[Passed] Cultural Site Preservation

[Ardchoille]

That entire clause is about co-authors(with a small aside about acronyms), not authors.

Sorry, but it's not. It's also about advertising your region. which we can't let into a proposal because the WA can't act through regions (a form of metagaming, if you will).

I've pulled the proposal from the list before it got too entrenched, in the hope that you'll be able to get it back on deck in short order with a different puppet submitting.

Approvals were: 14 (Bambergtopia, The Eternal City, Hombertoland, Astibus, Republic Defense Army, Greater Tion, Pewor, Communist Eraser, Nicer potlimitomaha, Nava Siam, Dedredle, Umbramoor, General Hammond, Vandelstein)

[Norsaksenia]

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the abundance of sites with cultural significance within member nations and the need to preserve them for future generations,

Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,

1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),

2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,
b. Create an archive including, but not limited to, visual, verbal, and literary works that pertain to culturally relevant sites,
c. Recommend specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites,
d. Fulfill requests by nations to assist in the preservation of sites when the nation in question is unable to do so,

3. Urges nations to follow the preservation recommendations of the WATCH,

4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,

5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,

6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,

7. Requires the WATCH to grant exemptions in good faith to the protections and requirements of sections 5 and 6 for a site currently used as an intelligence or military asset in order to preserve its use as such.

The region of Osiris is presenting this draft to the General Assembly for review. Constructive criticism is not only wanted, it is encouraged.

The Alliance of Germanic and Nordic Nations FULLY SUPPORT this draft

[The Dourian Embassy]

That entire clause is about co-authors(with a small aside about acronyms), not authors.

Sorry, but it's not. It's also about advertising your region. which we can't let into a proposal because the WA can't act through regions (a form of metagaming, if you will).

I've pulled the proposal from the list before it got too entrenched, in the hope that you'll be able to get it back on deck in short order with a different puppet submitting.

Approvals were: 14 (Bambergtopia, The Eternal City, Hombertoland, Astibus, Republic Defense Army, Greater Tion, Pewor, Communist Eraser, Nicer potlimitomaha, Nava Siam, Dedredle, Umbramoor, General Hammond, Vandelstein)

There are nations and an Egyptian god named Osiris as well. It's a lot like how "forums" are allowed in SC proposals because "forums" are also a real non-electronic thing. I don't see the difference here.

It wasn't name as such simply for promotion, the entire Osiris WA department worked on the proposal. I'm not advertising anymore than someone called the "WA Drafting Group" is advertising.

[Bananaistan]

The Republic of Bananaistan will continue to support this resolution. We note and thank you for your amendment in respect of our concerns regarding the military and intelligence assets issue. We support the provision's implicit requirement that in future no such military or intelligence asset can be moved into such a site and that the requirement's exception only applies to where the site is currently used as such.

We hope that the foolishness regarding the submitting nations "branding" will not unduly deter you from continuing with the resolution.

[Ardchoille]

It wasn't name as such simply for promotion, the entire Osiris WA department worked on the proposal. I'm not advertising anymore than someone called the "WA Drafting Group" is advertising.

I certainly don't think you did anything blameworthy. It's an achievement to get even a small group working together to write a proposal, let alone a region like Osiris. I can understand that it is frustrating to see it removed on a technicality. But the technicality exists. For now, sorry, it's 2am here, and I'm logging out.

[The Dourian Embassy]

It wasn't name as such simply for promotion, the entire Osiris WA department worked on the proposal. I'm not advertising anymore than someone called the "WA Drafting Group" is advertising.

I certainly don't think you did anything blameworthy. It's an achievement to get even a small group working together to write a proposal, let alone a region like Osiris. I can understand that it is frustrating to see it removed on a technicality. But the technicality exists. For now, sorry, it's 2am here, and I'm logging out.

I'm not frustrated, I was just trying to convince y'all you made a mistake. It's already resubmitted under another puppet. Thanks for your help in this.

[The Dourian Embassy]

And this has now reached quorum. Thanks to everyone for their support.

[Auralia]

How does one "unwillingly" use a culturally relevant site to house military or intelligence assets? Doesn't clause 7 effectively defeat the purpose of the resolution?

I'm leaning against at this point, as this seems rather toothless.

[The Dourian Embassy]

How does one "unwillingly" use a culturally relevant site to house military or intelligence assets? Doesn't clause 7 effectively defeat the purpose of the resolution?

I'm leaning against at this point, as this seems rather toothless.

First of all, one could house intelligence and military assets in a site under duress or any other number of situations.

Second, clause 7 involves sites that have use as both military or intelligence assets, while also being culturally significant(or which become culturally significant in the future). We're not going to bar the use of a site as a military or intelligence asset if that very use is what causes it to be culturally significant. That works opposite of the intent of the piece, which is to preserve culturally significant sites. If we build a state of the art, iconic defense department building, which becomes culturally significant over the next few years... we don't think that's a good reason to kick the defense department out. That is the point of clause 7.

[Auralia]

First of all, one could house intelligence and military assets in a site under duress or any other number of situations.

I'd say being on the losing side of a war would impose substantial duress, which would make me exempt from that clause. As written, it defeats the point of the resolution.

Second, clause 7 involves sites that have use as both military or intelligence assets, while also being culturally significant(or which become culturally significant in the future). We're not going to bar the use of a site as a military or intelligence asset if that very use is what causes it to be culturally significant. That works opposite of the intent of the piece, which is to preserve culturally significant sites. If we build a state of the art, iconic defense department building, which becomes culturally significant over the next few years... we don't think that's a good reason to kick the defense department out. That is the point of clause 7.

That's not what the clause actually says, though. It permits any culturally significant site that is currently being used to house military or intelligence assets to continue to be used for that purpose. it is not limited to culturally significant sites that are culturally significant by virtue of the fact that they are used to house military or intelligence assets.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'd say being on the losing side of a war would impose substantial duress, which would make me exempt from that clause. As written, it defeats the point of the resolution.

That's not exactly how duress works.

That's not what the clause actually says, though. It permits any culturally significant site that is currently being used to house military or intelligence assets to continue to be used for that purpose. it is not limited to culturally significant sites that are culturally significant by virtue of the fact that they are used to house military or intelligence assets.

Nor should it. A site being used prior to the resolution deserves grandfathering in as well. That covers both options. Once a nation stops using at such, the exemptions can be withdrawn. It's why we had the committee do it.

[FreedomsLands]

I feel as though more specificity is needed:

- What qualifies as a culturally relevant site (historical significance, natural wonders, etc.)?
- Will there be a concerted effort made to ensure that these sites are as evenly distributed as possible, so as to prevent an internationally-endorsed flow of tourism to one country at the expense of another?
- Will the WA allocate funds for the preservation of sites in countries that cannot afford upkeep?
- Will WATCH consult not only with the countries within which the sites are located but also any other nations the creation of said sites might affect?
- Will the International Community revoke the privileges of hosting a cultural site to nations that resign from the WA?

Suggestions:

- Can we include a clause encouraging the host country to:
- Provide for limited public access?
- Appoint a board of experts to work in conjunction with international scholars on how best to study and/or preserve the site for future generations?
- Ensure that no wildlife/ animal life will be damaged by creating the site?
- Can we grant WATCH the responsibility of not only protecting these sites but also issuing in-depth information of each one?
- Can we provide a mechanism for the inspection of said sites after their having been determined?

Thanks,
Office of the FreedomsLandsian WA Delegacy

[The Dourian Embassy]

Bump for at vote tonight.

[Aetrina]

The Kingdom of Aetrina has voiced it's support for this proposal and continues to do so. Our kingdom is rich with culturally significant sites both of a public and private nature. Many of our military installations date back hundreds of years as d our government buildings. While we make every effort to preserve our heritage by not placing our history in harms way as it were, these buildings are part and parcel of the kingdom's history. We hope to see this worthy resolution become law.

[Ardchoille]

For player info: we received a well-reasoned legality challenge based on Just-A-Committee. We dismissed it after analysis, feeling that clauses 4 and 6 were stand-alones -- "culturally significant site" had a meaning, and effects, even if all the WATCH effects were removed. This applied also to the "promote funding"" segment of the category. The use of "assist" in the preamble reinforced our view that nations would be required to do something even without WATCH.

As a general thing, the Hive Mind tends to drop grey area queries back in the GA's lap. Doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, though.

[Zarkanians]

OOC: Zarkanians wouldn't have voted for it either way, but the WATCH thing kind of sealed the coffin. If this is ever resubmitted, maybe have the WATCH recruit from the local population, or, better yet, have them allow the government to submit proposals from a distance. Not that it really matters because we don't have to comply with any of this (or, for that matter, any rules laid down by any proposal ever), as per SCR #114 section 3. Which can't be repealed because it's a repeal. And stuff.

[Jacobios]

We do wish to preserve historic monuments and artifacts however requiring our nation to be locked in to giving money to other nations for the preservation of their own monuments, we do not support. So therefore we will not be supporting this proposal.

[Genuine]

I am a supporter of the subject of the bill. But due to #4 stating that my nation must help other nations with the upkeep of their cultural sites we will not be voting it.

[Deterria]

Overall Deterria is against this resolution.

a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,

Even though it is in work with the primary government, we refuse to allow some non-native to even consider determining what is culturally relevant to Deterria. And even if they are native, they have been corrupted and cannot be trusted.

4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,

Secondly, we refuse to make an attempt to budge from our current position, if one of the private corporations in the nation wishes to send some money to preserve such a site then that is their choice, not ours.
Moreover, making even the suggestion to help preserve another people's 'culture' is boardering on heresy, foul xenos and those who do not worship the God Emperor are not worth tossing a single crown at- a crown which I might add could go to building another tank.

5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,

Unnecessary damage? If we need to bulldoze a site to build something over it, like a road or a new habitation block, then we will. No place is so relevant to the culture of Deterria that it can stop us from destroying it to make way for something useful, or to test a bigger bomb on.

Although I may may reconsider my greater disdain at this point, given that it would be nice to have someone remind us to keep the deactive concentration camps in good condition for when our time in the WA is done.

6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,

Why not? Some places that WATCH may claim are 'culturally relevant' may be a good place to set up a new barraks or number station. Maybe we might want to keep the Military police stationed at each site to protect it. Just maybe we might feel the need to set up a command center, or convert the site into a training center. And hey, that ancient coastal town might look better as a naval base, who knows?

[Exantos]

The main reason that I said no was because I believe that your country should decide what is culturally relevant to your country. Let's say however what if in an RP that there was a battle between your nation and another nation. If that happened then shouldn't your two nations each decide whether or not that is a site that should be preserved culturally. The only thing is that I think that having a WA assembly group created to decide what your own country should decide on its own is just an extreme waste of time. Nice proposal though.

[The Democratic States of LibertarianLand]

LibertarianLand feels that while good intentions are intended with this resolution establishing a WATCH comittee is unneeded as these Democratic States are able to preserve our culture and historic sites on our own. And We feel other nations are equally able to preserve thier cuture. We feel the WATCH comission will take up prescious resources that the WA could find better use for. It is therefore the intent of LL to vote Nay on this Resolution. We wish no ill will to those who vote YES or to the original authors of said resoultion. In fact we wish them luck. However our intent has been stated. Thank you.

[Iron Confederation]

Look, another resolution expanding the WA's power to needlessly meddle in the affairs of member nations.

AGAINST.

[Fasdokl]

Look, another resolution expanding the WA's power to needlessly meddle in the affairs of member nations.

AGAINST.

Essentially this. Who is the WA to decide what is 'culturally relevant' for an individual nation? Why should they take care of it? If it was culturally relevant to the entirety of the WA, that'd make sense, but for individual nations, it doesn't. Also AGAINST.

[Talonis]

Look, another resolution expanding the WA's power to needlessly meddle in the affairs of member nations.

AGAINST.

Essentially this. Who is the WA to decide what is 'culturally relevant' for an individual nation? Why should they take care of it? If it was culturally relevant to the entirety of the WA, that'd make sense, but for individual nations, it doesn't. Also AGAINST.

And why do we even need this? To prevent people from turning old, derelict buildings into new, beneficial structures?

[Braylandia]

We accept this bill and will pass legislation immediately.