NationStates

Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!

Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.

I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.

Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*

The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!

And some of these problems were pointed out to you before it came up for vote when you could have had it removed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Autumn Clans wrote:Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.

OOC: *puts on mod hat*
I haven't seen anyone insulting you, but if you think I've missed something point it out to me and I'll take another look.

The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!

Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.

I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.

Stop whining.

Your resolution isn't being criticized for its spelling errors. Many people here are non-native speakers, so language errors are forgivable. Bad proposals are a different matter altogether, of course.

And no, I won't provide you with a 'list' of 'known issues'. Do your own homework, the thread isn't that large.

The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!

Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.

I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.

Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*

OOC: From what I've gathered, most people are complaining because your resolution is seriously infringing on private property and contains numerous loopholes that make your proposal likely to be repealed at a later point. And I think they've pointed this out before it was put up for vote.
Why so many have obviously voted in favour, is beyond me. /OOC

As far as the Empire is concerned, we will refuse to report any monuments to the WA at all, should the resolution pass, as to avoid having to evict imperial citizens from their property.

Acentina kindly requests all world assembly members to vote "No" on the resolution.

As mentioned previously, the loopholes are too numerous. Please define a "monument" in the next proposal.

Acaila Moonshadow, Chief Arbiter of Acentinia

In the two days that you "waited" you never once brought to our attention any of the changes you made or how you were addressing a cavalcade of issues and pitfalls that I and other ambassadors brought to your attention. It is not our responsibly to keep checking to see if you had a version you were ready to go on. Especially sir when I was trying to talk you out of going there in the first place.

My only choice now is if I should add to the repeal I'm currently writing a clause about your behavior during debates.

Good Day.

The Autumn Clans wrote:Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.

The problem here is that the work appears rushed and slipshod. It clearly suffers from being almost entirely optional, which brings up questions of its overall legality - for the record, the Imperial Chiefdom concedes the resolution's legality, though not be terribly much - and the exemption of all buildings actually being used for something productive from being "historical" makes Krioval wonder what impact this legislation is to have, aside from getting national recognition for passing a resolution. Assuming that this is not the case, the ethical option would be to ask for delegates to vote against this resolution, redraft it in a more coherent and comprehensive style, and to fix the obvious flaws that still remain. Plugging one's ears and refusing to hear criticism, even at this late stage, is childish, Ambassador.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

The Autumn Clans wrote:I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.

Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*

"Noordeinde condemns the language used by the Honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans. An Ambassador can be criticised for his/her work and shouldn't react this childish, pathetic but most of all rude against his/her fellow Ambassadors. Therefore we are willing to propose the following Condemnation Proposal to the Security Council:"

The World Assembly,

NOTIFIED, about the fact that from the 26th untill the 30th of October 2009 the proposal "Protection of Monuments" is/was at vote;

NOTIFIED, that this proposal has a lot of spelling errors, loopholes and has been rushed, making it a bad proposal;

NOTIFIED, that multiple Ambassadors have criticized the proposal during debates with the Ambassador from The Autumn Clans;

NEGATIVELY SURPRISED, that in reaction on criticism and reactions the Ambassador of the Autumn Clans lost his temper, and made multiple rude remarks towards the other Ambassadors;

STATES, that Ambassadors should stay correct during a session of debate in the General Assembly and/or Security Council or any other WA Commitee;

Therefore;

WARNS, the Ambassador of The Autumn Clans to stay correct next time while peforming his job in the General Assembly and any other Council or Commitee of the WA;

CONDEMS, the Ambassador of The Autumn Clans for his childish and rude behaviour towards fellow Ambassadors, during a session in the General Assembly.

The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!

So, without a computer you're incapable of checking your spelling and grammar? They do have books for such things, sir.

The Autumn Clans wrote:Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.

I don't see anyone insulting you as much as the poorly written resolution you've authored. If you can't handle legitimate criticism, perhaps you shouldn't be writing resolutions, as it comes with the territory.

The Autumn Clans wrote:I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.

The issues have been amply summed up in this thread, but I can name a few off the top of my head. You don't define what a historical monument is adequately. You essentially are asking nations to dispossess people of private property without recourse. But you also have a huge glaring loophole by which nations can get around your resolution, making it fairly useless. You also, for some reason, chose to enshrine donkeys in your legislation. Is that a good start for summing things up for you?

The Autumn Clans wrote:Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.

Your resolution, frankly, doesn't protect anything. I've already mentioned one loophole earlier. And even if it did protect anything, the other problems inherent in your resolution would still make it untenable.

The Autumn Clans wrote:I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*

The only people who should be facepalming are those of us who will have to deal with going through the effort of repealing this if it passes. Seriously, if you don't want to hear our arguments, either disprove them (which you cannot), or ignore them like a 12-year-old and accept putting forth badly flawed legislation which will last about as long as a snowball on a hot summer day on the steppe.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!

Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.

I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.

Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*

Ambassador, should you ever want to be taken seriously again by your fellow delegates and representatives, We would recommend you calm down and stop taking any disagreement with this proposal as a personal attack. If there are arguments you do not care to hear, then I would recommend good earplugs.

Because something is "historical" does NOT mean that it is the business of the WA to dictate to each nation what and how they are to treat their historical sites, who may or may not own them, and what we may do with them. The vast majority of nations already have means by which to tend to their history and monuments. We do not require the WA to treat us as children and coddle our historical buildings and sites.

I am certain I am not alone in saying that should this pass, I will be writing one of, I am sure, many repeals for this.


OOC - I am sorry, but I was on vacation when this was up for debate. Next time I go on vacation, I'll be sure to stay only at places with internet access so I will not miss anything on NS. sheesh.

I am certain I am not alone in saying that should this pass, I will be writing one of, I am sure, many repeals for this.

If you like ambassador I can send you the text of the repeal I have and we can compare notes. I would rather do it TG as I'm not ready for, nor do I feel it appropriate to publicly discuss the repeal text prior to the passage of the resolution.

Philimbesi wrote:

I am certain I am not alone in saying that should this pass, I will be writing one of, I am sure, many repeals for this.

If you like ambassador I can send you the text of the repeal I have and we can compare notes. I would rather do it TG as I'm not ready for, nor do I feel it appropriate to publicly discuss the repeal text prior to the passage of the resolution.

I agree. TG me, and if you like, we can exchange email addys as I feel for anything larger than a few sentences that may be more convenient.

La Habana wrote:I mean I know that you have dyslexia as you mentioned, but you could have easily got one of the forum members to check the final draft before you submitted it, it's not THAT difficult. Since WA Resolutions have to be obeyed TO THE LETTER by WA members, the whole thing should be repealed, lest we have a world of monuments that are constantly getting 'assed'.

Perhaps we have misinterpreted the intent of the clause in question. Maybe it doesn't refer to donkeys at all, but to the act of "assing", i.e. mooning someone or something. Somehow, having to show one's rear end to a historical monument makes no more sense to us.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

The Halseyist Faction is amused that no-one has yet invited this delegate to leave the World Assembly, as we have been before. For all the Halseyist Factions Arrogance, we have certainly never lowered ourselves to the level of a childish shouting match, facepalming, or throwing unmentionable worlds around the room. Respectfully, the Halseyist Faction suggests anyone showing the mannerisms and convictions of a ten year old, and for whom defence of a item of legislation comes down to the metaophorical yelling of 'I WANT IT.' should be strongly advised never to submit such an item again, at least until primary education is completed. It should be apparent the Halseyist Faction will also be voting against this item of legislation.

I dont really see the point in this, as the goverment should be able to do whatever they want with there monuments

Noordeinde wrote:"Noordeinde condemns the language used by the Honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans. An Ambassador can be criticised for his/her work and shouldn't react this childish, pathetic but most of all rude against his/her fellow Ambassadors. Therefore we are willing to propose the following Condemnation Proposal to the Security Council:"
(...)

Where do I sign?

Baranthar wrote:

Noordeinde wrote:"Noordeinde condemns the language used by the Honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans. An Ambassador can be criticised for his/her work and shouldn't react this childish, pathetic but most of all rude against his/her fellow Ambassadors. Therefore we are willing to propose the following Condemnation Proposal to the Security Council:"
(...)

Where do I sign?

" As Ambassador in charge of the Noordeindian Permanent Diplomatic Mission to the WA I can officially report to you that the Condemnation Proposal has been added for delegate vote."

Noordeinde wrote:

The Autumn Clans wrote: *clip rudeness*

*clip Noordeinde SC proposal text*

Nooerdeinde has the support of the Kingdom on this.

Noordeinde wrote:

Baranthar wrote:

Noordeinde wrote:"Noordeinde condemns the language used by the Honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans. An Ambassador can be criticised for his/her work and shouldn't react this childish, pathetic but most of all rude against his/her fellow Ambassadors. Therefore we are willing to propose the following Condemnation Proposal to the Security Council:"
(...)

Where do I sign?

" As Ambassador in charge of the Noordeindian Permanent Diplomatic Mission to the WA I can officially report to you that the Condemnation Proposal has been added for delegate vote."

I agree with Noordeindian.

OK, let's keep the focus of this thread where it belongs, on the resolution currently at vote. If you want to continue talking about the proposal to condemn The Autumn Clans, take it to the Security Council forum.

I disagree with this proposal. Why should the world assembly interfere with individual nation state's monuments? These monuments are the sole property and responsibility of the host Nation State. The culture and history of the monuments is only related to the people to whom the monument belongs; I believe the World Assembly should not interfere with the sovereign rights of Nation States in regards to requiring the Nation State to either repair and care for their monuments, or require World Assembly personnel into the host nation to effect repairs as this infringes on the Nation State's sovereignty.

Further, funds for such a project would either be fully born by the host Nation State, or by the World Assembly - which is to say, also by the Nation State's as a collective. If the financial requirements are made by the World Assembly, is it truly equitable to use funds given by one Nation State in the repair of another Nation State's monument? Well, The Armed Republic of ChubaKiller says no. Therefore, I will cast my ballot accordingly.

Perhaps however, a similar proposal to protect monuments designated as 'World' Monuments, which have some greater international impact might not go amiss.

The Halseyist Faction wrote:Perhaps however, a similar proposal to protect monuments designated as 'World' Monuments, which have some greater international impact might not go amiss.

Now that is something i would be happy to support.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Vetok wrote:The Holy Empire of Vetok believes this resolution could be of much use in the preservation of world culture and history, and therefore vote yes. Our reasoning being, for example, the seventh suburb of Central Municipality is the birthplace of his most Original Holiness Imperator Vetok I. The particular house where the Great One lived is now a memorial and stands empty as a sign of respect for his memory. Any nation that would allow a site of comparable importance to them to be despoiled by commoners has already ransacked it.

We do not dispute that the preservation of historical places is important. What we object to is the "one size fits all" implementation this proposal puts forth. We would urge the Ambassador from Vetok to recosider his vote.

Having carefully considered all arguments, I, His Holiness Vetok the XI, have ordered that Vetok will abstain until the proposal has been reworked to cover all eventualities.

Signed, His Holiness Vetok XI

ChubaKiller wrote:I disagree with this proposal. Why should the world assembly interfere with individual nation state's monuments? These monuments are the sole property and responsibility of the host Nation State. The culture and history of the monuments is only related to the people to whom the monument belongs; I believe the World Assembly should not interfere with the sovereign rights of Nation States in regards to requiring the Nation State to either repair and care for their monuments, or require World Assembly personnel into the host nation to effect repairs as this infringes on the Nation State's sovereignty.

Further, funds for such a project would either be fully born by the host Nation State, or by the World Assembly - which is to say, also by the Nation State's as a collective. If the financial requirements are made by the World Assembly, is it truly equitable to use funds given by one Nation State in the repair of another Nation State's monument? Well, The Armed Republic of ChubaKiller says no. Therefore, I will cast my ballot accordingly.

I agree with this nations prospective on the issue. There is no need for the WA to interfere with my nations monuments.