Knootoss wrote:We don't need the World Assembly to run a travelling circus. We have one right here, in this assembly hall. If the Bears Armed delegation is really going to call me a liar by citing the potential for ticket-sales, I suggest that they look up the word "ameliorate" in a dictionary. These things cost money. Questioning whether organising and building things costs money just shows that the Bears Armed delegation has warmly embraced Unibotonomics.
Normally I agree with Mr. Koopman concerning the spending of other people's money by the WA, but this time I believe my friend that you are digging your heels in too hard. A nation could see fit to construct as simple or extravagent of a pavillion or display as it saw fit, or could afford. For prosporous nations such as ours, this would be an excellent oppourtunity to show the world the rewards of capitalistic economics and free trade. I mean after all, we can afford it can we not? -Ms. Abigail McGuire, High Commissoner for WA Affairs.
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:28 am
by Bears Armed
"Oh, fleas and fur-loss, how many more times? The word used being "Invites" means that participation by your nation would be purely voluntary, hrright? So, in that case, don't particpate in the expositions and then you won't have to spend anything at all -- let alone "billions" -- on the idea. Is that hrreally too complex for you to understand? "Too much Pink Bunny Cola, maybeso, ambassador?"
I'd just like to let it be known that the tentative submission date for this is going to be November 5th, as that is the earliest I have a weekend where I'll be free to campaign for this.
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:28 pm
by Libraria and Ausitoria
Bears Armed wrote: "Too much Pink Bunny Cola, maybeso, ambassador?"
Hear hear!
We support this proposal, with modifications suggested by Connopolis.
Bears Armed wrote: "Too much Pink Bunny Cola, maybeso, ambassador?"
Hear hear!
We support this proposal, with modifications suggested by Connopolis.
Jeez, I didn't even see the stuff he added. Anyway, the draft has been updated.
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:31 pm
by Dizyntk
"I have a question, Ambassador Romero. Well actually I have two. One, how are we deciding who gets the exposition? Two, if by some weird happenstance Dizyn gets it are we going to have to offer rides to get there?"
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:18 pm
by Astro-Malsitari WA Seat
Dizyntk wrote:"I have a question, Ambassador Romero. Well actually I have two. One, how are we deciding who gets the exposition? Two, if by some weird happenstance Dizyn gets it are we going to have to offer rides to get there?"
Well, the first question is easily answered: using their infallible methods and immeasurable wisdom, the gnomes that will staff the IEA will pick a city which can truly rise to the occasion and shine as a beacon of light and hope for the world. In other words, they will very likely pick one at random, possibly by throwing darts at a map. As for the second question, that would be up to the Grand Imperium. But, since the resolution doesn't say anything about it, you don't have to offer rides.
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:24 pm
by Dizyntk
"Come to think of it, my regular job is the Trade and Tourism minister. We can sell rides to Dizyn. I would think that a lot of people would be willing to pay to get into space. Space, heck, to a different planet. Shouldn't be overly expensive I wouldn't think. Gotta go check with the Dizyntk passenger ship companies about what it would cost to go from here to Dizyn and back."
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:25 pm
by Astro-Malsitari WA Seat
Dizyntk wrote:"Come to think of it, my regular job is the Trade and Tourism minister. We can sell rides to Dizyn. I would think that a lot of people would be willing to pay to get into space. Space, heck, to a different planet. Shouldn't be overly expensive I wouldn't think. Gotta go check with the Dizyntk passenger ship companies about what it would cost to go from here to Dizyn and back."
See, now that's an excellent idea! Not looking like such a black hole for cash now, is it, Dr. Koopman?
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:33 pm
by Soviet Canuckistan
I like this proposal and if it becomes a proposal in front of the GA I will vote yes
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:11 am
by Libraria and Ausitoria
Is there any more discussion that needs to be done with this? When can we expect it to be proposed?
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:59 am
by Charlotte Ryberg
FURTHER NOTES that member-states may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, nor may they expel nations or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultures, or beliefs,
While we support freedom of expression, Nazism and a certain cult is banned on public safety grounds in Minoa or Charlotte Ryberg - Full stop. Therefore this clause needs to be revised to allow exemption against beliefs or regimes which may pose a threat to public order or national security.
Also, the WA is not a travelling circus, and should be left to independent organizations.
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:31 am
by Dizyntk
"While I can agree with Ambassador Harper that the WA is not travelling, I would point out that it very often seems to be a circus."
FURTHER NOTES that member-states may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, nor may they expel nations or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultures, or beliefs,
While we support freedom of expression, Nazism and a certain cult is banned on public safety grounds in Minoa or Charlotte Ryberg - Full stop. Therefore this clause needs to be revised to allow exemption against beliefs or regimes which may pose a threat to public order or national security.
Also, the WA is not a travelling circus, and should be left to independent organizations.
This resolution merely sponsors the exposition; like the olympics. The Olympic Committee does not manage the event, they simply organize it. Individual nations are given the option to host the exposition - the WA will not do it for them.
Also, Ms. Harper, how is this?
FURTHER NOTES that member-states may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, nor may they expel nations or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultures, or beliefs unless the beliefs in question are discriminatory, racist, grotesquely offensive to those who do not practice the beliefs, or physically dangerous.
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:While we support freedom of expression, Nazism and a certain cult is banned on public safety grounds in Minoa or Charlotte Ryberg - Full stop. Therefore this clause needs to be revised to allow exemption against beliefs or regimes which may pose a threat to public order or national security.
Also, the WA is not a travelling circus, and should be left to independent organizations.
This resolution merely sponsors the exposition; like the olympics. The Olympic Committee does not manage the event, they simply organize it. Individual nations are given the option to host the exposition - the WA will not do it for them.
Also, Ms. Harper, how is this?
FURTHER NOTES that member-states may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, nor may they expel nations or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultures, or beliefs unless the beliefs in question are discriminatory, racist, grotesquely offensive to those who do not practice the beliefs, or physically dangerous.
What about:
CLARIFIES that individual participation in an IEC Convention does not by itself grant immunity from host country laws;
EMPHASISES that the host nations retain the right to: a) Exclude certain nations with which they are at war or have economic sanctions; c) Impose individual standards which respect the purposes and means of this resolution;
MANDATES that host nations may only exclude ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from the conventions, where it is necessary for: national security, political stability or public safety; the protection of health or morals; or the protection of the dignity or rights of others.
Nazism and that cult would easily lose its immunity from the last clause under "political stability, public safety and protection of the dignity or rights of others".
Connopolis wrote: This resolution merely sponsors the exposition; like the olympics. The Olympic Committee does not manage the event, they simply organize it. Individual nations are given the option to host the exposition - the WA will not do it for them.
Also, Ms. Harper, how is this?
FURTHER NOTES that member-states may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, nor may they expel nations or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultures, or beliefs unless the beliefs in question are discriminatory, racist, grotesquely offensive to those who do not practice the beliefs, or physically dangerous.
What about:
CLARIFIES that individual participation in an IEC Convention does not by itself grant immunity from host country laws;
EMPHASISES that the host nations retain the right to: a) Exclude certain nations with which they are at war or have economic sanctions; c) Impose individual standards which respect the purposes and means of this resolution;
MANDATES that host nations may only exclude ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from the conventions, where it is necessary for: national security, political stability or public safety; the protection of health or morals; or the protection of the dignity or rights of others.
Nazism and that cult would easily lose its immunity from the last clause under "political stability, public safety and protection of the dignity or rights of others".
And under the 'political stability' exclusion so could many other ideologies...
CLARIFIES that individual participation in an IEC Convention does not by itself grant immunity from host country laws;
EMPHASISES that the host nations retain the right to: a) Exclude certain nations with which they are at war or have economic sanctions; c) Impose individual standards which respect the purposes and means of this resolution;
MANDATES that host nations may only exclude ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from the conventions, where it is necessary for: national security, political stability or public safety; the protection of health or morals; or the protection of the dignity or rights of others.
Nazism and that cult would easily lose its immunity from the last clause under "political stability, public safety and protection of the dignity or rights of others".
And under the 'political stability' exclusion so could many other ideologies...
I recognise that it is is a challenge because of what countries may have gone though, such as Nazi occupation or repressive regimes. I don't want it to put off such countries from taking part.
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:08 pm
by Astro-Malsitari WA Seat
Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:Is there any more discussion that needs to be done with this? When can we expect it to be proposed?
Astro-Malsitari WA Seat wrote:I'd just like to let it be known that the tentative submission date for this is going to be November 5th, as that is the earliest I have a weekend where I'll be free to campaign for this.
Also, the draft has been updated.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:14 am
by Bears Armed
REMEMBERING its goal of "[i]mproving the world one resolution at a time",
REMEMBERING its goal of "[i]mproving the world one resolution at a time",
Why the "[]"?
From "Ask the English Teacher" blog:
Tim asks: Would you please explain the use of brackets at the start of the following quotation?
"[T]he former vice president's accusations of criminal behavior against [President] Bush threaten serious damage. It's a pattern of speech that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the Democrat party, potentially destructive to the morale of our Armed Forces and inherently dangerous for the American people." —Oliver North
Brackets (as distinguished from parentheses) are useful for indicating that you've inserted something of your own in a quotation. In this case, the first sentence of the quotation was evidently longer than it now is. Perhaps Mr. North wrote: "I believe that the former..."
So if we cut off an unneeded part of a quotation, we still need to make the rest of the quotation grammatical and consistent. Instead of putting in the lower-case t in the original, the writer has inserted [T] to indicate that this should be the beginning of the sentence.
The same principle applies to the insertion of [President]—it wouldn't be necessary if we had North's entire commentary, but since we have only part of it, the author using the quote has inserted the title. We understand what Mr. North said, but we also see where the author has clarified the text.
On the WA's page, that "I" is majuscule. In my quotation, it should be, grammatically speaking, minuscule. Therefore, I need the brackets.
FURTHER NOTES that member-states may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, nor may they expel nations or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultures, or beliefs,
While we support freedom of expression, Nazism and a certain cult is banned on public safety grounds in Minoa or Charlotte Ryberg - Full stop. Therefore this clause needs to be revised to allow exemption against beliefs or regimes which may pose a threat to public order or national security.
Also, the WA is not a travelling circus, and should be left to independent organizations.
I second the motion
Ambasator Kilala Baltor of The Grand Maritime Empire of Ryou
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:27 am
