NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Repeal "Physical Sites Protection Act"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

[Passed] Repeal "Physical Sites Protection Act"

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Mon May 13, 2013 1:55 pm

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,

Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations,

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,

Hereby repeals GA#244.

Co-Authored by Gatchina




Discuss!
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 6:02 am, edited 5 times in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Ceni
Senator
 
Posts: 3775
Founded: Jun 26, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Ceni » Mon May 13, 2013 3:07 pm

Well, thanks for not discussing this BEFORE submitting it! And I'm not pissed about that because it was my proposal.

I think it's a NatSov argument, anyways.
Author of GA #244: Physical Sites Protection Act & GA #259: Stopping Invasive Species, coauthor of GA #254: Invasive Species Response Act
Champion, DBC 38 | Air Terranea
<+SJG> Rustler by nature | <Schottia> I always think of Ceni as what it would be like if Long Island was its own nation, ran by Bernie Sanders lol.

User avatar
Ceni
Senator
 
Posts: 3775
Founded: Jun 26, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Ceni » Mon May 13, 2013 3:17 pm

OK, here's a detailed criticism.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,


OK.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:
Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations


The Dourian Embassy wrote: Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,


The Dourian Embassy wrote: Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,


Apparently you didn't read this:

Or to create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and its inhabitants
. It doesn't ban commercial use at all.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,


How so?

The Dourian Embassy wrote: Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,


And it doesn't ban maintenance.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,


How so, again?

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,


NatSov plain and simple.
Last edited by Ceni on Mon May 13, 2013 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Author of GA #244: Physical Sites Protection Act & GA #259: Stopping Invasive Species, coauthor of GA #254: Invasive Species Response Act
Champion, DBC 38 | Air Terranea
<+SJG> Rustler by nature | <Schottia> I always think of Ceni as what it would be like if Long Island was its own nation, ran by Bernie Sanders lol.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Tue May 14, 2013 8:06 am

Lets examine the three main arguments from the repeal:

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,


Which addresses B of the mandates clause, in the original piece: "(B) Ban commercial activities within the site that would cause damage to the site or its inhabitants". Now A, from the mandate clause is a different part, addressing a specifically different issue. That issue is "harming the site or it's inhabitants" and allows a permit system to allow use that may harm sites as long as it's not commercial use, which is addressed itself specifically in section B.

B contains no alternative, it simply bans commercial use. If we consider the Dourian Monolith, one of the tallest structures in the world, which is at it's core an office building, we may begin to see the issue with the banning of commercial use that could harm the site or it's inhabitants. Any commercial use has the potential to harm the site, and would be banned. It's unacceptable. That clause specifically addresses the problem.

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,


A site could garner its value by it's degradation. Preserving the site itself may harm its cultural value. I don't have to explain how that's a problem.

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,


Again, once a site is deemed culturally significant, it must be protected. This is a serious problem, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. In order for such a site to maintain it's cultural significance, it may need to be left alone.

These are the core arguments of the repeal, and particularly noteworthy.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Tue May 14, 2013 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Tue May 28, 2013 5:30 am

*bump*
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18204
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue May 28, 2013 9:56 am

The Dourian Embassy wrote:
The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,

Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations,

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,

Hereby repeals GA#244.

Co-Authored by Gatchina




Discuss!


We shall tell you what we have told many others...
Submitting a proposal THEN posting it with a request to "discuss" is the most pointless exercize possible in the GA. What is there to discuss? It has been submitted and cannot be changed unless it is removed from the queue. It is, at best, little more than blatant narcissism, a statement of "Look what I submitted, now tell me how awesome I am!". Pointless, purposeless and not a bit self-indulgent. You want to submit any old claptrap without discussion? Fine. Do so. But don't expect us to participate in your back-patting.
Last edited by Grays Harbor on Wed May 29, 2013 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Tue May 28, 2013 12:43 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:We shall tell you what we have told many others...
Submitting a proposal THEN posting it with a request to "discuss" is the most pointless exercize possible in the GA. What is there to discuss? It has been submitted and cannot be changed unless it is removed from the queue. It is, at best, little more than blatant narcissism, a statement of "Look what I submitted, now tell me how awesome I am!". Pointless, purposeless and not a bit self-indulgent. You want to submit any old claptrap without discussion? Fine. Do so. But don't expect us to participate in your back-patting.


OOC: This thread has been around for what... two weeks? It's not my fault if people ignored it till now. I'm bumping it because it's quorumed and will go to vote tonight. The mods will need to sticky it and I'm making it easier for them to find it.

Edit: And furthermore, as the author of a couple of UN resolutions, and quite a few WA resolutions(including WA4, and the first repeal in the WA, WA13) I don't need your advice on how to draft. I appreciate your input nonetheless.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Tue May 28, 2013 12:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18204
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue May 28, 2013 1:15 pm

The Dourian Embassy wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:We shall tell you what we have told many others...
Submitting a proposal THEN posting it with a request to "discuss" is the most pointless exercize possible in the GA. What is there to discuss? It has been submitted and cannot be changed unless it is removed from the queue. It is, at best, little more than blatant narcissism, a statement of "Look what I submitted, now tell me how awesome I am!". Pointless, purposeless and not a bit self-indulgent. You want to submit any old claptrap without discussion? Fine. Do so. But don't expect us to participate in your back-patting.


OOC: This thread has been around for what... two weeks? It's not my fault if people ignored it till now. I'm bumping it because it's quorumed and will go to vote tonight. The mods will need to sticky it and I'm making it easier for them to find it.

Edit: And furthermore, as the author of a couple of UN resolutions, and quite a few WA resolutions(including WA4, and the first repeal in the WA, WA13) I don't need your advice on how to draft. I appreciate your input nonetheless.


OOC: I wasn't giving advise on how to draft. I was pointing out, incorrectly this time it seems, that drafts should be posted here first, and with so much of that happening currently (I hate summer here sometimes) I missed your initial posting date. I too have authored resolutions and repeals, so I do know what I am talking about as well. Apologies this time though, for the grave error of mistaking you for somebody else.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Astracarn
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 484
Founded: Nov 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Astracarn » Tue May 28, 2013 9:00 pm

Now at vote.
Economic Left/right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00


User avatar
Maynardian Diplomatic Mission to the WA
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Feb 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Maynardian Diplomatic Mission to the WA » Tue May 28, 2013 9:26 pm

As a nation which opposed the resolution when it went to vote, we are glad to support this repeal.
From the Office of the Maynard Islands Diplomatic Mission to the World Assembly
Part of The Maynard Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

User avatar
The Akashic Records
Diplomat
 
Posts: 803
Founded: May 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Akashic Records » Wed May 29, 2013 12:44 am

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #244
Physical Sites Protection Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Ceni

Description: APPLAUDING that member nations have sites of outstanding physical beauty or that contain large numbers of endangered species

NOTING that such sites of physical significance are increasingly threatened with destruction

REALIZING that certain sites of physical significance need to be protected in the best interests of sapient peoples

The World Assembly hereby:
DEFINES sites of physical significance as the following:
(A) Natural formations or groups of such formations, or other physical features which are of outstanding universal excellence for their beauty or aesthetics, of special scientific significance, or of an unique nature OR
(B) Natural habitats home to a variety or large numbers of rare, important or endangered flora and fauna OR
(C) Outstanding examples of sites, man-made or natural, which have greatly influenced the culture, history or development of the area's inhabitants over a lengthy period of time OR
(D) Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological and evolutionary processes of various flora and fauna OR
(E) Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological processes of terrestrial, maritime, or coastal habitats and biomes;

Clause (C) of the definition is the Achilles heel, because it does not state whether a site still in use qualifies. As pointed out by The Dourian Embassy, the office building is still in use, and as such, could cause harm to the site, in which case, would, as mandated, have all its current activities be banned.

REQUIRES nations to sufficiently protect such sites as determined by the PHPC;

MANDATES nations to

(A) Ban the harming in any way of such sites or their inhabitants, or to create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and its inhabitants
(B) Ban commercial activities within the site that would cause damage to the site or its inhabitants
(C) Take the effects of developments within their nation to sites in their nation and in other nations into account;

Clause (A) and (B) of the mandate only becomes a problem because of clause (C) of the definition. (A) addresses activities detrimental to the preservation of the site, but is only insofar as it is non-commercial. As such, the permit, as stated by (A), will be nulled by (B), as (B) specifically addresses commercial activities.

ESTABLISHES the Physical Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization to:

(A) Aid nations that cannot protect such sites themselves
(B) Aid agencies and programs overseeing such sites
(C) Set standards relating to the protection of such sites;

Here, (C) is the problem. Having PHPC set the standards may work for one site, but not necessarily for another. As pointed out by the author of this repeal, some sites could garner value by its degradation. Street art, for example could qualify as "degradation", and yet, it provides cultural value (in some instances, but not in all).

ENCOURAGES member nations to:
(A) Make these sites available to the public when possible and desirable
(B) Preserve and protect sites that are not accredited by the PHPC
(C) Promote tourism to such sites without harming the site or putting tourists in harm's way

The PHPC shall certify sites as follows:
(A) The PHPC shall convene and any member may propose a site to be considered with the consent of the nation's government
(B) The PHPC shall look into evidence pertaining to the proposed site
(C) If such site meets one or more criteria listed above, the site shall be certified by the PHPC.

The PHPC shall decertify a site as follows:
(A) Any member or national government may propose a site to be delisted
(B) The PHCP shall determine whether the site still meets the criteria and/or deserves to be on the list
(C) If such site is determined to not merit inclusion, it shall be decertified

Votes For: 7,590 (56%)
Votes Against: 5,846 (44%)

Implemented: Fri Mar 15 2013


Barring the flaws, it is a good attempt at preserving physical heritage sites that would otherwise be harmed in favor of economy instead of the environment. Then again, you need to apply to be on the list, and while it does specifically try to address the environment, the Achilles heel of the resolution is in its (rather) vague definition of some of what merits to be on the list of sites that is to be preserved. Still, between the resolution and the repeal, it's basically an argument of bad or worse.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:
The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,

Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations,

"Better handled" has already been covered by the resolution in question, specifically, in the establishment of the PHPC (B), though, still valid as pointed I pointed out earlier.

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

This addresses the concerns of the flaws in the resolution, which is valid.

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

The PHPC is only there to help preserve the sites, not preserve it themselves. It is still up to the nations themselves how they go about it, and whether or not their site will qualify to be on the PHPC list. To be on the list is an active effort on the nations' part, not an automatic absolute event.
Side note: This repeal feels eerily similar to another repeal, though, not as vague or misleading.

Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,

Hereby repeals GA#244.

Co-Authored by Gatchina


The decision of whether or not to apply to be on the PHPC Heritage List still lies with the nations themselves, in short, a matter of National Sovereignty.
Conclusion: The Akashic Records votes AGAINST this repeal. Unless, a replacement is written up with more scrutiny, it is generally a bad idea to repeal it for now.
Last edited by The Akashic Records on Wed May 29, 2013 12:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
About my posts:
Unless otherwise stated, everything I say is in character.
Coleman T. Harrison,
WA Ambassador for The Akashic Records
On Sanity - Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.
No, the idea behind it (free will) is that one has the option to be Good (tm) and the option to be Bad (tm). God is rather pro-choice. - The Alma Mater -

User avatar
Castelo Quintas
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: May 06, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Castelo Quintas » Wed May 29, 2013 2:04 am

I didn't understant what this proposal wants to do, so i'm undecided, for now.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Wed May 29, 2013 6:08 am

The Akashic Records wrote:*snip*


I don't necessarily agree. The PHPC is there to aid both nations(which is optional) and "agencies and programs overseeing such sites". This the primary sticking point with your issues there, because while a nation may decide that a particular program overseeing a site is not the true steward, the PHPC could decide elsewise.

And the idea that a replacement needs to be written and should be ready to drop into place before we repeal what is frankly a dramatic overreach in WA law is laughable. I appreciate your comments, but the WA will inevitably do more harm in a situation that requires incredible nuance and attention to detail, and is ultimately not essential to either the protection of freedom or persons worldwide.

The original resolution has dramatic flaws(the commercial use clause is probably the most glaring of all). The resolution Is needed to neither ensure freedom nor to preserve life. And it is perfectly acceptable to allow a nation to preserve it's own cultural heritage until a better resolution comes along(if at all). There is no pressing need to wait, and numerous reasons to act.

I acted. The rest of the WA should as well, and vote to repeal this piece of well meaning but ultimately flawed legislation.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Wed May 29, 2013 6:15 am, edited 4 times in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Solorni
Minister
 
Posts: 3024
Founded: Sep 04, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Solorni » Wed May 29, 2013 6:08 am

I support this and on behalf of Balder have voted aye on this.
Lovely Queen of Balder
Proud Delegate of WALL

Lucky Number 13

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Wed May 29, 2013 8:26 am

While we believe that the minor error of banning commercial activities in man-made "sites of physical significance" is worthy of repealing and replacing this resolution, and while we will vote in favor for that reason, the notion that the World Assembly "cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance" of these sites is incredibly insulting and patently absurd. The Secretariat is capable of reading. It's capable of communicating with various cultures and societies.

This idea, which unfortuantely permeates the offices of the longer-running delegations in this Assembly, is highly parochial. "Well, we can understand the cultural significance, but the World Assembly can't!" We shouldn't need reminding that the Secretariat is a highly technical body, with considerable expert knowledge in many areas. Our fiscal contributions to this body are spent on hiring the best minds to fill the committees and agencies we task the Secretariat with creating.

Let this please be the last repeal or resolution stating that the World Assembly is too stupid to understand the intracies of modern society.

- Dr. B. Castro

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18874
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Wed May 29, 2013 9:01 am

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

And what about cases where a site isn't specifically a part of the cultural heritage of the [modern] nation in which it happens to be located or not a part of only that particular nation's heritage, anyway -- but is considered important more widely instead?

(OOC: some RL examples of such sites being the Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre [also in Jeruselem], the Bamiyan Buddhas, the Ka'aba, the Great Pyramid, Auschwitz, Cape Canaveral...)
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Wed May 29, 2013 9:20 am

My delegation votes FOR this repeal. While "Physical Sites Protection" has a noble environmental aim, it ultimately gives a WA committee the power to ban commercial use of land, and impose strict "preservation" standards, if the committee finds that the land showcases "outstanding examples of sites, man-made or natural," or "noteworthy examples of ecological processes." That's a pretty sweeping power to trust blindly to the discretion of WA bureaucrats. While environmental preservation is a laudable goal, I do not believe such draconian methods are warranted.

Best Regards,
Last edited by Cowardly Pacifists on Wed May 29, 2013 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
The We Already Surrender of Cowardly Pacifists

Warning: Sometimes uses puppets.
Another Warning: Posts from this nation are always OOC.

User avatar
The Akashic Records
Diplomat
 
Posts: 803
Founded: May 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Akashic Records » Wed May 29, 2013 9:33 am

The Dourian Embassy wrote:I don't necessarily agree. The PHPC is there to aid both nations(which is optional) and "agencies and programs overseeing such sites". This the primary sticking point with your issues there, because while a nation may decide that a particular program overseeing a site is not the true steward, the PHPC could decide elsewise.

And the idea that a replacement needs to be written and should be ready to drop into place before we repeal what is frankly a dramatic overreach in WA law is laughable. I appreciate your comments, but the WA will inevitably do more harm in a situation that requires incredible nuance and attention to detail, and is ultimately not essential to either the protection of freedom or persons worldwide.

OOC: I'd like to think it actually does something, laughable though it may be, and even if its effects may not be as far reaching you'd expect them to (even the RL counterpart isn't doing much anyways).

The original resolution has dramatic flaws(the commercial use clause is probably the most glaring of all). The resolution is needed to neither ensure freedom nor to preserve life. And it is perfectly acceptable to allow a nation to preserve it's own cultural heritage until a better resolution comes along(if at all). There is no pressing need to wait, and numerous reasons to act.

I acted. The rest of the WA should as well, and vote to repeal this piece of well meaning but ultimately flawed legislation.


IC: We will take this into consideration, and deliberate with members of the Grand Palace. It was a 55/45 against the repeal, so this might change it to undecided.
About my posts:
Unless otherwise stated, everything I say is in character.
Coleman T. Harrison,
WA Ambassador for The Akashic Records
On Sanity - Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.
No, the idea behind it (free will) is that one has the option to be Good (tm) and the option to be Bad (tm). God is rather pro-choice. - The Alma Mater -

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Wed May 29, 2013 11:22 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:While we believe that the minor error of banning commercial activities in man-made "sites of physical significance" is worthy of repealing and replacing this resolution, and while we will vote in favor for that reason, the notion that the World Assembly "cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance" of these sites is incredibly insulting and patently absurd. The Secretariat is capable of reading. It's capable of communicating with various cultures and societies.


Bears Armed wrote:
Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

And what about cases where a site isn't specifically a part of the cultural heritage of the [modern] nation in which it happens to be located or not a part of only that particular nation's heritage, anyway -- but is considered important more widely instead?


We rise with our colleagues to state our objections to certain details of this proposal. While this proposal has been before us for a few weeks, and the point of commerce is sufficient to secure our abstention, we do feel that to evade flaws in proposals it would be more sensible for delegates to wait until more of the well respected delegates in this assembly have time to critique a proposal before it is submitted, so that such flaws can be pointed out. Unless authoring delegations want to be remembered for submitting sub-par proposals.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Aardenland
Envoy
 
Posts: 284
Founded: Dec 28, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Aardenland » Wed May 29, 2013 11:34 am

Not a well written appeal, otherwise I might support it.

User avatar
The Akashic Records
Diplomat
 
Posts: 803
Founded: May 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Akashic Records » Wed May 29, 2013 11:45 am

After much deliberation, we were able to attain a 51/49 for this repeal. Although we also received a mixed reaction from the people, the ones in commerce, were the most vocal about support for this repeal.
We do however, share our esteemed colleagues' view,
Glen-Rhodes wrote:While we believe that the minor error of banning commercial activities in man-made "sites of physical significance" is worthy of repealing and replacing this resolution, and while we will vote in favor for that reason, the notion that the World Assembly "cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance" of these sites is incredibly insulting and patently absurd. The Secretariat is capable of reading. It's capable of communicating with various cultures and societies.

Bears Armed wrote:
Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

And what about cases where a site isn't specifically a part of the cultural heritage of the [modern] nation in which it happens to be located or not a part of only that particular nation's heritage, anyway -- but is considered important more widely instead?
About my posts:
Unless otherwise stated, everything I say is in character.
Coleman T. Harrison,
WA Ambassador for The Akashic Records
On Sanity - Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.
No, the idea behind it (free will) is that one has the option to be Good (tm) and the option to be Bad (tm). God is rather pro-choice. - The Alma Mater -

User avatar
Eist
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1194
Founded: May 10, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Eist » Wed May 29, 2013 1:12 pm

I'm with G-R on this. There is nothing of substance in this proposal and it is unsurprisingly, for Dourian, poorly written and edited. I am voting against AGAINST.
Unibot III wrote:Frankly, the lows that people sink to in this game is perhaps the most disturbing thing about NationStates Gameplay.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Wed May 29, 2013 1:19 pm

Eist wrote:I'm with G-R on this. There is nothing of substance in this proposal and it is unsurprisingly, for Dourian, poorly written and edited. I am voting against AGAINST.


Nothing of substance and poorly written. So rather than argue the content, you're going to pretend there is none?
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Wed May 29, 2013 1:34 pm

"The Queendom is delighted to support our esteemed Dourian colleagues and vote in favour of this repeal", Lord Raekevik declared with a smile.
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Mayonaise
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: May 28, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mayonaise » Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm

Needs a bit of work

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads