NATION

PASSWORD

[ON HOLD] Intersystem Space Stations Programme

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[ON HOLD] Intersystem Space Stations Programme

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:32 am

Okay! So, a lot of people suggested I redraft the proposal so it could be a more viable GA Proposal, so here is my redrafted version, and, as always, all advice is appreciated! I tried to fix some of the problems such as everyone having to fund it, etc.

Huge credit to United Massachusetts for the redo of it!

STATUS: LEGAL
CLASSIFICATION: EDUCATION & CREATIVITY (EDUCATION)
The General Assembly,

Lauding the efforts of 451 GA, International Aero-Space Administration, towards bringing about a new era of international cooperation in space,

Yearning to build on the progress it has made by establishing international bases in this vast final frontier, in coordination with the newly-established IASA,

Turning its gaze towards the heavens, the vast final frontier, long the most ancient and natural wonder of sapient species the universe over,

Hence Forth this Assembly,

  1. Tasks the International Aero-Space Administration, alongside its scientists, engineers, and builders, with providing assistance, where feasible, towards the safe and secure construction of research bases in outer-space, with the goal of making said bases feasibly accessible to every nation, and for the purposes of promoting peaceful cooperation,

  2. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Stations Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose:

    1. Grants member-nations permission to make use of said research bases for non-violent purposes & endeavors, subject to the discretion of the IASA, who shall retain the claim to ownership of said bases,

    2. Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,

    3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such,

    4. Encourages member nations to send builders and workers to work on the establishment of the stations as well as scientists and engineers to work from their home world on their schematics,

    5. Sets a minimum standard for the safety of the stations, mandating that they must be built with a certain level of safety in mind, This isn't currently part of the actual proposal, just a clause I would look to include some way, suggestions?

    6. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating stations for research and cooperation between nations in space,
  3. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,

  4. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the stations for their various peaceful endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft),

  5. Clarifies that member states that use the station for endeavors that are decidedly violent (excluding research based ones) or inhumane will be barred from use of the station,

  6. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community,

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations.

Coauthored by United Massachusetts


The General Assembly,

Recognizing the great changes that are arriving with the creation of IASA (GA #451);

Believing that the many species of member nations in the WA must have more than a single a unified base in this vast ‘final frontier’,

Seeking to create many such bases for their space programmes, and the united IASA programmes,

Hence forth,

  1. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Stations Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose:

    1. Decides this project will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the International Aero Space Administration,

    2. Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,

    3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such,

    4. Encourages member nations to send builders and workers to work on the establishment of the stations as well as scientists and engineers to work from their home world on their schematics,

    5. Sets a minimum standard for the safety of the stations, mandating that they must be built with a certain level of safety in mind, This isn't currently part of the actual proposal, just a clause I would look to include some way, suggestions?

    6. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating stations for research and cooperation between nations in space,
  2. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,

  3. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the stations for their various peaceful endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft),

  4. Clarifies that member states that use the station for endeavors that are decidedly violent (excluding research based ones) or inhumane will be barred from use of the station,

  5. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community,

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations.
Last edited by Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar on Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:44 pm, edited 13 times in total.
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12091
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:58 am

Dirty Americans wrote:I have one serious question to all of this ... Why?

Seriously, I wish more people would ask that question before they even start writing a proposal. "Because it is sort of in the real world" should not count. We do a lot of stupid things in the real world and that's no reason to do it here, especially for a multiverse of such scale and divergent technology levels.

So with that in mind, and generally trying to be as simplistic as possible why don't we consider space for space faring nations the same as "international waters" for sea faring nations. Would you want to create independent off shore international ports or would you rather consider access rights for all WA members to use the ports of other existing members. Instead of having the WA construct a plethora of space stations, make it the requirement of WA members to have their space stations accessible in the same manner as routine ocean going vessels are allowed access to WA member nations ports.

Seriously, let's keep the WA to regulation and less to building and maintaining infrastructure.

OOC: ^This, still.

Also, you still talk about "the station" (singular), haven't fixed the issue of nations who haven't put any money or effort into building the station still having the right to use it ("member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner" doesn't cut it, because spaceflight isn't really safe even in Real Life), as well as the whole idiocy of Modern Tech (as in, approximately where we are in RL) nations traveling interstellarly. No matter which way you spin it, anything not in orbit of their planet is very likely unreachable (and certainly unfeasible) for MT nations.

Oh and you create a programme, but the mandates are about a project. Also, "establishes" is the wrong verb for requiring nations to pay for something.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3575
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:27 am

“I’ve put some feedback in red.”
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:STATUS: LEGAL The rays of light from this are probably sufficient to power Kenmoria’s national grid, you don’t need such colourful fonts on the draft.
CLASSIFICATION: EDUCATION & CREATIVITY (EDUCATION) I’m not seeing how this fits into the education and creativity subcategory, nor how it specifically fits the education subcategory. If there is some reasoning that I am missing, consider adding lines to the preamble and reworking some active clauses to make it clearer. Otherwise, I suggest a change.
The General Assembly,

Recognizing the great changes that are arriving with the creation of IASA (GA #451); What great changes? Also, why are you using the implied future tense, given that the resolution has already passed?

Believing that the many species of member nations in the WA must have more than a single a unified base in this vast ‘final frontier’, I’m not sure ‘believing’ is the right word here, given that you are stating that which is a fact, namely that the different WA nations have different bases.

Seeking to create many such bases for their space programmes, and the united IASA programmes,

Hence forth,

  1. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Station Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose: You have the wrong ‘its’, as the apostrophe is not needed.

    1. Decides this project will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the International Aero Space Administration,

    2. Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning, What if the member nations don’t want to make use of the space stations? Or what if the member nations has a culture or dominant religion that disallows the exploration of space? It seems extreme to force them to pay for something they will never use.

    3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a fathomable and reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such, ‘Fathomable’ simply means able to be conceived, and is unnecessary with the inclusion of ‘reachable’, since any reachable distance is certainly fathomable.

    4. Encourages member nations to send scientists and engineers to work on the establishment of the stations, Not builders? Also, scientists will mostly be looking at harms that could befall the space station when they are working on it, so could do most of their work from an office somewhere.

    5. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating a station for research and cooperation between nations in space, The ‘station’ before ‘for research’ should be ‘stations’.

  2. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,

  3. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the station for their various peaceful endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft), It seems as though this clause and the above one could be combined together into a more succinct form.

  4. Clarifies that member states that use the station for endeavors that are decidedly violent will be barred from use of the station, Even if such endeavours are experiments conducted in a zero-gravity environment.

  5. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community, This should go in the preamble.

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations. This line is completely unneeded, as the above can be commissioned without this line’s help.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:43 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve put some feedback in red.”
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:STATUS: LEGAL The rays of light from this are probably sufficient to power Kenmoria’s national grid, you don’t need such colourful fonts on the draft.
CLASSIFICATION: EDUCATION & CREATIVITY (EDUCATION) I’m not seeing how this fits into the education and creativity subcategory, nor how it specifically fits the education subcategory. If there is some reasoning that I am missing, consider adding lines to the preamble and reworking some active clauses to make it clearer. Otherwise, I suggest a change.
The General Assembly,

Recognizing the great changes that are arriving with the creation of IASA (GA #451); What great changes? Also, why are you using the implied future tense, given that the resolution has already passed?

Believing that the many species of member nations in the WA must have more than a single a unified base in this vast ‘final frontier’, I’m not sure ‘believing’ is the right word here, given that you are stating that which is a fact, namely that the different WA nations have different bases.

Seeking to create many such bases for their space programmes, and the united IASA programmes,

Hence forth,

  1. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Station Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose: You have the wrong ‘its’, as the apostrophe is not needed.

    1. Decides this project will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the International Aero Space Administration,

    2. Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning, What if the member nations don’t want to make use of the space stations? Or what if the member nations has a culture or dominant religion that disallows the exploration of space? It seems extreme to force them to pay for something they will never use.

    3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a fathomable and reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such, ‘Fathomable’ simply means able to be conceived, and is unnecessary with the inclusion of ‘reachable’, since any reachable distance is certainly fathomable.

    4. Encourages member nations to send scientists and engineers to work on the establishment of the stations, Not builders? Also, scientists will mostly be looking at harms that could befall the space station when they are working on it, so could do most of their work from an office somewhere.

    5. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating a station for research and cooperation between nations in space, The ‘station’ before ‘for research’ should be ‘stations’.

  2. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,

  3. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the station for their various peaceful endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft), It seems as though this clause and the above one could be combined together into a more succinct form.

  4. Clarifies that member states that use the station for endeavors that are decidedly violent will be barred from use of the station, Even if such endeavours are experiments conducted in a zero-gravity environment.

  5. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community, This should go in the preamble.

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations. This line is completely unneeded, as the above can be commissioned without this line’s help.

Okay, I fixed most of the glaring issues you pointed out, and am matting out some of the more minor ones!
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3044
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:49 am

OOC: Clause 1(d) "Acknowledging that nations not intending to make use of the stations will not be required to pay for their local station at the expense of it's quality," appears to make the proposal illegal for Optionality or Committee-Only. Either this is budgeted for by the General Fund (in which case all member states do in fact foot part of the bill), or you set up separate funding by nations (in which case all member states do in fact foot part of the bill). Since there are no other requirements placed on member states, this can't be legal until the funding issue is made mandatory somehow, and even then all I'm seeing might still be Committee-Only. Possibly the previous version of this resolution should not have made it to vote? :unsure:
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:22 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Clause 1(d) "Acknowledging that nations not intending to make use of the stations will not be required to pay for their local station at the expense of it's quality," appears to make the proposal illegal for Optionality or Committee-Only. Either this is budgeted for by the General Fund (in which case all member states do in fact foot part of the bill), or you set up separate funding by nations (in which case all member states do in fact foot part of the bill). Since there are no other requirements placed on member states, this can't be legal until the funding issue is made mandatory somehow, and even then all I'm seeing might still be Committee-Only. Possibly the previous version of this resolution should not have made it to vote? :unsure:

So is there any way you would suggest to make it legal while still giving nations the ability to opt-out?

If anything, I might have to remove that clause altogether.
Last edited by Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar on Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 2951
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby Aclion » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:26 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: Possibly the previous version of this resolution should not have made it to vote? :unsure:

Don't worry. The previous version was too vague to be subject to challenge.
Last edited by Aclion on Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How to travel to london from afar.
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3575
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:30 pm

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Clause 1(d) "Acknowledging that nations not intending to make use of the stations will not be required to pay for their local station at the expense of it's quality," appears to make the proposal illegal for Optionality or Committee-Only. Either this is budgeted for by the General Fund (in which case all member states do in fact foot part of the bill), or you set up separate funding by nations (in which case all member states do in fact foot part of the bill). Since there are no other requirements placed on member states, this can't be legal until the funding issue is made mandatory somehow, and even then all I'm seeing might still be Committee-Only. Possibly the previous version of this resolution should not have made it to vote? :unsure:

So is there any way you would suggest to make it legal while still giving nations the ability to opt-out?

If anything, I might have to remove that clause altogether.

(OOC: You could add an additional encouraging clause, that suggests action to do with the proposal. For example, ‘Encourages member nations to fund further space exploration programs to collect additional scientific data’. Alternatively, add a mandates clause, for some more concrete action. Both would be legal.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:41 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This can't be legal until the funding issue is made mandatory somehow.

Is it possible to establish it as legal if I keep clause(b) ("Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,) but throw away clause 1(d)?

That would make it legal... right?
Last edited by Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar on Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12091
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:18 pm

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:That would make it legal... right?

OOC: You need to stop focusing on the legality and pay more attention to the WHY?

Why is this something that's necessary? What purpose does it serve?

Why should nations that are able to get in orbit to do - note that "zero gravity" is nonsense, the word you mean is "freefall", but the word you should be using is "microgravity" - experiments there, pay to partake a space station? They could (very realistically) have their version of the Space Shuttle and use them for conducting such experiments, without needing to have a more permanent presence up there.

And then there are the starfaring (which usually means Future Tech, since it implies traveling between the stars) nations that often occupy more than one solar system - why should they pay for a primitive space station orbiting a planet with MT WA nations on it? Why would they even want to use tech that was hundreds (or thousands or more, for the Far-Future Tech) of years old?

...also there's that whole mess of patented things to consider, too, in case some member nation had a commercially-driven space program (SL gets pretty close, I think).
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Waffia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Aug 27, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Waffia » Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:58 pm

Minor error: In the sentence

"Acknowledging that nations not intending to make use of the stations will not be required to pay for their local station at the expense of it's quality,"


"it's" should be "its" (without the apostrophe).
- Borkbal Smeklap

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:27 pm

Okay, I got rid of what I *think* is illegal, still illegal? Feedback?
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2145
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby United Massachusetts » Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:48 pm

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:
The General Assembly,

Recognizing the great changes that are arriving with the creation of IASA (GA #451);

Believing that the many species of member nations in the WA must have more than a single a unified base in this vast ‘final frontier’,

Seeking to create many such bases for their space programmes, and the united IASA programmes,

Hence forth,

  1. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Stations Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose:

    1. Decides this project will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the International Aero Space Administration,

    2. Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,

    3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such,

    4. Encourages member nations to send builders and workers to work on the establishment of the stations as well as scientists and engineers to work from their home world on their schematics,

    5. Sets a minimum standard for the safety of the stations, mandating that they must be built with a certain level of safety in mind, This isn't currently part of the actual proposal, just a clause I would look to include some way, suggestions?

    6. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating stations for research and cooperation between nations in space,
  2. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,

  3. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the stations for their various peaceful endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft),

  4. Clarifies that member states that use the station for endeavors that are decidedly violent (excluding research based ones) or inhumane will be barred from use of the station,

  5. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community,

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations.

I would prefer:

Lauding the efforts of 451 GA, International Aero-Space Administration, towards bringing about a new era of international cooperation in space,

Yearning to build on the progress it has made by establishing international bases in this vast final frontier, in coordination with the newly-established IASA,

Turning its gaze towards the heavens, long the most ancient and natural wonder of sapient species the universe over,

The General Assembly, in this present session assembled, by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member-nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this, the Year of Our Lord two-thousand nineteen, hereby:

  1. Tasks the International Aero-Space Administration, alongside national scientists, engineers, and builders, with providing assistance, where feasible, towards the safe and secure construction of research bases in outer-space, with the goal of making said bases feasibly accessible to every nation, and for the purposes of promoting peaceful cooperation,

  2. Grants member-nations permission to make use of said research bases for non-violent purposes, subject to the discretion of the IASA, who shall retain the claim to ownership of said bases,

  3. Urges member-nations to, where feasible, contribute towards the development of these bases,

  4. Stands at the tip of the fur of a white giant rabbit being pulled out from the top hat of the universe, with the hopes of understanding the most beautiful magic trick unfolding before our eyes.


I've really just consolidated this and fit it to formatting standards, for the most part. I do have a couple policy suggestions, and areas for improvement on this rough draft I've presented:
  • I want to establish some sort of cap on the amount of WA funds that can be used for this, as I don't want us to basically be throwing money into a bottomless pit of the vast beyond. I'm not sure how to do so elegantly.
  • I'd flesh out the preamble a bit, ideally with more hidden references to God.
  • I'm not certain whether a more thorough description is needed as to what a station entails.

I'm not sure whether references to Anno Domini are legal, but I like them nonetheless. The author should probably ignore my suggestion there. The final clause is a reference to a widely-read introductory book to philosophy. If you don't get it, too bad.
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

WA Affairs Minister, The East Pacific
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

Fmr. President, Right to Life
Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
"Stat crux dum volvitur orbis"
"The Cross is steady while the world is turning"


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12091
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:25 am

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Okay, I got rid of what I *think* is illegal, still illegal? Feedback?

OOC: Answer this, please, finally?

Araraukar wrote:
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:That would make it legal... right?

OOC: You need to stop focusing on the legality and pay more attention to the WHY?

Why is this something that's necessary? What purpose does it serve?

Why should nations that are able to get in orbit to do - note that "zero gravity" is nonsense, the word you mean is "freefall", but the word you should be using is "microgravity" - experiments there, pay to partake a space station? They could (very realistically) have their version of the Space Shuttle and use them for conducting such experiments, without needing to have a more permanent presence up there.

And then there are the starfaring (which usually means Future Tech, since it implies traveling between the stars) nations that often occupy more than one solar system - why should they pay for a primitive space station orbiting a planet with MT WA nations on it? Why would they even want to use tech that was hundreds (or thousands or more, for the Far-Future Tech) of years old?

...also there's that whole mess of patented things to consider, too, in case some member nation had a commercially-driven space program (SL gets pretty close, I think).

And answer it in the thread, not by making edits to your draft?

Also, 1.b. and c. taken together seem to mandate that space-able WA nations must build station(s) whether or not they want to.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3575
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:35 am

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Okay, I got rid of what I *think* is illegal, still illegal? Feedback?

(OOC: I believe that clause 1d makes this proposal legal against a possible optionality or commitee only violation, and there are no other obvious illegalities that I can spot. Thus, this is currently legal.

However, there are things to a proposal other than its legality. For example, any piece of legislation must have a purpose to achieve and a solid method of achieving that. Or, as Arakaur put it - “why”. This should be answered in the thread, as well as appearing in the preamble, which looks now like lots of different objectives, rather than the ideal form of one central aim.
United Massachusetts wrote:I'd flesh out the preamble a bit, ideally with more hidden references to God.

I didn’t see any religious references in the original preamble nor any indication of such in the drafting thread. Was there a reason, beyond simple personal preference, to put in so much Christian/theistic wording in your redraft? Every other bit of your new version makes sense, but this seems rather out of place.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:09 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Okay, I got rid of what I *think* is illegal, still illegal? Feedback?
However, there are things to a proposal other than its legality. For example, any piece of legislation must have a purpose to achieve and a solid method of achieving that. Or, as Arakaur put it - “why”. This should be answered in the thread, as well as appearing in the preamble, which looks now like lots of different objectives, rather than the ideal form of one central aim.


Well, the goal is to create research & jump off points for all WA Nations, that, ideally, could be used by absolutely any WA member. Kind of like a series of hotels for WA members only, except for research and refuel, and in space.

Kenmoria wrote:I believe that clause 1d makes this proposal legal against a possible optionality or commitee only violation, and there are no other obvious illegalities that I can spot. Thus, this is currently legal.


Yay! :lol: Now on to more improvements!

Kenmoria wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:I'd flesh out the preamble a bit, ideally with more hidden references to God.

I didn’t see any religious references in the original preamble nor any indication of such in the drafting thread. Was there a reason, beyond simple personal preference, to put in so much Christian/theistic wording in your redraft? Every other bit of your new version makes sense, but this seems rather out of place.)

So would going with that new beginning be better than the current one? I think I will take it and credit UM as a coauthor!
Last edited by Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar on Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2145
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby United Massachusetts » Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:20 pm

We will only accept co-authorship if the operative clauses are changed significantly. We believe our proposed wording fits with the thrust of what Nagatar wants.
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

WA Affairs Minister, The East Pacific
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

Fmr. President, Right to Life
Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
"Stat crux dum volvitur orbis"
"The Cross is steady while the world is turning"


User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:50 pm

United Massachusetts wrote:We will only accept co-authorship if the operative clauses are changed significantly. We believe our proposed wording fits with the thrust of what Nagatar wants.

I added a lot of your points, they are very good!
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12091
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:13 pm

OOC: Are you still going to continue to avoid answering the "why?" and ignore common sense?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:45 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Are you still going to continue to avoid answering the "why?" and ignore common sense?

No, no. Sorry, I answered it on discord, but not on the forums yet.

The purpose of the project would be to give all WA Nations, regardless of their ability to protect themselves, or build their own station, a place where they can reliably conduct research in a low gravity environment, and use as a jump off point to other parts of space. Take, for example, a nation that couldn't individually build and guard their own orbital research station - this would give them a safe place to do that research. That nation may also want to continue on from their, and could refuel at it.

It is the same concept as the ISS in real life, except on a larger scale.
Most all nations couldn't have afforded individually, but the world built it together so that everyone could have access to it.
It gives nations with budding space programmes current space infrastructure to work with, and current space faring nations, a useful jump point.

On another note, a larger space faring nation that is already established gets some benefit from a smaller one being in space - it gains mutual trade opportunities as the smaller one may be able to exploit certain resources off the gravitational well of their planet, and not only that, but opens the door to so many things for them - many that could benefit the larger nation, and prohibits them from using any of those opened doors for violent endeavours, seeing only the larger nation as the superior in terms of strength in space.

So the smaller ones benefit from pre established space infrastructure, while the larger ones benefit through peaceful means, while not upsetting the balance of power.

Larger intersystemic civilizations wouldn't have trouble funding it, and those who would need it most, but couldn't procure one themselves could have a station at their disposal! :)
Last edited by Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar on Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12091
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:49 pm

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Are you still going to continue to avoid answering the "why?" and ignore common sense?

No, no. Sorry, I answered it on discord, but not on the forums yet.

OOC: Well, you answered the "why" part. Common sense is still missing, or perhaps you don't quite understand the enormity of what you're asking WA nations to do.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:The purpose of the project would be to give all WA Nations, regardless of their ability to protect themselves, or build their own station, a place where they can reliably conduct research in a low gravity environment

But the way to achieve that goal is NOT to throw WA money (which ultimately comes from all the WA nations, rich and poor, whether they'd be able to get a plane in the air, nevermind a rocket in the orbit) into building thousands of "bigger than ISS" space stations, especially near all the WA nations with no interest to such things.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:and use as a jump off point to other parts of space.

You may have noticed that this hasn't happened in Real Life? Do you understand why?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Take, for example, a nation that couldn't individually build and guard their own orbital research station

...you DO understand that we can't "guard" the Real Life ISS either? We're basically just trusting on no tinpot dictator with access to ICBMs being mad enough to drop it and potentially draw the ire of many powerful nations on the planet.

And in NS multiverse, with WA being forbidden from having any kind of military or police forces, what's stopping non-WA nations from simply taking over the station, if it's just floating there with nobody to defend it? Anything even as far as the RL Moon (which we know _is_ reachable for MT nations) would be just asking for trouble, since it'd possibly take weeks (orbital launches aren't quick to arrange) to get anything but a destroying-it-all missile that far. Even the missile would be difficult to get that far and likely take a minimum of days, even if you were prepared.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:this would give them a safe place to do that research.

How is it safe if you can't guard it? For that matter, how is it safe if your enemy nation that also happens to be in the WA, is using the station?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:That nation may also want to continue on from their, and could refuel at it.

Where does the fuel come from? Do you understand how RL rockets work and what they use as fuel?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:It is the same concept as the ISS in real life, except on a larger scale.

...do you have any idea how big even the RL ISS is? Or how fragile? Or how much it cost to build?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Most all nations couldn't have afforded individually, but the world built it together so that everyone could have access to it.

The RL ISS? Not everyone. Just people and nations willing to pay for the privilege.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:It gives nations with budding space programmes current space infrastructure to work with, and current space faring nations, a useful jump point.

We don't have "space faring nations" in Real Life. Not the way you use the words. And, again, you may have noticed that in RL the humanity hasn't exactly "jumped" from it anywhere. Do you know why? Do you at all understand how big space really is? You've probably seen the models of solar system, with all the planets on their almost circular orbits and all that? If the sun was the size it usually is in those pictures, you couldn't see the planets at all, they'd be so small and far apart.

It takes light - light, the fastest thing in this universe - over eight minutes to get from the surface of the Sun to the surface of the Earth. It takes light over a second to get from the surface of the Moon to the surface of the Earth. A car driving at 100 km/h would take 160 days. (And to drive the average distance between the Earth and the Sun, the same car would take 170 years.)

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:On another note, a larger space faring nation that is already established gets some benefit from a smaller one being in space

Imagine aliens coming from between the stars. If they have machinery to cross the huge distances (it would take the car from the example above over 760,000 years to drive to the star nearest us, even if the star stayed at the same distance it is now) between stars, they wouldn't have any trouble taking whatever they wanted in our solar system, including Earth. What benefit would it be for them, if we had a - primitive on their technological scale - space station so low in orbit of our planet that we occasionally have to boost it up to keep it from falling deeper into the atmosphere and getting destroyed?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:it gains mutual trade opportunities as the smaller one may be able to exploit certain resources

Such as? Also, wouldn't the smaller one just be a pesky competitor for the limited easy-to-reach resources? The bigger nation would likely be better off shooting down anything from the smaller nation and paying the fine (or not paying it, since the codified-in-resolutions possibility of noncompliance also makes that possible, unless you ignore that/those resolutions and just assume compliance is a thing that happens, which is pretty much the only noncompliance I do) for doing so - they'd still get a lot more out of the solar system afterwards.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:off the gravitational well of their planet

...do you understand that the RL ISS practically orbits the Earth inside the atmosphere? Hence the atmospheric drag slowing it down. Here's a hint: anything that's in the atmosphere, is by definition in the gravitational well. To actually get out of Earth's gravity well, you'll need a solar orbit (not planetary) that's far enough away from Earth that if you just let the item drift, it wouldn't fall back to Earth. That's much, MUCH further away than you seem to understand. Too far, in fact, to be at all useful to modern tech nations. Also dangerous for anything organic that's alive, which is the main reason ISS is pretty much 'it' for human presence in space in RL.

If you were to put your WA space stations away from the reasonable reach of the MT nations, then we return to the "why?" as it would eliminate most of the idealisic reasons you've given.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:and not only that, but opens the door to so many things for them

Such as?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:many that could benefit the larger nation

Such as?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:and prohibits them from using any of those opened doors for violent endeavours

But can't actually stop them from doing that. An in any case, if you were to allow refueling, how would you stop the newly-refueled ship from then attacking the more primitive nation?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:seeing only CDSP as the superior in terms of strength in space.

If you mean this CDSP, I don't even know what you're talking about, as to my knowledge SP RPs a MT nation?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:So the smaller ones benefit from pre established space infrastructure, while the larger ones benefit through peaceful means, while not upsetting the balance of power.

...what do the larger ones get by cooperating peacefully, that they couldn't (ignoring for a moment the need for mutually-agreed RP for wiping out a nation) get from simply getting rid of their weaker competitor?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Larger intersystemic civilizations wouldn't have trouble funding it

They would STILL have to pay for the WA stations, even if they had their own. Even if their own were less primitive. You make no exception for nations that already are a part of a ISS-type (or better) space station and don't need the expenses for partaking another one. I'm arguing OOCly because of using RL info as examples, but in IC Araraukar would object to this thing exactly because of that; it's already part of such a thing via an ESA-type collaboration with other nations. Why should it pay for a station that anyone could use, including those that might join the WA in the future and would thus get the station for free, or the non-WA nations who definitely don't have to pay anything for it. (Araraukar is the only WA nation on its version of Earth.)

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:and those who would need it most, but couldn't procure one themselves could have a station at their disposal!

Nations that can't "procure" a space station, generally don't need a space station, and likely have more important issues to deal with, domestically, that the WA is already requiring that they pay. Requiring them to pay for a space station they likely couldn't use anyway (no space program, for example, or no access to safely getting astronauts in orbit) sounds like the opposite of helping them. And let's not forget that they wouldn't be paying just for their WA space station, but also the myriad other WA space stations, since the "voluntary" donations to the General Fund are actually mandatory fees.

As for the "need it most", I'm coming back to "why?" Why do you need a space station, if you're not trying to go out in space?

At the very least put in something about how WA nations that already have a station within reach don't have to partake this madness. The wording "unless such is already in use" is an example of how to get around the optionality issue. Though I would also include projects that are currently mid-building.
Last edited by Araraukar on Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Julie00
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jan 04, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Julie00 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:52 pm

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Okay! So, a lot of people suggested I redraft the proposal so it could be a more viable GA Proposal, so here is my redrafted version, and, as always, all advice is appreciated! I tried to fix some of the problems such as everyone having to fund it, etc.

Huge credit to United Massachusetts for the redo of it!

STATUS: LEGAL
CLASSIFICATION: EDUCATION & CREATIVITY (EDUCATION)
The General Assembly,

Lauding the efforts of 451 GA, International Aero-Space Administration, towards bringing about a new era of international cooperation in space,

Yearning to build on the progress it has made by establishing international bases in this vast final frontier, in coordination with the newly-established IASA,

Turning its gaze towards the heavens, the vast final frontier, long the most ancient and natural wonder of sapient species the universe over,

Hence Forth this Assembly,

  1. Tasks the International Aero-Space Administration, alongside its scientists, engineers, and builders, with providing assistance, where feasible, towards the safe and secure construction of research bases in outer-space, with the goal of making said bases feasibly accessible to every nation, and for the purposes of promoting peaceful cooperation,

  2. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Stations Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose:

    1. Grants member-nations permission to make use of said research bases for non-violent purposes & endeavors, subject to the discretion of the IASA, who shall retain the claim to ownership of said bases,

    2. Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,

    3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such,

    4. Encourages member nations to send builders and workers to work on the establishment of the stations as well as scientists and engineers to work from their home world on their schematics,

    5. Sets a minimum standard for the safety of the stations, mandating that they must be built with a certain level of safety in mind, This isn't currently part of the actual proposal, just a clause I would look to include some way, suggestions?

    6. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating stations for research and cooperation between nations in space,
  3. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,

  4. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the stations for their various peaceful endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft),

  5. Clarifies that member states that use the station for endeavors that are decidedly violent (excluding research based ones) or inhumane will be barred from use of the station,

  6. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community,

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations.

Coauthored by United Massachusetts


The General Assembly,

Recognizing the great changes that are arriving with the creation of IASA (GA #451);

Believing that the many species of member nations in the WA must have more than a single a unified base in this vast ‘final frontier’,

Seeking to create many such bases for their space programmes, and the united IASA programmes,

Hence forth,

  1. The World Assembly initiates the Intersystem Space Stations Programme, thrusting the following rules and regulations for WA Member Nations, as well as defining it’s purpose:

    1. Decides this project will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the International Aero Space Administration,

    2. Establishes, that member nations with the necessary infrastructure to make use of the stations in a safe and secure manner must fund the project in accordance with the monetary necessities of the construction and planning,

    3. Further Establishes that member nations will all have access to a station within a reachable distance of their home world with the number of stations in accordance with such,

    4. Encourages member nations to send builders and workers to work on the establishment of the stations as well as scientists and engineers to work from their home world on their schematics,

    5. Sets a minimum standard for the safety of the stations, mandating that they must be built with a certain level of safety in mind, This isn't currently part of the actual proposal, just a clause I would look to include some way, suggestions?

    6. Declares the function of the stations to be helping the peoples of the WA in their endeavors in space, by creating stations for research and cooperation between nations in space,
  2. Understands that all member states of the World Assembly have permission to use the station to conduct scientific research in a zero-gravity environment,

  3. Mandates that member states will be allowed to use the stations for their various peaceful endeavors in the final frontier (eg. A place to refuel a spacecraft),

  4. Clarifies that member states that use the station for endeavors that are decidedly violent (excluding research based ones) or inhumane will be barred from use of the station,

    paris taxi Airport
  5. Appreciates the value this could have for the international community,

Establishes the above, commissioning construction of the Intersystem Space Stations.

You're right

User avatar
Karteria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Jun 28, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Karteria » Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:50 am

"While our delegation would normally support progressive policies in space, we were slightly blinded when approving the first submission of this proposal – it seems there are too many issues with the substance of the argument (and we see no need to repeat them). Until the focus of this proposal has been changed, we will withhold our approval."

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3575
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:39 am

“My current biggest issue with this proposal is the wording of clause 2b, which appears to suggest that member nations who are able to use the stations must fund them, even if there are other reasons why said member state will definitely not be going anywhere near outer space. As an example, this WA Mission has enough money to put some of it towards the space station, but is prohibited by Kenmorian law from doing anything other than providing housing for ambassadors.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 199
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:59 am

At this point, it seems like the future of this proposal is pretty bleak.

So honestly, and I will go with the majority, should I abandon this?

Yes or no?
This signature is under construction.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Personal Political Alignment: Congress Party (Sonia Gandhi was leader of Cong. Party for reference)
OOC Stuff:
- 6 Time Failed Issue Author
- My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
- 1 Time Failed GA Author

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Durzan

Advertisement

Remove ads