NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Pan-America under the United States wrote:You're leaving out that you get money too.

"My nation doesn't need the money. We're capable of funding our own system, and refuse to find others', be it through this mechanism, or by having this money black hole tap into the WAGF, which still comes from member states."

Maybe there's people not as well of as you?

EDIT: Well, that's pretty irrelevant now, I guess. Since I took Kenny's advice and added the "proceeds for which shall be drawn from WA funding" in.

So, I took Kenny's advice about the "proceeds for which shall be drawn from WA funding", in everyone's opinion, is that better?

Pan-America under the United States wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"My nation doesn't need the money. We're capable of funding our own system, and refuse to find others', be it through this mechanism, or by having this money black hole tap into the WAGF, which still comes from member states."

Maybe there's people not as well of as you?

EDIT: Well, that's pretty irrelevant now, I guess. Since I took Kenny's advice and added the "proceeds for which shall be drawn from WA funding" in.

"And I fail to see how that's our problem. The WAGF is funded by member states. Taking money out of it still requires money to be taken from members, and an increase in the demand for funds constitutes an increase in contribution size. It is not a moot point. Unless you can find a way for this to fund itself, it's going to get stiff opposition. The WAGF is not bottomless."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Pan-America under the United States wrote:Maybe there's people not as well of as you?

EDIT: Well, that's pretty irrelevant now, I guess. Since I took Kenny's advice and added the "proceeds for which shall be drawn from WA funding" in.

"And I fail to see how that's our problem. The WAGF is funded by member states. Taking money out of it still requires money to be taken from members, and an increase in the demand for funds constitutes an increase in contribution size. It is not a moot point. Unless you can find a way for this to fund itself, it's going to get stiff opposition. The WAGF is not bottomless."

Surely, you can spare a few pennies for the children.

Pan-America under the United States wrote:So, I took Kenny's advice about the "proceeds for which shall be drawn from WA funding", in everyone's opinion, is that better?

In terms of negating the 1% gov't spending requirement, yes. In terms of justifying these new expenses for the WA, no. I'm on the fence regarding this resolution, but I think the problem of where the money is coming from, and avoiding unnecessary excessive donations on the part of WA members, for the moment, is solved.

District XIV wrote:Vilay lifts an eyebrow, “So answering another ambassador's inquiry for clarification over the concern of human-centric language is now deserving of a snarky reply?”

Yeah, really, you have to bring up this crap on a scholarship grant for primary-school students? I've already suggested alternate language (which you in your infinite non-human-advocacy wisdom, failed to do); if that's not good enough for you, then fine. I'm beginning to understand why some feel that applying a powerdrill to their left temple is preferable to drafting legislation here.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

District XIV wrote:Vilay lifts an eyebrow, “So answering another ambassador's inquiry for clarification over the concern of human-centric language is now deserving of a snarky reply?”

Yeah, really, you have to bring up this crap on a scholarship grant for primary-school students? I've already suggested alternate language (which you in your infinite non-human-advocacy wisdom, failed to do); if that's not good enough for you, then fine. I'm beginning to understand why some feel that applying a powerdrill to their left temple is preferable to drafting legislation here.

I don't think you understand what I meant.

The author implied through his earlier comment that they had no understanding on what 'human-centric' meant, so I clarified it.

It was not deserving of the snarky reply, and the statement above wasn't needed either.

OK, I fail at context. Apparently SP deserves a whack too. But bitching about "humancentrism" without offering any constructive suggestions to fix it has become a rather obnoxious trend in these halls, where the name of the game seems to be more and more about indulgent blustering over "RP" rather than trying to craft good proposals. It's getting to the point where I should start spring-loading every single chair of every single offender in this body, so that the next time they grumble about excluding sapient A.L.F. POGs I can instantly eject them into the Vastivan Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Don't want to interrupt, but changes added:

Unpaid internship for students are required in the applicant's countries' government.

I did bring back contributions, but I decreased it to 0.3%

Anything else I should change/add?

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK, I fail at context. Apparently SP deserves a whack too. But bitching about "humancentrism" without offering any constructive suggestions to fix it has become a rather obnoxious trend in these halls, where the name of the game seems to be more and more about indulgent blustering over "RP" rather than trying to craft good proposals. It's getting to the point where I should start spring-loading every single chair of every single offender in this body, so that the next time they grumble about excluding sapient A.L.F. POGs I can instantly eject them into the Vastivan Memorial Reflecting Pool.

I think several in this Assembly Hall are in need of some deep reflection

Pan-America under the United States wrote:I did bring back contributions, but I decreased it to 0.3%

So now the United States is paying...$10 billion instead of 30? Alright then.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK, I fail at context. Apparently SP deserves a whack too.

OOC: Why? I was beaten to the full explanation, so I didn't bother going into it.

Pan-America under the United States wrote:Surely, you can spare a few pennies for the children.

"I assure you, billions of greenbacks is not "pennies". We can absolute afford to help C.D.S.P. children. We have no desire to especially help others. Governments exist to protect citizens, and spending money on non-citizens when it could be used to benefit the voting citizenry is nothing short of fund misappropriation."

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Pan-America under the United States wrote:I did bring back contributions, but I decreased it to 0.3%

So now the United States is paying...$10 billion instead of 30? Alright then.

Well, I'll admit, I'm lost with the funding part. Anyone have suggestions?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK, I fail at context. Apparently SP deserves a whack too.

OOC: Why? I was beaten to the full explanation, so I didn't bother going into it.

Pan-America under the United States wrote:Surely, you can spare a few pennies for the children.

"I assure you, billions of greenbacks is not "pennies". We can absolute afford to help C.D.S.P. children. We have no desire to especially help others. Governments exist to protect citizens, and spending money on non-citizens when it could be used to benefit the voting citizenry is nothing short of fund misappropriation."

I have no idea why I'm responding to you. You've said your feedback, and now you're essentially driving this off topic. I'm not talking about just YOUR country since it's just one out of 14,000. Please, just give me feedback or leave.

This thread is practically being derailed too, everyone stay on topic.

Pan-America under the United States wrote:I have no idea why I'm responding to you. You've said your feedback, and now you're essentially driving this off topic. I'm not talking about just YOUR country since it's just one out of 14,000. Please, just give me feedback or leave.

This thread is practically being derailed too, everyone stay on topic.

"Except my concern will be echoed by most of those 14,000. This is feedback, and it is absolutely relevant to the topic. But on the topic of money, you're having nations establish unpaid internships in our governments for applicants. This requires us to spend more money on oversight for the interns, some of whom will be as young as 12, since you've kept arbitrary ages. Just because we don't have to pay them doesn't mean there isn't expense incurred. And you make no option for a nation to refuse an individual based on not needing their particular skillset. The. C.D.S.P. Government has little need, for example, for several facets of the "visual arts", and you make no distinction within them.

"Also, you've listed literature twice in clause 2."

Changed contribution level to 300,000 of the contributing countries' own currency.
Gave people the ability to apply while under 18, however, their account will be frozen and they will not involve themselves in the program in anyway until they reach the age of 18.
Gave countries the ability to deny applicants if their skill-set is not needed, but need to accept 3% of applicants.

Opinions?

(Thanks for all the feedback)

(I'm being so indecisive right now, lel. Going through so much about the percentage/amount needed.)

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Pan-America under the United States wrote:I have no idea why I'm responding to you. You've said your feedback, and now you're essentially driving this off topic. I'm not talking about just YOUR country since it's just one out of 14,000. Please, just give me feedback or leave.

This thread is practically being derailed too, everyone stay on topic.

"Except my concern will be echoed by most of those 14,000. This is feedback, and it is absolutely relevant to the topic. But on the topic of money, you're having nations establish unpaid internships in our governments for applicants. This requires us to spend more money on oversight for the interns, some of whom will be as young as 12, since you've kept arbitrary ages. Just because we don't have to pay them doesn't mean there isn't expense incurred. And you make no option for a nation to refuse an individual based on not needing their particular skillset. The. C.D.S.P. Government has little need, for example, for several facets of the "visual arts", and you make no distinction within them.

"Also, you've listed literature twice in clause 2."

Do you really think that everyone thinks like you? There's going to be plenty of people who disagree with it, just like you. Then there's going to be people who agree with it. You don't speak for the entire player-base.

I will take your advice on refusing students based on certain skill-sets not needed. If you want to talk like this and not "well, my country doesn't want to do this and we don't need to do this" then I welcome it. Just talk as if you're another country, and not your country.

"Micromanagement!" Lady Malréd, the Eruhíni ambassador to the World Assembly, exclaimed waking from a long slumber on the back benches of the festering snakepit. Shaking her head she looked down upon the proposal in front of her, quickly reading it. "On behalf of my nation I oppose this overbearing proposal to have the members states fund a supranational educational program. Education is a national not international issue and ought not be a subject to be addressed by this chamber." The ambassador declared. "Particularly paragraph eight is repugnant." She continued. "The government of my country is not in the habit of guaranteeing anyone a job and has no intention to begin such a praxis. As ancillary points the requirements of the scholarship seem overly specific, lets leave it to educators not lawmakers to determine what qualifies as "giftedness", while I am confused about how exactly I should interpret paragraph 6."

Of the Quendi wrote:"Micromanagement!" Lady Malréd, the Eruhíni ambassador to the World Assembly, exclaimed waking from a long slumber on the back benches of the festering snakepit. Shaking her head she looked down upon the proposal in front of her, quickly reading it. "On behalf of my nation I oppose this overbearing proposal to have the members states fund a supranational educational program. Education is a national not international issue and ought not be a subject to be addressed by this chamber." The ambassador declared. "Particularly paragraph eight is repugnant." She continued. "The government of my country is not in the habit of guaranteeing anyone a job and has no intention to begin such a praxis. As ancillary points the requirements of the scholarship seem overly specific, lets leave it to educators not lawmakers to determine what qualifies as "giftedness", while I am confused about how exactly I should interpret paragraph 6."

The leader of the Federation of Pan-America states "if this goes to the floor, individual nations will determine the right course of action. However, in terms of the job, it's merely an unpaid internship.While you do need to make arrangements, the cost is negligible at best. You only get a small amount of students. Your government essentially has free reign over them, that will be your intern. Though, I will add that your country decides the length, according to discretion and according to your budget. However, it will only need to occur once and last at least a week.

With regards to any funding, it will merely be a small amount of governmental funding. 300,000 in terms of your governmental currency is measly for a sovereign nation, your economy is strong, surely you could spare that money, no?

International standards would be more effective, it would be unfair to students who would qualify in one country but not the next.

In terms of educating our gifted, our children are our future. We have two options: We can nurture the gifted ones, who will make a huge impact in the years ahead or we can leave them to lose their way and waste their potential. Every country stands to benefit. Humanity, stands to benefit.

I rest."

Pan-America under the United States wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"And I fail to see how that's our problem. The WAGF is funded by member states. Taking money out of it still requires money to be taken from members, and an increase in the demand for funds constitutes an increase in contribution size. It is not a moot point. Unless you can find a way for this to fund itself, it's going to get stiff opposition. The WAGF is not bottomless."

Surely, you can spare a few pennies for the children.

I was waiting for it, the obligatory "it's for the CHILDREN" argument.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Pan-America under the United States wrote:Surely, you can spare a few pennies for the children.

I was waiting for it, the obligatory "it's for the CHILDREN" argument.

ya

Pan-America under the United States wrote:The leader of the Federation of Pan-America states "if this goes to the floor, individual nations will determine the right course of action. However, in terms of the job, it's merely an unpaid internship.While you do need to make arrangements, the cost is negligible at best. You only get a small amount of students. Your government essentially has free reign over them, that will be your intern. Though, I will add that your country decides the length, according to discretion and according to your budget. However, it will only need to occur once and last at least a week.

With regards to any funding, it will merely be a small amount of governmental funding. 300,000 in terms of your governmental currency is measly for a sovereign nation, your economy is strong, surely you could spare that money, no?

International standards would be more effective, it would be unfair to students who would qualify in one country but not the next.

In terms of educating our gifted, our children are our future. We have two options: We can nurture the gifted ones, who will make a huge impact in the years ahead or we can leave them to lose their way and waste their potential. Every country stands to benefit. Humanity, stands to benefit.

I rest."

"If interns are unpaid and it is left to the government of members states to, as you say, have a free reign over set interns then it is a recipe for disaster. That will merely lead to slave like conditions where interns are sent to do labor that the governments can't or won't pay professionals to do. The purpose of this resolution, I trust, is not to provide my country with cheap street sweepers to clean up its cities. Since my country only in very special circumstances permit unpaid labor this proposal remains an unnecessary burden on our state finances that contributes nothing to my country that it cannot on its own accomplish, therefore I cannot support the resolution." Lady Malréd insisted, resisting a temptation to roll her eyes at the emotional and pompous rhetoric of the Pan-American ambassador. For her own part Malréd had long since given up on trying to save the world.

"A final note." She concluded. "The current payment plan would place a disproportional amount of the financial burden on small economies with a highly valued currency, that hardly seems fair."

Pan-America under the United States wrote:Changed contribution level to 300,000 of the contributing countries' own currency.

I really don't know what was wrong with the General Fund solution. I really don't. Now the poor countries all have to pay the exact same amount as the rich. Liberia and the US? Total equals now. EDIT: Except that the Liberian dollar is worth far less than the USD.

Gave people the ability to apply while under 18, however, their account will be frozen and they will not involve themselves in the program in anyway until they reach the age of 18.

No offense, but I'm gonna start holding with the species-wankers if you honestly can't see why things like "age 18" could be a problem. Make it "age of consent." I have additional suggestions about changing "ages 12 to 19" on the first page of this thread.

Yet I don't see why the resolution even needs to micromanage the grant-holder's account, frankly. If the money's for higher education, just earmark all the scholarship grants for higher education. I hardly see why we need to bar a 17-year-old from paying for college if he gets in early.

"Our tax rate is high enough with free education for our citizens, I see no reason to bankroll the education of non-citizens. If they want free education they can move to Honor and Glory and pay taxes."

Okay, changes made.

Proceeds will be drawn from WAGF funding.

Removed number 8.

Removed any age barriers, anyone in an educational institute can apply.

Removed age from the proposed definition of "Gifted and Talented"

Changed "18" to "age of consent"

Removed 5.

Removed 6.

Alright, I think this is good. Feedback?

"Again, nations contribute to the WAGF. We are still funding foreigners' education. 'Tis ungood. I would like to know why nations are incapable of prosecuting fraud according to their own laws? Why is the WA stepping into our criminal justice system in addition to our education system?"