NationStates

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:33 pm**

This august World Assembly,

Concerned about the failure of adequately define 'historical significance' and establish a bar which would adequately and effectively determine what needs to be preserved;

Cognisant that there are over twenty-five thousand World Assembly member nations and that 363 GA creates an International Historical Archive, which is charged with the creation of a museum which will 'generations current and future to learn of civilisations past and present';

Baffled at the likely projected costs of such a project given the number of civilisations which have existed both in the past and the present;

Certain that the 'WA funds' which are alluded to in 363 GA § 2 are not endless and that the source of those funds originates from member nations, thereby requiring more and more funds over time as history does not end;

Concerned that culturally significant military targets, even if they are currently used as active military installations, are protected from destruction, even if those targets would facilitate the loss of many lives; and

Believing that protection of cultural artefacts is already ensured by 287 GA 'Cultural Site Protection'; hereby

Repeals 363 GA, 'Preservation of Artefacts'.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:38 pm**

"Riddle me this, Mr. Parsons: why have you drafted a repeal for this resolution, when you have casted your hundreds of votes in favor of the very resolution this draft would repeal?"

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:40 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:"Riddle me this, Mr. Parsons: why have you drafted a repeal for this resolution, when you have casted your hundreds of votes in favor of the very resolution this draft would repeal?"

I have drafted a repeal for this resolution. Now, I feel an obligation to vote how my region votes. My region voted one way, that is, "Amongst Europe residents, voting is currently 90-19 (82% For)". Thus, I have voted in favour. You may be surprised to know that I initially stacked against the resolution.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:52 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"Riddle me this, Mr. Parsons: why have you drafted a repeal for this resolution, when you have casted your hundreds of votes in favor of the very resolution this draft would repeal?"

I have drafted a repeal for this resolution. Now, I feel an obligation to vote how my region votes. My region voted one way, that is, "Amongst Europe residents, voting is currently 90-19 (82% For)". Thus, I have voted in favour. You may be surprised to know that I initially stacked against the resolution.

That is unfortunate. Very well then. We will support this repeal.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:28 pm**

You bring up several excellent points here, most notably #4.
However, it is also worth noting that the WA nations will constantly make more money, rendering your point about funding invalid. If need be, the funding required for 'preservation of artefacts' could simply be attributed to a tax rise across all WA nations.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:29 pm**

Dharmascus the Great wrote:You bring up several excellent points here, most notably #4.
However, it is also worth noting that the WA nations will constantly make more money, rendering your point about funding invalid. If need be, the funding required for 'preservation of artefacts' could simply be attributed to a tax rise across all WA nations.

"The World Assembly does not collect taxes."

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:31 pm**

Dharmascus the Great wrote:However, it is also worth noting that the WA nations will constantly make more money, rendering your point about funding invalid.

OOC:
I don't think that's how Economics works.

Cybraxia wrote:"The World Assembly does not collect taxes."

Unless you count the General Fund's mandatory donations.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:36 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Dharmascus the Great wrote:

Unless you count the General Fund's mandatory donations.

"An oxymoron if I ever saw one. However, while reading over the General Fund Resolution, I found nothing that mandates that the donations are 'Mandatory', as you say. Of course, I may have misread."

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:43 pm**

Cybraxia wrote:
Tinfect wrote:

"An oxymoron if I ever saw one. However, while reading over the General Fund Resolution, I found nothing that mandates that the donations are 'Mandatory', as you say. Of course, I may have misread."

OOC:
oi m8, that was OOC.
Anyway, yeah, there has been pages, and pages, of debate on that front. As far as I know, despite objections, the Donations are considered Mandatory.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:44 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Dharmascus the Great wrote:However, it is also worth noting that the WA nations will constantly make more money, rendering your point about funding invalid.

OOC:
I don't think that's how Economics works.

"Assuming there is zero upkeep fees for each additional artifact and the historical contributions are, on average, constant over the years," the Ovybian ambassador says while jotting down a few mathematical figures in a notebook, "the cost per unit time of such an endeavor will not increase over time but will remain the same."

"In other words," his aide chimes in, "in English, the ambassador is saying the International Historical Archive will require a steady amount of funding over the years so Dharmascus is correct."

"Keeping in mind my assumptions, of course," the Ovybian ambassador noted.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:45 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Cybraxia wrote:
"An oxymoron if I ever saw one. However, while reading over the General Fund Resolution, I found nothing that mandates that the donations are 'Mandatory', as you say. Of course, I may have misread."

OOC:
oi m8, that was OOC.
Anyway, yeah, there has been pages, and pages, of debate on that front. As far as I know, despite objections, the Donations are considered Mandatory.

foight me helen.

It's still an oxymoron.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:46 pm**

Ovybia wrote:
Tinfect wrote:
OOC:
I don't think that's how Economics works.

"Assuming there is zero upkeep fees for each additional artifact and the historical contributions are, on average, constant over the years," the Ovybian ambassador says while jotting down a few mathematical figures in a notebook, "the cost per unit time of such an endeavor will not increase over time but will remain the same."

"In other words," his aide chimes in, "in English, the ambassador is saying the International Historical Archive will require a steady amount of funding over the years so Dharmascus is correct."

"Keeping in mind my assumptions, of course," the Ovybian ambassador noted.

OOC:
I'm sorry, but are these OOC tags in invisible pixels? That's the second time this has happened.

Cybraxia wrote:foight me helen.

It's still an oxymoron.

And I agree, but that's not the correct interpretation, it seems.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:48 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Ovybia wrote:"Assuming there is zero upkeep fees for each additional artifact and the historical contributions are, on average, constant over the years," the Ovybian ambassador says while jotting down a few mathematical figures in a notebook, "the cost per unit time of such an endeavor will not increase over time but will remain the same."

"In other words," his aide chimes in, "in English, the ambassador is saying the International Historical Archive will require a steady amount of funding over the years so Dharmascus is correct."

"Keeping in mind my assumptions, of course," the Ovybian ambassador noted.

OOC:
I'm sorry, but are these OOC tags in invisible pixels? That's the second time this has happened.

Cybraxia wrote:foight me helen.

It's still an oxymoron.

And I agree, but that's not the correct interpretation, it seems.

yeah well, hopefully with the GA #2 Replacers, that'll change, as IIRC one of em has a clause that says "interpret this stuff literally" or something.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:57 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Ovybia wrote:"Assuming there is zero upkeep fees for each additional artifact and the historical contributions are, on average, constant over the years," the Ovybian ambassador says while jotting down a few mathematical figures in a notebook, "the cost per unit time of such an endeavor will not increase over time but will remain the same."

"In other words," his aide chimes in, "in English, the ambassador is saying the International Historical Archive will require a steady amount of funding over the years so Dharmascus is correct."

"Keeping in mind my assumptions, of course," the Ovybian ambassador noted.

OOC:
I'm sorry, but are these OOC tags in invisible pixels? That's the second time this has happened.

OOC: For effect, I chose to respond in-character. I never mentioned any part of your OOC comment in my post. For all IC purposes, the Ovybian ambassador was just responding to Dharmascus' claim.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:49 pm**

Against for reasons.....

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:24 pm**

Cybraxia wrote:
Tinfect wrote:Unless you count the General Fund's mandatory donations.

"An oxymoron if I ever saw one. However, while reading over the General Fund Resolution, I found nothing that mandates that the donations are 'Mandatory', as you say. Of course, I may have misread."[/quote]
We had a fantastic discussion about this topic in the WA Law Review topic some time ago. You may want to read it.

John Turner wrote:Against for reasons.....

I am, naturally, curious to what those 'reasons.....' are.

Ovybia wrote:"Assuming there is zero upkeep fees for each additional artifact and the historical contributions are, on average, constant over the years," the Ovybian ambassador says while jotting down a few mathematical figures in a notebook, "the cost per unit time of such an endeavor will not increase over time but will remain the same."

Considering that upkeep fees exist for each additional artefact, those fees increase as artefacts require more restoration and care, and there are constantly more and more artefacts being sent to the museum by new and old civilisations, those fees are going to skyrocket. And you will get the cheque for it when the World Assembly assesses you per 17 GA.

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:07 am**

"Support," the Mouth says blandly. "It is the regret of the Dominion that its Mouth abstained from the vote on the target resolution, though it is the awareness of the Dominion that its vote may not have had much impact."

EDIT: "Oh wait a moment they're still voting."

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:21 am**

Support

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:32 am**

We believe important the preservation of historical memory, we also believe that we must not only preserve what's great that we have and build over time, but also preserval how wonderful it can be our nations to the passage of time and the poetic grandeur, artistic, literary which may account in just a few lines in a comment, or a position worthy of recognized, we are convinced that if we put in context everything wonderful that we value, appreciate, rescue, we can have a better sense of our heritage in the world of all satisfied, do a body to be in charge of these issues directly, something that works as UNESCO.

-The Freelands of Azzens Management. :idea:

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:42 am**

Your draft doesn't address the part of the resolution that most concerns us, which is that nations may be compelled to let historical artifacts they discover be confiscated by this WA institution, with no assurance that its care for them will be better, or even remotely adequate, and that the only defense against this is proof that the artifact is "native to that land", which is a criterion not always entirely clear-cut. No mechanism or guidelines are provided for resolving questions of nativity.

It also concerns us that the term "historical significance", as defined by the resolution, is so broad as to be nearly all-encompassing.

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:07 am**

Azzens wrote:We believe important the preservation of historical memory, we also believe that we must not only preserve what's great that we have and build over time, but also preserval how wonderful it can be our nations to the passage of time and the poetic grandeur, artistic, literary which may account in just a few lines in a comment, or a position worthy of recognized, we are convinced that if we put in context everything wonderful that we value, appreciate, rescue, we can have a better sense of our heritage in the world of all satisfied, do a body to be in charge of these issues directly, something that works as UNESCO.

It is well within the realm of possibility that nations are able to fund and set up their own museums which are able to deal with the issues that have been described here.

Gnark wrote:Your draft doesn't address the part of the resolution that most concerns us, which is that nations may be compelled to let historical artifacts they discover be confiscated by this WA institution, with no assurance that its care for them will be better, or even remotely adequate, and that the only defense against this is proof that the artifact is "native to that land", which is a criterion not always entirely clear-cut. No mechanism or guidelines are provided for resolving questions of nativity.

Naturally, such argumentation can be added.

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:28 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote: Turner";p="28205012"]Against for reasons.....

I am, naturally, curious to what those 'reasons.....' are.[/quote]
Political.

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:02 pm**

Mr Chombers enters the chambers and picks up the current repeal draft to have a peruse

Ambassador,

I've refrained from saying much up until this point because to be frank, it appears to be the usual knitpickery regarding my sentence syntax that seems to be the issue, and to be honest, that's how I write and it's unlikely to change that and the asinine arguments over the spelling of artefacts is starting to irk me.

That said, lets have a look at this and see where we lie

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
This august World Assembly,

Concerned about the failure of adequately define 'historical significance' and establish a bar which would adequately and effectively determine what needs to be preserved;

I won't deny I walked on the side of caution when defining this, but then again, how else could you without becoming overly micromanging and then being hung for being too restrictive, no matter what definition was given someone would have found fault with it, I maintain the one provided was the one I felt was best suited.

Cognisant that there are over twenty-five thousand World Assembly member nations and that 363 GA creates an International Historical Archive, which is charged with the creation of a museum which will 'generations current and future to learn of civilisations past and present';

Stating the obvious....

Baffled at the likely projected costs of such a project given the number of civilisations which have existed both in the past and the present;

Have we gotten a cost breakdown of the ITSC GA#34's running and projected costs? or of the IWFO's GA #52. I'll answer that for you. No.

Certain that the 'WA funds' which are alluded to in 363 GA § 2 are not endless and that the source of those funds originates from member nations, thereby requiring more and more funds over time as history does not end;

And yet when I suggested that the archive charge a fee in order to become self sustaining that wasn't liked either... horses for courses. Out of curiosity, seeing as the monetary aspect seems to be concerning, presumably this argument and the one before it could be applied in equal measure to the running costs, and ever increasing size and needs of the WA HQ itself, should we be repealing that too based on the same argument?

Concerned that culturally significant military targets, even if they are currently used as active military installations, are protected from destruction, even if those targets would facilitate the loss of many lives; and

I believe #287 presents the same issue. Furthermore I still disagree with this point as I alluded to previously when this was brought up.

Believing that protection of cultural artefacts is already ensured by 287 GA 'Cultural Site Protection'; hereby

You're mistaken in that belief, I would recommend you read #287 again.

Repeals 363 GA, 'Preservation of Artefacts'.

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:54 pm**

Abacathea wrote:it appears to be the usual knitpickery regarding my sentence syntax that seems to be the issue, and to be honest, that's how I write

"With all due respect, there is a difference between personal style and actual grammatical errors. There are phrases and sentences in your resolution that simply do not make sense.

Have we gotten a cost breakdown of the ITSC GA#34's running and projected costs? or of the IWFO's GA #52. I'll answer that for you. No.

"That honestly is a ridiculous argument. Obviously maintaining millions of artifacts will be expensive. Asking for actual projected figures is just puerile."

And yet when I suggested that the archive charge a fee in order to become self sustaining that wasn't liked either... horses for courses. Out of curiosity, seeing as the monetary aspect seems to be concerning, presumably this argument and the one before it could be applied in equal measure to the running costs, and ever increasing size and needs of the WA HQ itself, should we be repealing that too based on the same argument?

"That is a specious comparison. Some financial burdens are significantly greater than others, obviously. That the World Assembly currently has significant financial commitments is not, on its own, an argument that justifies accepting even more burdensome expenses, especially when the nature of this resolution provides ample opportunities to reasonably defray the cost of its maintenance."

I believe #287 presents the same issue.

"That is, of course, not an argument against this repeal, but an argument in favor of repealing GAR#287."

"Again, I will reiterate that Sciongrad supports the fundamental ideas behind this resolution. But there are several issues we would like to see ironed out and sincerely regret not providing our thoughts on the matter until the resolution was quorate."

Posted: **Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:07 pm**

This will be submitted after the Secretary General election is completed.

NationStates

[PASSED] Repeal "Preservation of Artefacts"

[PASSED] Repeal "Preservation of Artefacts"

We preserve our heritage!!!