[PASSED] Preservation of Artefacts

[The Candy Of Bottles]

"Section 3c has 'discovered' twice in a row."

[Abacathea]

"Section 3c has 'discovered' twice in a row."

Go raibh mhaith. Fixed

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

What exactly is meant by handed over? Merely that they have legal possession of it or does the IHA have a physical location that the artifact may be sent to?

Suppose moving it would damage it or the surrounding area(which may itself be a historic site. I notice that our own analysis is limited to that which does not damage the artifact but compliance with the resolution is not.

Honestly I don't have a lot of hope for this area of legislation. A least not from this angle.

[Abacathea]

What exactly is meant by handed over? Merely that they have legal possession of it or does the IHA have a physical location that the artifact may be sent to?

Suppose moving it would damage it or the surrounding area(which may itself be a historic site. I notice that our own analysis is limited to that which does not damage the artifact but compliance with the resolution is not.

Honestly I don't have a lot of hope for this area of legislation. A least not from this angle.

Hmmm fair point. I can look at it and edit it to reflect that.

As for the spoiler, I haven't written anything in a while and I think this marries up with existing legislation nicely. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but I've been hard pressed at times in here to see something everyone adores ha. But I'll see this one through to the end regardless and see what happens

[Abacathea]

Edited III(b) to the following:

(b)(I)If not native to that land transferred to the IHA for analysis, cataloguing, display and preservation post any scientific analysis deemed appropriate by the discovering party, unless such analysis would risk the destruction of said artefact, without delay or,
(b)(ii)If not native to that land and the movement/transfer of such would result in irreperable damage to, or destruction of the artefact in question, preserved in situ until such a time as it can be safely removed.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

As for the spoiler, I haven't written anything in a while and I think this marries up with existing legislation nicely. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but I've been hard pressed at times in here to see something everyone adores ha. But I'll see this one through to the end regardless and see what happens

Oh I didn't mean it like that. I just meant that historical preservation has all sorts of nitty details and considerations that make it difficult to write sweeping legestation without harmful consequences. And that's just when you're only goal is the preservation of the artifact. Never mind issues with who should be in possession of it.

[Abacathea]

As for the spoiler, I haven't written anything in a while and I think this marries up with existing legislation nicely. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but I've been hard pressed at times in here to see something everyone adores ha. But I'll see this one through to the end regardless and see what happens

Oh I didn't mean it like that. I just meant that historical preservation has all sorts of nitty details and considerations that make it difficult to write sweeping legestation without harmful consequences. And that's just when you're only goal is the preservation of the artifact. Never mind issues with who should be in possession of it.

This is a fair point, tbh I think I've covered the angles as comprehensively as I'm able to at present, I'm gonna let this sit another couple of days and then I might give it a run and see how it fairs out.

[Grays Harbor]

Artifact, not Artefact.

[Abacathea]

Artifact, not Artefact.

"artifact also artefact. (är'tə-fākt') An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest."

Both are acceptable

[City Nation]

gonna tag this for future discussion

[The Imperium Empires]

All I can say is I agree with this

[John Turner]

Artifact, not Artefact.

Seriously? We are now going to quibble over British and American spelling?

[Abacathea]

Artifact, not Artefact.

Seriously? We are now going to quibble over British and American spelling?

You'd be amazed the amount of TG's I'm receiving over this. It may well be a bone of contention going forward I feel...

[John Turner]

Seriously? We are now going to quibble over British and American spelling?

You'd be amazed the amount of TG's I'm receiving over this. It may well be a bone of contention going forward I feel...

Unfortunately not much amazes me anymore. I have been getting my share of hate mail over a recent commendation I authored. It seems if there is any little thing to quibble over anymore people jump on it.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Artifact, not Artefact.

Seriously? We are now going to quibble over British and American spelling?

Well it's not like we don't quibble over worse on a daily basis.

You'd be amazed the amount of TG's I'm receiving over this. It may well be a bone of contention going forward I feel...

Well,,, on one hand artifact is acceptable in both languages while in American English artefact has been almost replaced, and it's consistent with spelling of related words (artist, artificial), so I can see why it'd be preferred. On the other hand artefact is etymologically correct, since it stems from the Latin arte.

I'd say that given the nature of the proposal preserving the older spelling is entirely appropriate.

[Abacathea]

You'd be amazed the amount of TG's I'm receiving over this. It may well be a bone of contention going forward I feel...

Well,,, on one hand artifact is acceptable in both languages while in American English artefact has been almost replaced, and it's consistent with spelling of related words (artist, artificial), so I can see why it'd be preferred. On the other hand artefact is etymologically correct, since it stems from the Latin arte.

I'd say that given the nature of the proposal preserving the older spelling is entirely appropriate.

As the kids say these days "I totes meant to do that #amazeballs"

[Imperium Anglorum]

You'd be amazed the amount of TG's I'm receiving over this. It may well be a bone of contention going forward I feel...

OOC: Huh. Interesting. I've never gotten a telegram over my use of British spellings. Then again, in the words of John Oliver, 'we invented the words, let me tell you how to say them'.

[Wallenburg]

You'd be amazed the amount of TG's I'm receiving over this. It may well be a bone of contention going forward I feel...

OOC: Huh. Interesting. I've never gotten a telegram over my use of British spellings. Then again, in the words of John Oliver, 'we invented the words, let me tell you how to say them'.

"Defence" is the act of removing a wooden boundary from a given perimeter. You Brits...

[Railana]

While I believe this is a topic with enormous potential for good World Assembly regulation, I can't support this particular proposal for the following reasons:

• There may be some circumstances where an artifact is used for a military purpose. In such circumstances, the artifact should be considered a legitimate military target and it should be permissible to destroy it, even if there is no "immediate threat to life or limb".
• A World Assembly-run museum highlighting all "civilisations past and present" strikes us as a bad idea; we believe that individual member states are more than capable of operating museums, and a single museum dedicated to the history of so many member states would be extremely expensive to build and operate.
• I believe the combined wording of (III), (IV), and (V) is trying to say that if an artifact is discovered in a particular nation and transfered to the IHA, and the nation of origin of the artifact wishes to reclaim the artifact, then the IHA will honour that request. While this is certainly a good thing, the wording establishing this right is confusing and should be re-written. For example, (IV) makes no sense because items are not archived at the IHA pursuant to (III)(a).

In addition, following the repeal of Cultural Heritage Protection, it would be good if this resolution or a resolution of this nature provided protection for sites with cultural importance, not merely artifacts. I recommend the author re-write the proposal to address these concerns and re-submit. For the moment, I'll be voting AGAINST.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Abacathea]

While I believe this is a topic with enormous potential for good World Assembly regulation, I can't support this particular proposal for the following reasons:

As always, I rarely squabble when someone can't support something I've written. It's different when they're outright slamming it for no good reason, but I respect your choice. That said,

[*]There may be some circumstances where an artifact is used for a military purpose. In such circumstances, the artifact should be considered a legitimate military target and it should be permissible to destroy it, even if there is no "immediate threat to life or limb".

Personally, I can see some validity to this, and yet I disagree. Lets take RL for a moment, and look at the German, "Big Bertha". No immediate threat to life or limb, a target worth per your description above destroying from a military point of view, but then from this legislations point of view, a hell of a historical achievement and something from a historical point of view, if found years on worth NOT destroying but studying and displaying.

A World Assembly-run museum highlighting all "civilisations past and present" strikes us as a bad idea; we believe that individual member states are more than capable of operating museums, and a single museum dedicated to the history of so many member states would be extremely expensive to build and operate.

I had originally considered the expense, but then I was reminded the general fund appears to an immense black hole in which money seems to be no issue. It resolved my financial guilt to some degree, that and I believe the initial set-up costs will be the only massive fund. The scientific rewards and educational benefits going forward should pay for themselves. As for managing a museum, yes, maybe they could. But this is more than simply a museum, and I feel its a benefit, else I wouldn't have suggested it

I believe the combined wording of (III), (IV), and (V) is trying to say that if an artifact is discovered in a particular nation and transfered to the IHA, and the nation of origin of the artifact wishes to reclaim the artifact, then the IHA will honour that request. While this is certainly a good thing, the wording establishing this right is confusing and should be re-written. For example, (IV) makes no sense because items are not archived at the IHA pursuant to (III)(a).

I will ceede that the wording on that clause is clunky, but the provision it provides is actually (in my opinion) sound. Lets take for example Auralia. It is invaded. And the invading force complies with this legislation during the occupation. And years after the fact, a legitimate Auralian Government seats again. Under IIIa, they will be entitled to reclaim anything that was sent over.

In addition, following the repeal of Cultural Heritage Protection, it would be good if this resolution or a resolution of this nature provided protection for sites with cultural importance, not merely artifacts. I recommend the author re-write the proposal to address these concerns and re-submit. For the moment, I'll be voting AGAINST.

Again, it's a shame you're against it. As for the re-write, it's really not something I intend or wish to do. Re-writing it to encompas the sites would end up getting messy to some degree and given previous acts, to combine both, could end up being more problematic as well as honestly, just not being what I intended to do. I'd rather not re-write this to deal with something I never intended to deal with just to get this to pass if you follow my thinking.

All the best!

Aba

P.S I really should start roleplaying my ambassadors again.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Prepare for massive nitpicking:

(I)Mandates that no nation be it occupying, invading, defending or native, or person(s) representing a nation in an official capacity is permitted to destroy an item...

The grammar here irks me slightly. I don't know exactly what's wrong, but it just doesn't sound right.

(II)Creates the International Historical Archives, a non-profit archive established under and sustained via WA funds thereafter, accompanied by an educational visitor center established as part of this archive, allowing generations current and future to learn of civilisations past and present and to benefit from same.

The "s" should be a "z". (OOC: unless this is another British/American discrepancy)

(III)Mandates that any historical artefact coming to the possession of a government should be;
(a)If native to that land, preserved/displayed in a way seen best fit by the government of the day.
(b)(I)If not native to that land , transferred to the IHA for analysis, cataloguing, display and preservation post after any scientific analysis deemed appropriate by the discovering party (unless such analysis would risk the destruction of said artefact), without delay or,
(b)(ii)If not native to that land and the movement/transfer of such would result in irreperable irreparable damage to, or destruction of the artefact in question, preserved in situ until such a time as it can be safely removed.
(c)If an item is discovered by an invading force and would be native to the land in which it is discovered, subsection (b) will apply.

Grammar and spelling fixes, although "irreperable" may be acceptable elsewhere. (OOC: Bloody Yankees...)


The rest is fine, as far as I can tell, and Whovian Tardisia would be happy to donate a non-functioning TARDIS to the IHA. We like the way this is going, and offer tentative support.

[Sciongrad]

"I should have commented before this was submitted, but the sheer verbosity and liberal use of inverted syntax in this proposal makes it very difficult to read. Some language is nonsensical or unnecessary. For example, what is a 'native nation?' What is the purpose of 'thereafter' in clause II? This section of clause II simply doesn't make grammatical sense: 'allowing generations current and future to learn of civilisations past and present and to benefit from same.' To benefit from the same what, exactly? Civilizations past and present? Sciongrad is supportive of the fundamental idea behind this proposal, but cannot vote for it in its current state. My sincerest apologies for waiting until this reached quorum to make these comments."

[Abacathea]

OOC: I'm transitioning from lates to nights the next two days so I may be unable to field questions regarding this. But I will first chance I get.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I'm transitioning from lates to nights the next two days so I may be unable to field questions regarding this. But I will first chance I get.

OOC: I would seriously consider removing this from the queue before it goes to vote. There are grammatical errors abound.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
You're at vote mate.
Here's hoping this thing crashes and burns!

Uh, ICly, of course.
Good luck.