[PASSED] Repeal "A Model World Assembly"

[Mahaj]

How is educating about the role of the WA historical? Yes, you could legislate on the historical role, but it also has a very current impact. And doings, especially. Like, i dunno "The WA just passed this law, class. Lets see what it does."

Which would be countered by the fact that current events are ensured by the freedom of the press.

That resolution has enough loopholes in itself, that no, not really.

Did I say no change? No. Address the argument being made, or don't address it at all.

Lets see the argument...

The resolution does not effect any significant or even mild level of change upon educational systems by encouraging them to partake in a "simulation", although it may cause significant problems when nations' educational philosophies are based around other methods of learning,

So, it does not effect any significant changes, or even mild level of changes, but can cause significant problems? I didn't know insignificance was so significant.

If I took an insignificant comma, and put it somewhere it did not belong in an important document, it could vastly change the meaning.[/quote]
Indeed, but a comma this is not. This would not both cause little change and have a big effect upon the same thing.

Due to objections. So I went with this. And now your objection is that it doesn't go... far enough? No, its not. Its that enforcing things on a level would be a waste, despite the fact that they *aren't required to*.

It's ineffective as well as unneeded is my point.

But if it doesn't do anything, why do you want to repeal it? I'll write a replacement, and fine, i'll make it stronger. Hope you enjoy.

OOC: I believe we're addressing this on IRC right now, but because it says 'here at' the HQ, it could be wherever the document is.

Speculation. If the WAHQ is repealed, then there would be no official WAHQ.

We operate in a building called 'The World Assembly Headquarters', not 'The Madison Square Garden' or whatever.

Yeah, thank god. I'm surprised.

This is not intended to be insulting, ambassador. It's simply politics.

I meant that you've included enough frivolous stuff that i'm surprised you didn't include this as well.

[Mallorea and Riva]

A resolution need not be only filled with flaws to be deserving of a repeal, one could put forth a resolution which teaches all children the history of anything, which while admirable is ultimately unnecessary, especially since the WA has already legislated on the issue.
The points I raise here have already been raised in the drafting thread, and promptly ignored.

Finally, the waste of time I refer to is not just the four days to vote on the issue, but the time spent maintaining the requirements of the resolution, and the ensuring of its enforcement. The repeal essentially removes duplicative and useless legislation, and saves us the trouble of enforcing it.

While we acknowledge that there are many reasons to seek repeal of a resolution, we do not feel that it is appropriate to do so immediately after it is passed unless there is substantial reason to believe that the vote will be different. This proposal brings nothing to the table that could not be addressed in the 3 days 7 hours remaining for the current vote. The resolution at vote currently leads by only 563 votes, and it is easy to see it falling to a concerted effort.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN WA Ambassador
Citizen, The Rejected Realms

I will post my counterarguments in the appropriate place. Should that fail, then this thread will be used and continued to draft a repeal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Which would be countered by the fact that current events are ensured by the freedom of the press.

That resolution has enough loopholes in itself, that no, not really.

Perhaps a repeal and replacement of that resolution would then negate the need for this one?

If I took an insignificant comma, and put it somewhere it did not belong in an important document, it could vastly change the meaning.

Indeed, but a comma this is not. This would not both cause little change and have a big effect upon the same thing.

It was a metaphor for the proof of concept that small changes can in fact cause large change.

But if it doesn't do anything, why do you want to repeal it? I'll write a replacement, and fine, i'll make it stronger. Hope you enjoy.

I am a firm believer that I would rather see an effective resolution that I must comply with, rather than an ineffective one on the books.

We operate in a building called 'The World Assembly Headquarters', not 'The Madison Square Garden' or whatever.

And if this was no longer the WAHQ what would it be called?

[Connopolis]

It was twofold, the implication that the original resolution was foolish, and the statement that such foolishness would inevitably be mocked by children learning of it.

I never said the original was foolish - perhaps mild in nature, but not foolish. This repeal attempt is foolish...

Fascinating counterargument. Comparing a game with a game, seems a fair enough comparison to me.

That was either OOC, or satirical. Either way, educating children about international politics in a simulated diplomatic environment can only bring benefits.

Never did I say behemoth. And you still neglect the time aspect being wasted.

REQUIRES member nations to educate people about the role and doings of the World Assembly,

RECOMMENDS that nations implement national MWA conferences, which are gatherings where people simulate a WA discussion with the goal of passing resolutions and 'improving the world', and also where they can learn and practice proper diplomatic behavior,

The time wasted is minimal. The point that you're refusing to negate is that children should be given the option. Simply because NatSov's don't like the WA isn't reason enough to repeal this.

Yours in whining,

Yours in whining even more,

[Mahaj]

That resolution has enough loopholes in itself, that no, not really.

Perhaps a repeal and replacement of that resolution would then negate the need for this one?

Of that? Yeah. But that takes time too.

Did I say no change? No. Address the argument being made, or don't address it at all.

Lets see the argument...

The resolution does not effect any significant or even mild level of change upon educational systems by encouraging them to partake in a "simulation", although it may cause significant problems when nations' educational philosophies are based around other methods of learning,

So, it does not effect any significant changes, or even mild level of changes, but can cause significant problems? I didn't know insignificance was so significant.

If I took an insignificant comma, and put it somewhere it did not belong in an important document, it could vastly change the meaning.[/quote]
Indeed, but a comma this is not. This would not both cause little change and have a big effect upon the same thing.[/quote]
It was a metaphor for the proof of concept that small changes can in fact cause large change.[/quote]
But that was a change to a document causing changes to how it is interpreted. This is you saying a small change to an educational system causes a large change. Could it? Yes. But if there's gonna be just a little change, it really shouldn't affect all but the weakest of school systems.

Due to objections. So I went with this. And now your objection is that it doesn't go... far enough? No, its not. Its that enforcing things on a level would be a waste, despite the fact that they *aren't required to*.

It's ineffective as well as unneeded is my point.

But if it doesn't do anything, why do you want to repeal it? I'll write a replacement, and fine, i'll make it stronger. Hope you enjoy.[/quote]
I am a firm believer that I would rather see an effective resolution that I must comply with, rather than an ineffective one on the books.[/quote]
Oh ho, Mr. NatSov? We all know you'd rather see no replacement. You said so yourself.

OOC: I believe we're addressing this on IRC right now, but because it says 'here at' the HQ, it could be wherever the document is.

Speculation. If the WAHQ is repealed, then there would be no official WAHQ.

We operate in a building called 'The World Assembly Headquarters', not 'The Madison Square Garden' or whatever.[/quote]
And if this was no longer the WAHQ what would it be called?[/quote]
Well the building name would remain the same. And when a new HeadQuarters is created, it'd refer to that.

[Mallorea and Riva]

It was twofold, the implication that the original resolution was foolish, and the statement that such foolishness would inevitably be mocked by children learning of it.

I never said the original was foolish - perhaps mild in nature, but not foolish. This repeal attempt is foolish...

That was my point. Not yours. And your point contributes to my point anyways.

Fascinating counterargument. Comparing a game with a game, seems a fair enough comparison to me.

That was either OOC, or satirical. Either way, educating children about international politics in a simulated diplomatic environment can only bring benefits.

Why does the WA need to be involved at all? The fundamental question every resolution must ask itself.

Never did I say behemoth. And you still neglect the time aspect being wasted.

REQUIRES member nations to educate people about the role and doings of the World Assembly,

RECOMMENDS that nations implement national MWA conferences, which are gatherings where people simulate a WA discussion with the goal of passing resolutions and 'improving the world', and also where they can learn and practice proper diplomatic behavior,

The time wasted is minimal. The point that you're refusing to negate is that children should be given the option. Simply because NatSov's don't like the WA isn't reason enough to repeal this.

Yours in whining,

Yours in whining even more,

I concede the whining battle.
OOC

[Connopolis]

Why does the WA need to be involved at all? The fundamental question every resolution must ask itself.

To effectively determine whether or not a resolution is effective, you must ask yourself one question: Does it benefit anyone, without negative repercussions? The answer to that (in regards to this proposal) would be YES.

I concede the whining battle.
OOC

Yours very, very, very truly,

[Mallorea and Riva]

Why does the WA need to be involved at all? The fundamental question every resolution must ask itself.

To effectively determine whether or not a resolution is effective, you must ask yourself one question: Does it benefit anyone, without negative repercussions? The answer to that (in regards to this proposal) would be YES.

Incorrect. One must ask: Does it do what it is mandated to do, in a way which a national government could not do on its own without WA intervention?
And the answer is no.

I concede the whining battle.
OOC

Yours very, very, very truly,

OOC: Just got annihilated fixing a quote pyramid. Good lord. /whine
Edit: Good lord i screwed it up again. Fixed,

[Connopolis]

To effectively determine whether or not a resolution is effective, you must ask yourself one question: Does it benefit anyone, without negative repercussions? The answer to that (in regards to this proposal) would be YES.

Incorrect. One must ask: Does it do what it is mandated to do, in a way which a national government could not do on its own without WA intervention?
And the answer is no.

Right - let's just forget about whether or not the majority of children would benefit. Everyone knows how NatSov come before the well-being of sapient youth...

OOC: Just got annihilated fixing a quote pyramid. Good lord. /whine

[Mallorea and Riva]

Incorrect. One must ask: Does it do what it is mandated to do, in a way which a national government could not do on its own without WA intervention?
And the answer is no.

Right - let's just forget about whether or not the majority of children would benefit. Everyone knows how NatSov come before the well-being of sapient youth...

It's a simple theory really. If my government can do it better, or equally well, then the WA shouldn't.

[Connopolis]

Right - let's just forget about whether or not the majority of children would benefit. Everyone knows how NatSov come before the well-being of sapient youth...

It's a simple theory really. If my government can do it better, or equally well, then the WA shouldn't.

If your government can do it better, great! What about the nations that wouldn't do it/couldn't be bothered with it without WA intervention? Think of the children!

Yours in saving youthful diplomats,

[Black Marne]

While I am normally a very strong advocate of NatSov, this is something that would actually benefit the member states WITHOUT limiting what they can do! This is a brilliant resolution, I praise the esteemed ambassador of Mahaj, and under no circumstances shall Black Marne vote for its repeal.

AGAINST.

-The Allied States of Black Marne

[Mallorea and Riva]

It's a simple theory really. If my government can do it better, or equally well, then the WA shouldn't.

If your government can do it better, great! What about the nations that wouldn't do it/couldn't be bothered with it without WA intervention? Think of the children!

Yours in saving youthful diplomats,

And so it has come down to it at last. The ultimate argument of the IntFed. Think of the children. Any government with a free press (which we all have now) can distribute news. Which is essentially all this resolution is capable of doing, considering the existence of other WA educational resolutions. The nations that do not have MWA are hardly harming their children to such an extent that WA legislation must be passed.

[Connopolis]

If your government can do it better, great! What about the nations that wouldn't do it/couldn't be bothered with it without WA intervention? Think of the children!

Yours in saving youthful diplomats,

And so it has come down to it at last. The ultimate argument of the IntFed. Think of the children. Any government with a free press (which we all have now) can distribute news. Which is essentially all this resolution is capable of doing, considering the existence of other WA educational resolutions. The nations that do not have MWA are hardly harming their children to such an extent that WA legislation must be passed.

I hardly find the "think of the government officials!" argument any more compelling. The children would be fine without this resolution - however, they'd be better with it.

Yours,

[Mallorea and Riva]

And so it has come down to it at last. The ultimate argument of the IntFed. Think of the children. Any government with a free press (which we all have now) can distribute news. Which is essentially all this resolution is capable of doing, considering the existence of other WA educational resolutions. The nations that do not have MWA are hardly harming their children to such an extent that WA legislation must be passed.

I hardly find the "think of the government officials!" argument any more compelling. The children would be fine without this resolution - however, they'd be better with it.

Yours,

By such an incrementally small amount that one could argue that the boredom in some students produced by it will in fact outweigh the good.

OOC: Is your sig within the limits con? I can't remember the rules regarding those lines and stuff, because It's a really neat sig and I don't want it to get trimmed.

[Connopolis]

By such an incrementally small amount that one could argue that the boredom in some students produced by it will in fact outweigh the good.

Then they can drop out of the course/MWA. The students interested in the subject will benefit.

OOC: Is your sig within the limits con? I can't remember the rules regarding those lines and stuff, because It's a really neat sig and I don't want it to get trimmed.

OOC: I think it's 8 lines, but I could be wrong. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Mallorea and Riva]

By such an incrementally small amount that one could argue that the boredom in some students produced by it will in fact outweigh the good.

Then they can drop out of the course/MWA. The students interested in the subject will benefit.

If they're interested then they can look in the papers or choose to take courses on the subject. The WA need not intervene further.

OOC: Is your sig within the limits con? I can't remember the rules regarding those lines and stuff, because It's a really neat sig and I don't want it to get trimmed.

OOC: I think it's 8 lines, but I could be wrong. Thanks for pointing that out.

Anytime You can always check in the thread with reppy in moderation.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: How about mentioning the point that I raised during the MWA resolution's own drafting thread, i.e. that it seems rather presumptuous (or silly) for the WA to insist that member nations teach their peoples how the WA works when the WA hasn't yet required that those nations teach their peoples how their own national governments work?

[Separatist Peoples]

Support. Enterprising students will be able to find more then enough information regarding the WA. Forcing nations to take an active part in a Model World Assembly sounds too self-congradulatory...and a violation of GAR#9, but nobody seems to be listening to tthat...

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: How about mentioning the point that I raised during the MWA resolution's own drafting thread, i.e. that it seems rather presumptuous (or silly) for the WA to insist that member nations teach their peoples how the WA works when the WA hasn't yet required that those nations teach their peoples how their own national governments work?

OOC: I'll look into that and revise my draft.

Support. Enterprising students will be able to find more then enough information regarding the WA. Forcing nations to take an active part in a Model World Assembly sounds too self-congradulatory...and a violation of GAR#9, but nobody seems to be listening to tthat...

Indeed. Thank you for your support.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Stupendous. Let's wipe this bullshit off the books as soon as it passes, and never speak of it again.

Please let me know if my assistance is needed in any way.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Stupendous. Let's wipe this bullshit off the books as soon as it passes, and never speak of it again.

Please let me know if my assistance is needed in any way.

If the urge to add comments at any point strikes you, feel free. In two days and six hours I will be putting forth my efforts to submit and campaign to send this resolution to the void.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

"The resolution does not effect any significant or even mild level of change (...)"

effect < affect

[Linux and the X]

"The resolution does not effect any significant or even mild level of change (...)"

effect < affect

No, effect is correct.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, it isn't. "Affect" is the verb; "effect" is a noun.