NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Sustainable Forest Management

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Sun May 11, 2014 9:57 pm

REQUIRES that before the commencement of logging operations, a proposal be submitted, by the state or states affected, to, and approved by, the WAFC detailing plans:
a) Which clearly define the area to be harvested;
b) To minimize soil degradation and damage to the biodiversity of the area;
c) For the revitalization of the forest upon completion, taking into consideration the rejuvenation of the ecosystem and long term health, or, if the area is to be developed for some other purpose include:
i) Such development plans outlining the intent and purpose and area to be used;
ii) A timetable as to the anticipated start and completion of said development;
iii) Intentions for areas cleared but not part of the subsequent development;


So all logging processes will need to be approved by O Benevolent Gnomes? Good lord. No thank you.

Andrew Barton
Charges d'Affaires ad Interim to the WAGA
Adjunct Assistant Lecturer of International Law
The Meritocracy of Moronist Decisions
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Ratateague
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1584
Founded: Dec 25, 2010
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Ratateague » Mon May 12, 2014 8:47 pm

Cardoness wrote:I trust this has been resolved to your satisfaction?

Very much so. Cheers!
Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. -Henry Thomas Buckle
When money speaks, the truth is silent. -Russian Proverb
'|

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Mon May 12, 2014 9:01 pm

In accordance with our regional poll, I have voted AGAINST this resolution. The text leaves significant loopholes on one hand. Also we have found that the requirements for gnomes to vet all logging activities to be a huge, unwarranted piece of micromanagement and blatant trampling of national sovereignty.

Moronist Decisions
World Assembly Delegate of Europeia
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Mon May 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:In accordance with our regional poll, I have voted AGAINST this resolution. The text leaves significant loopholes on one hand. Also we have found that the requirements for gnomes to vet all logging activities to be a huge, unwarranted piece of micromanagement and blatant trampling of national sovereignty.

Moronist Decisions
World Assembly Delegate of Europeia

May I inquire as to what significant loopholes I have overlooked? As for the gnomes, it would have been rather toothless otherwise.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Tantricia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Sep 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Tantricia » Tue May 13, 2014 12:00 am

We actually quite like this proposal! Unfortunately, we're voting against it on the principle that campaigns which have telegram spam attached are comparable to poisoned wells.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 12:24 am

Tantricia wrote:We actually quite like this proposal! Unfortunately, we're voting against it on the principle that campaigns which have telegram spam attached are comparable to poisoned wells.

I understand this to be a common position among all levels of WA members, I however, take exception to it. You received but a single relatively short telegram drawing your attention to the resolution at vote and laying out my basic arguments for its passage. How does the fact that one was sent to everyone have any bearing on the matter? It used to be, before mass TGs, that an intensive telegram campaign was praised. Hours would be spent by the author going from nation to nation copying and pasting the same message over and over for the whole length of the vote. It was expected and often authors would delay submitting perfectly reasonable resolutions because they did not have time to do a "proper campaign". Now, an author only has to send their campaign message once and it becomes "spam" and is seen as desperate on the part of the author. Why? I could understand if the author was really spamming by running multiple TG campaigns, jumping into regional debates, posting on RMBs, ect. Such is not the case here.

And while some do come here and read the debates and the authors comments on it, a vast majority do not. In fact, a vast majority do not even bother to "read the resolution" and vote the title, or worse, the majority. What I have done is provide them with a reasonable and fair assessment of what the proposal is and what it does. If they choose to vote against based on the merits, great! They made an informed decision and I can respect that. But to agree with the proposal and yet vote against because you got 1 telegram about it, it doesn't sound like a principle to me.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Tantricia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Sep 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Tantricia » Tue May 13, 2014 12:58 am

If somebody can't be bothered to read the proposal itself, we find it hard to believe they'll read your telegram. Trust us enough to make an informed decision and we'll respect you- if you choose to place an identical message in everybody's mailbox, it won't be received well. An aside: We don't care much for 'tradition' in campaigning- spam is spam, regardless of how it would've been done.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 1:59 am

Tantricia wrote:If somebody can't be bothered to read the proposal itself, we find it hard to believe they'll read your telegram. Trust us enough to make an informed decision and we'll respect you- if you choose to place an identical message in everybody's mailbox, it won't be received well. An aside: We don't care much for 'tradition' in campaigning- spam is spam, regardless of how it would've been done.

I would love to let my proposal and its debate here speak for itself,but we both know that it doesn't. The voters reading the proposal, let alone the debate is one of the oldest jokes of the WA. So much of a joke in fact that it has its own resolution. It is also easier to read a short simple telegram than a long complex legal document, and so yes, I believe the masses do read the TG, at least a greater percentage than those who read the resolution. Telegrams are an easy way to get a simple message on a complicated issue out to the general public who would otherwise not know what the issue was, assuming they even knew there was a resolution at vote in the first place. Only a little more than 10% bother to vote in the first place. Maybe they don't care, maybe they don't know, the ones who don't care still won't care, but the ones do don't know now do. For those who don't wish to be contacted my campaign telegrams, there is a way to block them. You're happy because you aren't getting "spammed", I'm happy because I have drawn attention to my resolution, and those who want an easy to understand message explaining to them what is going on are happy. It's a win-win.

My exception is that you have stated that you are happy with the resolution at vote and yet are voting against it because you couldn't be bothered to block campaign telegrams and got one. That is worse then the lemmings, who have no idea what they are doing, you, and others like you, are intentionally voting against a resolution you are for, for no other reason then you got a telegram. I accept that there is a wide difference of opinion an issue such as forest management and there are a lot of really smart people on all sides of it, so I can respect the reasoned opinion of others and even concede that they may be right. How can I respect the opinion of someone who believes one way but votes the other way because they don't like the person who put the issue forward? Your opposition to the resolution has nothing to do with the issue of environmental protection or forest management, but instead has everything to do with me as a person. You don't like what I did so you are going to oppose a resolution that spent months being drafted, crafted, refined, and finally submitted and moved to a vote. I can't trust you to make an informed decision, you just proved that you can't.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Tantricia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Sep 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Tantricia » Tue May 13, 2014 2:03 am

If you are to assume that the average World Assembly member is an idiot who can't be bothered to spend 3 minutes reading a proposal, the proposals you draft do not deserve to pass.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 2:21 am

Tantricia wrote:If you are to assume that the average World Assembly member is an idiot who can't be bothered to spend 3 minutes reading a proposal, the proposals you draft do not deserve to pass.

Why not? Why do the widely well known and observable voting habits of the larger body politic mean that a resolution you yourself said you liked and agreed with not deserve to pass?
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Tantricia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Sep 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Tantricia » Tue May 13, 2014 2:28 am

We hold contempt for every politician who sees those who vote as beneath themselves. The matter of your proposal is irrelevant- if it is an urgent matter, a replacement will be along soon enough.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 2:59 am

Tantricia wrote:We hold contempt for every politician who sees those who vote as beneath themselves. The matter of your proposal is irrelevant- if it is an urgent matter, a replacement will be along soon enough.

But I don't see the voters and beneath me, never have. However, I know that not everyone understands legalese. I also know that very few of those who vote venture into the debate hall. I am pleased you do on both counts, as do I and many others. Most don't, and yet they vote. So because I respect the voters, I provided a simple and easy to understand summery of the resolution in question. What they choose to do with that information is up to them. I did not disrespect them or insult them in any way. I did not even tell them they should vote for the resolution. I laid out what the resolution did and asked for their support then went on my merry way.

I didn't even start this little discussion, which has no bearing on the resolution whatsoever. You came to me, publicly, and said: "I like your resolution, but I don't like that you sent me a telegram about it, so I'm going to vote no." The manner in which you did this, and the manner in which you have spoken, you have shown no respect for me, for the resolution at vote, and certainly not for the voters at large. To you, either they read and understand the resolution at vote and vote the way they should or too bad, for them, the author, and the Assembly as a whole. Who cares if there are some out there who want to participate who don't understand how a legal document reads or what it does, right? So what if there are younger people here that are new to law and politics and are trying to get a handle on laws written by persons with years of experience?

I am sorry if I inconvenienced a knowledgeable ambassador such as yourself, but if it helped even one person understand what all of that legal writing meant, it was worth it.

Now, do you have any problems with the proposal itself?
Tantricia wrote:We actually quite like this proposal!

Ok then.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Tantricia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Sep 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Tantricia » Tue May 13, 2014 3:06 am

We think you overestimate both the level of experience needed to read a proposal and underestimate the average intelligence of your world assembly member. We stand on principle, and although it may not lead to the best results, it does lead to a better conscience for us. It's not a matter of inconvenience- it's a matter of swaying the vote with what is essentially telemarketing or mass mailing flyers. If you have no desire to change your campaigning tactics, we apologise for irritating you, and will take our leave- we do, however, believe it is important to state why we vote for or against a proposal, which we have done.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 3:20 am

Tantricia wrote:We think you overestimate both the level of experience needed to read a proposal and underestimate the average intelligence of your world assembly member. We stand on principle, and although it may not lead to the best results, it does lead to a better conscience for us. It's not a matter of inconvenience- it's a matter of swaying the vote with what is essentially telemarketing or mass mailing flyers. If you have no desire to change your campaigning tactics, we apologise for irritating you, and will take our leave- we do, however, believe it is important to state why we vote for or against a proposal, which we have done.

Having been around the block a few times and seen a large number of resolutions, good and bad, pass and fail, I highly doubt I have done either, but I will concede it is possible. Though I object to the presumption that I believe those who cannot read some of these proposals are unintelligent. They may be very intelligent but just not have experience with the law. There is a reason politicians send those flyers in the mail, it gets them elected. This is a game about politics, the same rules apply. We find it disappointing that your principles don't allow you to participate in the political process IRL, or indeed purchase anything you have seen or heard advertised.

Again, is there anything about the text of the resolution that needs to be discussed?
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Jute
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13735
Founded: Jan 28, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Jute » Tue May 13, 2014 4:03 am

Tantricia wrote:If somebody can't be bothered to read the proposal itself, we find it hard to believe they'll read your telegram. Trust us enough to make an informed decision and we'll respect you- if you choose to place an identical message in everybody's mailbox, it won't be received well. An aside: We don't care much for 'tradition' in campaigning- spam is spam, regardless of how it would've been done.

Actually, that was exactly the case here. Usually not reading all the new proposals, since they're often vague or they're affecting a topic of no particular national interest, but in this case it was different and the telegram was welcome.
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...
The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
"Boys and girls so happy, young and gay / Don't let false worldly joy carry your hearts away."

See the Jutean language! Talk to me about all. Avian air force flag (via) Is Religion Dangerous?

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 4:12 am

Jute wrote:
Tantricia wrote:If somebody can't be bothered to read the proposal itself, we find it hard to believe they'll read your telegram. Trust us enough to make an informed decision and we'll respect you- if you choose to place an identical message in everybody's mailbox, it won't be received well. An aside: We don't care much for 'tradition' in campaigning- spam is spam, regardless of how it would've been done.

Actually, that was exactly the case here. Usually not reading all the new proposals, since they're often vague or they're affecting a topic of no particular national interest, but in this case it was different and the telegram was welcome.

I'm glad it helped!
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Wrapper
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6020
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Tue May 13, 2014 4:35 am

(Ari takes the author's hand and slaps his wrist.) Bad author! Bad spam! No cookie! (He then votes aye, because he sincerely likes the proposal, but hopes the author gets the message that his $17 is better spent on things other than telegram stamps.)

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 5:00 am

Wrapper wrote:(Ari takes the author's hand and slaps his wrist.) Bad author! Bad spam! No cookie! (He then votes aye, because he sincerely likes the proposal, but hopes the author gets the message that his $17 is better spent on things other than telegram stamps.)

Lord Andreas rubs his wrist and mutters something about remembering why he doesn't write these things. Yes, you're right, $17 dollars could be put to much better use in the Strangers Bar. He then turns and walks out, apparently looking for a good bar stool to hold him up for the next three and a half days.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Frustrated Franciscans
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 492
Founded: Aug 01, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Frustrated Franciscans » Tue May 13, 2014 5:11 am

Image
Image
The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade




We find this resolution mostly harmless and beneficial to the environment. I have minor reservations, (for example requiring the "state" to submit a proposal to the WAFC, but we know how to "pass the buck" to the logging industry so it's not a problem for us), but I think overall, this resolution is a good one.
Proud Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue May 13, 2014 5:25 am

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:
The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade




We find this resolution mostly harmless and beneficial to the environment. I have minor reservations, (for example requiring the "state" to submit a proposal to the WAFC, but we know how to "pass the buck" to the logging industry so it's not a problem for us), but I think overall, this resolution is a good one.

I went back and forth in my head. Some of the voices told me to make it the harvesters/developers, after all they are the ones doing it. Others were saying the states because there are some states which don't have private companies and what not. This is the option I went with because it had the fewer unknowns and as you said, the state can pass the buck. (It should be noted that only a couple of the voices were telling me everyone was a tree, that the trees were out to get me, and I should cut them down. So, all in all, I think I'm pretty sane.)
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Dorvala
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: May 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Dorvala » Tue May 13, 2014 6:07 am

The Republic of Dorvala is fully in support of the initial resolution and any amendments that are to be made so long as they do not "water down" said resolution. On behalf of a nation which prioritises environmental issues in government, I can confirm that this initiative is highly important for most, if not all, nations present.

User avatar
Nova Gaelia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: May 02, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Nova Gaelia » Tue May 13, 2014 9:10 am

The environment is of great importance to Nova Gaelia. However, because this bill requires approval of the WAFC before the commencement of logging operations we must vote AGAINST. Nova Gaelia would be in support of this bill if the WAFC was an advisory, rather than administrative, institution.

User avatar
Discoveria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Jan 16, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Discoveria » Tue May 13, 2014 1:36 pm

Tantricia wrote:We actually quite like this proposal! Unfortunately, we're voting against it on the principle that campaigns which have telegram spam attached are comparable to poisoned wells.


"We aren't very keen on the proposal's micromanagey aspects, but are voting for it anyway to send the message that Tantricia's form of ad hominem voting should not be tolerated by this assembly."
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

A member of | The Stonewall Alliance | UN Old Guard
Nation | OOC description | IC Factbook | Timeline

User avatar
Zercera
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 57
Founded: Dec 15, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Zercera » Tue May 13, 2014 3:50 pm

Us here at Zercera are always happy to vote for a proposal that helps protect the environment!

User avatar
Urdein Straights
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Jul 03, 2013
Anarchy

Postby Urdein Straights » Tue May 13, 2014 4:16 pm

The representative of Urdein Straights, the delegate-elect of the Realm of Westeros, would like to extend our gratitude to the author for his telegram to draw our intention to this important proposal.

We will be voting in accordance with the wishes of our regions resident nations but would like to commend the author for the considerate and open-minded approach taken in drafting this proposal and the resolution before us now is far stronger than the original draft presented as a result.
Blackfish, World Assembly Delegate for the Realm of Westeros

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads