ago I put a hole in the floor with my foot, and I'm pretty sure I saw something really hairy moving around under there...)

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

Sounds like quite a worthy venture. Are the house regulations going to differ to that of the UN?

I can recall a few times where certain ambassadors have been attacked by gnomes wielding heavy chairs...or even that incident last year when The Genoshan Isles surprised us all by catapulting various emissaries out the window...

But in all seriousness - upon what grounds was the previous UN HQ proposal deleted? Or did it simply fail to reach quorum? I can remember slipping an approval in for it - but then never saw it again...

________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Erm, hiring private security to guard a building is an illegal poli

oh, then declare it private lest it set a bad precedent.

It's a self-sustaining entity, and it is entitled to collect revenue from nations via rental and user fees. The compensation can come out of that.

agreed. i suggest adding a few simple words to make it clearer.

If Continuity of Government and UN Funding Act could be submitted under Political Stability, this certainly can.

meh. thankfully im a) apathetic b) not a mod to make that decission tired and hungover as i am.

The wild animals that keep attacking us out here really are too much (http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/leopardG_450x365.jpg).

In case we're looking, Good Armed Mercenaries© can provide cheap reliable security, in a completely neutral manner. Feed them and pay them a fair wage, and they'll make sure only the craziest of dictators are allowed in here with weapons. We guaran-damn-tee it.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tzorsland_0.jpg
Tzorsland fully supports this proposal.

We encourage the members not to overload this proposal with the inclusion of such things as:

A fully functioning bar where every hour is "happy hour" and no religious shrines therein.
WiFi access in all rooms including the main debating hall because I would rather watch a good movie than listen to these boring debates. (Hurray for Balliwood.)
Windows designed for better defenstration purposes. (Really you have to manually open them first, what's up with that? They should open upon any subtle pressure. People who lean on them be damned.)

Sounds like quite a worthy venture. Are the house regulations going to differ to that of the UN?Whatever do you mean?

But in all seriousness - upon what grounds was the previous UN HQ proposal deleted? Or did it simply fail to reach quorum? I can remember slipping an approval in for it - but then never saw it again...It ran out of time. Or perhaps TGI chucked it out the window as well? They were never fond of Cdr. Chiang...

The Roshavian ministry will support any resolution portraying *moderate* alcohol consumption in a positive light, as this resolution has done. You have our support, Kennyites.

The government of St Edmund will support this proposal.

With regard to this clause - supplying access to available office space for all member and observer nations who request it, provided the requests are reasonable and appreciative of the OBM's limited time and resources...
Would it be possible to add 'international non-governmental organisations' to the list of types of entity that could legally request office space?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

Will this also include space for such committees and agencies as the WA might establish?

We would like to see some provision made for childcare facilities, to support equality of sexual representation at the WA headquarters. We also feel the OBM should establish some leafy foliage for the invisible tree people.

-- Samantha Benson

Very well, then. Ms. Benson's request for a leafy-foliaged sexually nondiscriminatory invisible tree lesbian mothers childcare facility/biker bar will be incorporated into the next draft.

As for "international NGOs," presumably they would have their own nonprofit-funded headquarters, wouldn't they? Unnecessary. WA-sanctioned agencies are a different story. Also, shopping centers, casinos, drycleaners, reefer clubs, nondenominational chapels, liquor stores, firing ranges and the LAE Memorial Crackpot Art Museum and Futuristic Technology and Design Center; they need real estate too.

Get your licks in now; barring any unforeseen circumstances, I'll let this thread run over the weekend, then try for a Monday submission. Plans may change if any major issues come up during the draft.

are you going to post a revision, or just let us attack the original?

you know what i think, and i doubt you care.

Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

Serifina frowns at the list. "Well, at least 'drunken religious extremists' hasn't made it's way on that list yet..."

She stops, looks around wide-eyed, then coughs, and says, "Er... that is, we support this proposal whole-heartedly! It's about time we got out of the rubble again..."

are you going to post a revision, or just let us attack the original?I've made minor edits to the original; when I come up with more changes, I'll inform you of them. So by all means keep flinging mud at it, maybe some of it will stick. :p

I believe this would be a good idea, and I would like to tentatively offer my support. As soon as the completely updated version is available, I will be able to throw my full support behind it.

Right now, at this present point in time currently, I only have one gripe:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management Office...

Redundant, much?

So by all means keep flinging mud at it, maybe some of it will stick.

actually i remain entirely apathetic about this proposal. although it seems unprofessional (and undoubtedly is so) it in no way runs for or against any of my national, regional, or personal interests. i stil argue that a securtiy force is illegal. we both agree that it isnt a good fit in the category. and other than that ive just suggested spelilng things out rather than leave them completely unsaid.

in sum: i really dont give a fuck.

in sum: i really dont give a fuck.Then stop posting in this thread. Problem solved.

yeah, but then id actually have to do real work.

Changes in red:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
- locating suitable real estate for the establishment of international headquarters for the NationStates World Assembly
- constructing and maintaining the facilities necessary to house these headquarters
- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it
- selling contracts to vendors, retailers and other service providers to operate local chapters, offices or franchises within WA-controlled territory
- supplying access to available office space for vendors, retailers, WA agencies, and all member and observer nations who request it, provided the requests are reasonable and appreciative of the OBM's limited time and resources
- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;The new clause is intended to allow the Strangers' Bar and other businesses to operate at WA headquarters. Does it need to be edited for clarity? If so, what changes would you suggest?

Changes in red:

The new clause is intended to allow the Strangers' Bar and other businesses to operate at WA headquarters. Does it need to be edited for clarity? If so, what changes would you suggest?

I'm fine with how it is. Allows other RPing possibilities than just the Strangers' Bar. Full support for the proposal.

Right now, at this present point in time currently, I only have one gripe:

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management Office...

Redundant, much?
Please direct your complaint to the Department of Redundancy Department, Bureau of Repetitiousness Office, New York, New York, New York, United States of USA.


As for the resolution, it seems perfect to me. But can we at least try to have sufficient space this time?

i stil argue that a securtiy force is illegal.
Security guards hired to protect a specific location ≠ an army/police force.
Sorry.

Please direct your complaint to the Department of Redundancy Department, Bureau of Repetitiousness Office, New York, New York, New York, United States of USA.

My bad. I'm recovering from RAS syndrome... I caught it at an ATM machine with a really dirty LCD display (it's not as bad as the HIV virus, though).

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

Security guards hired to protect a specific location ≠ an army/police force.
Sorry.
I strongly suggest checking first (toward the bottom of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10242463&postcount=69), a mod objected to security being provided by the UN).

The Skybound Republic supports the proposal.

(Although, since our ambassador does most of his work in his Airship Yacht...he's not really suffering all that much)

I strongly suggest checking first (toward the bottom of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10242463&postcount=69), a mod objected to security being provided by the UN).Checked, and cleared (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13628650&postcount=4). Thanks, Fris.

Awaiting word on category.

"On behalf of Spheron One, I ask our nation's only question: will this facillity have adequate space for bouncing and rolling? The needs of specific nations may need to be addressed. Our nation needs bouncing and rolling space, a nation of whales may need rooms in water, et cetra.

"Thank you, and may you bounce in peace."

"On behalf of Spheron One, I ask our nation's only question: will this facillity have adequate space for bouncing and rolling? The needs of specific nations may need to be addressed. Our nation needs bouncing and rolling space, a nation of whales may need rooms in water, et cetra.

"Thank you, and may you bounce in peace."

Don't make us sic Henry Kissinger on you again...
*Robot walks in room* Ass! *Boom*

Anyway, I doubt the mods will be calling hits on too many of our national leaders. Though, if you need to get rid of a pesky drunken ambassador...

Can I solicit edit suggestions for possibly fitting this into one of the existing categories? (either Political Stability or Furtherment of Democracy; I think it'll be easier to shoot for the latter).

I actually think the former would be a better bet. One could make an argument that having an actual building to meet at is good for political stability.

Still, it'd be nice if it could go where it really belongs, book keeping.

Security guards hired to protect a specific location ≠ an army/police force.

first, who the hell lets police wander wherever they want? they're usually assigned a beat, or at least a patrol area. just like your army is usually assigned to be a certain place, unless you expect them to just materialize in a location....

that said, ive read the mod forum thread on this page, and apparently it is a legal police force. i am slightly touched you actually asked about my criticism, and the same goes for my category criticism......... i know you think im a prick, but at least you respect this prick's opinion.:D

Actually the "prick" whose opinion I was respecting was GMC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10242463&postcount=69), but OK.

Actually, OMGTTK, I honestly don't see how it would fit Furtherment of Democracy, because this resolution does nothing to help democracy, as the WA itself doesn't really help democracy. I think political stability is a better category because the WA does provide some stability at the international level.

(OT:I just noticed that its 2pm here (EST: GMT -5), yet the jolt forum counter at the bottom says its 6pm GMT...only 4 hours plus...is that daylight savings time screwing me up?)

Actually, OMGTTK, I honestly don't see how it would fit Furtherment of Democracy, because this resolution does nothing to help democracy, as the WA itself doesn't really help democracy. I think political stability is a better category because the WA does provide some stability at the international level.I think that's a fair assessment. UN Funding Act (PS/Mild) only provided for UN infrastructure, and didn't affect nations' political freedoms much, just like this proposal.

(OT:I just noticed that its 2pm here (EST: GMT -5), yet the jolt forum counter at the bottom says its 6pm GMT...only 4 hours plus...is that daylight savings time screwing me up?)Yes.

Security guards hired to protect a specific location ≠ an army/police force.

Worth noting that under policy the WA will not.. never, ever get an army or police force, so you assume that the terror threat is always zero.

Actually the "prick" whose opinion I was respecting was GMC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10242463&postcount=69), but OK.

The way I read the difference between your proposal and the one GMC was discussing was that UNGA seemed to imply that it was drawing security forces out of existing UN security / police / army forces; whereas yours was more along the lines of hiring private security guards for a building complex.

We have some of those on my corporate campus. Most of them are over 60. The running joke is their enforcement method, "Stop! Or I'll yell Stop again!"

That's why I gave it a pass.

see, part of being an arrogant prick is taking credit for things that were in no way his, because he did not read the dates of the posts, or all the posts on this thread...... again reiterating, i dont care.

We have some of those on my corporate campus. Most of them are over 60. The running joke is their enforcement method, "Stop! Or I'll yell Stop again!"

[OOC: If you're ever planning on some mischief and need to distract them, get some people to start a conversation with them. Old people love talking to others... especially strangers. :D]

The Palentine will support this fine piece of legislation. After all the security forces will need to be armed, and Imperial Palentine Amalgamated Arms will cheerfully apply for a contract to supply said Small Arms. IPAA would even be willing to donate an Atomic Annie for the courtyard(for display only of course, IPAA would never think of selling an Atomic Cannon on the open market. Perish the thought...say how about them Buccos:D)

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

We'll give this our approval, in support of the spirit of the idea, but I personally won't be much in attendance at this newfangled headquarters place. For you see, the idea of the leaders of the world's most powerful collective body all joining under one roof, waiting for one nuclear strike to wipe them all out in one swoop, is not to my liking. Especially if that includes me.

I might still slip in for the occasional drink or eight, though.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

Can we just pick something to build the place. I'm getting tired of sitting in a charred, burned out bar...

Signed,
Scrawney
Amassador of the 1800th Great Oak of the Democratic States of Regular Squirrels.

My government has already volunteered to supply the necessary workforce, if somebody else will provide a site and the materials.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

The following clause has been added in an attempt to frame this proposal as a Political Stability measure:

Believing that a WA Headquarters, as a symbol of international unity and harmony, would help legitimize the World Assembly as an instrument of international law, and member states as partners in its creation;Were there any other edits I might have missed? Speak soon, as I intend to submit this later this week, possibly into the weekend.

Any offers for help with telegramming would also be appreciated.

Don't everybody speak at once! :p

Serifina drops a pin, just to check the sheer absence of noise in the room.

In all seriousness, I think the proposal looks fine.

OOC: I'd offer to help with the telegramming, but I'm afraid my computer access will be spotty for a little while. Sorry.

The following clause has been added in an attempt to frame this proposal as a Political Stability measureHum. I know (hope?) you're going for Mild, but... ouf. This would just barely scrape by, I think. It's still mostly a Proposal that effects the WA as opposed to member states, but...

...I'd probably be willing to let it slide.

Hum. I know (hope?) you're going for Mild, but... ouf. This would just barely scrape by, I think. It's still mostly a Proposal that effects the WA as opposed to member states, but...

...I'd probably be willing to let it slide.Thanks, although the funding act really affected the UN more than its members; the collecting funds didn't influence political freedoms at all. I know it's usually a bad idea to cite precedent to justify category, but yes, this will be filed as a Mild proposal.

You'll understand that I got tired of waiting around for the new category. :p

www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=headquarters

Approve, or I punch you in the face! :upyours:

Anyway, we need 109 approvals now?! Thank God for WZ Forums, else no proposal would make quorum on time! :D

114 Approvals! Quorum, Yay, celebratory smilies and all that.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Lulu Hilde Berlin:

Err... oh wait, I've already done that.

As I said...

Congratuations!!!

Err, yeah, that what I was to say... no wait, you can have part of Charlotte's for the HQ.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Sigh, the most dumbest reaction by Lulu Hilde Berlin yet.

Are you aware there's apparently an anti-approval TG campaign going on? I've received a TG asking me to remove my approval. Not that I will, hah! I'm all for this proposal.

Congrats on reaching quorum! It's about time.

Congrats on Quorum Kenny.



Are you aware there's apparently an anti-approval TG campaign going on? I've received a TG asking me to remove my approval. Not that I will, hah! I'm all for this proposal.

Who is sending the anti-approval campaign, by the by? I'm rather curious.

You have my support. Let us pray this fares better than previous attempts!

Nêmö Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

I sent it to OMGTKK, but for the other curious parties, here's the TG:

From:The Colony of Amoneyy

Hello,
I am a concerned delegate and i have recently seen the resolution, "WA HEADQUARTERS." I read this bill and I am appaled. It calls the WA's "drunks, sex addicts, stoners, weirdos, rejects, millitary fruitcakes, and way more. It also, GIVES CONTROL OF THE WA TO THE CONTRY ITS LOCATED IN. I hope that your aprroval was just a misunderstanding and that as soon as you read it again, you will withdraw it.

Thank You!

Heh. Thanks, Kari. A couple things immediately stood out:

It calls the WA's "drunks, sex addicts, stoners, weirdos, rejects, millitary fruitcakes, and way more.That was actually a direct quote from Dicey Reilly. Hope Amoneyy has a Godmoded magic shield too, because from what I hear, Ms. Reilly is a pretty deranged sorceress.

It also, GIVES CONTROL OF THE WA TO THE CONTRY ITS LOCATED IN.Interesting, but doesn't the proposal say the exact opposite?

You're welcome. I had a feeling you'd find the whole thing fascinating. Feel free to send a TG to them. I already did, arguing your side. I just found it funny as hell in general.

Well, Lulu Hilde Berlin is already saying 'pick our country'.

Ok, good idea. Our nation has place enough for your buildings. We do not have laws restricting anything the WA wants. (Because we do not care on the laws.) We could use some robots from Chaldek9 or so, they always want to work I think. But Windows we do not like, you can fall out or worse (after all the parties certainly). So a building whith Linux we prefer, but let us build it on a way all inhabitants can have as much improvements made by themselves as a stable WA can have. And we will push in some Always Rocking Gifts.

Feel free to visit us, our borders are allways open.

Freedom for all!


Greetings
Cocoamok the weird
Co-ordinator for The Weird Anarchists

There's no need for anyone to donate any land to us for the building. We've already got land, in fact you're all standing on it right now.

William Smithers
Senior VP
WA Building Management

This proposal is now queued to be the next Resolution At Vote. As such, I've Pinned the thread.

Kenny, do you want to use this thread as the Official Topic, or start a new one?

This thread's fine. If I find the inspiration, I'll add a poll later on. Thanks.

I sent it to OMGTKK, but for the other curious parties, here's the TG:

From:The Colony of Amoneyy

Hello,
I am a concerned delegate and i have recently seen the resolution, "WA HEADQUARTERS." I read this bill and I am appaled. It calls the WA's "drunks, sex addicts, stoners, weirdos, rejects, millitary fruitcakes, and way more. It also, GIVES CONTROL OF THE WA TO THE CONTRY ITS LOCATED IN. I hope that your aprroval was just a misunderstanding and that as soon as you read it again, you will withdraw it.

Thank You!

[OOC: I think I already got this, because it seems familiar... but, of course, I already ignored it. I've learned my lesson when it comes to approving proposals I have no intention of supporting [I was one of the idiots that supported the UN-Resolution-That-Should-Not-Be-Named]. And BTW, they never closed their "drunks, sex addicts, etc." quotation. That really irks me...]

Subistratica is in full support of this resolution, and will fight hard against anyone who wishes to see it fail.

The only problem with this that I see is that it gives the WA land. Since the WA is not a nation, how does it govern? I assume that the land is unihabited, and that WA members will have diplomatic immunity, but that leaves anarchy, and no millitary. I will support the proposal, but don't expect me to come anywhere close. And don't come crying to me when a terrorist/ a nation not in the WA/ the security/ other members/ whoever attacks.

The only problem with this that I see is that it gives the WA land. Since the WA is not a nation, how does it govern? I assume that the land is unihabited, and that WA members will have diplomatic immunity, but that leaves anarchy, and no millitary. I will support the proposal, but don't expect me to come anywhere close. And don't come crying to me when a terrorist/ a nation not in the WA/ the security/ other members/ whoever attacks.

[OOC: Well, how does the real-world UN govern? All of the UN's buildings are on international territory and they don't really have a military, but I don't think you could ever consider the UN Headquarters in New York to be in a state of anarchy.]

The original august body never had [severe] problems with attacks or "anarchy". There will be a security force to keep the building safe and relatively under control.

The only problem with this that I see is that it gives the WA land.No more than a few acres to set up a few buildings. Embassy complexes are just as large.

Since the WA is not a nation, how does it govern?The Office of Building Management manages the HQ complex.

I assume that the land is unihabited, and that WA members will have diplomatic immunity, but that leaves anarchy, and no millitary.No, the OBM is charged with providing adequate security. I imagine these would be private security guards. (Also, a lot of delegations have their own security.) Nothing is stated about diplomatic immunity; it seems to be an issue decidedly outside the OBM's purview. And nowhere does it require the territory be "uninhabited," either. It can be a city block in Miervatia or Douria City; it only stipulates that the real estate become neutral territory not subject to any national jurisdiction, and that nations ceding territory be properly compensated. If it's in a populated area, local police can certainly render assistance -- presumably with the permission of the WA -- just as the NYPD or the FBI can respond to incidents occurring at the RL U.N. Headquarters.

And don't come crying to me when a terrorist/ a nation not in the WA/ the security/ other members/ whoever attacks.I won't be crying; I'll be laughing my ass off. You assume too much that I am somehow "pro-WA."

The original august body never had [severe] problems with attacks or "anarchy".Neville the bartender would beg to differ. So would every single UN diplomat to be defenestrated or kicked in the nuts. :p

Neville the bartender would beg to differ. So would every single UN diplomat to be defenestrated or kicked in the nuts. :p

[OOC: Sorry... I meant "[severe] problems with attacks or 'anarchy'" as in missile strikes, hostile take-overs, and the like... or am I still wrong?]

I'll let you read the debate for UN Fair Wage Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507747), then let you decide how "severe" the situation was. :D

This would make the WA a nation and more than just an orginization. It is wrong in general and it gives the building whatever way to much power even over the WA

This would make the WA a nation and more than just an orginization.
Would you care to point out how, exactly? Because I don't see it. At all.

It is wrong in general and it gives the building whatever way to much power even over the WA
What? How does establishing a WA headquarters give a building power over the WA itself?

Subistratica is patiently waiting to vote FOR this resolution.

I have to agree with it. Good idea.

This would make the WA a nation and more than just an orginization.No, it makes the WA an organization that gets to run a building. FEMA can run a building for God's sake; why can't the WA?

... OK, don't answer that.

FEMA can run a building for God's sake; why can't the WA?

He was a "fashion god" though, so it was obviously easy to run a building.

Also, congrats on getting to vote Kenny, been waiting for "Quality Kennyite Legislation ©" to crop up.

If anyone needs us, let us know.

The representative from Shang Dang hears the proposal and clicks his tongue a bit.

"Fine. I'll support it. The concerns from others seem to be more of worry-wart material. If we install a bar and a cafeteria I'll certainly be all-aboard."

[OOC: Sorry... I meant "[severe] problems with attacks or 'anarchy'" as in missile strikes, hostile take-overs, and the like... or am I still wrong?]

"Ahem!"

*points at heap of ruins that's all that's left of the old building*

"And how do you think that happened?" ;)

This proposal makes a mockery the WA, and all of its diplomats.
The WA is a serious organisation, and whilst I agree a HQ should be set up, the resolution is making fun of all of us who have 'undesirable' nations, diplomats and policies!

This resolution is out-of-character. We vote against it.
If it is typical of the kind of resolution that will get passed these days, we would have no reason to remain in the WA.

The previous resolution passed despite being clearly a bad idea; but it was in character, so it was not a reason to leave the WA (though its passage was a reason to doubt whether many voting delegates actually ever read the WA forum). But this one is not in accord with the game of NationStates.

This proposal makes a mockery the WA, and all of its diplomats.
The WA is a serious organisation, and whilst I agree a HQ should be set up, the resolution is making fun of all of us who have 'undesirable' nations, diplomats and policies!You had a look at the very first WA resolution, didn't you? You know, the one by the same guy who founded the game? How "serious" was that document?

This resolution is out-of-character. We vote against it.
If it is typical of the kind of resolution that will get passed these days, we would have no reason to remain in the WA.

The previous resolution passed despite being clearly a bad idea; but it was in character, so it was not a reason to leave the WA (though its passage was a reason to doubt whether many voting delegates actually ever read the WA forum). But this one is not in accord with the game of NationStates.Alright, I'll bite: how is this "out of character"?

I sincerely admire the proposal's comparative proximity to neutrality, conceding such points to opposing arguments as to necessitate the "nonetheless". Alas, consideration of my fellow representatives has led me to the conclusion that these inmates do not, in fact, deserve such an asylum. I certainly don't, and therefore oppose the proposal.

-Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner

I am against this proposition based on the following:

"Stipulates that fair compensation must be granted to nations who willingly, per international agreement, cede part of their territory for this purpose;

Determines that in addition to its regular duties the OBM, as a self-sustaining entity, shall determine fair and reasonable rental fees for all nations who maintain office space at WA Headquarters, and additional fees for nations who regularly use WA facilities;

Grants the OBM exclusive authority to increase, decrease or waive these fees as circumstances warrant; "

What defines warranted circumstances, and where does oversight come into play? So now our nations will pay membership fees that are beyond a consensus we come to? This is asking for corruption...something my citizens are willing to put up with; but I am not.

As for the first two quoted paragraphs: I'm to receive compensation for giving up parcels of my land, only to pay rental fees to a self-regulating organization when I use them? This is outrageous!

Truthfuly, I would rather have a HQ for the WA. This orginization is built to create a better and more united world. However, this resolution in its text completly undermines this idea of bringing together nations to debate on all ideas of world interest. It make fun of those of us who do not believe in things the general populice dose. Why punish us for this, we are different, but be have debates to settle these things. We do not need a resolution that mocks as all to be in placed.

Also the orginization the runs the building is to charge fees for its use. This is going to cause nations that can not afford the fees not be able to be acuratly repressented and they will be ousted. It also make the orginiazation more than a metting of wise nations to make world changing polices and disscuse matters of interest while bringing nations and people together. It makes the WA a company who rents out land and this is undermines the intergrety of the WA. The WA is non-profit. It takes donnations from the members that can give.

The RL UN has enough trouble financing itself on voluntary donations (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/index.htm), so why would NS WA countries be doing so?

The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $20 billion each year, or about $3 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world's military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced a financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2007, members' arrears to the Regular Budget topped $428 million, of which the United States alone owed $393 million (92% of the regular budget arrears).

So, what exactly is stopping someone from shooting random people and jumping across the boarder, either into or out of the WA? What laws do the security uphold? What stops them from opressing the population, if the area is inhabited? I assumed that it would be uninhabited, because that would mean that there would be no one other than people at the HQ and security to govern. While I would support the establishment of a HQ, it results in either Anarchy or the WA becoming a nation and governing people, so I will not.

[OOC: My decision is IC, so the RL UN doesn't matter to me. The RL UN cannot be used as an example, because it doesn't exist in NS.]

I would persaude all members of the WA to vote against this resolution. The resolution states....
"Determines that in addition to its regular duties the OBM, as a self-sustaining entity, shall determine fair and reasonable rental fees for all nations who maintain office space at WA Headquarters, and additional fees for nations who regularly use WA facilities"
This would leave nations that cannot afford rental fees to be left out of the political process and undermines all the WA stands for.

The resolution also mocks the current members of the WA...
"Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

Declaring, nonetheless, that it would be nice for these inmates to have an asylum to run"

As you can see this resolution is obviuosly mocking the entire WA and its members Please consider before you vote. Thanks!

Determines that in addition to its regular duties the OBM, as a self-sustaining entity, shall determine fair and reasonable rental fees for all nations who maintain office space at WA Headquarters, and additional fees for nations who regularly use WA facilities;

Grants the OBM exclusive authority to increase, decrease or waive these fees as circumstances warrant; "

What defines warranted circumstances, and where does oversight come into play?
Skipping blithely over the fact that you don't mean "warrented circumstances", I don't even need my English/Gobbanaeg refresher course to tell me that the blindingly obvious answer to your first question is "the OBM."

Oversight is again the purview of the OBM. They are the ones in the position to oversee, and as an apolitical bureaucracy of the WA they are naturally incorruptible and unerringly accurate in their assessments, as are of course all bureaucrats everywhere.

(OOC: or in other words, this is the way the rules work. WA committees (which is essentially what the OBM is) are not staffed by nations, and the General Assembly doesn't do oversight.)

So now our nations will pay membership fees that are beyond a consensus we come to?
Nope. Your nation will pay rental on its office space that are beyond your control. If you don't like the rents, you're welcome to move across the street -- if you're prepared to negotiate the extraterritoriality agreements with wherever that is, and they don't charge you more. Aren't market forces wonderful?

As for the first two quoted paragraphs: I'm to receive compensation for giving up parcels of my land, only to pay rental fees to a self-regulating organization when I use them? This is outrageous!
Sorry to disappoint you boyo, but no one's actually interested in any parcels of land you want to give up. We've got a perfectly good building site right here, which already has all the necessary agreements and permissions in place. Why on earth would we want to move the WA HQ somewhere so obviously unfriendly as your nation?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

"Ahem!"

*points at heap of ruins that's all that's left of the old building*

"And how do you think that happened?" ;)A disastrous collision with RL. It's like matter and antimatter, they come into contact with each other and KABOOM.

The resolution also mocks the current members of the WA...
"Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

Declaring, nonetheless, that it would be nice for these inmates to have an asylum to run"

As you can see this resolution is obviuosly mocking the entire WA and its members Please consider before you vote. Thanks!

You must be new here otherwise you'd know that that list describes the regularly seen WA ambassadors perfectly.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

As President of Awesome-inson, I enjoy being able to vote on WA resolutions from my desk. Having to send a proxy or ambassador to a shiny new building is a waste of my nations valued resources.

What defines warranted circumstances, and where does oversight come into play? So now our nations will pay membership fees that are beyond a consensus we come to? This is asking for corruption...something my citizens are willing to put up with; but I am not."Asking for corruption"? I think not. The OBM is authorized to set "fair and reasonable rental fees," so obviously any corruption on their part would violate their commission. The flexibility involved in the language empowers your nation to negotiate fair discounts or reduced rates with the OBM, and also gives the OBM latitude to penalize nations who cause problems (vandalizing or inflicting damage upon WA property, causing security difficulties, etc.). It is entirely fair and proper that the OBM and member states be given leeway to negotiate appropriate user fees.

As for the first two quoted paragraphs: I'm to receive compensation for giving up parcels of my land, only to pay rental fees to a self-regulating organization when I use them? This is outrageous!No, you aren't required to give up parcels of land, that clause only applies if the WA elects to build its headquarters in your nation. Since the territory the WA sits on would have to be ceded, the WA is expected to pay you. And you only have to pay rental fees if you decide to rent office space in the WA HQ. As Gobbannium has already stated, you are always free to locate office space in nearby buildings not under WA control.

Also the orginization the runs the building is to charge fees for its use. This is going to cause nations that can not afford the fees not be able to be acuratly repressented and they will be ousted. It also make the orginiazation more than a metting of wise nations to make world changing polices and disscuse matters of interest while bringing nations and people together. It makes the WA a company who rents out land and this is undermines the intergrety of the WA. The WA is non-profit. It takes donnations from the members that can give.You aren't required to pay rent if you don't rent office space in WA HQ. Rent across the street, run your WA office out of your car or a porta-potty in the parking lot. We really don't give a shit. But your argument that WA nations must pay rent in order to stay in the WA doesn't hold water. No one is requiring that you acquire office space anywhere, in the WA HQ or in the office building near the civic center. Besides, even if the average rental fee was half a million dollars, that's only a fraction of 1% of the budgets of most member nations. Affordability is not at issue here; if your nation is honestly incapable of raising the necessary revenue to furnish a simple rental fee, that's more a problem of your own government, not the WA.

As to the WA becoming a slumlord, I'm afraid not. The provisions allowing the OBM to collect revenue are what make this resolution fiscally responsible. This legislation makes the WA Headquarters a self-sustaining entity, ensuring that the funding exists to pay for the headquarters and the facilities in WA territory. Forcing the WA HQ to rely on voluntary contributions would only risk a budget shortfall plunging the WA into debt and leaving the construction and upkeep of its headquarters dangerously underfunded.

So, what exactly is stopping someone from shooting random people and jumping across the boarder, either into or out of the WA? What laws do the security uphold? What stops them from opressing the population, if the area is inhabited? I assumed that it would be uninhabited, because that would mean that there would be no one other than people at the HQ and security to govern. While I would support the establishment of a HQ, it results in either Anarchy or the WA becoming a nation and governing people, so I will not.Um, security guards? "Oppressing the population"? We're talking about buying real estate, not taking over swaths of land and subjecting all inhabitants to WA rule. There isn't really a "population" on an unused city block. As to people entering the WA complex and committing crimes, that's an issue obviously to be worked out with the host nation.

[OOC: My decision is IC, so the RL UN doesn't matter to me. The RL UN cannot be used as an example, because it doesn't exist in NS.]OOC: No, but the RL U.N. is a reasonable parallel.

I would persaude all members of the WA to vote against this resolution. The resolution states....
"Determines that in addition to its regular duties the OBM, as a self-sustaining entity, shall determine fair and reasonable rental fees for all nations who maintain office space at WA Headquarters, and additional fees for nations who regularly use WA facilities"
This would leave nations that cannot afford rental fees to be left out of the political process and undermines all the WA stands for.See comment above re: affordability.

The resolution also mocks the current members of the WA...
"Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

Declaring, nonetheless, that it would be nice for these inmates to have an asylum to run"

As you can see this resolution is obviuosly mocking the entire WA and its members Please consider before you vote. Thanks!
Truthfuly, I would rather have a HQ for the WA. This orginization is built to create a better and more united world. However, this resolution in its text completly undermines this idea of bringing together nations to debate on all ideas of world interest. It make fun of those of us who do not believe in things the general populice dose. Why punish us for this, we are different, but be have debates to settle these things. We do not need a resolution that mocks as all to be in placed. Well, it's about time someone stood up and called the WA's psychopaths how they see them. The Thessadorians, for example? Shameless exhibitionists. Senator Sulla is by all accounts a greedy, unwholesome lush who regularly sells his vote and cleans out local liquor stores for contentious debates. The Kennyite delegation alone is considered a terrorist organization in an estimated 85 countries. The Ardchoilleans ... the Kawaiians ... the Akimonadi ... Felix ... the list of offenders goes on and on. Don't come crying to us if you are suddenly defenestrated for disagreeing with some malcontent, and you refused to heed our warning.

that list describes the regularly seen WA ambassadors perfectly.

Quite right. Except I was most disappointed that it forgot to include those hotheaded little dwarves that were seen around here some time ago. Took to bashing people with wooden stools…I believe…

This legislation makes the WA Headquarters a self-sustaining entity, ensuring that the funding exists to pay for the headquarters and the facilities in WA territory.

Which is one of the reasons why a rare piece of legislation such as this deserves wholehearted support. It doesn’t demand ongoing donations from penniless delegations. And, of course, the beauty of it is: just as quickly as the old UN HQ was obliterated, the WA HQ will be magically built….no construction fees whatsoever.

Lets learn from our predecessors and listen for once.

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb24/LordCaelryck/Untitled-1-1.gif

I’ve cast our region’s vote FOR The World Assembly Headquarters.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I have nothing to argue about this proposal. I am 100 percent for it!

This is a good idea to have a new an improved Headquaters for our WA delegates.

CoN Knight of Aslan
Ambassador of Amercian

I take great offense to being called a drunk sex addict, etc. *sets bottle down to pinch attractive secretary* However, I am tired of discussing important international matters in the parking lot. Especially when it rains. Therefore, I will, somewhat reluctantly, vote for this.

Jack Flat, WA rep of Centrax

:mp5: oh well, regulations against and for this bill have been both equally good...It is hard for us, Kleimola, to vote for or against this bill so I turn to my WA delegate and hope he isn't "drunk and having lots and lots of sex"

"Asking for corruption"? I think not. The OBM is authorized to set "fair and reasonable rental fees," so obviously any corruption on their part would violate their commission. The flexibility involved in the language empowers your nation to negotiate fair discounts or reduced rates with the OBM, and also gives the OBM latitude to penalize nations who cause problems (vandalizing or inflicting damage upon WA property, causing security difficulties, etc.). It is entirely fair and proper that the OBM and member states be given leeway to negotiate appropriate user fees.

So, they won't be corrupt because you say they won't. Yeah... um...


Who checks them for corruption? How are they even appointed? Do we vote for them?

Um, security guards? "Oppressing the population"? We're talking about buying real estate, not taking over swaths of land and subjecting all inhabitants to WA rule. There isn't really a "population" on an unused city block. As to people entering the WA complex and committing crimes, that's an issue obviously to be worked out with the host nation.

OOC: No, but the RL U.N. is a reasonable parallel.


My problem is that the WA is not supposed to govern people. I got the impression that this wasn't "buying real estate" but establishing a tiny, independent country run by the WA. I have no problem with the WA establishing a HQ in territory controled by a friendly nation.

As for the lack of population, I assumed before that the area would be uninhabited, and I was corrected. And while the idea of security guards oppressing people may seem unreasonable, this is establishing a police force with no official laws. I wouldn't trust my own police without laws detailing things that they cannot do and can't arrest people for.

[OOC: I understand you're point, but it is irrelevent to my nation making a decision, because the RL U.N. doesn't exist.]

My problem is that the WA is not supposed to govern people.

Where on earth did you get that silly idea? The WA is entirely about governing people. It's the very heart and soul of an oppressive transnational government, swinging the twin axes of unfunded mandates and regulatory requirements galore. Of course it needs a shiny palace as a material symbol of oppression, for all to see!


[OOC - don't confuse your OOC understanding of the RL UN with the NS WA. We're not here for doves and daisies. WA members dance to the tune we <collectively> pipe. ]

So what's the purpose of this bill? It really doesn't look necessary.

So what's the purpose of this bill? It really doesn't look necessary.You're right, constructing a building so we can have somewhere to meet really is an unnecessary extravagance. Maybe we should give the multi-purpose room at the YMCA another look? Or the basement of that crackhouse in Paradise City? That's what Jack Riley (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/jack_riley.html) offered us a few years back, and we callously overlooked it.

You gave up a crackhouse basement in Paradise City?! Are you MAD? El Camino would've made a killing though, so it's likely for the best.

This is standard bookkeeping. We need a building, the Kennyites are proposing it with a resolution, we get a building. People want to be stupid and meet in the parking lot, go ahead.

Just remember, defenestrations are going to be a bit harder without windows.

How are they even appointed? Do we vote for them?
[OOC: Have you read the rules on proposals?
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.
That's from the official Rules for WA Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).]


My problem is that the WA is not supposed to govern people.
So the WA, a governmental organization, isn't supposed to govern people?

I got the impression that this wasn't "buying real estate" but establishing a tiny, independent country run by the WA. I have no problem with the WA establishing a HQ in territory controled by a friendly nation.
I didn't get this impression. Establishing a HQ for the WA is suddenly the same as creating a new nation?
And how do you know that the "friendly" nation you would choose will stay "friendly"? I'd rather that the HQ be on "international neutral territory," as stated in the text of the resolution, rather than in some random country that might not stay nice.

As for the lack of population, I assumed before that the area would be uninhabited, and I was corrected. And while the idea of security guards oppressing people may seem unreasonable, this is establishing a police force with no official laws. I wouldn't trust my own police without laws detailing things that they cannot do and can't arrest people for.
No official laws? I think the OBM will be taking care of that.

[OOC: It's kind of hard to properly explain in the context of the game, but technically the OBM will do it's job properly because the resolution says it will. That's just how the rules of the game work, and being nitpicky about the rules won't do much.]

OOC:
I'm struggling a bit with the category.

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild

I don't mind the category itself and prefer to vote based on resolution text, but this resolution really seems like it would have been better in the book keeping category (which is in limbo). I understand it is very difficult to write a resolution and then find a category to squeeze it into. I'm assuming I'm missing something here. Could anybody who have voted in favour tell me how they see building a WA building a restriction on political freedoms.

The mods gave me a pass on the category, and I admit I struggled with it myself. Whether the category is appropriate is the mods' decision, not ours.

Let's stick with the merits of the proposal, please.

[OOC: Yes, I read the rules, but I assumed that they were meant to clairify that nations did not serve on commitiees. IC, the people appointed have lived for years.]

So the WA, a governmental organization, isn't supposed to govern people?
The WA makes international law, not national law. It governs nations, not people.


I didn't get this impression. Establishing a HQ for the WA is suddenly the same as creating a new nation?
And how do you know that the "friendly" nation you would choose will stay "friendly"? I'd rather that the HQ be on "international neutral territory," as stated in the text of the resolution, rather than in some random country that might not stay nice.

Yeah, I'd say that giving an organization territory makes it a nation. The alternative is Anarchy.
Also, I'd rather take my chances with one nation betraying me, than being attacked by any nation with no defenses but the security.

No official laws? I think the OBM will be taking care of that.

Establishes the World Assembly Office of Building Management (OBM), the duties of which shall entail:
- locating suitable real estate for the establishment of international headquarters for the NationStates World Assembly
- constructing and maintaining the facilities necessary to house these headquarters
- furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it
- selling contracts to vendors, retailers and other service providers to offer products or services, or operate local chapters, offices or franchises, within WA-controlled territory
- supplying access to available office space for WA agencies and all member and observer nations who request it, provided the requests are reasonable and appreciative of the OBM's limited time and resources
- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;


Where does it say "makes laws"?

I think we are going to see an influx of 'pick me please' requests, but nevertheless I am going to see it through. I'm for.

[OOC: Yes, I read the rules, but I assumed that they were meant to clairify that nations did not serve on commitiees. IC, the people appointed have lived for years.]
(OOC: assume away, sunshine, just don't be surprised when the regulars here assume otherwise. More to the point, assuming or asserting partiality on the part of a WA committee isn't going to lead anyone to love you.)

The WA makes international law, not national law. It governs nations, not people.
Actually, the WA makes international law that frequently makes national law, and does from time to time directly govern people. It's all rather irrelevant, though.

Yeah, I'd say that giving an organization territory makes it a nation. The alternative is Anarchy.
Um, no. The alternative is extraterritoriality. A building, in this case, which is not subject to any regulations except for those it imposes on itself.

Also, I'd rather take my chances with one nation betraying me, than being attacked by any nation with no defenses but the security.
So you don't think that the OBM will actually carry out its mandate of "furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it" then? I wouldn't expect to get an office allocated in the next year.

Also, what makes you think that attacking a building containing ambassadors of thousands of nations won't provoke a response from at the very least hundreds of them? Consider the fate of Chechnya; for killing a number of poor defenceless Kennyite penguins(*), they faced the wrath of the entire Antarctic Oasis.

[(*) This is, of course, not exactly how it happened, but I can't be bothered to find the thread :)]

Where does it say "makes laws"?
That would be the "necessary security" bit, at least to the extent that you're talking about.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Lebensraumer asks the single most important question to this proposal: What will the cost be to WA members? Based on GNP? Population? Or a flat fee?

The only POSSIBLE solution is for the WA to be on neutral territory. If it wasn't, the region it was in would have a foothold in WA decisions and there would be :mp5: all around.

Perhaps the name "Office of Building Management" would be more appropriate. The acronym "BMO" makes me think of "Bowel Movement Office."

Nemo Taranton

LOL I like that!

A fine resolution, damnably fine. Haven't seen a resolution like it since I was at Gingindlovu in '82 when I was with the Natal Native Contigent. We were waiting for the Zulu's to attack, eating our pot noodles and polishing our cufflinks, when all of a sudden, over to the right flank, appeared a column of Eskimo's armed with crossbows. This, of course, was rather unexpected. Zulu's we were expecting, but not Eskimo's. Indeed, we were somewhat unsure what side they were on, or what Eskimo's were doing in Natal, or how they got there. So, naturally, we opened fire. Bang. Bang. Bang. Down went the Eskimo's. Suddenly, four of them turned into tigers. This was most suprising, I assure you. Again, we shot the tigers. They went down this time. That's all I remember, before waking up three weeks later in a sushi restaurant in a place I believe was called Bakersfield in California. Those were the days!

Field Marshal Sir Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock
Military Attache

There is no reason for meetings to be held in a brick-and-mortar location. With advances in technology, the WA Headquarters should be in the virtual space.

No worries about travel, neutral territories or the host nations citizens having to relinquish their own rights to visiting delegates.

(Plus what could be better than sitting in your office (Palace, military barracks, home...whatever) naked with a glass of Scotch brokering the fate of the known world)

Peon Groovyfish

Was the reference to drinking really necessary?

Knowing how long some of the representatives spend living in the stranger's bar, I'd have to say yes.

Knowing how long some of the representatives spend living in the stranger's bar, I'd have to say yes.
Knowing how long some of the representatives spend living there, I'd say the references to drinking are positively restrained!

You had a look at the very first WA resolution, didn't you? You know, the one by the same guy who founded the game? How "serious" was that document?

It was far more serious than this proposal, and doesn't attack WA members

(OOC: assume away, sunshine, just don't be surprised when the regulars here assume otherwise. More to the point, assuming or asserting partiality on the part of a WA committee isn't going to lead anyone to love you.)


[OOC: So, the WA can actually create as many people it wants, with whatever characteristics it wants, who will succeed in any task it gives them.

Why don't we rule the world?

I thought that NS was supposed to be somewhat realistic. Apparently, I was wrong, we have magic.]


Actually, the WA makes international law that frequently makes national law, and does from time to time directly govern people. It's all rather irrelevant, though.
Where does the WA govern people? It makes laws that its members have to obey, but it doesn't rule anywhere.

Um, no. The alternative is extraterritoriality.
How is Anarchy different that universal extraterritoriality?

A building, in this case, which is not subject to any regulations except for those it imposes on itself.
Regulations imposed by who?

So you don't think that the OBM will actually carry out its mandate of "furnishing the necessary security to protect the headquarters complex and all who use it" then? I wouldn't expect to get an office allocated in the next year.

I think that it is possible for people to fail, and I think that defending a building, which will be a target for any number of terrorist groups and hostile nations, on a limited budget, is a little difficult. And what makes you think I want an office? I like living.

Also, what makes you think that attacking a building containing ambassadors of thousands of nations won't provoke a response from at the very least hundreds of them? Consider the fate of Chechnya; for killing a number of poor defenceless Kennyite penguins(*), they faced the wrath of the entire Antarctic Oasis.

Terrorists who aren't affiliated with any nation, and terrorists who "aren't affiliated with any nation."

I seem to have read somewhere in these replies the mention of an 'Asylum'.
If anyone is in need of spending some time in a top-notch Asylum, I can assure you my country's facilities are considered the finest there are.
Oh, and I'm voting FOR, if only for my representative to be able to come wandering into the Lobby, take his/her place at one of the electronic voting booths that will be conveniently located there, as I'm sure, cast my country's vote in the current resolution and walk back out again. :D

The Narnian King Fotar see nothing wrong with this proposal and has voted for it. An actual building for WA members to meet in will be very beneficial and make things more efficient.
_________________
~Fotar
King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
Vice Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/67622/page=display_region)

It is a sad day when the worlds smartest and most powerful nations can not see the wrongs in a simple piece of legislation. For those that have I congratdulate you. For those that have not, I hope to convince you why you should vote against this bill.

Let me take it point by point to get it through the heads of some and let it cause pain to those who it just gose in one ear and out the other, becasue of the density of it.

1) The idea of charging money for space in the WA HQ

A) Yes, most nations are able to pay for these things, especialy my nation and many other who drive for economic gains. This is not the point however.

It is the idea that we as nations who are to work together have to financialy be suberviant to it to get space we would like. Sure it is not alot and if only rent, I understand this. At the same time it sets up a discursive mind set that allows further abuses to be taken, and as it can be seen by the votes on this bill, that masses do not always know what is best for the nation, or even the world.

I will pay the rent should this bill be pased, that is not the problem, but it is the idea that I have to pay for space that is owned not by a nation, or an orginization controlled by a nation, or even a company, but from an orginization that is made up of everyone, that is not an entity in and of itself, but is made one because nations make it so.

By having us pay rent the WA is becoming a company. This only leads to abuse of the staff working and creats compantition with companies in our own nation for rental space the the Governments of our nations use. This therefore harms our economy. This also makes the WA the company in that it gives a service and expects compansation, where as the WA right now does things because it wants to help others, not rake in the money.

B) The WA is funded already by donations and other things

We do not need to charge rent. As you say, it is a small wieght on our nations economy, but it is also a drop in the bucket for the budgget for the WA.

C) Why do I should I have to pay for a building space that I helped fund already?

This makes no sence. No where in the bill does it say that we stop funding the WA. It also does not say the the money we give to them will not be accolated to advance building projects and maintinence that can not be coverd by the prices of rent. Yes, rent can be increase, but it is like a company, you can only raise it so far than you lose costomers.

2) It is Pointless

The HQ in the way the bill pressents it does nothing for us. We can fax papers, use email, and send letters from our nations to the WA if we must. WE can take a plane to wherever we chose to meat. These things are alot better and will be more entertaining and cheaper over all.

3) Harms national unity and good relations with others

By having nations meat in all different places in different nations to talk about problems it introduces new culture and imporves the understanding of cultures between nations. This leads to better relations and better human rights, which is the goal of the WA in the first place. By having the WA meat in one place avoid of culture, it prevent the growth of understanding and cultural diffusion. By spreading culture and ideas all nations benifit form it by increasenig their understanding of others and the world around them, there by eventualy helping the citizens in all parties involved.

4) More fun for leaders

Haveing to travel places alows leader to have fun and a break everyonce and a while from legislation making, but if you meat in the same boaring place everytime it kills the fun.

5) Finally, It is a mockery to the WA

The text in which the bill is writen is a mockery to the integrety of the WA and what it stands for. It harms national unity, and prevents human rights inicitives.

Please take this seriously and consider voting down the legislation at hand for all reasons above, and any other you may have

A few thoughts on your concerns:


2) It is Pointless

The HQ in the way the bill pressents it does nothing for us. We can fax papers, use email, and send letters from our nations to the WA if we must. WE can take a plane to wherever we chose to meat. These things are alot better and will be more entertaining and cheaper over all.
How will jetting thousands of WA delegates all over the world be cheaper than having a set location? I think a central meeting place would be much, much more efficient and cost effective. Also, what about world crises? By having a set meeting place where the representatives are already located, the crisis can be addressed immediately. Think of the time wasted in picking a location to meet, and then getting everyone there. To say this is a pointless bill is simply folly.


3) Harms national unity and good relations with others

By having nations meat in all different places in different nations to talk about problems it introduces new culture and imporves the understanding of cultures between nations. This leads to better relations and better human rights, which is the goal of the WA in the first place. By having the WA meat in one place avoid of culture, it prevent the growth of understanding and cultural diffusion. By spreading culture and ideas all nations benifit form it by increasenig their understanding of others and the world around them, there by eventualy helping the citizens in all parties involved.

Alright...lets say you have a number of WA nations that are fighting with one another...or even just on unfriendly terms. The next meeting is scheduled to take place in one of these nations. Are their enemies going to show up? And if they do, how will their safety be ensured? Will they be treated fairly? What will prevent these foreign representatives from causing trouble?

Having a meeting place in a central location takes all of these ambiguities away. Sure...jetting people to different countries might make one or two representatives appreciate a different culture a little more, but chances are a similar number will react in the opposite way, wiping out any benefit.

4) More fun for leaders

Haveing to travel places alows leader to have fun and a break everyonce and a while from legislation making, but if you meat in the same boaring place everytime it kills the fun.
Oh yes...constantly traveling around the world without having a set location week after week sounds like fun....not really. Does constant jg-lag sound like fun to you?

5) Finally, It is a mockery to the WA

The text in which the bill is writen is a mockery to the integrety of the WA and what it stands for. It harms national unity, and prevents human rights inicitives.

All this point really says is what your other ones did, just in a summarizing sort of way. I think this was a very well written bill and I enjoyed reading it....which can't be said of all the things that are posted in this forum...some are just painful to read :eek:
_________________
~Fotar
King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
Vice Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/67622/page=display_region)

There is no reason for meetings to be held in a brick-and-mortar location. With advances in technology, the WA Headquarters should be in the virtual space.
I can't possibly agree to that. There are some fine and upstanding traditions of this august body -- I'm sorry, I nearly managed to say that with a straight face -- traditions, anyway, that can only be maintained face to face.

Which reminds me, I don't suppose the Defenestrator™ made it out of the old building intact?

[OOC: So, the WA can actually create as many people it wants, with whatever characteristics it wants, who will succeed in any task it gives them.

Why don't we rule the world?
OOC: We do, hadn't you noticed? :-)

I thought that NS was supposed to be somewhat realistic. Apparently, I was wrong, we have magic.]
Still OOC: Er, yes actually, we do. Also holographic AIs, sentient whales, gnomes (mostly running the WA), invisible wabbits, exploding penguins, and so on. But that's beside the point. The point is that we the players do not have to worry about the integrity and impartiality of any organisations that the WA sets up. They will carry out their mandates exactly as they are set out. Trying to worry about all of that in a resolution is nearly impossible to do legally.

Switching back IC:
Where does the WA govern people? It makes laws that its members have to obey, but it doesn't rule anywhere.
A stretched point, and still irrelevant.

How is Anarchy different that universal extraterritoriality?
I take it you won't be setting up embassies anywhere, then?

Regulations imposed by who?
Now you're just being dense. Try listening to what I said; I don't think I could say it much plainer without coming over and tattooing it on your forehead.

I think that it is possible for people to fail, and I think that defending a building, which will be a target for any number of terrorist groups and hostile nations, on a limited budget, is a little difficult. And what makes you think I want an office? I like living.
I notice you've carefully ignored the bit where I pointed out the consequences of an attack. And I don't want you to want an office -- the rest of us can use the space!

1) The idea of charging money for space in the WA HQ

A) Yes, most nations are able to pay for these things, especialy my nation and many other who drive for economic gains. This is not the point however.
I see. The point is that you like getting something for nothing, and a fair market rent isn't nothing. Nothing doing.

I will pay the rent should this bill be pased, that is not the problem, but it is the idea that I have to pay for space that is owned not by a nation, or an orginization controlled by a nation, or even a company, but from an orginization that is made up of everyone, that is not an entity in and of itself, but is made one because nations make it so.
Wow. I've seen semantic drivel before. Heck, I'm a bureaucrat, I write semantic drivel for a living. But this is drivel above and beyond the cause of logic-chopping.

The WA is an organisation in and of itself. It exists because nations band together to make it, but then those nations themselves exist because their populations band together to make them, and I don't see you arguing that nations aren't entities in an of themselves. It would be kind of embarrassing to give your population a damn good excuse not to pay you any form of taxes, rents, or fees.

B) The WA is funded already by donations and other things
For some value of "funded" that doesn't cover anything much. It certainly doesn't cover building maintenance as well as any program of work. Given that the old building's Gift Shop was a major contributor to its income, this argument is a dead duck.

C) Why do I should I have to pay for a building space that I helped fund already?
Because you haven't helped fund it already?

2) It is Pointless

The HQ in the way the bill pressents it does nothing for us. We can fax papers, use email, and send letters from our nations to the WA if we must. WE can take a plane to wherever we chose to meat. These things are alot better and will be more entertaining and cheaper over all.
This from the man who was concerned about the costs to less well-off nations a moment ago? Also, I recommend trying to send an email to the Cobdenian Foreign Office some time; if you're really lucky, it'll arrive as a telegram.

3) Harms national unity and good relations with others

By having nations meat in all different places in different nations to talk about problems it introduces new culture and imporves the understanding of cultures between nations. This leads to better relations and better human rights, which is the goal of the WA in the first place. By having the WA meat in one place avoid of culture, it prevent the growth of understanding and cultural diffusion. By spreading culture and ideas all nations benifit form it by increasenig their understanding of others and the world around them, there by eventualy helping the citizens in all parties involved.
And again, you don't seem to be remotely concerned with cost, quite apart from being a blithering idiot.

4) More fun for leaders

Haveing to travel places alows leader to have fun and a break everyonce and a while from legislation making, but if you meat in the same boaring place everytime it kills the fun.
Uh, weren't you pretending to be moral a few points ago?

5) Finally, It is a mockery to the WA
Actually it's a pretty accurate description of the place.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Imperial Catholicism.

Some advice.

If you're not a natural at it - please use a spell-checker. It made no 'sence' to read about you 'meating' someone 'boaring'. Standards here are high - and your delegation would do well to act in compliance.

Also, please drop the mockery concern. Its getting really old. My region's Civil Headquarters just got spammed by a foreigner about this issue, and to be honest - I'm really over it.

Ever heard of humor? Kenny obviously has - and had the prudence to know that this sober homeless mob of a World Assembly could do with some.

Fotar and Cerys Coch have already explained where the rest of your argument falls short - so I won't elaborate.

________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Also, please drop the mockery concern. Its getting really old.

[OOC: Seriously, people, it's a game. When someone comes up with really bad legislation ("Max Barry Day" is the best example, I think), we get angry and serious. However, I think this is very good legislation... and the humor is not misplaced. That's why we don't care.]

I thought that NS was supposed to be somewhat realistic. Apparently, I was wrong, we have magic.]

[OOC: I think it was I that referred to it as magic... then again, I could be wrong. Anyways:
Considering that you yourself said "somewhat realistic", I think magic counts as "somewhat". Besides, following what Gobbannium said, without this magic then we'd have to write in stuff to ensure that the committees would be punished for not doing as we say they will (which I'm sure would bump up word counts and create a lot of TL;DR situations that no one wants to deal with).
At the core, it's still a game. Why can't you accept the rules... especially the ones that make it easier for us?]

Subistratica is pleased to see that this resolution is passing by a good margin (the FORs have gone up since I last checked, much more so than the AGAINSTs), and we are anticipating its inclusion in WA law.

There is no reason for meetings to be held in a brick-and-mortar location. With advances in technology, the WA Headquarters should be in the virtual space.

No worries about travel, neutral territories or the host nations citizens having to relinquish their own rights to visiting delegates.

(Plus what could be better than sitting in your office (Palace, military barracks, home...whatever) naked with a glass of Scotch brokering the fate of the known world)

Peon Groovyfish

But what would we do about the Stranger's Bar?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Was the reference to drinking really necessary?

I totally *hic* agree! This mishreprasentation of WA reps as *hic* drunks ish totally uncalled for. *hic*

Jack Flat WA rep, and very plastered guy.

I strongly disagree with this resolution. it unjustly puts the hosting country at an economical and political advantage and furthermore it is unfeasible (in that we will get less things done with it than without it) overall. Here is why:

1. all WA nations (no exception) meeting in one physical place at a given time will yield chaos rather than a constructive environment. it is realistically impossible to maintain a democratic debate in such an astronomical number of participants without losing sanity, time, or efficiency. At the very best, the scene in the Phantom Menace comes to mind where Queen Amidala was talking in front of such a huge audience. did that seem like a debate to you? only 4 parties were involved, and those 4 parties could have been anywhere around the globe for all i care, since the screen had to focus when they spoke, the rest could have watched from home and then voted, it would have not made a single difference.

on the same argument, what happens in meetings with a huge number of participants, is that there is no DEBATE, rather people just READ their position and explain to us why that is the right choice of action. I dont know about you, but for me the strength of an argument depends solely on its content; it does not depend on the size of the cleavage of that hot chick that read it, nor on the charismatic tone of some other "dramatic" delegate. Thus, in the digital world, meeting face to face is not only useless, but it is a deterrent of getting as many jobs done as possible.

on a side note, someone here argued that what would happen in case of a crisis and we dont have a building to meet at. this is not too hard of a situation as one would think. in every given crisis, there are some nations that are affected more than the others. those can meet face to face (in case of a war between them, pick a random mediator(s) country(ies) and have the rest of the interested delegate countries join through videoconference. we can also pick a neutral territory to meet as well. why is that hard? this further, eliminates the possibility of having a country not taking part in any of the assemblies because of a war or severe conflict with the hosting country.


this sort of brings me to my next point:
2. i know we said that the territory that the building will be at will be considered "neutral" but it sure as hell does not have its own aiport, does not grow its own crops or have its own power supply... this list is endless. what i am getting at is that the building will be totally dependent on the hosting country. not only that but it will be a substantial money maker for that country as well. all the flights to the building (= airport tax money), delegates eating out (local business thrives), the land where the building is being built, will be compensated and for sure the level of local dwellings surrounding it is going up to. so why should country X host it and not
taulantia? and lastly, the hosting country will have a ton of lobbyist trying to push the policies of his country.

therefore by illustrating how this building would put the hosting country in a more favored position and thus losing all neutrality and by showing how useless and inefficient meeting all hundred's of thousnad of us in one room is, i urge you to vote against this resolution

regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation;

That requires that we trust them, and I don't. I voted against.

1. all WA nations (no exception) meeting in one physical place at a given time will yield chaos rather than a constructive environment. it is realistically impossible to maintain a democratic debate in such an astronomical number of participants without losing sanity, time, or efficiency. At the very best, the scene in the Phantom Menace comes to mind where Queen Amidala was talking in front of such a huge audience. did that seem like a debate to you? only 4 parties were involved, and those 4 parties could have been anywhere around the globe for all i care, since the screen had to focus when they spoke, the rest could have watched from home and then voted, it would have not made a single difference.

on the same argument, what happens in meetings with a huge number of participants, is that there is no DEBATE, rather people just READ their position and explain to us why that is the right choice of action. I dont know about you, but for me the strength of an argument depends solely on its content; it does not depend on the size of the cleavage of that hot chick that read it, nor on the charismatic tone of some other "dramatic" delegate. Thus, in the digital world, meeting face to face is not only useless, but it is a deterrent of getting as many jobs done as possible.

I agree that this could yield chaos, so I see two options.

1) The HQ must be incredibly organized, i.e. must have speaker lists, a chairman, etc.

2) There are multiple HQs that host a certain amount of regions each. Each of these HQs has a chairman who, after debate and voting takes place in their "Regional HQ," casts a vote in the WA on the proposal. There may be a lot of bureaucracy, but I think that this can be effective. If anyone finds it necessary, I can elaborate more.

For State and State,
Erich Isenbald
Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The United Socialist States of Availia

The mods gave me a pass on the category, and I admit I struggled with it myself. Whether the category is appropriate is the mods' decision, not ours.

Let's stick with the merits of the proposal, please.

In the past, moderators have said that we should write proposals to a resolution category, and not the other way around. In this very forum when a player comes up with a concept for an idea and some very rough text often other players debate the category. It sounds like that long established rule is changing now.

I would have preferred that this idea, like many others wait for the bookkeeping category to be revamped.

IC:
My government is concerned with this resolution, and honestly does not appreciate the lack of respect it casts on diplomats in general and the World Assembly itself.

ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;

The resolution establishes some new committee and then tasks it to ignore requests for weeks on end. While this clause might reflect how individuals feel governments operate, it doesn't explain why requests take time to process. I feel it is honestly the wrong message to send.

Is it OK for requests to take time to be processed?
Naturally!

Is there such a thing as a silly request?
Sure.

Is it OK for requests for be simply ignored?
My government would like to think not.

I would rather have the directive to the new World Assembly committee be "consider requests as appropriate".

The Ultra-Conservative Republic of New Sequoyah casts its vote in FAVOR of this resolution.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
WA Ambassador from New Sequoyah

In the past, moderators have said that we should write proposals to a resolution category, and not the other way around. In this very forum when a player comes up with a concept for an idea and some very rough text often other players debate the category. It sounds like that long established rule is changing now.

I would have preferred that this idea, like many others wait for the bookkeeping category to be revamped.The time for debating the category would have been before this resolution went to vote (and believe me, it was). It cannot be changed now, so any further discussion on category is moot. Let's move on.

King Harold XVI Maharaja of Tzor
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-228566694.jpg
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tzorsland_0.jpg

The Nifty Republic of Tzorsland is proud to vote in favor of this fine resolution.
New York's Regional WA Delegate, Victories, has voted AGAINST this resolution.

Im all for it

I strongly disagree with this resolution. it unjustly puts the hosting country at an economical and political advantage and furthermore it is unfeasible (in that we will get less things done with it than without it) overall.
"Hosting country"? I guess you haven't read the proposal, because the HQ will be [re]established on international neutral territory... that is, territory that is controlled by the OBM, not a WA nation.
Let's see those arguments:

1. all WA nations (no exception) meeting in one physical place at a given time will yield chaos rather than a constructive environment. it is realistically impossible to maintain a democratic debate in such an astronomical number of participants without losing sanity, time, or efficiency. At the very best, the scene in the Phantom Menace comes to mind where Queen Amidala was talking in front of such a huge audience. did that seem like a debate to you? only 4 parties were involved, and those 4 parties could have been anywhere around the globe for all i care, since the screen had to focus when they spoke, the rest could have watched from home and then voted, it would have not made a single difference.
What is the "Phantom Menace," and who is "Queen Amidala"?
[OOC: Besides, if you haven't noticed, many of the current WA members don't participate in the debates... this resolution is for those of us that do.]

on the same argument, what happens in meetings with a huge number of participants, is that there is no DEBATE, rather people just READ their position and explain to us why that is the right choice of action. I dont know about you, but for me the strength of an argument depends solely on its content; it does not depend on the size of the cleavage of that hot chick that read it, nor on the charismatic tone of some other "dramatic" delegate. Thus, in the digital world, meeting face to face is not only useless, but it is a deterrent of getting as many jobs done as possible.
Isn't that what we're doing now? Of course, if you'd rather keep on debating on the site of some rather unsafe ruins...

on a side note, someone here argued that what would happen in case of a crisis and we dont have a building to meet at. this is not too hard of a situation as one would think. in every given crisis, there are some nations that are affected more than the others. those can meet face to face (in case of a war between them, pick a random mediator(s) country(ies) and have the rest of the interested delegate countries join through videoconference. we can also pick a neutral territory to meet as well. why is that hard? this further, eliminates the possibility of having a country not taking part in any of the assemblies because of a war or severe conflict with the hosting country.
"we [sic can also pick a neutral territory to meet as well." Congratulations, that's what the new HQ will be. Glad to see you've read the resolution thoroughly. So, rather than establishing a neutral meeting place, you'd rather have some other country be responsible for debates between two nations that are fighting? That sounds a lot less inefficient... and a lot more time-wasting, considering that we'd have to chose a nation and then hope they'll go along with it.


this sort of brings me to my next point:
2. i know we said that the territory that the building will be at will be considered "neutral" but it sure as hell does not have its own aiport, does not grow its own crops or have its own power supply... this list is endless. what i am getting at is that the building will be totally dependent on the hosting country. not only that but it will be a substantial money maker for that country as well. all the flights to the building (= airport tax money), delegates eating out (local business thrives), the land where the building is being built, will be compensated and for sure the level of local dwellings surrounding it is going up to. so why should country X host it and not
taulantia? and lastly, the hosting country will have a ton of lobbyist trying to push the policies of his country.
Again, you haven't read the actual text... or you horribly misunderstood it. First off, we don't need to get more land because we already have it. The HQ of the august body that preceeded the WA is still here, but it is totally ruined and highly unsafe. This resolution will rebuild it.
Oh, and in response to your "aiport [sic]", food, and power supply problem:
- selling contracts to vendors, retailers and other service providers to offer products or services, or operate local chapters, offices or franchises, within WA-controlled territory
The resolution takes care of that.

therefore by illustrating how this building would put the hosting country in a more favored position and thus losing all neutrality and by showing how useless and inefficient meeting all hundred's of thousnad of us in one room is, i urge you to vote against this resolution
There is no "hosting country" and, therefore, no loss of neutrality.
And you certainly didn't sway my vote.

[OOC: I concede the point about the magical comitees, even though it doesn't make any sense.]

I take it you won't be setting up embassies anywhere, then?
No, embassies are ruled by the government that has the embassy.

A building, in this case, which is not subject to any regulations except for those it imposes on itself.

Now you're just being dense. Try listening to what I said; I don't think I could say it much plainer without coming over and tattooing it on your forehead.

If this is about as plain as tattoing it on my forehead, I guess its literal, and the inanimate building makes the regulations. Or maybe you could tell me an actual entity, like I asked?

I notice you've carefully ignored the bit where I pointed out the consequences of an attack.

Also, what makes you think that attacking a building containing ambassadors of thousands of nations won't provoke a response from at the very least hundreds of them? Consider the fate of Chechnya; for killing a number of poor defenceless Kennyite penguins(*), they faced the wrath of the entire Antarctic Oasis.
Terrorists who aren't affiliated with any nation, and terrorists who "aren't affiliated with any nation."
Did you not read this?

No, embassies are ruled by the government that has the embassy.
Yes, that's right. It's called... oh, look here... "extraterritoriality".

Let's try using shorter words.

The WA building is managed by the WA. Which exists. It is the only organisation that has any power at all over the rules and regs of the WA. The OBM is the branch of the WA being set up explicitly to manage the building. It's being made responsible for security both of the building and the delegates.

So, who do you think is going to be making up those rules, again?

Did you not read this?
Missed that, sorry, partly because I couldn't be bothered to invent the rest of the sentence to go with it. Having done so now, I'm not buying it.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I believe a world assembly headquarters would be a great idea except for one thing...

Lets say some rogue nation decides that the WA head quaters is just too good to pass up. Being on international territory, the WA wouldbe defenceless against a full blown assualt from multiple nations. If we place ALL of the worlds peace keeping leaders in one area, a well timed nuke could easily destroy the WA.

And if a country(s) were to attack the WA, we would not be able to pursue for other corrupt nations could see this as a declaration of war and would unite them all under one banner.

It would inevitably plunge the world into another world war of good vs evil. And while good would surely win, imangine the carnage and war of the entire world fighting each other. Every major citywould lie in ruins

While I find the passage that reads,
"- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;"very funny, I also see it as a clause that could bring future head ache and shame on our honorable assembly. I cannot in good conscious vote for any resolution that upholds mindless bureaucracy.
I encourage all other good nations to follow in the footsteps of Squunk and reject this resolution.

Lets say some rogue nation decides that the WA head quaters is just too good to pass up. Being on international territory, the WA wouldbe defenceless against a full blown assualt from multiple nations. If we place ALL of the worlds peace keeping leaders in one area, a well timed nuke could easily destroy the WA.

Allow me to put your fears to rest. My nation keeps an active intelligence force, for the express purpose of protecting our national interests. Our leaders are very important, hence we zealously guard their every movement.

I doubt that I speak for only New Sequoyah when I say that our Intel agencies will be keeping a close eye on all threats to the WAHQ, as a threat to that area is a threat not only to our delegate (your humble servant) and his staff, but to the delegations of our fellow nations in The Council of Narnia, and other countries friendly to us. A threat to the WAHQ is a direct threat to New Sequoyah, and we do not take threats lightly. Ask the terrorist group that recently attempted to bomb my nation. I doubt you could find enough pieces of them to make an entire human body.

And if a country(s) were to attack the WA, we would not be able to pursue for other corrupt nations could see this as a declaration of war and would unite them all under one banner.

An attack on the WAHQ would be an attack on the delegations of the nation represented by the WA. My nation would consider that to be a Declaration of War against new Sequoyah, since we would have a substantial amount of semi-permanent residents located in an around the WAHQ. To attack the WAHQ is to declare war on each and every nation that is a member of the WA. Be assured, New Sequoyah would act in our best interests, and follow the perpetrators of any act of violence against the WAHQ to the ends of the galaxies, if need be. Our recent investment in, ahem, space technologies would be of great use in any search.

To conclude, your fears are valid, yet unfounded. I encourage you to vote in favor of this resolution.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
WA Ambassador for New Sequoyah (The Council of Narnia)

Lets say some rogue nation decides that the WA head quaters is just too good to pass up. Being on international territory, the WA wouldbe defenceless against a full blown assualt from multiple nations. If we place ALL of the worlds peace keeping leaders in one area, a well timed nuke could easily destroy the WA.
First off, we're not placing "ALL of the worlds [sic] peace keeping leaders in one area," we're just putting our WA delegates there.
Second, I highly doubt that, in a situation where the WA headquarters was attacked, we would just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well, we should've thought of that."
Third, the headquarters will not be "defenceless [sic]". There will be a security force in place to keep it safe.

And if a country(s) were to attack the WA, we would not be able to pursue for other corrupt nations could see this as a declaration of war and would unite them all under one banner.
Oh, and attacking international neutral territory isn't a delcaration of war itself?

It would inevitably plunge the world into another world war of good vs evil. And while good would surely win, imangine the carnage and war of the entire world fighting each other. Every major citywould lie in ruins

I really hope you don't think that good and evil are the only categories that countries/people/etc. can fall under, or that good always prevails. Try to be a little more realistic.
Though I could "imangine [sic]" such carnage, I don't really think that an attack on the WA headquarters will transform into a worldwide cataclysm.

I cannot in good conscious vote for any resolution that upholds mindless bureaucracy.

[OOC: But that's what governments are the best at: upholding mindless bureaucracy! How dare you try to take that away.]

I believe that the World Assembly should vote against this bill because if people start giving up personal freedom, where is this going to stop? Once you start taking freedoms away, it is easier to take a little more and a little more every time.

The time for debating the category would have been before this resolution went to vote (and believe me, it was). It cannot be changed now, so any further discussion on category is moot. Let's move on.

I agree we can't change it now, but I'd hate to have a repeal JUST to change a category *and* I'd like to understand why this category was picked. What is the rush?

Somebody, a moderator or you, found enough of the resolution text to characterize the larger effect of building a WA headquarters as a decrease on political freedoms. I'm not questioning the benefits of a headquarters (I agree with that), but this particular implementation (both the category and the clauses I mentioned).

Was the bookkeeping category thought about being used here? It seems more line with Max's resolution. I was under the impression it was going to eventually come and also that players were being asked to wait for it.

I agree we can't change it now, but I'd hate to have a repeal JUST to change a category *and* I'd like to understand why this category was picked. What is the rush?"Rush"? The submission of this thing was delayed for weeks on the question of category. The "draft" didn't take too long to sort out, the remaining matter was the category -- and since the Funding Act (a similar organizational document) was permitted as PS, and since the proposal helps to legitimize the WA as an international organization, it contributes to international political stability, even if it doesn't directly stabilize member regimes. Therefore it was approved as a Mild proposal.

As for repealing this "just to change the category," it would be a sad day for this organization if anal-retentive players decided to strike out a popularly approved, legal resolution for the sake of categorical tidiness.

Was the bookkeeping category thought about being used here? It seems more line with Max's resolution. I was under the impression it was going to eventually come and also that players were being asked to wait for it.Yes, but the discussion of that particular category flatlined. We were asked not to submit proposals under the category, not to refrain from submitting anything that could possibly fit under Book-keeping. Proposals can be changed to fit the Mild description of existing categories, as in this case.

If you wanted a hand at shaping this proposal, your input would have certainly been welcomed prior to submission.

"Rush"? The submission of this thing was delayed for weeks on the question of category. The "draft" didn't take too long to sort out, the remaining matter was the category -- and since the Funding Act (a similar organizational document) was permitted as PS, and since the proposal helps to legitimize the WA as an international organization, it contributes to international political stability, even if it doesn't directly stabilize member regimes. Therefore it was approved as a Mild proposal.

Thanks, this is important to know.

As for repealing this "just to change the category," it would be a sad day for this organization if anal-retentive players decided to strike out a popularly approved, legal resolution for the sake of categorical tidiness.

Who are you calling anal-retentive players? To borrow from your own book: "Let's play nice now, please."

And all resolutions are popularly approved. If they weren't they wouldn't: (1) collect 6% of the WA Delegates endorsements as a proposal and, (2) later pass. We've all seen questionable grounds for repeals in our years of UN activity ... including categorical tidiness (though never stated in the text).


Yes, but the discussion of that particular category flatlined. We were asked not to submit proposals under the category, not to refrain from submitting anything that could possibly fit under Book-keeping. Proposals can be changed to fit the Mild description of existing categories, as in this case.

If you wanted a hand at shaping this proposal, your input would have certainly been welcomed prior to submission.

I'm only partially convinced that is the case based on the (what I consider semi-hostile) tone of your responses to my posts here.

As for the discussion of that category, I *know* it flatlined. Look at the thread. The last few posts were mine. I also was under the impression that (perhaps wrongly so) the mods might have a ruling on that category sometime around now. It was Fris's post where he said he was close to getting others to agree that made me felt that if a number of us continued to show an interest in that category that we'd get something. However, he'll have a harder time justifying the need of the category if the possible resolutions are all classified as mild in other existing categories.

I don't have time to actively engage every player in every proposal. When I do, I *do* attempt to give players opinions on what I'd like to see in proposals ... including ones that IC my imaginary country isn't likely to be super thrilled about. It honestly is really pretty random ... did I have a 10 hour work day or a 12 hour work day? If I come home tired, I'm not going to be able to participate in the proposal stage.

The problem about demanding players participate in proposal threads (something I too am vocal about), is that it shouldn't be used to say they can't also bring up points in the resolution thread.

Michael

This'll all be OOC since your post was Mik.

However, he'll have a harder time justifying the need of the category if the possible resolutions are all classified as mild in other existing categories.

I hate to say it, but if it's not needed it's not needed. I want the new category as much as the next guy, but if there is a valid argument that says we don't need it, it's not any less valid because we don't like it.


The problem about demanding players participate in proposal threads (something I too am vocal about), is that it shouldn't be used to say they can't also bring up points in the resolution thread.

I think the point here is that a lot of folks want to change the actual text of a proposal, or in this case the category. Taking issue with it's category is one thing, suggesting that it should be changed once it's already at vote is annoying. It also yields the response "That's what the drafting phase was for, that kind of comment isn't conducive to the debate we're having, it would've been a week ago though,".

I think you, however, should give Kenny the benefit of the doubt here. He genuinely wants to help with the WA, and this will do that. We need a building gosh darn it, and this will give us one! George is tired of getting attacked by cougars.

Mild political stability works perfectly with this. The rights restricted are very few, we won't be meeting just anywhere anymore, but it's in the interests of law and order. We'll meet in one place, and it'll have a roof and security.

There are alot of nations out there who haven't joined the WA, and we all know that old thing Shoeless Joe said,

If you build it, they will come.

This'll all be OOC since your post was Mik.

No problem. :)

I've only had one IC post in this thread. It was ignored. :(


I hate to say it, but if it's not needed it's not needed. I want the new category as much as the next guy, but if there is a valid argument that says we don't need it, it's not any less valid because we don't like it.

Hmmm, I understand what you are saying, and partially agree. But I also know Kenny doesn't want this thread to focus too much (if at all) on talking about this. I'll just say my concern with the category is really tied to two things: the bookkeeping category (and we can discuss that in that subject's thread) and fitting proposals into strange categories (and Kenny brought up a great point about the Financing proposal being in the same mild category).

I'll let it rest in this thread. :)


Mild political stability works perfectly with this. The rights restricted are very few, we won't be meeting just anywhere anymore, but it's in the interests of law and order. We'll meet in one place, and it'll have a roof and security.


This point about *why* political stability works is really EXACTLY what I was having trouble seeing and now understand.

Official Statement from Greater Dienstad World Assembly Delegate

Recognizing that in some aspects we agree that the Assembly would benefit from a private space, such as a decommissioned brewery and a large meadow, all things considered, we have to Officially Protest this resolution.

It is our concern that establishment of a large maintained building could severely impair future drinking among delegates, thus endangering the whole foundations and principles behind the World Assembly.


Signed,
Gary N.,
World Assembly Delegate.

Official Statement from Greater Dienstad World Assembly Delegate

Recognizing that in some aspects we agree that the Assembly would benefit from a private space, such as a decommissioned brewery and a large meadow, all things considered, we have to Officially Protest this resolution.

It is our concern that establishment of a large maintained building could severely impair future drinking among delegates, thus endangering the whole foundations and principles behind the World Assembly.


Signed,
Gary N.,
World Assembly Delegate.

How would having a building impair drinking when said building has a bar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553126) in it?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

IC & OOC:

You have got to be JOKING. New start, new etcetera, and this trash. New org and THIS tripe? :headbang:

Lars casts his vote, then gets onto more important matters than this...like cleaning the kitty-litter tray - quite absorbing this new brand.

Unfortunately, the absorbency of kitty litter outweighs absorbency in this thread. Hopefully my esteemed colleagues will understand the joys of a new kitten, and note that the government of Minyos has better things to do than read, reply or respond.

Good DAY, Sir.

Hopefully my esteemed colleagues will ... note that the government of Minyos has better things to do than read, reply or respond.And yet you find time to do all three, and fail miserably throughout. Of all the "arguments" posted against this resolution, this has to be the most pathetic. We have less than 24 hours to go on this vote; nonetheless, we are confident that someone in this God-derned assembly can pose a reasonable, relevant, substantive objection worth this body's time. "This is silly" is not an argument. "I don't like the category" is not an argument. "I don't like the jokes" is not an argument. "I don't get the jokes" is not an argument. "You're mean" is not an argument. "I like beer" is not an argument (yet it's the closest thing to resemble one in this entire discussion).

Come on, folks. We have a day yet. Impress us with something new.

The WA building is managed by the WA. Which exists. It is the only organisation that has any power at all over the rules and regs of the WA. The OBM is the branch of the WA being set up explicitly to manage the building. It's being made responsible for security both of the building and the delegates.
This is what I disagree with. The WA does not rule people directly, and the lawmaking process is not sufficiant to. The only way the WA can make laws is by getting a majority vote from other nations. This doesn't represent the people being governed, and wasn't created by the people who are governed there. The WA isn't a nation, so giving it territory isn't the same as creating an embassy.

Missed that, sorry, partly because I couldn't be bothered to invent the rest of the sentence to go with it. Having done so now, I'm not buying it.

You think this is a good proposal? Hmm, I'm not buying it. Try using an argument.

Come on, folks. We have a day yet. Impress us with something new.

Wait, you're asking for a good argument against your own resolution?

You won't find any. I mean there hasn't been a good rant against the Vile Antarctic Oasis region and the double dealing, dirty crossing, and more sexually convoluted than the average soap opera, nations therein in ages.

I think that under the current resolution one major objection would be that the OBM, under the following clause, "Grants the OBM exclusive authority to increase, decrease or waive these fees as circumstances warrant" would have the authority to wave the bar tabs of a number of deliquent bums at the stranger's pub. In fact the bar tabs of some reps is greater than the GDP of some smaller nations.

I for one hate it. It mocks all WA members, and also, it's gonna let one nation have a lot of power by letting them get the WA headquarters. Plus, there'll be a tax hike in the nations, since we'll need to pay to get space there. Plus, I just don't like the tone. It undermines the equality of the regions by letting one place host all of these things. I say we vote against it, and renegotiate the resolution.

Go ahead, make a facility; We don't care. We're only going to show up to vote on stuff and then leave anyway, we're a small delegation; You big types are probably going to bribe the caretakers plenty to make sure we little guys get offices in the sub-basement next to the steam pipes.

So, whatever.

GP

...we are confident that someone in this God-derned assembly can pose a reasonable, relevant, substantive objection worth this body's time.I'd be honored to attempt to rise to the occasion, despite having been briefed that "reasonable" is translated rather differently in the Kennyite.

Stressing the need for maintaining facilities for the furtherance of these activitiesThe resolution makes no mention of how facilities would help further said activities. I assume that was meant to be implicit, but we've accomplished several significant tasks so far, including the establishment of a committee-not to mention the numerous exploits of our renowned predecessor-without a formal headquarters. I don't see the "need" for one.

Believing that a WA Headquarters, as a symbol of international unity and harmony, would help legitimize the World Assembly as an instrument of international law, and member states as partners in its creation;Quite aside from the concepts of unity and harmony being mentioned simultaneously with the World Assembly, a "symbol" such as the headquarters does not fulfill any practical function. While it might be an inspiring ideal, I am unable to see how it would "legitimize" member states.

- selling contracts to vendors, retailers and other service providers to offer products or services, or operate local chapters, offices or franchises, within WA-controlled territoryThis is somewhat worrying: my personal belief is that the WA (or related agencies such as the proposed OBM) should not be directly involved in retail or commercial activities. Any communists want to go after this one? :p

Determines that in addition to its regular duties the OBM, as a self-sustaining entity, shall determine fair and reasonable rental fees for all nations who maintain office space at WA Headquarters, and additional fees for nations who regularly use WA facilities;

Grants the OBM exclusive authority to increase, decrease or waive these fees as circumstances warrant;There's nothing here about collecting those fees or forcing them to be paid. Setting prices is fine, but doesn't do a thing if nobody pays them. Again, I assume this is supposed to be implied, but you wanted an argument. ;)

-Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner

final not-so-serious note:

Requires member states to respect the authoritah of the OBM over assigning offices at WA Headquarters, and invoicing nations for use of WA facilities.Requiring respect? Surely this is an ideological ban, infringing on our rights to believe what we want to believe? ;) :p We're not much for political stability around here.

Goobergunchia votes in favor and wants its old office space back. Even though we barely ever show up anymore.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Founder, Democratic Underground region

how does this affect the game? Right now Forran is against this resolution until someone can explain it to me.

The resolution makes no mention of how facilities would help further said activities. I assume that was meant to be implicit, but we've accomplished several significant tasks so far, including the establishment of a committee-not to mention the numerous exploits of our renowned predecessor-without a formal headquarters. I don't see the "need" for one.We could just meet under the freeway offramp with all the bums if you want. The WA needs a place to meet and conduct important business. And considering how creating bureaucracy is one of the UN/WA's favorite functions, all those gnomes will have to be based somewhere.

Quite aside from the concepts of unity and harmony being mentioned simultaneously with the World Assembly, a "symbol" such as the headquarters does not fulfill any practical function. While it might be an inspiring ideal, I am unable to see how it would "legitimize" member states.Well, in RL, association with the United Nations is considered a plus in many nations, especially smaller, less influential nations who don't have a prominent international profile. Maybe not the United States ... America can afford to snipe at the U.N.; it doesn't need the weight of membership in an international organization to lend it legitimacy. Other nations do not take the U.N. so much for granted. The U.N. building is one of the most famous and recognizable structures in the world, and it does contribute to the organization's image.

This is somewhat worrying: my personal belief is that the WA (or related agencies such as the proposed OBM) should not be directly involved in retail or commercial activities. Any communists want to go after this one? :pWe have to pay for this building somehow. The profit from retail contracts is but one source of revenue available to the OBM. The place needn't transform into a huge shopping mall as a result (even if our other building (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/un_headquarters.html) had a very strong resemblance to one). Besides, if we eschew all commercial or retail activities, we'd have to shut down the Strangers' Bar -- something I'm certain you don't want to happen.

There's nothing here about collecting those fees or forcing them to be paid. Setting prices is fine, but doesn't do a thing if nobody pays them. Again, I assume this is supposed to be implied, but you wanted an argument. ;)Yet, in your next breath, you bemoan the requirement of nations to respect the OBM's authority in invoicing nations for use of WA facilities. Something's out of joint. Either OBM has too much power, or too little.

how does this affect the game?Um, it decreases your political freedoms? Just like it says right under the title?

Unfortunately, the absorbency of kitty litter outweighs absorbency in this thread.Huh?

I for one hate it. It mocks all WA members...
Something we have already addressed.

and also, it's gonna let one nation have a lot of power by letting them get the WA headquarters.
Wrong. What part of "international neutral territory" do you people not understand? And I guess you missed the part right after that:
Declares that the headquarters for the World Assembly shall be located on international neutral territory, and that regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation
[emphasis added]

Plus, there'll be a tax hike in the nations, since we'll need to pay to get space there.
How much do you plan to pay for office space???

So, this makes the OBM a government. With no constitution, leader, or representation. Shouldn't you have at least one of these?
Wait, what?
The OBM is a committee that is controlled by the WA. Do you understand? The WA will be controlling the OBM, which will merely be one part of the WA with a specfic task (in this case, running the WA headquarters). At the end of the day, the OBM still has to answer to the WA.
If the OBM were to be a government, then it would theoretically be able to break away from the WA and still exist. But it couldn't/wouldn't, because the OBM is just one part of the WA that, like all of the others, could not exist without the WA.
The fact that the OBM will be exercising control over a specific area of land doesn't suddenly mean it's an independent nation. It is still a committee under the direct jurisdiction of the WA.


And I would like to make it known that this resolution is now passing by a very slim margin of about 500 votes. The horrible misconceptions about this resolution seem to be spreading fast, and I fear that these fools will ultimately win out.

I for one hate it. It mocks all WA members, and also, it's gonna let one nation have a lot of power by letting them get the WA headquarters. Plus, there'll be a tax hike in the nations, since we'll need to pay to get space there. Plus, I just don't like the tone. It undermines the equality of the regions by letting one place host all of these things. I say we vote against it, and renegotiate the resolution.

If you were to rewrite the resolution, what would you change?

My government shares your opinion on the irresponsible nature of this resolution. If I could make changes I'd certainly remove one preamble clause and the following clause.

I've brought this up before, but it has been ignored:

- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;

I'd strike this clause. It does absolutely NOTHING to add value to the resolution, and yet it detracts from the effectiveness of the World Assembly.

Howie T. Katzman

The Holy Empire of Bakamyht wishes to record its strong opposition to this resolution. Its drafting is so loose that the World Assembly could be left with a resolution that does nothing at all, or one that goes a lot further than the Assembly wanted, simply on the basis of how a judge decides he wants to interpet it.

Myself and my region voted against this resolution, we feel in our judgement it infringes upon our sovereignty as nations, And as such oppose all such resolutions.


Sincerly
President of the COW
Delegate of La Mafia

We could just meet under the freeway offramp with all the bums if you want.I'm sure many of our colleagues will fit right in. ;)

Yet, in your next breath, you bemoan the requirement of nations to respect the OBM's authority in invoicing nations for use of WA facilities. Something's out of joint. Either OBM has too much power, or too little.I would prefer if the OBM was actually granted power by the resolution, rather than having to demand it from member nations.

People have really changed their minds. Couple days ago, there were tons more people for than against. Now, there's only a few hundred in difference!
:headbang:

Myself and my region voted against this resolution, we feel in our judgement it infringes upon our sovereignty as nations, And as such oppose all such resolutions.Constructing a building infringes upon your sovereignty now? Sigh ... the kids today ...

[/cranky old sovereigntist]

The Holy Empire of Bakamyht wishes to record its strong opposition to this resolution. Its drafting is so loose that the World Assembly could be left with a resolution that does nothing at all, or one that goes a lot further than the Assembly wanted, simply on the basis of how a judge decides he wants to interpet it.OK, I suppose, if some "judge" decides the WA headquarters should envelop an entire nation or group of nations, we can take it too far. Can we have your nation? We'll give you beads!

People have really changed their minds. Couple days ago, there were tons more people for than against. Now, there's only a few hundred in difference!Yup. It's another revolt of the large regions, just like the Free Expression debacle a few months back -- only they're a few votes short this time around.

People have really changed their minds. Couple days ago, there were tons more people for than against. Now, there's only a few hundred in difference!
:headbang:

At best the resolution had a 65-35 split on a daily average. At present it is hovering around 50 to 55%. There are only another 1,000 or so votes left at this point (on average resolutions have been collecting around 10,000 votes). This will be the closest WA resolution to date.

Keep in mind that many Delegates hold polls on their regional forums and vote the democratic will of their region. It takes a few days for the Delegate votes to start rolling in.

What I like is we can assume that nations are taking the time to read the resolution. The majority of it is something I've seen other players on regional message boards and forums claim is a good concept, but unfortunately due to a few clauses counterproductive.

I think it will still pass, but in case it doesn't, here is the text I'd recommend be removed:

Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

- ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end;

Not only do neither of these clauses add any value to the resolution, in all honesty they really do justify the opinions that this resolution will be less effective. In the past people have voted against a resolution in hopes that a different version could achieve quorum. In this case, I honestly think deleting these clauses would turn this from a 50 to 60% approval to something that will pass with an easy super majority.

None the less, I'm interested to see what happens in the next few hours. :)

People have really changed their minds. Couple days ago, there were tons more people for than against. Now, there's only a few hundred in difference!
:headbang:

We can only hope the pattern continues and it does not pass.

I'm sorry not to have participated in this debate; my office was busy getting our torture proposal to quorum. Nonetheless, I'm not that sorry, to judge by the mounds of execra on view. I would like to award the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny a shiny gold star of honour for their valorous defence of their proposal in the face of some unspeakably inane opposition. There is absolutely nothing in this proposal that denudes any nation of sovereignty: it doesn't even require a member nation take up offices! Nor is there any harm in acknowledging that certain *coughSenatorSullacough* representatives enjoy an occasional yeasty beverage while considering important matters of state. Once the WA has the HQ it deserves, we hope some of the dissenters will be flung from its top!

By a regional vote of 5 to 2 in favour, Wysteria's vote has been cast FOR this proposal.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs

Wait, what?
The OBM is a committee that is controlled by the WA. Do you understand? The WA will be controlling the OBM, which will merely be one part of the WA with a specfic task (in this case, running the WA headquarters). At the end of the day, the OBM still has to answer to the WA.
If the OBM were to be a government, then it would theoretically be able to break away from the WA and still exist. But it couldn't/wouldn't, because the OBM is just one part of the WA that, like all of the others, could not exist without the WA.
The fact that the OBM will be exercising control over a specific area of land doesn't suddenly mean it's an independent nation. It is still a committee under the direct jurisdiction of the WA.

Having an organization govern a region doesn't make it a government? Either there is no government, or the WA/OBM becomes a government. It seems that you're saying that it would make the WA a nation.

Also, I note that the issue with terrorists attacking is unadressed.

The resolution World Assembly Headquarters was passed 4,918 votes to 4,499.

I would like to award the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny a shiny gold star of honour for their valorous defence of their proposal in the face of some unspeakably inane opposition.I thank the Quodites for the kind words and recognition. I will wear this shiny token as a badge of honor, and reminder of my short time as deputy for the Federal Republic, which, I am saddened to inform you all, has elected to withdraw (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=826) from this Assembly. I'm not big on good-byes, so as my last act as representative for the greatest nation in NS, I will note with some relief that this body is not dominated by humorless tools after all. Well, at least not 52% of it.

Jimmy Baca
Frowning Street Chief of Staff
Ex-Ambassador to the World Assembly

Also, I note that the issue with terrorists attacking is unadressed.You don't stop flappin' 'bout them terrorists, punk, and this "Freedom Fighter" is gonna launch a major attack on your ass! ~Susa

[OOC: Yeah, he's still here.]

Well done Omigodtheykilledkenny! As some of the most devoted and most stable UN Delegates of NationStates, we thank you in millions for a resolution that gives the WA a home at last. Pity about those 'pick me please!' requests we've been receiving.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg

[OOC: I literally started cheering when I saw the resolution passed. NEAT!]

Subistratica is most pleased that this resolution has withstood the foolish attempts at bringing it down. When do we start picking offices?


Oh, and we shall glady fly the flag of the new nation of World Assemly Headquarters's Office of Building Management outside of our own international headquarters in celebration.
</sarcasm> :P
[OOC: Sorry, I couldn't resist. That argument made me laugh until I couldn't breathe.]

Yay! We have a building to manage again!

William Smithers
Senior VP
WA Building Management

'bout time.

I'll go get the boys.

It's quite amazing that, despite being one of the closest votes in this body's history (especially if we exclude nonsensical ones such as "Fight the Axis of Evil" from comparison), not so much as one individual was able to put forth a valid argument against this proposal.

I'm off to the bar to celebrate. Hell, I'll buy everyone a round!

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

Excellent news! I'd like to congratulate the Kennyite delegation for managing not to kill any of the nay-sayers, even though the gene-pool would have been the better for it. I'm sorry to hear that you're resigning, though; does that mean you won't need the offices the OBM have pencilled you in for?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I suppose you'll want us to build the damn thing, huh?

Hallelujah, praise the Lady Goddess, and all that. Well done! It's about time.

...So can I pretty please get an office this time? I lost my briefcase during the destruction of my old building, so an office to replace it would be nice. Pretty please?

Serifina Karin
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

I suppose you'll want us to build the damn thing, huh?

My government has already volunteered to supply the necessary construction crews: There's a load of people doing their national service in the Kinglish Engineers for whom we needed to find tasks anyway...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

"Toppie" as we say in our nation. We have found many youngsters to volunteer in putting the graffiti everywhere something of this fine most needed headquarter of the World Assembly is finished. It is a hell of a job for our youngsters so please let them work safely according the WA resolution. So no need for police or private guards stopping them. :p "Culture for all."

Greetings,
Your weird compadre,
Cocoamok

Great news everyone, approval has been granted for a dedicated lodge for us just across the road.

OOC, The WA delegacy of CR proposes a forum thread with coverage on the World Assembly Headquarters if everyone's happy.

Now please, no more 'pick me please' requests, Amanda.

My government has already volunteered to supply the necessary construction crews: There's a load of people doing their national service in the Kinglish Engineers for whom we needed to find tasks anyway...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

They better be Union. Dis is a closed shop.:D
Excelsior,
Salvador "Sally" Guzzo
Shop Steward Palentine Teamster Local 289
"You got a problem with that?"

We'd like to thank Foreign Minister Kasigi-Nero of Love and esterel for his industrious work calculating the stats on this very close vote, the closest yet in this young organization's history:

http://test256.free.fr/WAH.jpg

There was an irregularity in the numbers, as Fudgetopia's votes were accidentally tallied twice (due to a game glitch), but overall, the main voting trends are clear.

We are happy to report that despite the narrow victory in the actual vote count, support for a new HQ was very strong among WA members, WA delegates and overall voters; over 60% in each category, in fact.

We'd therefore like to express our gratitude for the supermajorities of voters who turned out to support our proposal. In addition, we'd care to recognize the special contributions from numerous members of this assembly, both in drafting and the debate, chief among them Gobbannium, Subistratica and Douria.

Our respect is given.

Sammy Faisano
Secretary of State

oocThere was an irregularity in the numbers, as Fudgetopia's votes were accidentally tallied twice (due to a game glitch), but overall, the main voting trends are clear.It may have displayed twice, but the count should have been for whatever he finally voted for. I believe the updates are what clean up apparent double-votes, and such a vote that happened before the final update never would have been cleaned it.

It may have displayed twice, but the count should have been for whatever he finally voted for. I believe the updates are what clean up apparent double-votes, and such a vote that happened before the final update never would have been cleaned it.OOC: Oh no, I realize the totals in the game are usually correct, even if some delegates are listed twice. The error was in calculating the stats, not the posted vote totals. So you're gonna find 295 extra "against" votes in the "Delegates Votes" category that shouldn't be there.