NationStates Jolt Archive

... Well the following is a mild strenght and modest proposal that I would like to share with you. I'm not talking about changing the world into a beautiful bubble where everything works perfect or something, no no no... this may looks very insignificant but is about something that seems to be fair and reasonable.. "fair" ...that must be something!... (well.. and it will need the vote of many of you to become a resolution anyway! :wink:)
...the only thing I'm asking is your opinion, I would really appreciate if you can tell me what you think about it and if you would support this as a resolution.
all your ideas will be very very welcome!!!


Abbi Gournica, Lucis
Minister Delegate for TSA Regional Affairs
The Democratic Republic of Ager Lekki


Treasure hunting and exchanges of richesA proposal to encourage the recovery and exchange of riches under fair conditions.

Category: Free trade.
Resolution Name: Treasure hunting and exchanges of riches
Strenght: mild


Description:

ACKNOWLEDGING that almost all the coastal nations have received the attack from pirates and they often buried their stolen treasures in remote places.

ACKNOWLEDGING that a treasure is a concentration of riches, containing gold, silver, jewels (especially emeralds) cocoa, vanilla, brazilwood and important heritage of the humanity with not only one owner and often considered lost or forgotten until being rediscovered and remaining a leyend when is not.

ACKNOWLEDGING that almost all the efforts to find this treasures belong to "privates".

ACKNOWLEDGING that the percentage that the nations get from finding a treasure is huge!


We propose:

- To eliminate all the percentage that a nation receives from finding a treasure.

- That each person, organization or institution can look for a treasure in his own nation without pay any taxes.

- That each person, organization or institution that wants to look for a treasure outside his nation’s territory must pay a tax for “search and permanence” being a 10% of the riches found.

- That all the riches (gold, silver, precious stones) found in a treasure can be easily exchange across international borders respecting all the additional costs associated with the international trade such as "tariffs" except the ones that belong to the heritage of a singular nation or the ones without material value such as parchments, archaeological objects, etc... in that case they will return to the nation and/or the institution it belongs.

- To create an “Internacional Organization of Treasures and Wealth Recovery” regulate for the WA, in order to promove the "treasure hunting", financed by the nations that wants to participate and ensuring the division of the riches in equal parts between them!


.-

Treasure hunting and exchanges of richesThis is probably too long.

A proposal to encourage the recovery and exchange of riches under fair conditions.You don't get to pick what this says.


People will probably have problems with the rest too, but I'll let them comment.

A proposal on treasure hunting is not an idea in my opinion for the WA. I like to handle much more important things. And I think let nations decide by themselves which taxes they impose. Also I do not like the idea that taxes be different to foreigners or natives. I do not think that is fair and free trade.

... if we only care about "Strong Strenght" proposals... what's the idea of "mild or significant" exist??...
I'll take your opinion about "taxes" I'm going to look that, but remember, if all the nations could decide by themselves which taxes they impose... probably "free" trade colud not exist at all.

No. Just... no. I don't even like the committee.

I don't see a particularly good reason for the WA eliminating "treasure trove", and especially not eliminating any and all taxes associated with treasure hunting -- particularly the income tax of corporate hunters! Who would the "search and permanence" tax be payable to, the home nation or the nation being searched?

This isn't mild, and the last of the "acknowledging" lines just isn't universally true. Against.

... if we only care about "Strong Strenght" proposals... what's the idea of "mild or significant" exist??...

Buried treasure doesn't rise to the level of even 'mild'. Figure that strong proposals affect most people most of the time. Significant proposals affect some people a lot of the time, or most people every so often Mild proposals affect many people every so often, or a few groups very strongly. Your proposal affects a minuscule group of people in a minor way. It's just not big enough for the WA.

Here's an idea. Use this as the basis for a proposal on the international rules for salvage, i.e. unclaimed goodies lost at sea or buried in unclaimed lands. You've got a decent base to work from, and people here could help you frame in parts that you might miss, assuming you listen to them and adapt your proposal.

If you do that, you need to trim or remove your current 'ACKNOWLEDGING' statements. They're all pretty silly and not generally acceptable as truisms. I'm also assuming your native language is not English, as there are several phrasing choices that simply don't work. Please accept constructive criticism and make some changes.

I see most comments are useful thoughts, even so, I support the idea of recovering pieces of treasures as recovering pieces of history of nations not necessarily related to the finding area, and that affects a few groups very strongly.

You can always discuss major economics or military issues just like real world, but this matter attends to a happiness proposal from imagination without as much gray seriousness, stimulating the adventurous spirit of some for the benefit of global knowledge.

Every day violations, nukes and terrorism... give me a break. We can encourage people to cross the world and find treasures, right?

Do people often bury cocoa? Am I missing something, or should I be out looking for vast hot chocolate deposits? Did they bury the choccy Hobnobs too? And the novelty ceramic hippo mugs?

OK... this proposal has been destroyed here ... right... but I have some good ideas from your comments (thanks) of course I accept constructive criticism and we are going to use it, thank you...
Anyway just a few things;

-first; the "search and permanence" tax would be payable to the nation where the treasure was found.

-second; About this comments

"I don't see a particularly good reason for the WA eliminating "treasure trove", and especially not eliminating any and all taxes associated with treasure hunting".

"Your proposal affects a minuscule group of people in a minor way"

Let me tell you something; We have an important coastal line in our nation, in the last 5 years 2 important treasures have been found along the cost and one more in the mountains, one of them estimated in 1.4 tonnes of gold.
We didn't have at that time any particular law about it, our nation used to stay with the total of the treasures founds just for being in our territory. The result was simple, millions and millions of litchs (lekkian currency) circulating, running in the "underground market". Underdog, shadow economy, black economy, parallel economy whatever you can called it, can be devastating for a small economy like we are.
I can accept you tell me anything to make changes and adapt this proposal that was exactly my idea, but don't tell me this is not important and that this is not affecting people.
You think hunters are just greedy people?... We have archaeologists, historians, traveling across the world trying to recover the history of ancient times, and you know what is happening?? ... that after years losing resources and time, they find something great and they cannot show it to us because some nations that "decide by themselves which taxes they impose" take everything from them, Do you think that's fair??... you know something about a treasure is that no person could prove he or she owned, they are lost, forgotten... Nations decides all the percentage they take with no regulation, as a result, people decides do not declarate what they find.
Nowadays find a treasure is like stealing, many important relics are in the black market now.

Are you telling me there's nothing to do about it?... that's what I have to say to my people?
My intention was not impose this idea, it was to count with your opinion to improve something that is really affecting us. Don't tell me this is not important or not fair, black market it's generally smallest in countries where economic freedom is greatest, and becomes progressively larger in those areas where regulation restrict legitimate economic activity. We already eliminate all taxes for people that wants to look treasures in our territory... and is working well... that's my national experience I hope one day we can regulate this internationally.


regards

I can accept you tell me anything to make changes and adapt this proposal that was exactly my idea, but don't tell me this is not important and that this is not affecting people.
You misunderstand me, apparently. I agree that this affects people, and governments for that matter. What you haven't convinced me of, even a little bit, is that there's a case for stopping nations imposing a "treasure trove" tax. That and some of the side effects of your loose wording are ludicrous.

Nations decides all the percentage they take with no regulation
Nations decide what percentage to set their income tax at, too. Some set it way high, some set it way low, some set it somewhere in the middle. All the choices have consequences, and its up to each nation to deal with those consequences. So far, you haven't persuaded me that the consequences of setting a high "treasure trove" are that bad. You're doing rather better at persuading me that important archaeological finds should belong to the people whose cultural heritage they illuminate, not the discoverers!

My intention was not impose this idea
It was, however, exactly your proposal's effect. "[We propose] to eliminate all the percentage that a nation receives from finding a treasure" is pretty unambiguous about that.

I can accept you tell me anything to make changes and adapt this proposal that was exactly my idea, but don't tell me this is not important and that this is not affecting people.

My intention was not impose this idea, it was to count with your opinion to improve something that is really affecting us.

... that's my national experience I hope one day we can regulate this internationally.

You're projecting your own nation's issues as equally important to everyone else. We're telling you they're not. Your proposal is basically mandating internal tax policy, and throwing a bone to internationalism by creating a committee. Sorry, we don't see it that way. Different nations have different approaches to property in all its forms. Confiscatory taxation may actually be beneficial to some nations.

If you want to deal with a truly international policy, deal with something that isn't controlled internally. I suggested salvage policy earlier. Try something different if you want.

As for your local issues, deal with them locally. You're part of the leadership of your own nation. Pass some laws. Rule with an iron hand, or let the rabble run the circus. Makes no difference to most of us how you handle it ... until you use your methods to handle our problems. Thanks just the same, but our stable society doesn't need your clumsy hand on the tiller of government. We'll manage our own internal policies.

Yours,
MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria

I'd have to agree that any proposal attempting to regulate individual nations' taxation policies isn't going to fly, no matter how legitimate the issue may be. Our nation certainly wouldn't support it; not because treasure hunting/archeaological digs aren't an area that should be addressed - but because they aren't areas that need to be addressed internationally.

Consider that a nation may decide that treasure found by individuals can be kept by individuals but treasure relating to that nation's history is the property of the nation; or perhaps there was a rocky start to the nation and the government wishes to suppress treasure relating to the nation's history... Perhaps recovered pirated treasure is the property of the nation (due to it being the result of criminal activity) while historical finds belong to the people, etc. These are areas that are outside the scope of the WA - national sovereignty and all that (yes, I know a certain amount of sovereignty flies out the window simply by being a member of the WA, but internal taxation policy? Don't think so).

Perhaps a proposal on treasure hunting/salvaging in international waters as Frisbeeteria suggested? Or recovered artifacts being sold in the international black market, or....

OOC: Oh and.... second post - hello everyone :)

Well... all this comments are very constructive... of course we'll see what Frisbeeteria suggested and all your opinions... This proposal needs a lot of changes, but we already knew about that from the begining and that's the reason way the proposal it's here, to take all your opinions.
We have a national experience about founding treasures, the reason why I shared this with you it's because I wanted you to understand this nation is not a joker "doesn't rise to the level of even 'mild'" I heard... .

About internal taxation policy...
We proposed to "eliminate all the percentage that a nation receives from finding a treasure" ... I see I see... is not a good approach... was not essence of the proposal to regulate individual nations' taxation policies... will be changed...
I haven't convinced you that there's a case for stopping nations imposing a "treasure trove" tax. I agree, nobody likes another nation telling you what to do with your people, terrritory or how to handle your own internal policies. But, particularly, think about archaeologists, historians, cientists...
... Do you have archaeologists in your country?... if you are a good representative of your people you should know they usually work “outside” your national borders and they are subject to "each nation internal policies"... in some nations they can work easily.. in other is just not possible.
Do you really know the importance of archaeologists?... the historical importante of the treasures they found?...well, do not have a clear regulation about this matter is affecting them and they are part of your nation. Their work beneficts the whole World, …wouldn't be “positive” if we, "we" nations in this world, could encourage the recovery of relics, arqueological objects, parchments, riches?.. riches that normally are circularintg in the internacional balck market...
Why nations should stopping imposing a "treasure trove" tax?... Has work well for us.. why it's such a bad idea?... maybe not to eliminate this completely, but regulated, make it more establish between nations... and not depending on nations whigs.

You know, resolutions are not about internal policies or national sovereignty, this is about raise a common will and understanding between nations. If I say that we need to control our nuclear weapons, a nation could say "WE keep our weapons under strict regulations of security and maintenance, we don't need any supervision, control it's part of our internal policies, we don't want to open our doors for external supervisors, that's againts our sovereignty "... what about the safety of not nuclear nations?... Nation's issues are not equally important to everyone else, I agree, but the reason of been part of the WA it’s to find something positive to World transcending the selfish interest of “we” as single nations.
This is a modest and mild proposal... with many things to change... (mostly everything).. but it has a good intention... world turns around intentions and ideas. Nowadays we only have place to war, discrimination, pollution... it’s an hostil world, just take a little time to see something that can be positive.
The proposal doesn't work like it is now, we know and we’ll take time improve it, all your comments are being taken as good they are.
thanks

... Do you have archaeologists in your country?... if you are a good representative of your people you should know they usually work “outside” your national borders and they are subject to "each nation internal policies"... in some nations they can work easily.. in other is just not possible.
Actually a vast majority of our archaeologists work inside Gobbannium. It's not like we're short of ancient sites, or anything.

Do you really know the importance of archaeologists?... the historical importante of the treasures they found?...well, do not have a clear regulation about this matter is affecting them and they are part of your nation. Their work beneficts the whole World, …wouldn't be “positive” if we, "we" nations in this world, could encourage the recovery of relics, arqueological objects, parchments, riches?.. riches that normally are circularintg in the internacional balck market...
I'm sorry, but you're only convincing me further that we should take charge of all archaeological finds within our nations, so that they can be properly studied by top experts. Top experts, Dr Jones.

Do people often bury cocoa? Am I missing something, or should I be out looking for vast hot chocolate deposits? Did they bury the choccy Hobnobs too? And the novelty ceramic hippo mugs?
I guess not.
But the finding of a slavery ship binnacle, next to a coffer with dirty gold, helps us to complement the historical vision of many individuals, for example. And will self-finance the process. So, do not try to ridicule the proposal please.

Actually a vast majority of our archaeologists work inside Gobbannium. It's not like we're short of ancient sites, or anything.
You are only showing your lack of knowledge or common sense, without any valid argument for handling finds of any kind outside your borders. History has shown that cultural roots are interlaced, your borders or geographical limits do not necesarily determine the position of your historic testimony. Get serious.

I'm sorry, but you're only convincing me further that we should take charge of all archaeological finds within our nations, so that they can be properly studied by top experts. Top experts, Dr Jones.
Understand once for all, it is not only about inner findings that you can properly managed.
Is about the general criteria of search, find and treatment of objects that belongs to humanity. Finds within an A nation, discovered by a B nation representative, originally belonging to a C nation. The responsability is beyond your nation, it needs collaboration from all nations in order to even rescue one artifact only, about the past of the people inside your frontiers. Present legislation allow a nation to keep it all.

Present legislation allow a nation to keep it all.

To repeat for the umpty-millionth time, this is a bad thing because...?

To repeat for the umpty-millionth time, this is a bad thing because...?

Ooc: Man, you don't read or you are just playing with me.

Ic:
Hammeran ancient 'treasures', gold mostly but also relics, have been discovered under coast waters of different nations.

In the past, old nomad boat caravans used to reach it temporarily while they were searching a place to finally settle the Hammer.

Today, our archaeological testimony is spread through the world, and the reconstruction of our history depends of hammeran adventurers succeeding in exploration and recovery of these.

There is not right for an unpleasant, illiterate, untreatable nation to do not let our explorers, to bring our not-so-shiny, wealthy, drowned, wet, buried, history witnesses home.

You're skipping a few steps. No resolution has ever guaranteed the right of archaeologists to go into other nations in the first place. This proposal doesn't either. Whether or not treasure trove, or some form of tax, exists, there is no guarantee the 'unpleasant...nation' - not the slightest bit racist are you, no, not at all - will allow your archaeologists to enter their nation. So what happens to the finds is rather immaterial, given in the case you've described there would be no find to begin with.

If you want to continue this line of argument, therefore, the proposal will have to include language that allows archaeologists to enter other nations. This would be the first time in history either the UN or the WA has overriden the sovereignty of nations on the subject of entry over national borders.

No resolution has ever guaranteed the right of archaeologists to go into other nations in the first place. This proposal doesn't either.I've mentioned that only for illustration purposes.
And I agree, this proposal should define its base. At the moment, the permissions are tacitly excluded from the body, but that is an internal policy and could be easily resolved as work visa, transit authorization, or any other request. Thus also the subject of whom/what/how, those are just mechanisms and I'm trying to sustain the spirit of this type of search: greedy or archaeological, noone get the goods. I understand this proposal try to change that.

not the slightest bit racist are you, no, not at all "To read" has nothing involved with race, this personal accusation will be ignored.

This would be the first time in history either the UN or the WA has overriden the sovereignty of nations on the subject of entry over national borders.It is not about people entrance to your borders. It is about exit of certain historical properties, not as a challenge to the sovereignty, but like a well understood solidarity to other cultures. That is hard to regulate and the proposal attempt to settle this principle in a resolution.

Ooc: Man, you don't read or you are just playing with me.
OOC: Oh, I read. Neither you nor anyone else has taken that last step of saying why a nation keeping a discovered treasure is a bad thing, only that it is a bad thing.

Ic:
Hammeran ancient 'treasures', gold mostly but also relics, have been discovered under coast waters of different nations.

In the past, old nomad boat caravans used to reach it temporarily while they were searching a place to finally settle the Hammer.
OK, let's see if I've got this straight. You're saying that pre-Hammerite nomads lost stuff that we would now call 'relics' up and down a huge area of coastline that is now part of several nations. Those nomads then settled the Hammer -- your implication is that they exclusively settled the Hammer -- and eventually became your modern day population. OK so far?

Today, our archaeological testimony is spread through the world, and the reconstruction of our history depends of hammeran adventurers succeeding in exploration and recovery of these.
Hey, I like this logic. If it's true, all of the Romaeg relics across the Land Without Shrimp belong to Gobbannium!

Sadly, this is the mis-step in your logic. Reconstruction of your history depends on archaeologists studying the relics, not on Idaho Smith wannabes going swimming in someone else's waters. Yes, it's more convenient if it's your archaeologists studying relics that you hold. It still works if it's your archaeologists studying relics that another nation holds, or indeed their archaeologists studying relics that they hold, though that does involve this little thing we refer to as "diplomacy". It doesn't work at all if it's no archaelogists studying relics that are held by a private collector.

Since the last case is the one this outline of a proposal would make it absolutely impossible to prevent, I'm unconvinced. Under it, I could go fishing in your waters, pick up a relic or two, and take them out of the Hammer forever and there would be nothing legal you could do to stop me.

What is this??...
Are you talking seriously?
5 years ago we were discussing what to do with the treasure hunting in our nation, four months ago listening our archeologics begging to do something as nation for the treasure hunting in the world. As a result, the idea of a proposal.
We knew this proposal was too ephemeral to become a resolution, plenty of things missing, confuse.. so I said Mr. Gournica, let's put this matter on the WA forum and we'll improve it with the ideas of the other nations.
but I look here, reading all your ideas, and I don't know if I am in the WA forum, or if I'm in the presence of the lekkian circus clowns.

Do they really buried cocoa????

this is not even mild!

Romaeg relics across the Land Without Shrimp belong to Gobbannium!!

What is this????
What's wrong with you people??

Do you really need an explanation of "Why a nation keeping a discovered treasure is a bad thing"?

Do you really need someone explain that to you?

Let me tell you something Mr. chief magistrate of terror, if some pirate had the terrible bad idea of leave something hidden or buried in your territory, can be gold, valuable things or can be an important object part of the history, part of de essence of another nation... I' wondering... Who is giving you the right of keeping something that's not yours??... Do you have the right of steal the history of another nation with nobody to oppose you? ... those are your concepts?... you haven't spend a single licht in find it, you don't even care... but you keep it, I'll tell you something Mr... you are not just
stealing treasures ... oh no no no no ... you are stealing all the money invested, all the time of hard work and all the spirit that only belong to the people that actually tried to find it.. you are stealing "lifes"...what have you done to deserve it??...
I will tell you WHY a nation keeping a discovered treasure is a bad thing..
... "It's not FAIR" ...
fair fair fair

but I don't expect you understand what is to be fair... a selfish nation could never understand that term... a selfish nation it's only moved by single interests and only can be against.. but I'm wondering ...if you cannot see how this benefict to the world, if you are so blind to give any good idea... or .. if you don't care... if no treasure has been found in your cost... Why you even comment something that depends on the nations good will ... and not the nations selfishness.

Mr. Gournica as been quite diplomatic... sorry I'm not.
I rather to convince good minds.

Olbber Hemrycko, Mentis Lucis
Archon Inter Pares
The Democratic Republic of Ager Lekki

I' wondering... Who is giving you the right of keeping something that's not yours??
You are, apparently. After all, there's nothing in your proposal that gives the nation of origin of a relic -- if they can be determined, and if they still exist for that matter -- any rights whatsoever.

You are, apparently. After all, there's nothing in your proposal that gives the nation of origin of a relic -- if they can be determined, and if they still exist for that matter -- any rights whatsoever.

That is true.

But...
those...
are...
just...
...MECHANISMS.

The essence of the proposal is to prevent a nation to keep (under the form of tax or whatsoever) something that could belong to another nation.

1. Constitution of richness or history is a matter to discuss between qualified involved people, but doesn't change the fair right to be returned.

2. The 'returning' aspect starts 'not keeping' the finds from searchers. We are not telling you what to do with the find as what you shouldn't, under the common sense.

3. We are obviously talking about not furtive unburiers whom remain under a nation internal legislation. The proposal do not need to regulate this.

4. A bit of solidarity can be settled by not recharging taxes to the searchers as encourage them, whether or not represents the original culture owning the goods. From historic evidence to luxurious richness, any person or entity who helps to discover it, is contributing with the culture heritage of all nations.

That is true.
The essence of the proposal is to prevent a nation to keep (under the form of tax or whatsoever) something that could belong to another nation.

1. Constitution of richness or history is a matter to discuss between qualified involved people, but doesn't change the fair right to be returned.

2. The 'returning' aspect starts 'not keeping' the finds from searchers. We are not telling you what to do with the find as what you shouldn't, under the common sense.

3. We are obviously talking about not furtive unburiers whom remain under a nation internal legislation. The proposal do not need to regulate this.

4. A bit of solidarity can be settled by not recharging taxes to the searchers as encourage them, whether or not represents the original culture owning the goods. From historic evidence to luxurious richness, any person or entity who helps to discover it, is contributing with the culture heritage of all nations.

I understand that this proposal will stop taxing the searchers. So more will be found. But than it will go to the one who will pay the highest price for it (because more profitable). And than much will go to private owners maybe not giving others the right to investigate it for historical or cultural interest.

That will be a loss for the society. I will not support a proposal what will not deal with this. Than it is better that a nation decide to whom buried treasures goes. As a nation leader I have got an issue over that. So in our society we settled this issue according to our views and I think in all nations who got this issue they have dealt with that in the way that nation thinks. That is fine with me.

Regards

That is true.

But...
those...
are...
just...
...MECHANISMS.
Actually no, they're principles. I think I detect the root of our differences; you firmly believe that governments can't be trusted with anything of cultural importance, and I equally firmly believe that only governments can be trusted with anything of cultural importance. You see archaeologists; I see treasure hunters.

The essence of the proposal is to prevent a nation to keep (under the form of tax or whatsoever) something that could belong to another nation.
In doing so, it also prevents a nation from keeping something that does belong to it.

1. Constitution of richness or history is a matter to discuss between qualified involved people, but doesn't change the fair right to be returned.
Obviously my earlier example was either too subtle or too embarrassing, so let's be blunter about it. Returned to whom? Suppose some ancient nomads not unlike -- hey, let's be honest, exactly the same as -- the ones who eventually founded the Hammer also founded four or five other nations; who do their relics belong to? The only nation which explicitly has its rights removed under this proposal is the one in which the relics were found, which is a bit of a bugger if they're where the relics should have gone back to.

2. The 'returning' aspect starts 'not keeping' the finds from searchers. We are not telling you what to do with the find as what you shouldn't, under the common sense.
No you're not. You're telling us what we can't do, which is different. You're telling us that we can't claim a Gobbannaeg national treasure that is found on Gobbannaen soil if it happens to be found by (say) a Hammerite tourist. You're telling us to rely on the good nature of an individual or (even less likely) a corporation or foreign government, to which I can only respond with cynical laughter.

Congratulations on creating guerilla archaeology.

3. We are obviously talking about not furtive unburiers whom remain under a nation internal legislation. The proposal do not need to regulate this.
It's a bit of a shame that it does, then. It's a bit of a shame that no one has offered the slightest hint of a legal distinction between "furtive unburiers" and anyone else. It's a bit of a shame that there's no way of doing so.

4. A bit of solidarity can be settled by not recharging taxes to the searchers as encourage them, whether or not represents the original culture owning the goods. From historic evidence to luxurious richness, any person or entity who helps to discover it, is contributing with the culture heritage of all nations.
If they make the "goods" available to historians, which they are in no way whatsoever obliged to do.

you firmly believe that governments can't be trusted with anything of cultural importance, and I equally firmly believe that only governments can be trusted with anything of cultural importance. You see archaeologists; I see treasure hunters.
I can accept your 'principles' word, and encourage them in a new proposal.
You are implying what I believe, but wrong, I'm also agree with a fair guvernmental concern, the proposal should state that more clearly.
Wether archaeologists or hunters depends on internal policies: if an interest group ask your nation for permission to start a search activity, you can decide it. If they don't, well, they are under your jurisdiction...
That's why is not in the proposal, perhaps it would be.

In doing so, it also prevents a nation from keeping something that does belong to it. I strongly identify with this, the proposal try to encourage people to find, not to keep and that needs more debate, or is another one.

Returned to whom? who do their relics belong to? The only nation which explicitly has its rights removed under this proposal is the one in which the relics were found, which is a bit of a bugger if they're where the relics should have gone back to. I have to agree on this tough one.
This specific matter (about keep/return) shouldn't be part of a law, but like the result of an academic uninterested evaluation (as if it could be possible) and/or under "Internacional Organization of Treasures and Wealth Recovery" control.

You're telling us that we can't claim a Gobbannaeg national treasure that is found on Gobbannaen soil if it happens to be found by (say) a Hammerite tourist.This is internal policies (at top of this post)

It's a bit of a shame that no one has offered the slightest hint of a legal distinction between "furtive unburiers" and anyone else. It's a bit of a shame that there's no way of doing so.This is internal policies (at top of this post)

If they make the "goods" available to historians, which they are in no way whatsoever obliged to do.This is internal policies, is the same thing of declaring who has your permission and who doesn't. I agree, the proposal skip this step, I think this was leaved at host nation criteria.

*Congratulations on creating guerilla archaeology.*Lol, wasn't my intention.

This is internal policies (at top of this post)

This is internal policies (at top of this post)

This is internal policies, [snip]
I'm glad you agree with me to an extent. Unfortunately, the proposal leaves no room for internal policies. Worse, it can't leave any room for internal policies if it's going to stay true to its solitary principle.

I'm glad you agree with me to an extent. Unfortunately, the proposal leaves no room for internal policies. Worse, it can't leave any room for internal policies if it's going to stay true to its solitary principle.
I'm telling you. You decide 'who is who' and 'what' you allow them to do into your borders.
The proposal will be reconstructed by Ager Lekki as it seems, and I'm not wrong believing this discussion is already addressed on the main body.

Regards

OK, thanks!
I have seen some changes in the proposal which improves it. But still I think that all the riches (gold, silver, precious stones) found in a treasure can also be the things that are valid for cultural and historical study. And it will be taken away where the finder wants it. Only the finders will have to pay the tariffs which are on these things as normal. So an old golden horse with much historical value from about 2 kg will go away as easily and for the same price as 2 kg gold found in ore?

I do not agree on this. So I stay against this, indeed improved, proposal.

But try to convince me or improve your proposal.

Regards

We can work things out.
I'm convinced since the proposal is quite beneficial about a matter without daily relevance than shall become more active for the well of all nations.So an old golden horse with much historical value from about 2 kg will go away as easily and for the same price as 2 kg gold found in ore?
I think you have a point with this, may be we can improved mechanisms to solve it but, that will thicken the proposal very much. Such criteria can be restricted to the functions of the proposed Insitution.
Thinking fast, I can tink some ways like a restrictive figure for the time those studies are carried out and a liberation later, after that period.

Remember the meaning of the returning or releasing restrictions over these profitable objects is the way to end their blackmarket, since the transaction is allowed, different universities, museums or governments can publicly participate next to the private entities or people.

well.. as I see it some of the sence of the proposal has been lost.

First, thanks to the Falling Hammer, it's the only nation that has understood we need ideas and not criticizes something that we know it's wrong.
"ideas"... I would like to see more ideas... mmmm... maybe... you cannot give many ideas because this proposal is attacking your "sovereignty" your "internal policies", it doesn't define "who the relics belong to or who is going to keep it". ohh.. and don't forget we are "creating guerilla archaeology" right? .... so only criticizes can be done.
I see.. I see your point...
Ok.. I think this will be long...

sovereignty.... what a glorious word; is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. Is not an exact science you know, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. The thing is that sovereignty in international law can handle and entangle many aspects.... nations could be discussing this for years, even for life... really difficult to get into an end... why?... because in not an exact science.
Now, I'm trying to comeback to the meaning of this proposal and trying to find out where sovereignty fits.
"the right of archaeologists to go into other nations" Quintessence of Dust mention this right? "allow archaeologists to enter other nations" ... what can I say.. I mean, what are we talking about... Are we living in the same world?... I presume you or other nation don't want archaeologists enter in your country because...??? ...I see.. they are "against" your sovereignty right? ...
Well according to this I wont receive a single tourist in my country again. I'm thinking about do not receive inmigrants, because they are "working" here you know, eating my food, having properties in "my" territoy...
sovereignty v/s integration...
each nation can decide what goes against its own sovereignty, bad things...
How archaeologists are bad for a nation?... I just want to leave that question.
but this matter is not in the proposal anyway.


internal policies
Well.. that's what we are trying to regulate.
...Gobbannium is going to suffer a heart attack I know. Somebody is trying to regulate "your" INTERNAL POLICIES ... Who's the stupid that is trying to do something like that?...
well, me, through this proposal, trying to regulate (not control) "regulate" REGULATE, according, and only according to the nations good will and depending on the nations agreement, the senseless, damage and capricious policies that "some nations" are imposing to the treasures hunters (archaeologists, historians, explorers and others) discouraging the search of patrimonial objects and forcing our history to remain lost. It's for a good reason that nations forget their own internal policies to be part of a single international world, if nations couldn't do that, international trade and cooperation would not exist. All the nations would rather use their own policies of control,
Why do you think we have General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade? How we control high tariffs, restrictions and monopoly? How can we control the excesive taxes for the international treasure hunting? We use the good will, good will that sometimes is not mutually beneficial for everyone, but beneficts our world... We made agreements everyday... don't tell me you discard this... no lider do that. We think this can be good, regulate this matter between nations in orden to encourage the recovery of heritage and wealth in the world. Please, don't close your mind, think that culture, traditions and most of what we are now has depended on it during the course of history.


who the relics belong to or who is going to keep it
After see all your comments, I consider this is one of the most impotant argument because needs to be clear. If you haven't understand this, obviously is because the proposal is not clear in this matter... or maybe, just maybe, you are so busy trying to find the wrong things on this that you just passed.

"That all the riches (gold, silver, precious stones) found in a treasure can be easily exchange across international borders respecting all the additional costs associated with the international trade such as "tariffs" except the ones that belong to the heritage of a singular nation or the ones without material value such as parchments, archaeological objects, etc... in that case they will return to the nation and/or the institution it belongs".

Gold is just a mineral, a valuable mineral, money. We have treasures hunters not care by the heritage of a nation, they only care by gold or valuable objects. But treasures, treasures not only consist in gold ...
This people normally don't declare what they find, because nations take all the gold from them, they work hard to discover a treasure, they invest money and time in the nation they are looking it, but just for that reason when they find something, they just keep it hidden.
Probably in your nation people has discovered many treasures and you don't even know, they rather keep and hide the gold they find before you (nation) steal the gold from them. The problem is; "the other objects they find", important they can be, but they only care for gold, so they sell this unvaluable thing to private collectors in a very low price, and nations, and the world, never see those again.
If we as nations could regulate "do not steal" all the riches they find, respecting the normal additional costs and tariffs and not imposing excessive costs to the labor, make this easier to declarate, given them what they deserve after so much time of work... probably we could know and control what has been found.
That's the first step.
Now, who is going to keep it?
If is just money (gold, silver, precious stones) a pirate left this in your territory, is not yours, you didn't look for it, they did, was a hight enterprice for them ...Why you want to keep it?
... you can ask for the 10% of the riches they found if they are foreign people with the "search and permanece" tax, and if it's your people, if somebody form your nation discover something like in the backyard... furtive unburiers, why you want to take what they found?... Maybe another tax can be agreed, the thing is regulate it.

But we are talking about riches, without an historical importance, because the proposal said very clearly

"except the ones that belong to the heritage of a singular nation or the ones without material value such as parchments, archaeological objects, etc... in that case they will return to the nation and/or the institution it belongs".

Maybe can be something that as some value, like papal rings, crowns, a golden horse ... but if those objects belong to the heritage of a singular nation, "singular nation", they will be returned.
How can we made this? .. just like the falling hammer said, are just MECHANISMS.
We can made a commite, an international grouping of archaeologists, historians, explorers, you can give ideas, they will be glad to investigate this.. something about them is they are not nationalist, they normally work outside because they want to dicover the histoy of ancient civilizations, nowadays nations bourders don't respond to the bourders at that time, so they normally travel a lot (except the ones in Gobbannium that lost the spirit long time ago), but we can count with a group of international experts and they will define if the objects belong to the heritage of a "singular nation" ... But, if the objects belong to an old and vast civilization that was extended in your territory, I don't see why this object should leave your border, that belong to you, nobody will took that from you.

We'll try to answer all your question, we are sure this proposal can be positive...if we improve it.
we want to improve it.
Mr. Gournica will answer other things in the next post.


regards


Olbber Hemrycko, Mentis Lucis
Archon Inter Pares
The Democratic Republic of Ager Lekki

Er, what? I posted a rebuttal yesterday, but Jolt seems to have eaten it. Worse, it stuffed the "last post" link so I can't easily replicate it.

Oh well. Suffice it to say (OOC) that it's the Hammer ambassador who'll be having the heart attack (Gobbannium is pretty federalist, actually), and there's not much point in continuing to repeat my criticisms if Ager Lekki isn't going to produce a second draft that actually does half of the things he claims he wants it to do.

Maybe can be something that as some value, like papal rings, crowns, a golden horse ... but if those objects belong to the heritage of a singular nation, "singular nation", they will be returned.
How can we made this? .. just like the falling hammer said, are just MECHANISMS.
We can made a commite, an international grouping of archaeologists, historians, explorers, you can give ideas, they will be glad to investigate this..
Olbber Hemrycko, Mentis Lucis
Archon Inter Pares
The Democratic Republic of Ager Lekki

OK, I see what you mean.
Still I do not care if valued items like gold and so belong to the heritage of a single nation or not. I think that each nation may decide by itself how they settle such things. If e.g. the Holebi's left a golden horse 2000 years old inside the territory Weird Place of the Wierd Anarchists, we (our nation) will decide if it will go to the finder, to the state or to the New Holebi's in The Queendom of Aivres.
If it are gold coins, still it can have big historic value, so we do not see the value equivalent as money.

And a committee it is a good idea, but I like inside that professional historians appointed by the WA nations and not explorers, because I value the scientific values much higher than the exploration. I know much of historic value is destroyed by (the greed of) a combination of archaeologists and explorers.

OK, I hope you can give your ideas on this.

Regards

Ooc, I see some part of the push about this proposal draft is because of the nature of the game. The environment as 'Nation' we are, let the RPer scope changes the expected reaction from the 'adventurer spirit' to a 'defensive border' position... what can be lost instead what can be gained, pirates or scientists, empty or full glass.

I must say, if we are going to advance somehow, we shall see our national scouts going out there and us providing them with legal bounds and financial possibility.

Of course, we are not going to spend money just because... thus, the findings they could do will support their activity.

Meanwhile we do not start from this perspective, we will continue hitting the edges of this subject as if they were the center of the proposal. If you prefers to leave things just like they are in "the real world" (without major interest, regulation or support whatsoever) then I guess you don't play NS at all.

I say this as blotch and new count.

Ic.

Given the different aspects that the proposal crosses, I leave a list of points for our agenda, to constitute principles and mechanisms:

The "Who"
Searcher identification.
Roll of the state.

The "What"
Nature of the findings.
Valuation of objects.
Roll of institutions.

The "How"
Roll of the WA.
Settlement of studies period.
Return evaluation.

The "Where"
Academic committees.
Trade and exchange.
Cooperation warranty.

And definitions... a lot, as every word has been pushed through the addressing process.

I'd appreciate to be noticed of any missing little dot.
Let's go for a drink!

that's good..
I also agree with definitions... a lot
Well we are going to produce a second draft ...
We were waiting for ideas, now we have very good ones so... it's time. We wont get this longer.

About what Wierd Anarchists as said... will be consider.
My idea on this; well explorers could be essential in the process of "finding" but probably not in the process of "investigation", so they don't necessarily need to be part of the committee. about historians and archaeologists... I think each science is different and each one has something to offer.. that's just my idea... we'll consider all this in the formation of the committee.

About the list of points for the agenda.. sounds quite good as a start.
We'll take this carefully.

and.. yeahh
Let's go for a drink!


Abbi Gournica, Lucis
Minister Delegate for Regional Affairs
The Democratic Republic of Ager Lekki

OOC: just so you don't mistake silence for agreement, I'm about to go off on holiday. I'd be prepared to make a small bet that Cerys isn't going to think much more of your second draft than of your first, on current showing.

About what Wierd Anarchists as said... will be consider.
My idea on this; well explorers could be essential in the process of "finding" but probably not in the process of "investigation", so they don't necessarily need to be part of the committee. about historians and archaeologists... I think each science is different and each one has something to offer.. that's just my idea... we'll consider all this in the formation of the committee.

and.. yeahh
Let's go for a drink!


Agreed on both things said.
Cheers!