NationStates

Tinfect wrote:"To begin, Ambassador," said Markhov, looking briefly over a mysterious printed copy of the latest ICNN broadcast, "What, exactly, constitutes an 'exoplanet'? Indeed, the definition on the subject appears to be tied to 'the' solar system; I am certain you are aware that many countless solar systems exist, thus I can only assume that you quite presumptuously refer to your own. Quite simply, Ambassador, New Harron, is not an exoplanet - it is the homeworld of the Imperium. Further, the Imperium rejects the use of such obsolete terminology on principle."

With that, Markhov folded the newspaper and began to use it as an unnecessarily dramatic pointer.

"In any case, the Imperium finds these classifications arbitrary and insufficient. As example, this Class 'ell''. A great variety of planets may support liquid water and advanced species; these worlds may have very little else in common, great variations in atmosphere or gravity or primary surface materials - really, this is quite basic information, I would highly suggest comparing your Government's educational system with that of the Imperium.

Further, the categorization of mass is... rather lacking. The primary concern of the Imperium is the titles of each category; they appear rather arbitrary, perhaps culturally bound. The Imperium, of course, objects to the codification of foreign terms in World Assembly Law.

Additionally, the expansion of the mandate of the International Aero-Space Administration to include the prevention of... I believe the term used in the draft is, 'contamination'? How is this to be defined? Colonization efforts? Research expeditions? Deployment of technological methods of altering a planet's atmospheric state and soil chemistry - terraforming?"

He paused, briefly finding something worrying on the newspaper he was waving about.

"Yes... the, Interstellar Committee for Existing Planetary Territory Submissions; or, 'intercepts'. The Imperium objects to such a tortured attempt at an acronym on sheer principle. The Imperium has no desire for a 'third party' in any territorial disputes; the Imperial Diplomatic Oversight, or Military Oversight, as appropriate, is fully capable of handling such matters without the interference of additional foreign agents. Further, the Imperium will absolutely not permit a foreign entity to maintain record of the Interior Territories - such a 'starmap' would be a breach of security of the highest order, leaving the Imperial citizenry and the Imperium vulnerable to attacks by hostile civilizations. Nor will the Imperium submit any manifest of our territories to an unwanted foreign operation for such a violation.

Anomalous activities within the Imperial Territories are the sole exclusive jurisdiction of Imperial Intelligence - we will not provide any information on unknown situations to a foreign entity so long as such remains in the purview of information security. And, finally, the Imperium will not provide a registry of our military fleets, government vessels, or civilian craft, to a foreign entity, for the safety of the Imperium and its citizens. I must note, however, that this the clause this concern arises in may be interpreted as prohibiting the existence of Military spacecraft. This is, simply put, Ambassador, an act of war against the Imperium, were it genuinely attempted.

Finally, I will note that the Imperium will not, under any circumstances, allow foreigners or foreign craft to enter our territories. Our borders are closed violations of them will be considered acts of war themselves, or terrorist acts, as deemed appropriate.

In short; the Imperium is entirely opposed. Not only is there minimal need for this legislation, but it is quite a poor draft indeed."

"Clearly, Ambassador, you have not read my draft in full detail. The term "exoplanet" is not present in the given definitions. Furthermore, I have Class "L" to be rather vague for the exact reasons you are worried about. You consistently imply that we based the definitions and measurements off of our solar system; however, as you can see, the reason why I put "liquid water and complex life" is because the wide variety of different kinds of planets constitutes for complex life to evolve in different ways.

"I recognize your concern with the titles of mass categories; I will be changing it to meet your criteria. I also see that the definition for "contamination" is rather vague. I will also be changing that to specify.

"Furthermore, the points you were "worried about" are only encouraged. You are not required to submit a detailed starmap of the planets within your borders; if it does say that, I will change it to make it not so. The third party is only encouraged, as well. Hopefully, we can find a middle ground."

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: In addition to the committee-only violation, I believe that ‘Mercurian’, ‘Neptunian’ and ‘Jovian’ are illegal for Real-life reference, since they are references to planets that exist in real life.)

OOC
It's a borderline situation, in my [one-sixth ofGenSec] opinion: The draft gave definitions for those terms in units of measurement, rather than by direct comparison to the RL worlds, so the relevant parts of those labels could also be read IC as being [for example] just semi-random strings of letters which the author's nation chose for to use for this purpose...

Likewise the use of classifications that were used in SF programmes,and organisations with the same initials as ones used in SF programmes, is arguably OK if the author actually provides [non-plagiarized] definitions within their text instead of leaving other players to rely on their knowledge of the sources involved: Applicable precedent would be the passed resolution in which the author was allowed [by the Mods, ruling on this when the proposal was challenged] to include an organisation with the acronym of 'G.E.S.T.A.P.O.' .

Bears Armed wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: In addition to the committee-only violation, I believe that ‘Mercurian’, ‘Neptunian’ and ‘Jovian’ are illegal for Real-life reference, since they are references to planets that exist in real life.)

OOC
It's a borderline situation, in my [one-sixth ofGenSec] opinion: The draft gave definitions for those terms in units of measurement, rather than by direct comparison to the RL worlds, so the relevant parts of those labels could also be read IC as being [for example] just semi-random strings of letters which the author's nation chose for to use for this purpose...

Likewise the use of classifications that were used in SF programmes,and organisations with the same initials as ones used in SF programmes, is arguably OK if the author actually provides [non-plagiarized] definitions within their text instead of leaving other players to rely on their knowledge of the sources involved: Applicable precedent would be the passed resolution in which the author was allowed [by the Mods, ruling on this when the proposal was challenged] to include an organisation with the acronym of 'G.E.S.T.A.P.O.' .

I've greatly changed the proposal, both to satisfy multiple nations' points and to shorten the proposal. Do you have any thoughts?

“So from this looks of it, this proposal in its current state bans terraforming. For that reason along with a few others, we will not be supporting this proposal.”

The First German Order wrote:“So from this looks of it, this proposal in its current state bans terraforming. For that reason along with a few others, we will not be supporting this proposal.”

"It most certainly does not ban terraforming. It bans the terraforming of planets specifically under the protection of the IASA unless authorized to do so. I'll try to clarify that."

Kolm wrote:

The First German Order wrote:“So from this looks of it, this proposal in its current state bans terraforming. For that reason along with a few others, we will not be supporting this proposal.”

"It most certainly does not ban terraforming. It bans the terraforming of planets specifically under the protection of the IASA unless authorized to do so. I'll try to clarify that."

“Well, terraforming generally involves introducing one or more species without a form of population control into a planet that may be habitable to one species in particular but uninhabitable to all other species.”

Kolm wrote:"Clearly, Ambassador, you have not read my draft in full detail. The term "exoplanet" is not present in the given definitions. Furthermore, I have Class "L" to be rather vague for the exact reasons you are worried about. You consistently imply that we based the definitions and measurements off of our solar system; however, as you can see, the reason why I put "liquid water and complex life" is because the wide variety of different kinds of planets constitutes for complex life to evolve in different ways.

"I recognize your concern with the titles of mass categories; I will be changing it to meet your criteria. I also see that the definition for "contamination" is rather vague. I will also be changing that to specify.

"Furthermore, the points you were "worried about" are only encouraged. You are not required to submit a detailed starmap of the planets within your borders; if it does say that, I will change it to make it not so. The third party is only encouraged, as well. Hopefully, we can find a middle ground."

OOC:
Please don't edit your draft then respond to now-obsolete criticism. It's rather bad form.

“I’m still not seeing how this falls under the category of education and creativity. Your three mandatory clauses: require the IASA to be notified of any dangerous activity; require an ambassador to always be available; and require biodiversity on foreign worlds to be maintained. In addition, your encouraging clauses have few if any direct educational links.”

Tinfect wrote:

Kolm wrote:"Clearly, Ambassador, you have not read my draft in full detail. The term "exoplanet" is not present in the given definitions. Furthermore, I have Class "L" to be rather vague for the exact reasons you are worried about. You consistently imply that we based the definitions and measurements off of our solar system; however, as you can see, the reason why I put "liquid water and complex life" is because the wide variety of different kinds of planets constitutes for complex life to evolve in different ways.

"I recognize your concern with the titles of mass categories; I will be changing it to meet your criteria. I also see that the definition for "contamination" is rather vague. I will also be changing that to specify.

"Furthermore, the points you were "worried about" are only encouraged. You are not required to submit a detailed starmap of the planets within your borders; if it does say that, I will change it to make it not so. The third party is only encouraged, as well. Hopefully, we can find a middle ground."

OOC:
Please don't edit your draft then respond to now-obsolete criticism. It's rather bad form.

OOC: If I had a dollar for everytime I've seen that happen I'd be rich.

Tinfect wrote:

Kolm wrote:"Clearly, Ambassador, you have not read my draft in full detail. The term "exoplanet" is not present in the given definitions. Furthermore, I have Class "L" to be rather vague for the exact reasons you are worried about. You consistently imply that we based the definitions and measurements off of our solar system; however, as you can see, the reason why I put "liquid water and complex life" is because the wide variety of different kinds of planets constitutes for complex life to evolve in different ways.

"I recognize your concern with the titles of mass categories; I will be changing it to meet your criteria. I also see that the definition for "contamination" is rather vague. I will also be changing that to specify.

"Furthermore, the points you were "worried about" are only encouraged. You are not required to submit a detailed starmap of the planets within your borders; if it does say that, I will change it to make it not so. The third party is only encouraged, as well. Hopefully, we can find a middle ground."

OOC:
Please don't edit your draft then respond to now-obsolete criticism. It's rather bad form.

The draft was already edited before you made that message.

Kenmoria wrote:“I’m still not seeing how this falls under the category of education and creativity. Your three mandatory clauses: require the IASA to be notified of any dangerous activity; require an ambassador to always be available; and require biodiversity on foreign worlds to be maintained. In addition, your encouraging clauses have few if any direct educational links.”

Again, as I said previously, I wasn't sure what category to place this under, and as the IASA resolution was under this category, I placed it under that as well. This is likely to change.

Kolm wrote:Again, as I said previously, I wasn't sure what category to place this under, and as the IASA resolution was under this category, I placed it under that as well. This is likely to change.

OOC: There is no fucking way that it has anything to do with Furtherment of Democracy of all things! Like seriously, if you can't find a category that's a good match, that's the major clue that what you're trying to do, isn't something that can or should be done by a GA proposal. Alternatively, you need to make some major changes (that means, different mandates, not just word changes) to make it fit into a category. (Hint: The correct category won't be Health, Civil Rights, Social Justice or Moral Decency either.)

And for the love of any fucking deity you might believe in, PUT THE CURRENT DRAFT FIRST IN THE OP. Trying to dig it out of the rest in quote mode is a nightmare even on computer. I shudder to think how horrible it is on mobile devices.

Also please learn to edit your posts: posting 4 times in a row is nothing but spam.

Kolm wrote:

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Description:
This fair and august World Assembly,

Noting that the cosmos is the final frontier,

Recognizing that the exploration and discovery of planets is necessary,

Realizing that the colonization of outer space calls for a neutral representative to deal with claims to territory,

Cognizant of the fact that the natural development of planetary life is essential in maintaining a good moral compass,

Hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. Planet as "an astronomical object that orbits a star or stellar remnant which is large enough to hold a spheroid shape and is able to clear its orbit of any debris;"
   2. Planetoid as "a celestial body comprised of rock, ice, etc. that is smaller than a planet;"
   3. Interstellar space as "the area of space beginning at the end of the menopause of star systems;"
   4. Contamination as "the accidental introduction of alien species into a world's native ecosystem without a means of population control;"
   5. Terraforming as "the intentional alteration of a planet's atmosphere, soil composition, present species, etc. to better suit the living conditions of an organism or a group of organisms;"
2. Creates IOTA (Interstellar Organization for Territorial Assemblage) and assigns it to:
   
   1. Act as a neutral third-party in territorial disputes between nations with the consent of the two or more nations;
   2. Maintain a starmap of all submitted claims of territory by World Assembly members;
   3. Record treaties and settled disputes over territory, updating the starmap as needed;
   4. Have a representative available to settle territorial disputes;
3. Mandates members of the World Assembly to:
   
   1. Notify the IASA of any anomalous stellar or planetary activity detected in interstellar territory that is potentially dangerous;
   2. Have a diplomatic representative available at all times;
   3. Maintain the natural biodiversity and environment of life-supporting planets under the protection of the IASA by prohibiting the contamination of such planets without permission from the IASA;
4. Encourages members of the World Assembly to:
   
   1. Resolve territorial disputes through a neutral third-party representative, preferably IOTA;
   2. Submit territorial claims to planets and planetoids to IOTA for the purpose of charting the galaxy;
   3. Construct starbases in interstellar space for the purposes of trade and commerce, refueling, or any other reasonable purpose;
   4. Propose suggestions of large scale projects;
   5. Engage in international science expeditions;
   6. Terraform planets to match the environmental criteria of the colonizer nation;
   7. Prevent the contamination of planets already supporting sentient complex life;
   8. Send statistics (i.e. mass, density, atmospheric composition) of planets owned by themselves or planets claimed by no such government to IOTA.

The preamble clauses seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with... well, anything. Especially the rest of the proposal. Also, are you entirely certain that you meant to say that life evolving is necessary for moral compass?

Your current definition of planet excludes the RL planet Earth. Well done!

And your definition of planetoid means jack shit. And also makes every speck of sand or ice a planetoid.

I'm fairly certain you didn't actually mean menopause. Unless you're talking about time in some kind of poetic way, and not distance. Something in this is likely what you meant, but you should really read THIS.

Your contamination clause completely ignores how fucking omnipresent and resilient even the bacteria we know exist, are. Or even some multicellular lifeforms. Hell, allowing anything from another planet will accidentally introduce something. And if the point is to terraform it, you want to introduce all kinds of things and let them spread around the planet.

What good exactly does the committee do, if the "two or more nations" of a territorial dispute must all give their consent? And what good is "a neutral third-party" for anyway? Like, what is it supposed to do? A later subclause says "settles disputes", but how? And what if the "dispute" is in the stage of "open warfare"? The WA cannot have armed forces nor would it be in any way neutral for it to take sides in the first place. The starmap thing is idiotic just in terms of scale - the Imperium of Tinfect isn't the only multisystem nation in the WA (if Ainocra was still around, I could with full confidence say the WA is multigalactic ), and on top of that there are over 20k WA nations with trillions of combined population. There's no way for them all to 1. exist on the same planet, or 2. exist in the same universe. And what's to stop a nation that hasn't invented even orbital space flight from just claiming the rest of the galaxy as their territory?

What the hell is "anomalous stellar or planetary activity"? Are we talking about natural processes or sapient-caused ones? And everything is "potentially dangerous", unless there's some definition on what it's potentially dangerous to.

Where do member nations need to have a 24/7 representative? And is the representative allowed to sleep? Also, why?

You haven't actually placed any planets under IASA's protection. Or are you talking about some protection set by another resolution? If the latter, then it's a minor house of cards issue, because if the other resolution is repealed, yours loses the leg the mandate is standing on. And also, the words "maintain natural environment" would require wiping out the RL human species, since RL Earth is a life-supporting planet that would presumably be under that protection, and we're increasingly destroying not only its habitability but also biodiversity and natural environments.

"The galaxy" in clause 4 should probably go away, since either not all WA nations reside on the same planet or they don't reside in the same universe. Also, why the fuck would you set up a space station in interstellar space? There's nothing much there. At least nothing much that you want anything to do with. Much harsher conditions, too, and harder to find a tiny speck of a spacestation. (Even in Star Trek/Wars universums the space stations are near stars.)

Also, encouraging terraforming to "match the environmental criteria of the colonizer nation" is a bad idea, since there's nothing about "unless it's already inhabited" there... (Hint: "Sentient" and "sapient" are not the same thing. A normal RL cat is sentient. A RL human is sentient and sapient.) You might have a whole civilization living in domed cities and being quite happy to leave the majority of the planet to the original ecosystem.

Which makes the contamination prevention clause right after that one even more out of place. Basically, you can pick one but not both.

Everything in this post is out of character. I'm talking to another RL human playing this game called NationStates. Since you're new to GA, I think this was something that needed to be clarified.

Kolm wrote:Cognizant of the fact that the natural development of planetary life is essential in maintaining a good moral compass,

"It is the official position of the Lyrical government that bigotry against the people of the Belt and other non-planetary communities is unacceptable and shall not be tolerated. Life adapts, life... finds a way. Just because you can't handle the idea that people could be independent of your terrestrial-supremacist imperialism, does not make your 'moral compass' the universal valuator of all intelligent life. Shove this garbage in a solar-intercept trajectory, ambassador, and come back only when you've figured out that people build solid communities everywhere they live and work, not just down the bottom of a gravity well."

OOC: I note that the OP has been updated and the proposal submitted under Political Stability and mild strength. The OP lists Furtherment of Democracy. Either category is incorrect IMO as the proposal does not directly impact on the personal political freedoms of individuals while only one subsection of eight in the fourth section could be said to restrict the political stability of a society in the more general fashion (à la Rights and Duties). Tbh I'm struggling to recommend a correct category based on the current content. Perhaps some further community discussion might be advantageous.

OOC: Given that the majority of WA voters are people who don't partake the forums at all, and will likely look at proposals with the RL MT mindset, this proposal doesn't actually offer anything beyond 4.iv. and 4.v., given that 4.v. doesn't actually say anything about science expeditions into outer space, so RL Antarctica outposts would count. Other than that (3.ii. doesn't actually say where the representative must be available), this is almost purely Future Tech proposal. Which can be difficult to get through a vote at all.

Aside from that... only clauses 3 and 4 have something to do with the member nations themselves.

3.i. Requires reporting of "interstellar anomalies", which actually haven't been defined (spatial anomalies are, not that the definition makes any sense).

3.iii. EITHER blocks all possible industrialization of already inhabited planets, so there's no way this can be "Mild", regardless of category, and probably contradicts stuff like Sensible Limits of Hunting or anything else that specifically allows nations to alter natural ecosystems (even beneficial changes, like reforestation or restoring wetlands). OR, alternatively, it doesn't do anything, as "under the protection of the [committee]" is mentioned nowhere else, so the proposal doesn't give any idea of what that would entail.

4.i. Doesn't specify territorial disputes in space or on uninhabited planets or anything like that, so it probably duplicates (I vaguely remember some resolution already requiring territorial disputes to be mediated by a WA committee) something, and even if it doesn't, it sounds weird to have your border dispute with your neighbouring nation on the planet you all evolved on to be "resolved" (whatever that means) by a committee with "Interstellar" in its name.

4.ii. Assumes a single galaxy (article "the") and additionally is weird in that it says nothing about territorial claims of space. If a single nation controls an entire solar system, does it have to chart every single thing in the system to be able to claim it? That's just stupid, especially given that "planetoid" is defined so that grains of sand would count as planetoids. (For RL reference, think of the rings around the gas giants in our own solar system, the most prominent of which are the rings around Saturn.) And anyone wanting to counter-argue this point, do note that "celestial body" isn't defined. Would probably also require mapping comets and Oort Cloud objects, which, again, is an insane requirement if the nation otherwise has the entire solar system (or several!) to itself. I know clause 4 is only encouragement, but it's still insane.

4.iii. STILL COMPLETELY IGNORES HOW SPACE IS BIG AND HOW PUTTING ANYTHING INTO INTERSTELLAR SPACE IS INSANITY MULTIPLIED. Even for most space-faring nations it would likely be impossible to 1. find it, 2. get to it, 3. be able to use any facilities there.

4.iv. Makes no mention of these projects being in space, which in this case makes it just weirdly dislocated subclause, like 4.i. and 4.v..

4.vi. Clashes with 3.iii., so it's a pity that internal contradiction isn't an illegality.

4.vii. Creates a Catch-22, where you can't know if there's sentient complex life, unless you introduce alien lifeforms (contaminate definition), aka the scientific explorers, onto the planet.

4.viii. Looks like a leftover clause that got overlooked in formatting, as it seems to aim to gather the data for no purpose whatsoever. Also, "planets claimed by no such government" just makes no sense.

I also see the problem with the whole pre-existing ecosystems thing in that there's nothing requiring new-found planets to be explored to find out if there's pre-existing life on them.

YOU HAVEN'T FIXED THE PROBLEMS AND HAVE INSTEAD INTRODUCED NEW ONES. If that was the goal, congratulations.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I note that the OP has been updated and the proposal submitted under Political Stability and mild strength. The OP lists Furtherment of Democracy. Either category is incorrect IMO as the proposal does not directly impact on the personal political freedoms of individuals while only one subsection of eight in the fourth section could be said to restrict the political stability of a society in the more general fashion (à la Rights and Duties). Tbh I'm struggling to recommend a correct category based on the current content. Perhaps some further community discussion might be advantageous.

(OOC: Given how much the draft mentions preserving ecosystems and terraforming, perhaps an environmental category could work? The problem is that the draft doesn’t really have a clear focus, so different parts of it belong in different categories. At the moment, nothing really fits, so some reworking into a concrete idea is required.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given how much the draft mentions preserving ecosystems and terraforming, perhaps an environmental category could work? The problem is that the draft doesn’t really have a clear focus, so different parts of it belong in different categories. At the moment, nothing really fits, so some reworking into a concrete idea is required.)

OOC: Want to bet they'll resubmit it under another category after a while, without fixing any of the problems?

Araraukar wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given how much the draft mentions preserving ecosystems and terraforming, perhaps an environmental category could work? The problem is that the draft doesn’t really have a clear focus, so different parts of it belong in different categories. At the moment, nothing really fits, so some reworking into a concrete idea is required.)

OOC: Want to bet they'll resubmit it under another category after a while, without fixing any of the problems?

(OOC: I hope not, though that does seem rather likely.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Want to bet they'll resubmit it under another category after a while, without fixing any of the problems?

(OOC: I hope not, though that does seem rather likely.)

thanks

Kolm wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I hope not, though that does seem rather likely.)

thanks

(OOC: Sorry, that does seem rather harsh in retrospect. )

“At the moment, the proposal seems to focus on the environment of planets. Therefore, I suggest reworking the legislation to really centre around that concept, and trimming away any clauses that don’t fit with this. It’s fine if you choose a different category, but you need to choose one as opposed to making your proposal fit several.”

"While we applaud the noble intentions of the author, I must oppose this resolution sadly. Space is a free region, and this delegation does not believe that extraterrestrial sovereignty should be existant if it is done for the purpose of research and education. I will not repeat the bickerings of the other delegates here, but I do hope that you won't take their criticism into heart. They are, after all, providing some feedback to your legislation."

Kenmoria wrote:

Kolm wrote:thanks

(OOC: Sorry, that does seem rather harsh in retrospect. )

“At the moment, the proposal seems to focus on the environment of planets. Therefore, I suggest reworking the legislation to really centre around that concept, and trimming away any clauses that don’t fit with this. It’s fine if you choose a different category, but you need to choose one as opposed to making your proposal fit several.”

OOC: Really, I agree with you there. This was, after all, my first attempt at WA legislation. I've certainly made a couple of slip-ups, aha. I don't think I'll be putting forward this resolution anytime soon, as I'm working on a different one that's a lot more... clear, if you will. Even then, I'm in the process of switching my country's language from Shezhi to Mornþynne (as Mornþynne is practically my brainchild, which I love to bits). I'm also changing my flag, geography, culture, capital, really everything. So I don't have the motivation to try and put forward an old draft. If I were to change this, I'd certainly center it on environmental problems, as I really went everywhere in terms of legislation. I'd say the draft I'm working on now is a lot better! I'd love any criticism you have on it

"Thank you, Ambassador. We will accept your criticism with great honor. I only hope that we meet again sometime."

Youssath wrote:"While we applaud the noble intentions of the author, I must oppose this resolution sadly. Space is a free region, and this delegation does not believe that extraterrestrial sovereignty should be existant if it is done for the purpose of research and education. I will not repeat the bickerings of the other delegates here, but I do hope that you won't take their criticism into heart. They are, after all, providing some feedback to your legislation."

OOC: This thread is pretty old. See previous reply to Kenmoria.

Kolm wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Sorry, that does seem rather harsh in retrospect. )

“At the moment, the proposal seems to focus on the environment of planets. Therefore, I suggest reworking the legislation to really centre around that concept, and trimming away any clauses that don’t fit with this. It’s fine if you choose a different category, but you need to choose one as opposed to making your proposal fit several.”

OOC: Really, I agree with you there. This was, after all, my first attempt at WA legislation. I've certainly made a couple of slip-ups, aha. I don't think I'll be putting forward this resolution anytime soon, as I'm working on a different one that's a lot more... clear, if you will. Even then, I'm in the process of switching my country's language from Shezhi to Mornþynne (as Mornþynne is practically my brainchild, which I love to bits). I'm also changing my flag, geography, culture, capital, really everything. So I don't have the motivation to try and put forward an old draft. If I were to change this, I'd certainly center it on environmental problems, as I really went everywhere in terms of legislation. I'd say the draft I'm working on now is a lot better! I'd love any criticism you have on it

"Thank you, Ambassador. We will accept your criticism with great honor. I only hope that we meet again sometime."

A shame. I will still applaud you for taking your time to contribute something to the international community.

Refrain from double-posting in here. It is a tradition that forum etiquette is a must in these forums, and you are breaking three hundred years of traditions by doing this.

Also, if this proposal is abandoned, kindly amend the title of the resolution to [ABANDONED] On the Claiming of Astronomical Bodies. This is to inform everyone that this proposal is discontinued.